On this day I received the follwing note:
Stephen, I was wondering if you might be able to provide some hints that would help me to make sense of the passage I sent you. How does it fit with some of the teachings of Anglicanism i.e. can it be said to be consistent with Evangelical Anglicanism? And could it be said to conflict with ‘high’ Anglican thought? To me it is quite a confusing statement - historically a man like Prinsep was a ‘high’ Anglican as far as I understand it, yet he quite clearly held different views on the responsibilities accompanying colonialism from other church people he was closely associated with i.e. Gegg, Septimus Burt.
I am a bit confused and probably motivated by a desire not to make a fool of myself in my thesis! What I would LOVE to do would be to make a link between humanitarianism emanating from the Clapham sect, appreciating that many of the children and grandchildren of the original Clapham mob went on the exercise considerable influence in colonial policy i.e. Leslie Stephen. From a Prinsep family perspective, I would love to be able to nail down links between Prinsep’s grandfather, who was clearly associated with Wilberforce, Zachary Macaulay, and seems to have held similar anti-slavery views to them, and the Clapham sect. But this seems a bit ambitious and I might have to leave it to a future date.
More importantly I would like to understand a bit more about the passage I sent you, as it is clearly important and represented a line of thought in Anglicanism as practiced in the colonies. Where did it come from? What did it mean? What was its lineage? Can it be seen in a wider imperial context?
Perhaps you might be able to refer me to someone if you don’t know yourself, or to some references perhaps? Hoping you can help sort out a confused mind!
~~
So I responded with a few emails that contained the following:
Catholic and Reformed
In the time of Henry VIII the nature of Anglicanism was based on questions of jurisdiction-specifically, the belief of the Crown that national churches should be autonomous-rather than theological disagreement. The effort to create a national church in legal continuity with its traditions, but inclusive of certain doctrinal and liturgical beliefs of the Reformers, was joined by a real concern to make the institution as hospitable as possible to people of different theological inclinations, so as to maintain social peace and cohesion. The result has been a movement with a distinctive self-image among Christian movements. The question often arises as to whether the Anglican Communion should be identified as a Protestant or Catholic church, or perhaps as a distinct branch of Christianity altogether. The official position of the Anglican Communion is that, like the Roman Catholic and Orthodox communions, it is a full and distinct branch of the "One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church," created by Christ.
The distinction between Reformed and Catholic, and the coherence of the two, is routinely a matter of debate both within specific Anglican Churches and throughout the Anglican Communion by members themselves. Since the Oxford Movement of the mid-19th century, many Churches of the Communion have revived and extended liturgical and pastoral practices dissimilar to most Reformed Protestant theology. This extends beyond the ceremony of High Church services to even more theologically significant territory, such as sacramental theology (see Anglican sacraments). While Anglo-Catholic practices, particularly liturgical ones, have resurfaced and become more common within the tradition over the last century, there remain many places where practices and beliefs remain on the more Reformed or Evangelical side.
Guiding principles
For ‘High Church’ Anglicans, doctrine is neither established by a magisterium, nor derived from the theology of an eponymous founder (such as Lutheranism or Calvinism), nor summed up in a confession of faith (beyond those of the creeds). For them, the earliest Anglican theological documents are its prayer books, which they see as the products of profound theological reflection, compromise, and synthesis. They emphasise the Book of Common Prayer as a key expression of Anglican doctrine. The principle of looking to the prayer books as a guide to the parameters of belief and practice is called by the Latin name lex orandi, lex credendi ("the law of prayer is the law of belief"). Within the prayer books are the so-called fundamentals of Anglican doctrine: The Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds, the Athanasian Creed (extremely rarely recited, nowadays), the scriptures (via the lectionary), the sacraments, daily prayer, the catechism, and apostolic succession in the context of the historic threefold ministry.
Evangelical Anglicans point more to the more Reformed Thirty Nine Articles, with their insistence on justification by faith alone and predestination, and their hostility to the Roman Catholic church (see Anti-Catholicism). Following the passing of the 1604 Canons, all Anglican clergy had formally to subscribe to the Articles. Nowadays, however, they are no longer binding, but are seen as an historical document that has played a significant role in the shaping of Anglican identity. The degree to which each of the Articles has remained influential varies. Arguably, the most influential of them has been Article VI on the sufficiency of Scripture, which states that Scripture containeth all things necessary to salvation: so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should be believed as an article of the Faith, or be thought requisite or necessary to salvation. This article has informed Anglican biblical exegesis and hermeneutics since earliest times.
Anglo-Catholicism
The terms Anglo-Catholic and Anglo-Catholicism describe people, groups, ideas, customs and practices within Anglicanism that emphasise continuity with Catholic tradition. Although the English Reformation had strong Protestant roots, there have always been Anglicans who identify themselves closely with traditional Catholic thought and practice. These days many such Anglicans, especially in England, prefer the terms Anglican Catholic or Catholic Anglican.
The concept of Anglo-Catholicism as a distinct subgroup or branch of Anglicanism came to prominence in the Church of England during the Victorian era under the influence of the Oxford Movement or "Tractarians".
