No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Henry Ryder and the Bath CMS: Evangelical and High Church Controversy in the Later Hanoverian Church
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 19 September 2011
Abstract
The early nineteenth century saw a turn in Anglican Evangelicalism towards respectability and regularity. The same period paradoxically saw renewed controversy with some High Churchmen while others were more inclined to cooperate with the Evangelical movement. A case study of the early episcopal career of Henry Ryder illuminates this phenomenon, showing that while there were important divisions in doctrine between Evangelicals and High Churchmen, Evangelical innovations in practice proved more radical and controversial and provoked a divided response among their High Church brethren.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011
References
1 Within a year of its publication, the Practical view was being recommended by the bishop of London to his clergy along with the works of another Evangelical, his friend Hannah More: Beilby Porteus, A charge delivered to the clergy of the diocese of London, in the years 1798 and 1799 by the right reverend Beilby, lord bishop of that diocese, London 1799, 35–6. On the early reception of Wilberforce's work see John Wolffe, ‘William Wilberforce's Practical view (1797) and its reception’, in Kate Cooper and Jeremy Gregory (eds), Revival and resurgence in Christian history (Studies in Church History xxxiv, 2008), 175–84.
2 John Wesley to ‘John Smith’, Dublin, 22 Mar 1748, in The letters of John Wesley, ii, ed. J. Telford, London 1931, 137.
3 For the prevalence of ‘irregular’ and ‘semi-regular’ ministries among early Anglican Evangelicals see D. Bruce Hindmarsh, John Newton and the English Evangelical tradition, Oxford 1996, 205–17, and Smith, Mark, ‘Forging Britain's Gospel era’, Christian History and Biography lxxxi (2004), 30–3Google Scholar.
4 Abner Brown, Recollections of the conversation parties of the Rev. Charles Simeon, London 1863, 200.
5 Gareth Atkins, ‘Reformation, revival and rebirth in Anglican Evangelical thought c.1780–c.1830’, in Cooper and Gregory, Revival and resurgence, 164–74. The general move to regular ministry is also a theme of Charles Smyth, Simeon and church order, Cambridge 1940, 249–312.
6 For Daubeny and his clash with Overton see P. Nockles, ‘The waning of Protestant unity and waxing of anti-Catholicism? Archdeacon Daubeny and the reconstruction of “Anglican” identity in the later Georgian Church, c. 1780–c. 1830', in William Gibson and Robert G. Ingram (eds), Religious identities in Britain, 1660–1832, Aldershot 2005, 179–229.
7 John D. Walsh, ‘The Anglican Evangelicals in the eighteenth century’, in Marcel Simon (ed.), Aspects de l'Anglicanisme, Paris 1974, 87.
8 Charles Daubeny to Jonathan Boucher, 24 Sept. 1799, Jonathan Boucher papers, College of William and Mary, Swem Library, B/5/10; Anti-Jacobin iv (1799), 255; William Van Mildert to H. H. Norris, 27 Oct. 1816, Bodleian Library, Oxford, ms Eng. Lett. C.789, fos 79–80.
9 Charles Daubeny, A vindication of the character of the pious and learned bishop Bull from the unqualified accusations brought against it by the archdeacon of Ely in his charge delivered in the year 1826, London 1826, 21.
10 For discussions of the High Church construction of the history of the Reformation see MacCulloch, Diarmaid, ‘The myth of the English Reformation’, Journal of British Studies xxx (1991), 1–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Nockles, Peter B., ‘A disputed legacy: Anglican historiographies of the Reformation from the era of the Caroline divines to that of the Oxford Movement’, Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library of Manchester lxxxiii (Spring 2001), 121–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
11 For a brief summary of Bull's soteriology see Alister McGrath, Iustitia Dei, 3rd edn, Cambridge 2005, 280–2. For the ‘holy living’ tradition see, for example, Henry D. Rack, ‘Religious societies and the origins of Methodism’, this Journal xxxviii (1987), 582–95Google Scholar; William Jacob, Lay people and religion in the early eighteenth century, Cambridge 1996, 77–90; Geordan Hammond, ‘The revival of practical Christianity: the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, Samuel Wesley, and the Clerical Society Movement’, in Cooper and Gregory, Revival and resurgence, 116–27.
