This description of the 18th century Church of England could have come from a Tractarian. Indeed, they would not have been at all out of place in Tract No. 1. But, no, this was J.C. Ryle's description of the 18th century Church of England. The unholy alliance of Victorian Evangelicals and Tractarians were united in their contempt for 18th century Anglicanism. That contempt has, unfortunately, continued to shape Anglican attitudes into the 21st century - and this despite a host historical studies in recent decades demonstrating that the 18th century Church of England was a spiritually serious, effective, and popular national Church.
As 'the long 18th century' drew to a close, the primary visitation charge of Thomas Burgess, Bishop of Salisbury (received holy orders in 1784, consecrated to the episcopate 1803), delivered to his clergy in August 1826, stands as an example of how Ryle's contemptuous portrayal of the 18th century clergy was little less than an exercise in bearing false witness against his spiritual forebears. (Yes, a good case could be made that Ryle was breaching the 5th and 9th Commandments.)
Burgess set before his clergy the weighty duties of their ministry:
Days of serious recollection, like the present, are calculated to remind us of our Ordination vows and engagements, in which we expressed our conviction, that we were truly called to the ministry of the Church; our belief in the sufficiency of the Scriptures for salvation; our determination faithfully to administer the doctrine, sacraments, and discipline of Christ, according to his will, and the usages of the Established Church; in which we promised to be ready with all faithful diligence to banish and drive away all erroneous and strange doctrines contrary to God's word; to be diligent in prayers (the prayers of domestic and personal religion,) and in the study of the Scriptures; to be exemplary, peaceable, and charitable among all Christians, and especially among them that are or shall be committed to our care.
"The vast majority of them were sunk in worldliness, and neither knew nor cared anything about their profession", declared Ryle's slander. Burgess, by contrast, points us to a faithful, spiritually serious clergy, fulfilling the vows of ordination.
As Bishop Burgess continues, he tells his clergy that such weighty duties call for a reliance on divine grace:
A Candidate for the Ministry, on a view of these solemn obligations, and of the sanctity, the abstraction from worldly cares and habits, the unwearied diligence in duties, and the learning implied in those obligations and promises, and in the incomparable Exhortation, which precedes them in the Ordination Service, might well say, "who is sufficient for these things," if the Scripture did not supply the answer, in the words of our Lord: "My grace is sufficient for thee;" and it will be happy for him, and for the Church, if the deep sense of duty, excited by the thought of these obligations, be not an evanescent impression.
Our understanding of the clergy of the Church of England during 'the long 18th century' should be taken neither from Ryle nor the Tractarians. We should, rather, listen to Burgess and recognise in his words the quiet faithfulness - shaped by the Prayer Book ordinal - of Georgian clergy, a quiet faithfulness that is considerably more attractive than smug, prim Victorian Enthusiasm, whether Tractarian or Evangelical.
I think we ought to be very careful with accusations of slander and commandment-breaking, especially among Christians, and particularly when the accused is no longer able to speak to the case.
ReplyDeleteBishop Ryle was not speaking for himself in that famous extract which is quoted here. He was not stating a private or eccentric prejudice.
He quite simply and plainly re-uttering the settled conclusions of the great historian of the 18th Century, WH Lecky. Ryle's text is simply a condensed summary of the 9th chapter of the 3rd volume of Lecky's magisterial 'History of England in the Eighteenth Century'.
The chapter in question can be read here -
https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/2027/Lecky_1353-03_EBk_v6.0.pdf
We know Ryle read Lecky closely, as he is cited as an authority both in his commentaries and his private letters.
Our complaint therfore, if we have one, is with the great Lecky, not with Ryle.
No, I am afraid I disagree with the main thrust of your comment. Ryle was very free indeed in challenging - and condemning - other Christians in very robust language.
DeleteRowan Williams writes:
"the Christian seeking to understand the Christian past as a believer not only as a historian has very specially the task of trying to stand with Christians in an earlier age in their prayer".
This should shape our approach to Christians of past ages. This becomes an even greater duty when we are speaking of those within our own ecclesial tradition and only a few generations removed from us. Ryle depending on Lecky's awful reading of the 18th century CofE is no excuse for his words. As others have pointed out, as early as 1860, Mark Pattison was highlighted the problem with such an interpretation of the 18th century Church.
What motivated Ryle was not history but a theological dislike for the divines and piety of the 18th century CofE. This theological animus led him to speak as he did. And, yes, that is a spiritual problem.
JC Ryle was in no position to criticise. After all he did not care that much for the sacraments and made Liverpool a stronghold of a very dour form of Anglicanism.
ReplyDeleteHere I think I would defend Ryle. His opposition to Tractarianism and Ritualism was hardly unusual - many High Church bishops were also opposed to them. The evangelical Low Church tradition which he encouraged was hardly an innovation in the CofE - albeit Ryle's theology was significantly different from, say, Charles Simeon. Having confident evangelical and Low Church traditions was important for the 19th century CofE, not least in Liverpool. Ryle is not someone I particularly like and I have very little in common with home. But he is part of the Anglican tradition.
DeleteDefinitely
Delete