The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1873-10-22
NON-COGMuaNs MEMEERs.
EXTENT OF DISCIPLINE.
(CoNCLUDED)

CONCLUDED
The prOpriety of giving certificates of dis
missal, and the limitation of time in tn,
case Of our nOn-eommuning baptized mem
bers, l have treated in the former articles
Now, against .he position heretofore taken, i
may be thought that a serious objection car
be made. We all know that a communine
member can, by bad conduct, forfeit bis
title to the full privileges of membership,
There are cases in which our sessions are
right in communicating this cOmmuning
member. If then for certain bad conduct
he can be 50 disciplined, how is it that non
eOnsmWRiRg member cannot also be dis
ciplined unto accommodation if he is guilty
Of Ike bad conduct? l admit that it seems
very reasonable to make such an objection.
But have already shown Gn article p that
We cannot limit the minority of our baptized
members to any definite term of years. For
God has not done so; has given no man any
authority to do so; and the practice of the
Church is in accord with this fact. She
does not re-baptize the old man of four
score years, when he openly eOnfesses Christ,
because he was baptized in infancy, and only
confession Of Christ, or the mans death,
could limit his minority in the Church. Now
as to his being guilty of the same bad con-
duct, for which we exeOmmuuicate the COM
muRing member, the question is;-can he
Be guilty Of It 0f course he can commit
the same outward sins; mis- heart may be
filed with the same corruption, and show it
in even worse forms than those for which the
eOmmunieant would be excommunicated.-
Yet with respect to the spheres in which
these two are moving, there Is sufficient dif-
ference to limit the exercise of church power.
The commitment is completely a0ithin the
sphere Of church power, aud this by his own
voluntary act. He has assumed the reSpoR-
si6ility of those VOWS which his parents took
in his baptism. They once acknowledged
that he was a child born under sin, and need
ing the great Purifyer-the Holy Spirit, in
His Office of applying the benefits of Christs
redemption. But now he has himself made
this confession in bis own behalf; has pro-
fsssedly accepted the offices of the Holy
Spirit; has prOfessedly received Christ has
taken upon himself and Is bound 6y the VOWS
of 3 servant of Christ By public act he
has connected himself with the church; has
not only promised sOlemnly to walk worthy,
but to submit to the church power in disci-
pline should he so act as to deserve it. And
tIis P010er Of discipline the church has re-
ceived from the word of God. She has
therefore the right to exercise it, for her
publication from all those, who having once
openly prOfessed the faith, afterwards deny
that profession. The power of excommuni-
eating this man, results from the facts, that
he has assumed responsibility; openly de-
elared himself follower of Christ; publicly
connected himself with the church, and pro-
missed subsection to its laws. But the non
cOmmuning member has done none of the
above named things. He is therefore not
within the same sphere with the communi-
can't. The very superiority of privilege in
one case above the other shows that he is
not. The pon.cOmmunieant has not assumed
any responsibility before the church. There
fore the church discipline can extend in his
case only to lgarniRg, a3monjsliag, instruct
iRg, fc. God has not yet given her more
power in this case. IL at any time she cuts
this man off from his divinely given relations
in the covenant, then she goes beyond her
authority and her instructions. If this is
not true, let j, be shown, not by the voice Of
reason, but BY the word of God. There We
find this mans right TO the covenant rela
ton, and thence only must be shown the
authority for depriving him of that right
Undoubtedly, our Lord has given US author
ity TO cast out from our communion in tht
church, all those who by word or deed deny
the faith. But, repeat, lie has not giveI
US the same extent Of power in the case o
the baptized non cOmmunicant, and it can
not be shown from His word, that He has
Such q consideration ought to suffice 70
settling this matter There is further,
great difference between mans response
bility to God, and to the church. -Eger
one is answerable to God for his conduct
I've must all appear at the Judgment sea
Of Christ, and each one is to be judged az
cOrding to his own works. Every one
responsible before God, whether he acknOw
edges it or not. If man deny this, b
does not at all change the truth Of it. BC
every one is not responsible to the churcl
God may say to the church 1.-The childre
Of my people are born within the coVenal
and must receive its outward token. The