Anglo-Catholics claim historical continuity of the Church of England (and those constituent Churches derived from it through Apostolic Succession - see Anglican Communion) with Orthodox and Catholic Christianity, and hence uphold a "high" concept of the episcopate and of the nature of the sacraments (or Sacred Mysteries). According to The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, the existence of such a school goes back to the Elizabethan Age; it flourished under the Stuarts, and came into prominence again with the Oxford Movement.
In the early 19th century, various factors caused misgivings among English Churchmen, including the decline of Church life and the spread of laxity in theology in the Church of England. The government’s plan to suppress ten Irish bishoprics in 1833 inspired a sermon from John Keble in the University Church in Oxford regarded as the beginning of the Oxford Movement. The chief objective of the Oxford Movement was the defence of the Church of England as a divine institution, of the doctrine of the Apostolic Succession and of the Book of Common Prayer as a rule of faith. The key idea was that the Anglican Church was not a Protestant denomination but a branch of the "Church Catholic" (along with the Roman Catholic Church and Eastern Orthodoxy) since, it was argued, it had preserved the Apostolic Succession of priests and bishops and thus the Catholic sacraments. These arguments were spread by a series of "Tracts for the Times," hence the movement became known as "Tractarianism".
The Oxford Movement in the Church of England aimed at restoring High Church principles. The leaders of the movement were John Keble, John Henry Newman and Edward Bouverie Pusey. It soon gained influential support, but it was also attacked by the latitudinarians within the university and by bishops. Within the movement there gradually arose a much smaller party which tended towards submission to Rome. After the censure by the Convocation of Oxford in 1845 of a book by W. G. Ward, and again after the Gorham Case in 1850, there were a number of conversions to the Roman Catholic Church. But the majority remained in the Church of England and, despite hostility in the press and in the government, the movement spread. Its influence was exercised in the sphere of worship and ceremonial, in the social sphere (the slum settlements were among its notable achievements), and in the restoration of the religious life in the Church of England and many parts of the Anglican Communion.
However, despite the great effect of the movement, its theological basis, that the Anglican Church is a branch of the "Church Catholic" with valid Apostolic succession and sacraments, has always been vulnerable to attack on historical and logical grounds. Neither the Roman Catholic Church nor the Eastern Orthodox Churches accept the branch theory of the Church - each claims itself to be the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church. Historical research in recent years has emphasised the essentially Protestant self-consciousness of the English Reformation, a consciousness which was dominant until the Oxford Movement. Catholic beliefs such as the Sacrifice of the Mass are specifically rejected in the Church’s original doctrinal formulation, the Thirty-Nine Articles, and were unknown in Anglicanism until the advent of the Oxford Movement. The original Anglican Ordinal, which deleted any reference to the central priestly function, the offering of the sacrifice of the Mass, were the grounds for Pope Leo XIII declaring in the 1896 papal bull Apostolicae Curae that the Anglican Church did not have valid orders, and thus did not have the Catholic sacraments. Today it is claimed that all Anglican bishops have been consecrated in succession with Old Catholic or Orthodox episcopal lines[citation needed], which are both recognized as valid by the Roman Catholic Church. However, Orthodox Churches do not recognise ordination outside of their Churches and as such do not ordain persons outside their own churches.
Opposition to Anglo-Catholicism has existed within Anglicanism since the movement’s inception. The large Evangelical, Low Church party in the Anglican Church emphasises what it sees as the essentially Protestant nature of the Anglicanism. These Evangelicals argue that Catholic doctrines are merely private opinions rather than official doctrines of the Anglican tradition, unlike in the Roman Catholic Church where these doctrines are official and binding, taught by apostolic authority and tradition. Considerations of this kind led the Oxford Movement’s intellectual leader, John Henry Newman, to convert to the Roman Catholic Church, as many other Anglo-Catholics have done since.
Practices and beliefs
Anglo-Catholic people and churches are usually identified by their liturgical practices and ornaments. The "six points" of the Oxford Movement’s Eucharistic practice were the use of Eucharistic vestments, eastward celebration (the priest facing in the same direction as do the congregation), the use of unleavened bread, the mixing of water into the wine, and the use of incense and candles. Many other traditional Catholic practices are used in Anglo-Catholic liturgical ceremonies such as Eucharistic adoration and devotion to the Blessed Virgin Mary, particularly under her title of Our Lady of Walsingham. Anglo-Catholic liturgical practices (sometimes called ‘Ritualism’, though many Anglo-Catholics resent the term) were a particular source of controversy in the nineteenth century, especially in England where Parliament was asked to legislate against certain practices. Many Anglo-Catholic "innovations" (or, rather, revivals of dormant practices) have, however, since become accepted by most mainstream Anglicans.
What Anglo-Catholics believe is highly debated, sometimes even among people who identify themselves as such. In agreement with the Oriental Orthodox Churches and Eastern Orthodox Churches, Anglo-Catholics - along with Old-Catholics and Lutherans - generally rest their case on the authority of Vincentian orthodoxy. This canon of St Vincent of Lerins is accepted as the rudder for divining the Catholic and Apostolic Faith of the undivided Church: "What everywhere, what always, and what by all of us has been credited, that is truly and properly Catholic."
