Charges and Addresses, by J C Ryle, published by the Banner of Truth Trust, hardback, 461 pages, £15.00, obtainable from the Free Presbyterian Bookroom.
The writings of John Charles Ryle, Bishop of Liverpool from 1880 to 1890, are well known to many of us. They are also highly regarded for their clarity, and for their faithfulness to the great doctrines of truth. This book, first published in 1903, republished by the Banner of Truth Trust in 1978, and now reissued, is described in the helpful introduction as “the rarest of all the many Ryle volumes issued by his publishers” (p xiii).
The book consists of six triennial charges to his diocese, eight conference addresses, one sermon at the opening of a new church, an address to Hull Church Congress, and finally, a farewell address to his diocese. Although a lot of the terminology in these charges and addresses is difficult to follow, for those of us with a Presbyterian background, what does come across throughout the book are the unhappy divisions in the Church of England at that time. Many of its clergy had much sympathy with the Church of Rome, and indeed a number of them forsook their own Church for Rome. This comes out especially in Ryle’s later addresses.
In speaking in 1898 of church divisions, he says, “I am firmly persuaded that the root and cause of the present state of things is the strong conviction of many lay Churchmen that it is the secret intention of not a few of the clergy to undo the work of the Protestant Reformation, and to re-introduce into England the erroneous doctrines and worship of the Church of Rome. Rightly or wrongly, they look upon the movement of the extreme Ritualist body with suspicion, and regard it as the highway to Popery. Some of them no doubt have read English history, and know something of the reign of James II. They do not forget the unhappy efforts of that misguided monarch to suppress Protestantism, and to bring back Popery into the land, which cost him his own crown, drove him into exile, and caused the Revolution of 1688. They remember those things, and resent the slightest appearance of a return to Romanism in 1898″ (pp 412-3).
In an earlier charge to the diocese entitled, “Stand Firm”, Ryle lists several differences between those favouring a return to the Roman Church and those who did not. He says: “It is useless to shut our eyes to plain facts, when the ship is really in danger, and there are breakers ahead. Are we really much divided? Are our differences very serious? Let us see. I shall not shrink from naming some notorious points which appear to me to demand attention, and supply sorrowful proof that our divisions are real.
“(1) One section of the clergy, and probably the majority, maintains that the Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice. Another, and probably the minority, maintains, with equal firmness, that it is not, and should only be called a sacrament.
“(2) One maintains that the Communion table is an altar, and should be always treated as such. Another maintains it is only the Holy Table.
“(3) One maintains that the minister at the Lord’s Supper is a sacrificing priest. Another maintains that he is only an officiating presbyter, though called a priest, and that there is no authority for sacerdotalism in the New Testament or the Prayer Book.
“(4) One maintains that the officiating minister should celebrate and consecrate the elements with his face to the east, and his back to the people. The other maintains that he should stand at the north end with his face to the south.
“(5) One maintains that the Lord’s Supper ought never to be administered in the evening. The other maintains that there is no objection whatever to evening communions, where the circumstances of the congregation make it desirable.
“(6) One maintains that the Lord’s Supper does good, more or less, to all who receive it, and that as a general rule all persons should be urged to become communicants. The other maintains that it only does good to believing and worthy communicants, and to those who are destitute of lively faith does no good at all, but rather harm.
“(7) One maintains that the Lord’s Supper should always be received fasting, and after confession to a clergyman. The other regards both these additions to the sacrament with deep aversion, as not warranted by Scripture or the Prayer Book.
“(8) One maintains that there is a real objective presence of Christ’s body and blood under the forms of the consecrated bread and wine. The other maintains that there is no real presence whatsoever, except in the hearts of believing communicants” (pp 309-10).
After stating the great errors of Romanism, Ryle goes on in the same charge to deal with the danger of “Higher Criticism”. What is interesting here is that this charge was given in 1893, the year that our own Church was formed. Ryle, like our own faithful fathers, was greatly troubled at the direction things were taking, stating, “I acknowledge most willingly the learning, the cleverness, the diligence, the reverent tone of most of the champions of this new school of thought. I have no doubt they think they are doing God service. But I cannot shut my eyes to the tendencies – the unmistakable tendencies – of the whole system of ‘Higher Criticism’. It is my deliberate opinion that it is calculated to shake the faith of millions, and to strike a heavy blow at the two great foundation truths of Christianity. One of those foundations is the supremacy and sufficiency of Holy Scripture. The other is the perfect divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ” (pp 313-4).
Another subject that Ryle deals with in more than one of his addresses is the increasing desecration of the Sabbath. Ryle states, “I am aware that many thoughtless people in this thoughtless age sneer at the Sabbath as an effete Jewish institution. By so doing they only exhibit their own ignorance of the Bible and human nature. They do not see that the Sabbath is an institution as old as creation, and was ‘made for man’ long before the Decalogue was given. It was made to keep man in touch with God, and is an unmixed good for all classes.” He goes on to state four reasons why we profit from keeping the Sabbath: (1) The Sabbath is good for man’s body. (2) The Sabbath is good for man’s mind. (3) The Sabbath is good for nations, and (4) The Sabbath is an unmixed good for man’s soul (p 318).
As mentioned earlier, this book contains one sermon. It was preached at the opening of a church in Liverpool in 1889 and is based on the words of the Saviour to His disciples: “Seest thou these great buildings? There shall not be left one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down” (Mk 13:2). In a most searching, almost-prophetic sermon, we have Ryle at his best, and it is very solemn to learn that the present “minister” of that church is a woman!
This book is most interesting, although it is not a little sad to read of the decline of a Church which undoubtedly contained many godly men and women, and not least, John Charles Ryle. He was faithful in his day and generation and who seemed to hope to the end that the Church, for which he had such love, would yet be restored to some measure of soundness.
(Rev) W Weale