12 Daubeny, Vindication, 33. See the discussion in, Mark Smith, ‘Thomas Burgess, churchman and reformer’, in Nigel Yates (ed.), Bishop Burgess and his world, Cardiff 2007, 19–24.
13 Samuel Horsley, The charges of Samuel Horsley LL.D F.R.S. F.A.S. late lord bishop of St Asaph, delivered at his several visitations of the dioceses of St David's, Rochester, and St Asaph, Dundee 1813, 172–4.
14 Mary Milner, The life of Isaac Milner, London 1842, 71; Anne Stott, ‘Hannah More and the Blagdon controversy, 1799–1802’, in Mark Smith and Stephen Taylor (eds), Evangelicalism in the Church of England, Woodbridge 2004, 3–50.
15 Robert Hodgson, The life of the right reverend Beilby Porteus, London 1813, 38–44.
16 Thomas Burgess, A charge delivered to the clergy of the diocese of Salisbury, at the primary visitation of the diocese in August MDCCCXXVI, London 1828, pp. xxx–xxxvii. See also the further discussion in Smith, ‘Thomas Burgess’.
17 Hodgson, Porteus; John S. Harford, The life of Thomas Burgess D. D., London 1840; Smith, ‘Thomas Burgess’. For specific examples of support and preferment see, for example, John Owen, Memoir of the Rev Thomas Jones late of Creaton, Northamptonshire, London 1851, 149.
18 For the controversy over the Bible Society see Roger H. Martin, Evangelicals united: ecumenical stirrings in pre-Victorian Britain, London 1983, 99–118. For the Mendip schools see Stott, Anne, ‘Hannah More and the Blagdon controversy, 1799–1802’, this Journal lx (2000), 319–46Google Scholar.
19 ODNB, s.v. Henry Ryder; Mark Smith, ‘H. Ryder: a charge delivered to the clergy of the diocese of Gloucester in the year 1816’, in Smith and Taylor, Evangelicalism, 53–62.
20 William Smyth to William Blackett Ord, 25 Sept. 1815, Harrowby papers, Sandon Hall, vol. 453 (copy).
21 Christian Observer ccccxvii (Sept. 1836), 570.
22 J. Keble to J. E. Tyler, 4 Sept. 1816, Oriel College Library, Oxford, letters and other papers, vol. x, 992.
23 Ibid. Keble was further impressed by Ryder's energy in promoting National Society schools in his diocese.
24 Josiah Thomas, An address to a meeting holden in the town hall, in the city of Bath, under the presidency of the hon. and rt. rev the lord bishop of Gloucester on Monday, the 1st day of December, 1817; for the purpose of forming a Church Missionary Society in that city; word for word as delivered from writing with a protest against the establishment of such a society in Bath, 4th edn, Bath 1818; ‘Address from the committee of the Bath association’ (this was printed in the Bath papers and reproduced elsewhere including the Sheffield-based Iris, 13 Jan. 1818).
25 Josiah Thomas to H. H. Norris, 22 Dec. 1817, Bodl. Lib., ms Eng. Lett. C.789, fos 93–4. For provincial newspaper coverage and correspondence see, for example, Macclesfield Courier, 10 Jan. 1818; Chester Chronicle, 9 Jan. 1818; and Shrewsbury Chronicle, 16 Jan. 1818.
26 The minister of St John's Chapel, Bedford Row, in London, Daniel Wilson, was subsequently the incumbent of Islington and in 1832 was appointed as bishop of Calcutta: ODNB, s.v.
27 See, for example, The British Critic ix (1818), 450–69, and the British Review and London Critical Journal xi (1818), 452–78.
28 Thomas, Address, 5; Daniel Wilson, A defence of the Church Missionary Society against the objections of the Rev Josiah Thomas MA archdeacon of Bath, 6th edn, London 1818, 22, 32.