The Anglican Thirty-Nine Articles make distinctions between Anglican and Roman Catholic understandings of doctrine. As the Articles were purposely written in such a way as to be open to a wide range of interpretation, Anglo-Catholics have defended Catholic practices and beliefs as being consistent with them. Due to the Articles’ harsh tone, however, they have generally not been held in high regard by most Anglo-Catholics. Anglo-Catholic priests often hear private confessions and anoint the sick, regarding these practices, as do Roman Catholics, as sacraments; whereas more Reformed or Protestant-minded Anglicans generally think of them merely as optional sacramental rites.
Anglo-Catholics share with Roman Catholics a belief in the sacramental nature of the priesthood, the sacrificial character of the Mass, and the Real Presence of Christ in the consecrated bread and wine of the Eucharist, and lay great stress on these points to counter the tendency of some Evangelical Anglicans promoting ideas such as lay presidency at the Eucharist. A minority of Anglo-Catholics also encourage priestly celibacy.
Within Anglicanism three terms are frequently used - not always entirely correctly - to denote styles of worship: High Church, Low Church, Broad Church (or Latitudinarian).
"High Church" is generally used to describe Anglicanism within a moderate to advanced Catholic tradition.
"Low Church" is used for Anglicans of a more Evangelical tradition who, like Reformed or Protestant Christians, emphasise belief in the primacy of scripture and salvation by grace through faith alone. Evangelical Anglicans usually worship according to official prayer books but with much less ceremonial. The Sydney diocese does not mandate the use of any prayer book and worship services in its parishes are often considerably at variance with the shape of traditional Anglican liturgies.
The term "Broad Church" (or ‘Middle-of-the Road’) is sometimes used for Anglicans somewhere between the "high" and "low" traditions and who stress the comprehensive nature of Anglicanism.
History
Anglo-Catholicism claims continuity with the early days of Christianity in Great Britain. Pope Gregory the Great sent St Augustine in the late 6th century from Rome to evangelise the Anglo-Saxon English, a process completed in the 7th century. It is commonly thought that the conversion of the English marked the beginning of Christianity in Britain. However, it should be noted that the Romano-Celtic society which existed in Britain prior to the arrival of the pagan Germanic tribes from Denmark and northern Germany was already substantially Christian. There are, for example, around forty churches still in use today which were already, either entirely or in part, in existence prior to the arrival of the English.
When the Reformation broke out on the European Continent, the tide swept up England as well. King Henry VIII took England into schism from Rome when the Pope refused to declare null his marriage to Catherine of Aragon, but retained Catholic views in theology and liturgy, while some reformers (such as Bishops Ridley and Latimer) wanted to follow the radical reforms of Geneva. It was under the reign of Edward VI that the English Church was reformed with a sparer liturgy in the common vernacular and the tolerance of variant and new theological positions. These reforms were reversed, briefly, during the reign of the staunchly Roman Catholic Mary I who resumed communion with Rome as part of a general campaign to end the Reformation in England and Wales. Consequently when Queen Elizabeth I took the English throne, she sought to steer a via media between what her bishops felt were the excesses of Rome, on the one hand, and those of Geneva, on the other. Thus was born the Elizabethan Settlement, and the promulgation of a single Book of Common Prayer, for whatever theological party was to use it within the Anglican Church. This marks the birth of a special ethos for the Anglican Church. This ethos, peculiar to Anglicanism, was championed by the Elizabethan divine, Richard Hooker.
From that time, through Archbishop Laud and the Caroline divines, up to the time of the Oxford Movement Tractarians, and the Anglo-Catholic Congresses, to the present day, there has always been a theological party within Anglicanism which has sought to stress apostolic continuity all the way back to the Apostle Philip, although the movements before the Oxford Movement were self-consciously Protestant. In response to Pope Leo XIII’s Apostolicae Curae (1896), which declared the Anglican apostolic succession invalid, the Anglican Archbishops of Canterbury and York have claimed, starting with their official response, Saepius Officio, that there is an unbroken apostolic succession in the Anglican priesthood, and that the historical episcopate has been in the British Isles from the earliest days of the Church. Rome usually does not dispute the latter point, inasmuch as the Catholic Church has continued to exist in the British Isles, even under Puritan and Anglican persecution. Rather, the Roman Catholic Church maintains that this apostolic succession was broken by the use of the Ordinal of King Edward VI, which deletes all reference to the central priestly function, the sacrifice of the Mass, the unbloody renewal of the sacrifice of Calvary according to Roman Catholic doctrine, and deliberately was designed to contain no indication of the "fullness of the ministry", specific tasks of the Catholic bishop or the "high priesthood", which the Holy See considers essential. The Romans assume that their point of view, based on Late Medieval sacramental theory, is valid for all periods of church history. In their refutation the Archbishops of Canterbury and York pointed out, amongst other matters, that no such priestly functions or sacramental theology were event in the Papal ordinations rites of the 9th and 10th centuries, which would render their ordinations invalid as well using the same criteria aimed at the Anglicans.
