Unity Among Churchmen by Bishop John Charles Ryle

“Unity Among Churchmen” by Bishop John Charles Ryle as printed in the Churchman, 1879

http://www.churchsociety.org/churchman/documents/Cman_001_2_Ryle.pdf

Ryle spends no time on addressing the need for unity since it is the “grand secret of strength, usefulness, and comfortable working.” Yet, there is division in the Church of England.

He has in mind those “who are striving to bring back Romish doctrines, practices, and ceremonial amongst us, and openly avow their dislike to the principles of the Reformation.” Lambeth and Rome is the “baseless fabric of a dream.” This also applies to the current situation with Anglo-Romewardizers within Anglicanism, however, most Confessional (so-called) Anglicans have given up and buried the hatchet.

Peace between Anglican and Roman Churches cannot happen, Ryle tells us and with which we agree, until Rome makes peace with Christ and the Bible. We say the same about Anglo-Romewardizers. Ryle joins with Bishops Jewel and Hall on this point. As to Lambeth and Rome, the parties were lawfully divorces centuries ago.

A divided house won’t stand. Ryle speaks of loyal Churchmen, honestly disagreeing on some points, but committed to the Articles, Prayer Book and the Protestant and Reformed faith. “They do not want her to be un-Protestantised, or to give up her Confession of faith.” These loyal sons believe in the Trinity, the Atonement, the Inspiration of Scriptures and read the same Bible and use the same Liturgy.

Practical observations:

The first suggestion. Cultivate the habit of recognising the grace of God and love to Christ, wherever that grace and love are to be found.

Error in the head is incompatible with saving grace in the heart. Yet, orthodoxy in the head without regeneration also exists. Both are required and they bear Christian fruits of the Spirit.

Examples: (1) The apostles’ understanding of the atonement during Christ’s days on earth, pre-resurrectionally. (2) Apollos in Acts, who needed further instruction. (3) Ryle refers to the “unscriptural” views of consubstantiation amongst the Lutherans. (4) Ryle refers to the dim views of the English Reformers on the subject of the Lord’s Supper during the days of Henry VIII. All were good men.

Recognise that imperfect and honest men may disagree, but that they evince a love from and of God and know and have experienced the grace of God.

Second suggestion for unity amongst Christians. Cultivate the habit of tolerating courteously diversities of opinion and practice about the non-essentials.

For Ryle, he has decided views, e.g. Calvinism, certain phrases in the baptismal service, voluntary societies, the use of the surplice or black gown in the pulpit, and the quantity of singing at divine worship. Ryle regards them as non-essentials. This scribe disagrees with him on points one and two. Calvinism and baptismal views are not inessentials.

Ryle further observes that the “re-introduction of the Mass” and the “Confessional” is something he is prepared to “fight to the bitter end.” However, name-calling, using violent language, “ramping and raging” is protested by Ryle. Honesty, directness, firmness and forthrightness, but also with courtesy, love, kindness, and humility

With Ryle's last sentence, we wholly concur.

Ryle offers an example of a High Churchman of the school of Andrews and Archbishop Longely. The preached in surplices, chanted the Psalms, turned to the East in repeating the Creed and has daily services. While Ryle disagrees with them, they are loyal Churchmen and faithful to the Articles, Prayer Book and Ordinal. They have a right to feel aggrieved when they are impugned.

Ryle offers an example of a Broad Churchman of the school of Burnet or Archbishop Whately. Some would dub them skeptics if they thought Paul was not the author of Hebrews, or they disliked the Church Association, or if they saw good in non-conformist denominations. Such Broad Churchmen have a right to feel aggrieve when attacked with violent and abusive language.

Ryle offers examples of Evangelicals like Archbishop Usher and Archbishop Cranmer. Sumner, for example, an evangelical Bishop, is sneered at because he agrees with Canon Mozley about baptism and is ready to meet Non-conformists on the platform of the Bible Society. He too has a right to feel aggrieved when misrepresented or maligned as "Un-catholic."

Ryle's point is summarized with this:

“For Christ’s sake let us all try to give up this wretched, narrow, illiberal, practice of savagely condemning, anathematizing, and even excommunicating our brethren about things indifferent. Let s try to disagree pleasantly, civilly, and like Christian gentlemen. Let us each believe, if you will, that we have more light than others…But if we want to promote internal unity, let us draw a broad line between things essential and things non-essential in religion, and judge one another accordingly." [emphasis added]

A third suggestion. Cultivate opportunities of meeting men of other schools on neutral grounds.

Prejudice and dislike often comes without ever having seen another man’s face or reading one line of his writings. Ryle believes that if one spent a quiet evening over supper with someone with whom one disagrees, there might be a surprise in the morning. “I like that man though I disagree with him.”

A fourth suggestion. Cooperate with Churchman of other schools of thought whenever possible, e.g. poverty relief, for those in distress, those suffering from war, pestilence or famine, and the support of Christian schools against a secular system. Refusal to cooperate in works of mercy, patriotism, or philanthropy cannot be based upon Evangelical Churchmanship.

However, cooperation in direct spiritual work involving souls is a very different matter indeed. It is Ryle’s conviction that if High, Broad and Low Churchmen “are sincere, hearty, outspoken, and earnest in their several views, it is difficult for them to work comfortably together in the direct dealings with souls.” [emphasis added] We share this view. Comprehensiveness with conflict is not edifying.

What High Churchman would like an Evangelical in his pulpit expounding on the new birth, regeneration or the Gorham decision on baptismal regeneration, 1850? How would an Evangelical lfeel with a High Churchman expounding all his thoughts on the sacraments? Would either man not feel “fettered and muzzled, and hampered, and unable to speak fully and freely, for fear of giving offense?” In fact they would and do.

Shallow minds think these are “divisions about trifles.” How does evangelism look amongst these parties? What one calls evangelizing, another does not. Ryle suggests that cooperation, at the present, is not possible. If these parties attempted to exchange pulpits, there would be an increase in quarrelling and disunity, not an increase thereof.

“The acids and alkalies must be kept separate, lest there be effervescences and explosions, and a general blow up.”

This disunity disallows cooperation in missions and Ryle feels it is impracticable, other than to allow each school to “work on its own way.”

Ryle’s closing thoughts:

1. Do not underestimate the importance of Christian unity.

2. However, beware of the temptation to sacrifice truth on the altar of peace. “…We shall make an enormous mistake if we barter away one jot of the Gospel for a mess of pottage under the name of unity.” “Trimmers and compromisers are never respected, and carry no weight with them. John Bunyan’s `Mr.Anything’ in `Holy War’ was kicked by both sides.”

Concluding comment: “Boldness and honesty are always respected, and especially when they are combined with courtesy and love.”