"It is true that a king undertakes to be bound by the actions of his representatives. It is true also that we must humbly believe that Christ accepts as His own the actions of those who act on His behalf; otherwise what minister would ever venture to celebrate the Eucharist in the name of Christ? But this acceptance can never be unconditional. It depends on the minister being true to his trust, and acting only within the terms of his commission. Granted that the Bishop is the holder of a commission direct from Christ, and that ordinarily his actions in the Church may be accepted as the acts of Christ. What is to happen if the minister proves unfaithful, betrays his trust, and acts outside the terms of his commission? This is not a hypothetical case; it is one that has arisen time and again in the history of the Church. The answer of the Fathers is clear and unequivocal. The teaching of both Irenaeus and Cyprian is that if a bishop departs from the apostolic doctrine it is the duty of the Christian people to separate themselves from him. It is specially the duty of the Christian plebs, through its part in the election of bishops, to make sure that only fit and suitable persons should be chosen.... The bishop is by virtue of his consecration, indeed an alter Christus; but so is every Christian by virtue of his baptism; the whole Christian body is priestly, and cannot abandon or delegate finally to others its Christian responsibility. The bishop acts within the Church, and not for it. This is still the doctrine of the Orthodox Churches. In the remarkable synodical letter sent out by the Eastern patriarchs in 1824, the position of the whole Christian body as guardian of the faith is clearly set forth. No doctrine of the episcopate which disregards this element can be accepted as adequate or complete."
The Right Rev. Bishop Stephen Neill, M.A., The Ministry of the Church, Canterbury Press, 1947, pp. 16-17.
Comments