Anglo-Catholicism has been weakened at regular intervals by secessions by its prominent leaders to the Roman Catholic Church or occasionally to the Eastern Orthodox Churches, among whom was John Henry Newman, the later Cardinal. Moments of crisis provoking such defections include the (narrowly avoided) condemnation of Tract 90 in 1841, the ritualistic controversy and the Public Worship Regulation Act of 1874, the Prayer Book controversy of 1927-28, and more recently decisions by many Anglican provinces to proceed to the ordination of women priests.
Anglicanism
Origins and History
Anglicanism is the name given to the church which historically operated as The Church of England, but which now operates flexibly and autonomously in many nations. It claims to be both Catholic and Reformed - Catholic in its order of ministry, but with a conservatively reformed liturgy outlined in the Book of Common Prayer.
Anglicanism has its roots in the Celtic Christianity of the earliest Britons and in the Roman form of the faith brought to England by Augustine of Canterbury in the 5th and 6th Centuries. The Norman conquest of 1066 opened up English churches to European, and more specifically, French, influence (and anti-French sentiment). German and Scandinavian pressure for church reform, growing English dissatisfaction with papal authority, and Henry VIII’s desire for a divorce from Catherine of Aragon were some of the factors contributing to England’s eventual break with the church in Rome.
From 1536-1539, Henry VIII renounced papal jurisdiction in England and dissolved Catholic monasteries. A national church was created with a Calvinistic doctrinal basis formulated in 1562 as the 39 Articles of Religion.
Anglicanism has two broad traditions: evangelical and Anglo-Catholic. It is often seen as a bridge between Protestantism, Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy.
There are 70 million Anglicans in the world. They are predominantly English-speaking and although congregation sizes are declining in the UK, they are growing in many communities throughout the world, including Africa.
In Australia
The first Anglican worship took place in Australia in 1788 and the first Bishop of Australia was appointed in 1836. An attempt to give Anglicanism “established church” status in Australia never came to fruition, but there was strong growth in the colonial period, aided by the colonial administration. An early investment in education (prior to government funded state schools) has continued until the present.
In 1845 the first Anglican theological college was set up in Sydney. A conference of bishops from all Australian colonies in 1850 began a process of general synodal government that has continued to the present day. In 1872 the first synod of Australian dioceses agreed upon a constitution of church government which lasted until 1961. In 1962 the Church of England in Australia began to function under its own constitution, ending all legal ties with the Church of England in England.
In 1978, An Australia Prayer Book was produced, and in 1981 the Anglican Church of Australia was formed as an independent body within the world-wide Anglican communion. There were some 3.8 million Anglicans (21% of the population) in Australia in 2001 (ABS).
Key Movements
Evangelical Anglicans (Low Church Anglicanism): Evangelistic movement which developed in tandem with a general growth of UK evangelism from the early 18th Century. Evangelism is individualistic in conception, emphasising Anglicanism’s Protestant heritage, and stressing simplicity of worship with a minimum of ritual and ceremony. Within Anglicanism, it was the evangelist strand that adopted the idea of missionary work and it was from this tradition that many colonial clergy came.
High Church and Anglo Catholic: The Anglo-Catholic tradition, or Tractarianism, developed in Oxford, and sought to revive a more Catholic emphasis in Anglicanism, stressing sacramental grace and the tradition of episcopacy. The influence of the Oxford Movement led to the formation of the first religious orders since Henry VIII.
Broad or Middle Church Anglicans: Groups characterised by acceptance of new theological views - e.g., liberalism and evolutionary theory - and adopting a middle-of-the-road stance between high and low church. Australian Anglicanism belongs mainly to the middle church tradition.
Organisational Structure
Anglicanism consists of the world-wide grouping of churches which operate autonomously in different locales but recognise the primacy among equals of the Archbishop of Canterbury. In practical terms this means that the Anglican church of Australia can change order and ritual, but retains the ordinal of the Church of England. Anglican churches are episcopal in governance, retaining the Catholic threefold ministry of bishops, priests and deacons. The president of the national synod of the church is called the Primate.
In some traditions of Anglicanism, ordination is a sacrament in which the priest is affirmed as a representative of God to humankind; in other traditions the priest functions more as a trained leader of the congregations.
The National or General Synod is composed of equal number of clergy and lay representatives.
The Book of Common Prayer (1662), a compilation of the Church’s liturgical forms, along with The Thirty-Nine Articles, remain the hallmark of Anglican identity.
The following article entitled "Evangelical Religion" by Bishop J.C. Ryle
Since many religious disputes have arisen solely because there has been a lack of accurate definition, I am beginning this paper by explaining exactly what I mean by “Evangelical Religion”.
I want to consider that religion which is peculiar to those within the Church of England who are normally called “the Evangelical Party”. Whether we like it, or not; whether it is right or not, it must be agreed that there are varying schools of thought within the Church of England, with many divisions and shades of opinion even within the various parties. Here I am concerned with the unmistakable and undeniable tenets of the Evangelical school which, I maintain, are worth contending for.