29 See, for example, A friend to consistency, Free thoughts on the Bath Missionary Society and on the address to that assembly by the Rev Josiah Thomas, A.M. archdeacon of Bath, London, 1818, 12, and William Baily Whitehead, A letter to the Rev Daniel Wilson, A.M. minister of St John's chapel, Bedford-Row, London, in reply to his defence of the Church Missionary Society, and in vindication of the rev the archdeacon of Bath, against the censures contained in that publication, 4th edn, London 1818, 32–4.
30 Thomas, Address, 6–7.
31 Thomas to Norris, 15, 22 Dec. 1817, Bodl. Lib., ms Eng. Lett. C.789, fos 91–4. Wisely, Richard Beadon, the elderly bishop of Bath and Wells, refrained from public comment throughout the controversy.
32 A second protestor, A second protest against the Church Missionary Society addressed to Lord James O'Brien, chairman to the committee of the Bath Missionary Association, London 1818, 12.
33 Thomas, Address, 2–3.
34 Wilson, Defence, 12–13.
35 Ibid. 14.
36 Peter Clark, British clubs and societies, 1580–1800, Oxford 2000, 470.
37 John Henry Newman, Apologia pro vita sua, London 1864, 109.
38 William K. Lowther Clarke, A history of the SPCK, London 1959, 141–6; Report of the proceedings of the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, London 1811–12; Herbert Marsh, The national religion the foundation of national education: a sermon preached in the cathedral church of St Paul, London on Thursday June 13 1811, London 1811, 45.
39 S. Goodenough to Norris 13 Dec. 1817, Bodl. Lib., ms Eng. Lett. c.789, fos 87–8.
40 Richard Lloyd, Strictures on a recent publication entitled ‘The church her own enemy’ to which are added a refutation of the arguments contained in the Rev Edward Cooper's letter to the author; and an admonitory address to the female sex, London 1819, 114.
41 Josiah Thomas, Real charity and popular charity a discourse delivered in Charterhouse chapel, London on Friday, the 12th of December 1818, being founders day, Bath 1819, 18.
42 Idem, Address, 12.
43 Ibid. 5–6.
44 Anon., A reply to Mr Wilson's defence of the Church Missionary Society, Norwich 1818, 47–9.
45 Anon., Observations on Mr Daniel Wilson's defence of the Church Missionary Society, against the objections of the Rev Josiah Thomas, archdeacon of Bath, London 1818, 28.
46 Whitehead, Letter, 29–30.
47 Ibid. 32.
48 T. Sikes to Norris, 22 Dec. 1812, Bodl. Lib., ms Eng. Lett. c.789, fos 38–9.
49 R. Churton to T. Burgess, 16 Apr. 1811, ibid. c.134, fos 9–12.
50 Pileus Quadratus, Observations on the defence of the Church Missionary Society against the objections of the archdeacon of Bath, Oxford 1818, 13–24; Philalethes, Three points of imputation against the clergy considered and refuted: in reference to the protest of the rev archdeacon Thomas, against the proceedings of the Church Missionary Society, London 1818, 14–20.
51 John Randolph to Thomas Lambard, 5 Aug. 1799, Bodl. Lib., ms Top Oxon d.353/4, fos 74–5.
52 See, for example, Henry Cox to J. Pratt, 1 Jan. 1818, CMS Archives, Birmingham University Library, G/AC/3, box Jan.–Apr. 1818.
53 J. East to E. Bickersteth, 7 Feb 1818, ibid.
54 J. Richards to Pratt, 16 Jan. 1818; W. C. Wilson to Pratt, 16 Jan. 1818; J. Dixon to Pratt 17 Jan. 1818, ibid.
55 Church Missionary Society for Africa and the East report of the committee, London 1815, 701; Church Missionary Society for Africa and the East report of the committee, London, 1818, 55.
56 J. D. Macbride to Pratt, 3 Jan. 1818; W. Morgan to D. Morgan 11 Mar. 1818; and R. J. Thompson to D. Wilson, 28 Feb. 1818, CMS Archives, G/AC/3, box Jan.–Apr. 1818.
57 Arthur Burns, The diocesan revival in the Church of England, c. 1800–1870, Oxford 1999.
58 See, for example, Church Missionary Society for Africa and the East (1815), 533.