Episcopal Fidelity

As believers in the Divine origin of Christianity, we assume that there was revealed to the Apostles a body of religious truth, definite, complete, unchangeable.

In the pastoral Epistles this distinctive body of truth is frequently referred to, as ‘the pattern of sound words’ (2 Tim. i. 13), ‘the sound (healthful) doctrine’ (1 Tim. i. 10; 2 Tim. iv. 3; Tit ii. 1), ‘the doctrine which is according to godliness’ (1 Tim. vi. 3), ‘the gospel of the glory of the blessed God’ (1 Tim. i. 11), ‘the good deposit’ (1 Tim. vi. 20; 2 Tim. i. 14); ἡ πίστις, τὸ χήρυγμα, according to the gloss of Chrysostom; Catholicæ fidei talentum.

Of this body of truth, Divine in its origin, and invested with Divine authority, two things may be predicated; first, that it is unchanged and unchangeable; secondly, that it is embodied in the Articles and Formularies of the Church of England.

It may be allowed that in all ages change has been the law of human affairs. But it is a mistake to associate this law of change with the central truths of Christianity; and for this reason, that Christianity is founded upon facts, upon events that have actually taken place; and if these facts are incapable of change, then are the doctrines which are founded upon them incapable of change also. Men may seek to sweep away the objective reality of Christianity; but, failing as they do in this, then inasmuch as the facts upon which Christianity reposes have been already wrought, and cannot be undone, the Gospel which we preach partakes of the immutability of those facts, and is alike unchangeable.

Equally certain is it, that the great Christian truths which were held in apostolic and primitive days, are identical with those which are embodied in the teaching of the Church of England.

True indeed we are liable to attack. We are met on the one side by the champions of scientific scepticism, and on the other, by the adherents of modern Rome; the one seeking to destroy the historical basis of our faith, the other to press upon us conclusions for which we find no warrant in God’s written word.

It would seem, however, that as the science of attack developes itself, the science of defence receives from unexpected quarters fresh accessions of strength.

If modern research tends to show that some portions of the outworks of Christianity are less strong than had been supposed, it proves with rigorous precision that the fortress itself is impregnable. Every ruin that is uncovered, every site that is identified, every inscription that is deciphered, confirms the historical veracity of the sacred writers. The Bible is made an object of ridicule, and the very stones cry out in condemnation; the statements of inspiration are denied, and witness after witness rises up to prove them; the voices of eager sceptics proclaim the overthrow of revelation, and there come to us from across those Eastern plains such voices from the buried past as prove their boast to be vain.

Nor is it only when arguing with the sceptic that we claim the testimony of modern research; we call the same witness to our aid when dealing with the errors of Rome and her imitators.

The most important of recent discoveries in the domain of early Christian literature is that made by the Greek Bishop Briennios in the library of the Holy Sepulchre in Constantinople.

The lost fragment of the Epistle of Clement is thus recovered, and with the aid of a recently discovered version of the name Epistle, learned men can now restore almost in its entirety the most venerable of uninspired Christian writings. {9}

Read that Epistle, and you find that it teaches plainly the doctrines of the Trinity, the Atonement, Justification by faith, and other distinctive doctrines of our Church. It is important for what it teaches; but it is almost equally important for what it does not teach. Silence is sometimes more eloquent than words; and certainly the fact that the Epistle of Clement is absolutely silent upon the prominent doctrines of modern Rome proves that those doctrines were unknown at the close of the first century. Is it possible that the doctrines of papal infallibility, transubstantiation, the sacrifice of the mass, the worship of the Virgin, and the like, could have existed in the days of Clement, and yet have been passed over by him in absolute silence? Whilst as regards those questions which agitate our own Church, the teaching of the epistle upon sacrifice, its freedom from sacerdotalism, the absence in it of all reference to priestly mediation and the confessional, strongly confirms the Protestant view of Christian faith and practice.

A sacred deposit of Christian truth existed then in the days of the apostles.

Timothy is solemnly charged to ‘preach’ it (2 Tim. iv. 1, 2); to ‘keep’ it (2 Tim. i. 14); to ‘hold it fast’ (v. 13); to guard it jealously against those who would tamper with its integrity, or substitute in its place the inventions of men. (1 Tim. i. 3; vi. 20.) Nor is he only to watch over it himself, he is to commit the teaching of it to trusty guardians: ‘The things which thou hast heard of me . . . the same commit thou to faithful men, who shall be able to teach others also.’ (2 Tim. ii. 2.)

If, then, the Christian bishop possesses a glorious heritage of Divine truth, a privilege indeed which he shares with the humblest believer, he assumes also a special responsibility. As ‘the steward of God,’ he is pledged in the fullest sense of the term to ‘give heed unto the doctrine.’

The principle thus set forth is a plain one; but the application of the principle in these modern times is attended with no common difficulties. Perhaps we may find some clue to their solution if we draw a distinction between a bishop’s own personal beliefs and acts, and the beliefs and acts of others; between the toleration which he extends to others, and the toleration which he metes out to himself.

Certainly in three of the chief functions of the episcopal office, in teaching, in ordaining, in promoting, the bishop may adhere, nay, he must adhere with the utmost rigour to what he believes to be the truth of God.

In his charges, in his sermons, in all his public and private utterances, he will speak with faithfulness and courage: he will give no needless offence; he will respect the conscientious opinions of those who differ from him; he will fully recognise the somewhat elastic boundaries of our national Church; but as far as he himself is concerned, he will keep back nothing that is profitable.

Never surely was it of greater importance that our bishops should speak out plainly and boldly, than it is at this moment. The public mind is anxious. The air is charged with the subtle electricity of rumour. Of rumour, do I say? Nay, do not unhealthy facts stare us in the face? Facts which tell of the active forces of infidelity on the one hand, and on the other, of the existence within our own borders of a strong anti-Protestant spirit, and an evident sympathy with the doctrines and practices of Rome.

Brethren, this country is a Protestant country, and it means to remain so. The Church of England is a Protestant church, and we of this generation, God willing, mean her to remain so. We respect the opinions of others; but we are not ashamed of our own; we would do violence to no man’s faith, but we protest against the action of those who, holding positions of authority within our reformed church, are seeking to undermine the citadel, if not to hand it over to the enemy at the gate.

There is need of vigilance, wisdom, fidelity, courage in our spiritual rulers: but they lead a willing people. Never, I believe, were the laity of our Church more ready to hearken to the clear, incisive proclamation of distinctive truth: never more willing to welcome the doctrine of a free, full present salvation: never more anxious to stand by their bishops, if their bishops stand by the pure truth of God.

But the bishop ordains as well as teaches.

The limits of the Church of England are confessedly wide:—it is well that they should be so. Even her limits, perhaps, are narrower than those of the apostolic church; the spirit of exclusion has prevailed over that of comprehension. Still she is at this moment, to her discredit some would hold, to her honour many believe, the most comprehensive church in Christendom. Limits however do exist. It may be difficult precisely to define them. Yet surely the denial of the fundamental verities of our creeds, or the persistent teaching of the peculiar doctrines of Rome are not consistent with honest English churchmanship; and if those who exercise their ministry in the Church of England are found in either of these extremes, the question will be asked, how did they gain entrance to that ministry? No doubt opinions may change, and often do change after ordination; but it should surely be the aim of him who ‘gives heed unto the doctrine,’ to detect the latent seeds of evil, as well as to note them when they reach maturity. And thus to guard the avenue to the ministerial office with a firm though tolerant hand.