This is a subject of great difficulty and delicate grounds, for it necessitates comparisons and all comparisons are odious. But sometimes comparisons are a duty. Did not Paul command “Approve the things that are excellent”? (Phil. 1;10), and while I have a sense of the difficulties, I have a deeper sense of the importance of this subject. The existence of parties cannot be ignored, and the strife is not just one about trappings and vestments in religion, but about the very foundations of the Gospel. Evangelicals must therefore consider what they have to maintain and defend; so let us distinctly understand our principles.
In defining Evangelical Religion, I can only bring forward the result of careful reading and study of the works of Evangelical fathers. I have only arrived at these conclusions after prayer, thought and pains. I am not claiming to be a mouthpiece for the Evangelical Party, for many who are called Evangelical will not agree with all in this paper. But I am writing what I believe to be the leading tenets of Evangelicalism.
WHAT EVANGELICAL RELIGION IS
I want to point out what I consider to be the five leading features of Evangelicalism.
1.) The absolute supremacy of Holy Scripture.
The first feature is the supremacy of Scripture as the only rule of faith and practice, the only test of truth and the only judge of controversy.
Evangelicals believe that man is required to accept nothing as necessary to Salvation which cannot be read in or proved from Holy Scripture. They deny any other guide for man, and reject such arguments as “The Church says so”, etc., unless what is said is in harmony with Scripture. We will accept anything in the Bible, however trying, but anything contrary, however specious, plausible or desirable, we will not have under any commendation.
Our faith can find no resting place except in the Bible; its supreme authority is one of the corner stones of our system. Here is rock, all else is sand.
2.) The doctrine of human sinfulness and corruption.
Through Adam’s fall, everyone is as far as possible gone from original righteousness, and is, naturally, inclined to evil. Before God, man is miserable, pitiable and bankrupt, and in a state of guilt, condemnation and danger. Everyone is at enmity with God, without title to heaven, and with no love for God.
Such a spiritual disease calls for as mighty a spiritual cure. So Evangelical religion will not countenance anything which even seems to encourage the idea that there is an easy cure, or that a little outward appearance or sacrament receiving is all that is needed. Thus we protest strongly against formalism, sacerdotalism (1) or any other external or vicarious (2) Christianity. Such religion is based on an inadequate view of man’s need. Nothing less than the blood of Christ and the grace of God applied to heart and soul can cure.
It is because many are ignorant of the extent of the fall and the doctrine of original sin that they cannot understand Evangelical Religion. Next to the Bible, it is based on a clear view of Original Sin.
3.) The work and office of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the salvation He has wrought for man.
Jesus Christ has by His life, death and resurrection, as our representative and substitute, obtained a complete salvation for sinners and a redemption from the guilt, power and consequences of sin. All who believe on Him are, even while they live, completely forgiven and justified, reckoned righteous before God and are interested in Christ and all His benefits.
Only simple faith between the sinner and the Saviour is involved. Anything else is only useful so far as it helps the faith. But anything relied upon as an end is just poison to the soul.
The essence of Christianity is a practical knowledge of Christ, so that in teaching Christianity we can never speak too much of Christ, or too strongly of the full, free and simple salvation for all who believe in Him.
Now this doctrine is just what the. natural man most dislikes, for man wants a religion of sight and sense - not faith; of doing, not believing. People should be warned against making a Christ of the Church, or the Ministry, or forms of worship, or Baptism, or even the Lord’s Supper. Life eternal is to know, believe in and abide in Christ. Everything in religion is useful in so far as it helps faith, but no further.
4.) The inward work of the Holy Spirit in the heart of man.
The foundation of all vital Christianity is a work of grace in the heart. Until there is real working relationship, religion is only a form which can neither comfort nor serve. People’s attention needs to be brought to the Holy Spirit’s works - inward repentance, faith, hope, hatred of sin and love of God’s laws. To tell people to take comfort in baptism or Church membership instead, is a mistake - and positive cruelty as well.
The inward work of the Holy Spirit is a necessity to salvation, but it must be inwardly felt, for nothing felt within the heart means nothing possessed. Feelings can be deceptive but the witness of the Spirit, however much it be abused, is a real thing.
5.) The outward and visible work of the Holy Ghost in the life of man.
God’s grace will always show in the behaviour and habits of the man who has it. It is not something dormant - something within but not without.
It is wrong to tell a man he is “born of God” while he deliberately lives in sin; he must overcome the world, the flesh and the devil. Only by his life can we tell a man’s spiritual condition. Where nothing is seen, then nothing is possessed. Grace that cannot be seen is not grace at all, but just disobedience to God.
Such are the leading features of Evangelical Religion. Although I have only sketched these in outline, and have omitted many things which, although part of the Evangelical doctrine, are, I feel, comparatively of secondary importance, enough has been said to serve my purpose. These are, I believe, the main principles of the teaching of Evangelicals within the Church of England. These are the first, foremost, chief and principle things in Christianity. Others may accept each of them individually, but they do not assign to them the pre-eminent position as do Evangelicals. It is this lack of attention to position which spoils much teaching.
