On this page
-
Text (1)
-
Untitled Article
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
Untitled Article
son to whom I refer is tbe Rev . Robert Ferris , of Fethard , in the Synod of Manster . So much for the c * three bodies of Presbytevian Unitarians . " Tbe next assertion of the writer in the Congregational , is , that the ** discipline " of these three bodies whom he incorrectly denominates Uuitarian , is ** loose . Dues
he mean to apply this term to the discipline exercised by the Presbyterial courts over the ministers ; or to that which is more properly termed congregational discipline ? If he uses the phrase in the first sense , it is absolutely untrue . Any minister who might be convicted of irregularities , would be promptly dealt with according to the usual practice of the
Presbyterian churches ; and either censured , suspended , or degraded , from the sacred office according to the degree of his offence , the injury done to religion , aud the evidence of his repentance . It is quite true , that they have never , to my kuowledge , certaiuly not of late years , had occasion to adopt such measures towards any of the brethren ; but this
arises from the abseuce of offences , not from an unwillingness to exercise an unsparing discipline in cases that might call for it . Perhaps it may be admitted aff a proof of the little occasion that can be found for inflicting such censures upon ministers in this connexion , that
although the Remonstrants were for many years united to the Synod of Ulster , subject to its courts , aud ameuable to its discipline , rro iastauce has occurred in which any one of them Was ever subjected to ecclesiastical censure ; while several ! have filled the highest and most honourable office which it is in the
power of the body to bestow , that of Moderator or President at the annual convention of the members ; arrd this at a time when discipline wus by no means so relaxed as the correspondent of the Congregational would lead us to imagine . The records of the General Synod during the period to which T now refer , present us with numerous instances of ministers rebuked , suspended from the exerciae of pastoral functions , and
degraded' from the Christian ministry for such crimes as falsehood , drunkenness , fraud , adnltery , &C . Btat none of the persons who were thus visited belonged to the Remonstrants or to the party commonly called heterodox . Surely it can no more be imputed as a crime to the Presbytery of Antrim , the Synod of Munster , ana the Remonstrant Synod of Ulster , that under soch circumstances they have never inflicted ecclesiastical
Untitled Article
censure on their members , than it could to a judge that he had omitted to pass sentence '' on a man who was accused of no crime ; nay , who could produce the testimony of his most determined opponents , that they find no fault in him . Btit if the epithet •« loose" be applied to the discipline maintained in
congregations , it is scarcely less wide of the truth . That discipline cannot justly be called loose , which attains the end for which discipline is exercised . That the discipline of the three bodies does in general attain this end , is manifest from the exr emplary conduct of most of those who belong to their congregations . I am far from asserting that every member of every
congregation is in all respects what his Christian profession would require ; but where is the religious connexion of which this assertion could be made with truth ? T can safely say , however , that I do not know a single member in any of their churches who walketh disorderly ; and I am perfectly willing to rest the character of their discipline on a comparison between the moral conduct of their
people and those of other communions This is a criterion of their practice in ecclesiastical matters which they have no reason to dread . There does not exist within the compass ^ of my acquaintance a single religious ^ connexion with which they need fear to enter into such a competition ; nor consequently a mode of church discipline in comparison with which that of these three bodies
deserves to be called loo c e . Thus much of the general question . —The Remonstrant Synod of Ulster have a special ground of exemption from this complaint . In the orher two bodies , the discipline , though efficacious , is various ; depending , in fact , as among Euglish Dissenters , on the practice and the opinions of particular congregations ; but the Remonstrant Synod has a document
to produce which must entirely acquit its members of any tendency to laxity in point of discipline . It is well known that they have subjected themselves to the Code of Discipline approved by the General Synod of Ulster in 1825 : and any person who has seen that work will , I am quite sure , agree with me , that regulations more strict and searching could scarcely be devised .
The third mis-statement is one of more importance ; namely , that the three bo dies whom the writer undertakes to describe , either have no creed , or a very loose one : their discipline , he says , ' * is as loose as the doctrines of their creed : "
Untitled Article
134 Mtecetlaneotts Correspondence .
-
-
Citation
-
Monthly Repository (1806-1838) and Unitarian Chronicle (1832-1833), Feb. 2, 1831, page 134, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/mruc/issues/vm2-ncseproduct2594/page/62/
-