While the late Bishop J.C.
Ryle of Liverpool (died 1900) and I may not
see exactly eye to eye on the Lord’s Supper, on most matters we are in very
real agreement. Virtually all the following is worthy of consideration for all
BibleCatholics. We have much to thank Ryle and others in the old Anglican
Church and especially those of the so-called “low church” like Ryle, who are
indeed a near dead breed in the days of the ecumenical Roman takeover. Here are
some important thoughts Ryle had against Romanism and cautions to keep the
priesthood in proper perspective.
2. For another thing, I
charge you to beware of Anglo-Romanism, and do all you can to resist it.
Resist it in little
things. Resist strange dresses, sacrificial garments, the eastward position in
consecrating the bread and wine, idolatrous reverence of the consecrated
elements, processions, banners, incense, candles on the communion table,
turning to the East, crosses and crucifixes in the chancels, and extravagant
Church decorations.
Resist it in great
things. Oppose with might and main the attempt to re-introduce the Mass and
Auricular Confession in our parishes. Send your boy to no school where
auricular confession is ever tolerated. Allow no clergymen to draw your wife
and daughter to private confession. Oppose sternly, but firmly, the attempt to
change the Lord’s Supper at your parish churches, into the Romish sacrifice of
the mass. Draw back from the communion in such churches, and go elsewhere. The
laity have a great deal of power in this matter, even without going to law.
They should tell the clergy their minds. They cannot do without the laity any
more than officers in a regiment can do without privates. Let the English laity
all over England
rise in their might, and say, “We will not have the mass and auricular
confession.”
Resist it for Christ’s
sake. His Priestly and Mediatorial offices are being injured and dishonoured.
They are offices He has never deputed to any order of ordained men.
Resist it for the
clergy’s sake. The worst and cruellest thing that can be done is to lift us out
of our proper places, and make us lords over your consciences, and mediators
between yourselves and God.
Resist it for the
laity’s sake. The most degrading position in which laymen could be put, is that
of being cringing slaves at the foot of a brother sinner.
Resist it, not least,
for your children’s sake. Do what in you lies to provide that, when you are
dead and gone, they shall not be left to the tender mercies of Popery. As ever
you would meet your boys and girls in heaven, take care that the Church of
England in your day is maintained a Protestant
Church , and preserves her
Articles and the principles of the Reformation wholly uninjured and
undefiled. --From "What do we owe the reformation" by J.C.
Ryle, Bishop of Liverpool
ON THE CHRISTIAN MINISTRY AND SACRAMENTS
(3) I go on to say that Evangelical Religion does not under value the Christian ministry. It is not true to say that we do. We regard it as an honourable office instituted by Christ Himself, and of general necessity for carrying on the work of the Gospel. We look on ministers as preachers of God’s Word, God’s ambassadors, God’s messengers, God’s servants, God’s shepherds, God’s stewards, God’s overseers, and labourers in God’s vineyard.
(3) I go on to say that Evangelical Religion does not under value the Christian ministry. It is not true to say that we do. We regard it as an honourable office instituted by Christ Himself, and of general necessity for carrying on the work of the Gospel. We look on ministers as preachers of God’s Word, God’s ambassadors, God’s messengers, God’s servants, God’s shepherds, God’s stewards, God’s overseers, and labourers in God’s vineyard.
But we steadily refuse to admit that Christian
ministers are in any sense sacrificing priests, mediators between God and man,
lords of men’s consciences, or private confessors. We refuse it, not only
because we cannot see it in the Bible, but also because we have read the
lessons of Church history. We find that Sacerdotalism, or priestcraft, has
frequently been the curse of Christianity, and the ruin of true religion. And
we say boldly that the exaltation of the ministerial office to an unscriptural
place and extravagant dignity in the Church of England in the present day, is
likely to alienate the affections of the laity, to ruin the Church, and to be
the source of every kind of error and superstition.
(4) I go on to say that Evangelical Religion does
not undervalue the Sacraments of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper. It is not
true to say that we do. We honour them as holy ordinances appointed by Christ
Himself, and as blessed means of grace, which in all who use them rightly,
worthily, and with faith, “have a wholesome effect or operation.”
But we steadily refuse to admit that Christ’s
Sacraments convey grace ex opere operato, and that in every case where
they are administered, good must of necessity be done. We refuse to admit that
they are the grand media between Christ and the soul,—above faith, above
preaching, and above prayer. We protest against the idea that in baptism the
use of water, in the name of the Trinity, is invariably and necessarily accompanied
by regeneration. We protest against the practice of encouraging any one to come
to the Lord’s Table unless he repents truly of sin, has a lively faith in
Christ, and is in charity with all men. We protest against the theory that the
Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice, as a theory alike contrary to the Bible,
Articles, and Prayer-book. And above all, we protest against the notion of any
corporal presence of Christ’s flesh and blood in the Lord’s Supper, under the
forms of bread and wine, as an “idolatry to be abhorred of all faithful
Christians.”
(It's this last line that I disagree with since Luther himself plainly proved that Protestants can still very much believe in Christ's own promise that we recieve his body and blood at the supper he established. We can believe that without idolatry. It is the Roman Catholic practice of praying before the bread that is placed in a monstrance--special decorative holder-- that is idolatry to us, since neither Christ or his apostles taught such a thing. I believe Bishop Ryle goes too far in protesting the corporal presence of Christ since it certainly appears from scriptures to be something that Christ himself taught us, and according to Luther, something that was also quite Protestant.)
(It's this last line that I disagree with since Luther himself plainly proved that Protestants can still very much believe in Christ's own promise that we recieve his body and blood at the supper he established. We can believe that without idolatry. It is the Roman Catholic practice of praying before the bread that is placed in a monstrance--special decorative holder-- that is idolatry to us, since neither Christ or his apostles taught such a thing. I believe Bishop Ryle goes too far in protesting the corporal presence of Christ since it certainly appears from scriptures to be something that Christ himself taught us, and according to Luther, something that was also quite Protestant.)
From
“Evangelical Religion” by J.C. Ryle, Bishop of Liverpool