To show all the foundations of Evangelical Religion in this paper is clearly impossible. But we challenge anyone to examine, impartially, our system in the light of Scripture, or the 39 Articles of the Anglican Church, or the writings of our leading Divines, from the Reformation to Archbishop Laud - we have no fears concerning the results of such examination. There can be no charge that we have introduced something new.
We may well be ashamed of our own personal imperfections, but we have no need to be ashamed of our doctrine. It is easy to try to frighten people against Evangelicals by such names as “Calvinism” or “Puritanism” (3) but impartial inquiry will always show that Evangelical Religion is the religion of Scripture and of the Church of England.
WHAT EVANGELICAL RELIGION IS NOT
I am almost ashamed to deal with the negative side of this question. But false reports about Evangelicals are so numerous that I must do so. We know that we are not perfect, and have many defects, but many charges made against us just are not true.
1.) Evangelical Religion does not despise Learning or Research.
No one appreciates more than us anything that throws light on God’s Word. Anyone looking at the lists of people who have been eminent in theological scholarship will find that some of the greatest have been Evangelicals. No school of thought has done more for the exposition and interpretation of Scripture, or produced more commentaries. Even today we have no need to be ashamed.
But while we do not despise learning, we do not place any uninspired writings on a level with revelation. Scripture alone is our guide. We leave it to others to speak of “primitive antiquity”, and “catholic truth”. But to us there is only one test; “What is written in the Scripture? What does the Lord say?”
2.) Evangelical Religion does not undervalue the Church or think lightly of its privileges.
No one is more sincere and loyal to the Church of England; no one values its form of government, confession of faith or mode of worship more. We have stuck to it through thick and thin, and will resist attempts to Romanise it.
But we refuse to exalt the Church above Christ, or to teach that membership of a church is identical with membership of Christ, or to give to it an authority not found in Scripture or even in the Articles. Councils, synods and convocations may go wrong, and nowhere in Scripture is there any proof that Jesus Christ intended a body of men to be regarded as infallible. So, we hold, much of the talk about the voice of the Church is meaningless.
3.) Evangelical Religion does not undervalue the Christian Ministry.
We regard the Ministry as an honourable office, instituted by Christ, and of general necessity for carrying on the work of the Gospel. Ministers should be preachers of God’s Word; God’s ambassadors, messengers, servants, shepherds, stewards, overseers, and labourers in His vineyard.
But we refuse to admit that the clergy are sacrificing priests, mediators, lords or private confessors, firstly because this is not Biblical, and secondly because church history shows sacerdotalism has often been the curse of Christianity. The exaltation of the ministerial office within the Church of England is likely to alienate the laity, ruin the church and lead to error and superstition.
4.) Evangelical Religion does not undervalue Baptism and the Lord’s Supper.
We honour the Sacraments as holy ordinances appointed by Christ, and as means of grace which have a “wholesome effect or operation” in all who use them rightly, worthily and with faith.
But we refuse to admit that the Sacraments convey grace ex opere operato (4), and that good must be done whenever they are administered; or that they are, above faith, preaching and prayer, the grand medium between Christ and the soul.
We cannot accept the doctrine that baptism in water and in the name of the Trinity is always and necessarily accompanied by regeneration, nor the practice of encouraging anyone to the Lord’s Table who is unrepentant and without faith in Christ and love for men. Nor can we accept the theory that the Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice, for this is contrary to the Bible, the Prayer Book (5) and the Articles. Above all we protest against the doctrine of the bodily presence of Christ’s flesh and blood in the Lord’s Supper, under the form of bread and wine; this is, indeed, “idolatry, to be abhorred of all faithful Christians”.
5.) Evangelical Religion does not undervalue the English Prayer Book.
We regard the Prayer Book as the finest form of public worship, admirably adapted to the wants of human nature. We use it with pleasure and would never want its use forbidden.
But we do not say that there can be no acceptable worship of God without it. It has not the authenticity of the Bible, and we will not honour the Prayer Book as equal with Scripture, or regard it as forming with the Bible, the rule of faith for the Church of England. It does not contain any truth over and above God’s Word. It is completely wrong to say that the Bible and Prayer Book together form the Church’s creed.
6.) Evangelical Religion does not undervalue the Episcopacy.
We honour and respect Bishops as much as, if not more than, any section of the Church of England. We believe Episcopacy rightly administered, to be the best form of Church government in this evil world.
But we refuse to believe that Bishops are infallible, and that they are to be believed when not in harmony with Scripture. We believe that there have been Bishops, Priests and Deacons from the beginning, but we will not agree to the statement “No Bishop, no Church”, or that Free Church clergy are not validly ordained, or that Nonconformist Christians (6) are not really Christians.
I repeat, in due respect to Episcopal office we yield to none. But we cannot forget that Bishops have erred, both individually and in conference. In the days of Charles I, it was the erring Bishops who ruined the Church of England. In 1662, when they threw out the Puritans, they almost did it again, and then again when they shut out the Methodists. History shows that, while we have had great Bishops, others have been a disgrace to their office.
