THIS is an affair which chiefly concerns the Episcopal Church of England, but it has received widespread attention in the press, other denominations, no doubt, being to some extent involved in it. It appears that a movement has been going on in British East Africa with a view to get various missionary societies, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Wesleyan, etc., to co-operate with one another. The Bishops of Bombasa and Uganda have taken a prominent part in this movement, and a printed pamphlet entitled “Proposed Scheme of Federation of Missionary Societies working in British East Africa” was published in Bombasa in June, 1913. It further appears that on the closing day of a conference, at which the proposed scheme was drawn up, the Communion was dispensed in a Presbyterian Church at Kikuyu, by the Bishop of Bombasa, with the assistance of the Bishop of Uganda, to a number of members of various Protestant bodies, as an outward sign of unity in essentials. Now, it seems that these proceedings have been looked upon with strong disapproval by another bishop in that quarter, the Bishop of Zanzibar, so much so that he wrote home to the Archbishop of Canterbury, charging these other bishops with “the grievous faults of propagating heresy and committing schism.” He maintains that “the very existence” of the Protestant bodies referred to “is hostile to Christ’s holy Church,” and that the teachings and actions of the Bishops of Bombasa and Uganda should be “declared contrary to the faith of the Catholic Church and to her practices,” and “be utterly repudiated and forbidden, lest the witness of the Church be falsified and a multitude perish from the Way of Truth.” He implores the Archbishop of Canterbury to obtain from the offending bishops “a complete and categorical recantation of the errors which they have taught in word and action, or failing that,” that a day of trial be appointed in England on which they and he may appear.
The English Churchman, of 12th February, contains the Archbishop’s decision on the matter. He refuses to allow any inquiry in the form of a trial for heresy and schism, but considers that the whole business ought to be referred to a “Central Consultation Body” of Bishops, representing the Church at home and abroad, to ascertain whether “any thing which has been done contravenes the laws and principles of the Church of England.” He expects this “Body” to meet some time in the coming summer.
As to personal comment on this controversy, we find some difficulty, owing to the mixed-up character of the business. Let us note, however, a few points. In the first place, it is perfectly plain that the Bishop of Zanzibar is a High Church Ritualist of strongly Romish proclivities, who un-churches every Protestant denomination outside the Church of England, and has far more sympathy with the Roman Catholic Church than with any body of dissenters. The very existence of nonconformist bodies he regards as “hostile to Christ’s Church,” identifying Christ’s Church with a certain form of outward organisation — the Episcopal type.
In the second place, we find that the Low Church party, or Evangelical section of the English Church, are fully convinced that the Bishops of Bombasa and Uganda have done nothing against the true laws and principles of the Church of England in administering the Communion in the Episcopal manner to dissenters, on the basis of the proposed federation, namely, “The loyal acceptance of the Holy Scriptures as our supreme rule of faith and practice, and of the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds as a general expression of fundamental Christian belief.” They in fact consider that the Bishop of Zanzibar is himself deserving of being prosecuted for the erroneous views he entertains of the Church.
Thirdly, these things lead us to the conclusion that so far as the principles of the English Church are concerned, the Bishops of Bombasa and Uganda have acted within their rights in what they have done, and that no sympathy whatever should be entertained for the Bishop of Zanzibar in his views and accusations. But, fourthly, on the other hand, we stand in doubt as to the wisdom of these special or extraordinary Communions. There is too much regard to the fellowship of the creature, and too little regard to the fellowship of Christ in them. Further, we do not think that the basis of fellowship in the present case is definite enough as to the infallible authority of the Holy Scriptures. The present writer also regards a deliberate Communion after the manner described of representatives of various bodies, which differ in very important points of doctrine and worship, as a proceeding that tends to underestimate and obliterate important Scriptural distinctions between the true and the false. In one word, there is too much exclusive Popery with the Bishop of Zanzibar, and too much latitudinarianism or breadth with the other parties, especially the Presbyterians and the Wesleyans.
J. S. S.
“WHAT love you did bear to friends now dead—they stand now in no need of it—let it fall as a just legacy to Christ.”—Rutherford.
Jan 30. 15. mat 23. 37 THE Rev. John Brown, of Haddington, addressed this exhortation to his sons in the ministry with his dying breath: “O labour, labour to win souls to Christ! I will say this for your encouragement: that whenever the Lord has led me out to be most diligent this way, He has poured most comfort into my heart, and given me my reward in my bosom. But He is our example whose life, as well as lips, said to all His disciples, ‘Work while it is day, for the night cometh when no man can work.'”