158, 176.] "Such words, from such a source," said Mr.C., "are entitled to great consideration." "But," said Mr.S., "here is a passage from his own theological instructor, President Edwards: "It is asked,' he says, 'why these children, that were born in the covenant, are not cast out when, in adult age, they make no profession.' He replies, 'They are not cast out, because it is a matter held in suspense whether they do cordially consent to the covenant or not; or whether their making no profession does not arise from some other cause; and none are to be excommunicated without some positive evidence against them.'" "My dear sir," said Mr.A., "Mr.Edwards is there speaking of those who merely refuse to own the covenant, without being guilty of scandalous sin." _Mr.S._ It is evident, nevertheless, that Hopkins goes further than he, and requires that those who, at years of full responsibility, refuse to own the covenant, shall be cut off.

Modern writers on this subject, while insisting on the church-membership of children, draw back from this position, and are more in harmony with what, it seems to me, may be said to be the general sense of the churches on this subject.

I feel glad, when reading such passages as those from Hopkins, that we have liberty of opinion, and are not compelled to swear by the words of any master.

I bow to such a divine as Dr.Hopkins, but he fails to satisfy me that he is right in these views of church-discipline for children.
Mr.R., who was the oldest man of the company, now returned to the discussion, and said: "It is clear that one cannot be dispossessed of that which he never possessed, except as in the case of a minor, who may have his claim to a future possession wrested from him.

Of what is a child of the covenant, allowing him to be, while a child, a member of the church,--of what is he in possession?
Not of full communion, not of access to the Lord's table, not of the right to a voice in the call and settlement of a pastor, nor in any other church act.