7.) Evangelical Religion does not object to handsome Church buildings.
We like well-designed and well arranged places of worship, good architecture, well ordered ceremonial and well conducted services. We dislike slovenliness, and would have all things done “properly and in an orderly manner” (1 Cor. 14;40).
But we maintain that simplicity should be the characteristic of Christian worship. Remembering the great Scriptural truth, “man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart.” (1 Sam. 16;7), we believe the inward and spiritual character of the congregation is more important than architecture and ornaments. Further, remembering that human nature is easily led astray, we feel that ornaments, theatrical ceremonial, and such like, only drive men away from Christ, and make them walk by sight and not by faith.
8.) Evangelical Religion does not undervalue Unity.
We love harmony and peace as much as any Christians anywhere, and long for the day when controversy, strife and division shall end.
But for this, there must be oneness in faith. Unity must be on a common belief in Christ’s Gospel, and not on a common Episcopacy. Further we abhor the idea of reunion with the Church of Rome, unless that Church first purges herself of false doctrines and superstitions; and we repudiate those who make advances to Rome while ignoring the Church of Scotland, as unworthy of English Churchmen.
9.) Evangelical Religion does not undervalue Christian Holiness and Self-Denial.
We desire as much as anyone to promote habitual spirituality of heart and life in Christians. No one is so concerned to exalt every Christian virtue, and true Christian living, as are we. With all our defects, none attaches more importance to private prayer, Bible reading and communion with God than do we.
But we firmly deny that true holiness consists in calling everything in religion holy; or that it is promoted by outward gestures, fastings and such like. Such practices are often only outward and a delusion, and, of themselves, do not make Christian holiness. It may satisfy those who desire worldliness one part of the week, and asceticism another. But it will never satisfy a Bible reading Christian, for it is not the holiness recommended by St. Paul, St. Peter, St. James and St. John.
To summarise. We do give all lawful honour to all of these things, but we decline to give to them more honour than we find given in God’s Word. This is the Scriptural position, and we can take no other. Those who accuse us of undervaluing any of these things only show their own ignorance of Scripture. If they can show that God’s Word takes a different position, we will confess our error. Until then, we shall maintain that we are right and they are wrong.
WHAT MAKES MUCH RELIGION APPEAR TO US NOT EVANGELICAL?
This is a delicate, but serious point. For while we do not say that men who are not professedly Evangelical, ignore and disbelieve the leading Evangelical doctrines, we do say that there are many ways in which the faith of Christ may be altered and spoiled, without being positively denied.
The Gospel may be spoiled by substitution. Put anything or anyone else in the place of Christ, for the sinner, and the Gospel is spoiled. It can be the Church, the Ministry, the Confessional, the Sacraments, and so on - but the Gospel is altered.
The Gospel may be spoiled by addition. Add anything to Christ, the grand object of faith, and the mischief is done.
Equally, the Gospel may be spoiled by interposition; that is, by putting someone between Christ and the sinner, so distracting the sinner’s attention. Or by disproportion; by giving secondary things an exaggerated importance and altering the proportions of the parts of truth. Or, lastly, by confused and contradictory directions - by complicated and obscure statements of doctrine, which are as bad as no statement at all!
Do any of these things, either directly or indirectly and your religion ceases to be Evangelical. We cannot expect any benefit from Christ’s salvation, unless we use the Gospel as Christ appointed. We must not alter the Biblical proportions in any way, whether by addition, subtraction or any “improvement.” God’s plan, of salvation cannot be improved. Anyone trying to do so, only spoils it.
To be really Evangelical, religion must be the Gospel, the whole Gospel and nothing but the Gospel, as Christ prescribed it. I am sorry to say that much so called religion of today breaks down because of additions or subtractions and other alterations, and so does not come up to the Scriptural standards which I have set out. Now, I do not accuse any who are not “Evangelical” with not being “Christian”. But I do say that they appear to me to teach something which is not Christ’s whole truth. The parts are there, but in the wrong proportions.
THE PRESENT DUTIES OF EVANGELICALS
Since we have been considering what Evangelical Religion is and is not, some thoughts on our immediate duties will not be inappropriate. We live in times which are critical for the Church, and dangerous for the nation. Popish opinions are found amongst churchmen, and there are shameless additions to the faith. Whether our Protestantism lives or dies, much depends on whether Evangelicals are really alive to their duty.
1.) We should be jealous over our own personal religion.
Today, a clear cut and distinct doctrinal Christianity is unfavourable. A liberalism which regards everyone as right and no one as wrong, meets us everywhere. There is a veritable devil of false charity about religion. When others would persuade us that it is “all the same thing”, let us remember Paul’s words, “Be on the alert, stand firm in the faith” (1 Cor. 16;13).
Let us stand firm in the old paths of the Reformers. Some may call this doctrine narrow, or old fashioned, but they will never show us something better. Let us have no man or form between us and Christ. Let us know whom we believe, what, why, and in what manner we believe. Only thorough Evangelical Religion can do this. Let us make sure it is our own.
2.) Evangelical clergy must be careful not to compromise their principles and damage their testimony by trying to conciliate the world.
Too often, Evangelicals use the plausible pretext of making services “more attractive” to cut the grounds from under the feet of Ritualists (7). But it is so easy to let in the Pope and the Devil. Such things may please the world, but they never convert the world. We cannot be too jealous about the slightest departure from “the faith once delivered to the saints” and the worship handed to us by the Reformers. Remember Paul’s declaration, “though we, or an angel from heaven, should preach to you a gospel contrary to that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed.” (Gal. 1;8).
Evangelical preaching and Ritualistic ceremonial do not mix. The world is never won by trimming and compromising, or by trying to face both ways and please everyone. Adornments and ritual may please children and weak-minded people. But they never have helped and never will help heart conversion and sanctification.
We need patience in these times, when it is provoking to be criticised about the nakedness, poverty and meagreness (so called) of Evangelical religion, and when we see so many going off to ritualistic services saying that they feel so much better after these services. But the end will never justify illicit means. Popularity through pandering is not worth anything. Worshippers who are not content with the Bible, the Cross of Christ, simple prayers and praise, are worshippers of little value. Further, remember the injury to our own souls if we depart in the least from the simple Gospel in any way.
3.) We must not allow Evangelical Religion to be thrust out of the Church of England without a struggle.
It is a religion well worth a struggle, for it can point to works which no other school in the Church of England has ever equalled. We confess, with sorrow, that we have done little compared to what we ought to have done, but yet we fear no honest and fair comparison, for whether at home or abroad, none has done so much good to souls. Nothing gives the Church of England such power and influence as genuine, well worked and well administered Evangelical Religion.
But if Evangelical Religion is to be preserved now, we must make a great effort and be prepared for a mighty struggle. For the sake of our Church and the future, let us resolve to make it. It is not of our seeking - the controversy is forced upon us. This is our choice; to sit in silence and let the Church of England be unprotestantised and reunited with Rome; or we can desert the Church and leave it to those who would change it; or else we must face the danger and fight, fight with the same Word used by Cranmer, Latimer and Ridley, and not with corrupt weapons.(8) If we want our church to continue Protestant and Evangelical we must do as they did, stand and fight.
What is to be done? All Protestant and Evangelical clergy must unite and organise; expose the Romanising dealings in every way, even going to law and Parliament if necessary (9). There must be bold and prompt action whenever required - these are our weapons. They must be wielded at whatever sacrifice.
Let us resolve then to “contend earnestly for the faith”, labouring in every way to maintain Evangelical Religion in the Church of England, and resisting the enemies around. We are not weak if we stand and act together. Most of the laity do not love Popery. God has not forsaken us, and truth is on our side.
Let us remember above all, that without these Biblical principles, a Church is as useless as a well without water. Should the Church of England again become Popish, it will be a church not worth preserving.
__________________________
John Charles Ryle, the first Bishop of Liverpool, lived from 1816-1900. He was a prolific writer of both devotional and doctrinal books and tracts. This article is an edited version of the first chapter of his book “Knots Untied” which was published in 1877, when Bishop Ryle was Vicar of Stradebroke, Norfolk. It has been published in many editions including one in booklet form in 1959 by Church Book Room Press (London) titled: “Evangelical Religion”.
Footnotes have been added, and some modernisation made, to keep this important document before the Christian readership.
Quoted Scriptures are given here in the New American Standard Version.
FOOTNOTES
(1) sacerdotalism - a system which places undue emphasis on the priestly order, as for example in Roman Catholicism where the priest is said to repeat Calvary when he says the Mass.
(2) vicarious - i.e. standing in the place of Christ (as for example, when a priest absolves a sinner in confession).
(3) Were Ryle alive today he would no doubt include “Fundamentalism” as well.
(4) ex opere operato: i.e. without living faith in the recipients.
(5) i.e. The Book of Common Prayer - 1662.
(6) Nonconformist Christians.
(7) While ritualism still holds appeal for many, the so-called “entertainment church” is the model that is especially dangerous in our time and for the reasons given by Ryle.
(8) “I do not want to narrow the pale of the Church of England, for I am well aware it is eminently liberal, comprehensive and tolerant. There has always been room for people of widely different thought. But I cannot believe that our Church ever meant to teach the Roman doctrines of the Real Presence, the sacrifice of the Mass, and auricular confession. There is a great distinction between the old High Churchman, and the modern Ritualistic Anglo-Catholic, who is so near Rome that no one can see the difference.” - Ryle
(9) Ryle advocated resorting to law to resolve doctrinal issues. For Evangelicals now this option is neither desirable nor possible.
———————-
He found that helpful, as noted in the following:
Thanks Stephen - this has all been very useful, and has very much
increased my understanding of some of the language of Anglicanism. Very
much appreciated.
~~
On reading Ryle, i find it fascinating how much the battle lines have not changed in all that time in the Anglican Church to this day.
But what does it all in fact mean?
