in whom all the history of Israel found its explanation for whom ancient prophets and seers had longed, who fulfilled all the teachings of type and shadow. The High Priest of Israel confronts the Hope of Israel and delivers Him over to the death.
Cody’s sermon on the role of “the people” (Matthew 27:22–25) throws light on his political philosophy. He thought of “the people” as the essential basis for governments, but also believed they were often ignorant, could be swayed, and were very dependent on leaders. In general he disliked “demagogues.” He said that change for its own sake was not necessarily good. He appealed to men of principle to give good leadership. Individuals should stand out against the mob, since public opinion can be wrong if it is not based on principle.
The whole Lenten series was an exercise in vivid narrative, but Cody’s purpose was to apply the story to the needs of his immediate audience. He usually did this toward the end of a sermon, but in this case it was in his introduction: “And that same story is a present reality. We must judge ourselves now as before the all seeing eye of Him with whom we have to do. Ask yourselves such questions of judgment as these: am I crucifying the Son of God afresh? Would my aims and opinions bring Jesus to Calvary if He were on earth again? Would my thoughts of Him differ from those of the ordinary men of His own day? Would I be brave enough to break the bonds of tradition, and have heart enough to recognize and follow the truth?”
As a minister Cody took on a load of activity that would have worn out many men. In the same year as his appointment at St. Paul’s, he joined the staff of Wycliffe as professor in “The Literature and Exegesis of the Old Testament” and in “Ecclesiastical History”; he was also assistant chaplain at the college from July 1, 1893. He lived at Wycliffe until his marriage in 1894.
Cody was one of the three Wycliffe professors who led Anglican evangelical thinking in Toronto. The others were Sheraton and Dyson Hague. Hague, one of the younger evangelicals, was destined to have a long career at Wycliffe and in various churches in the dioceses of Ontario, Nova Scotia, Huron, and Toronto. His special field was liturgies. A very forthright, at times tactless, man, he was especially vigorous in his Protestantism. In his book The Protestantism of the Prayer Book (1890), he claimed that the Prayer Book was “the great stumbling-block in the way of Romanizers.”5
Sheraton was the dominant personality of the three. An older and more established personality than the other two, he set the tone and put forward the ideas all three proclaimed. He believed in the inspiration and authority of Scripture.6 He regarded the Bible as the result of divine and human cooperation and repudiated the idea of “errancy” except in the sense that there were imperfect manuscripts and errors in translation. He maintained that there were no “errors” in the original text.
Cody was popular as a teacher. He was a brilliant lecturer in church history and Old Testament studies (his two courses prior to 1906). When he retired from teaching in 1916, one of his students, W.T. Hallam, wrote, “As I have told you on other occasions, your Church History and Old Testament lectures gave me more help than any others.” W.C. White, another old student, asserted that he would always remember his charm of manner, his lucid expositions couched in beautiful phraseology, and the brilliancy of his mind. To be sure they were Cody’s favourite students, but their testimony, while perhaps a bit glowing, was not unmerited.7
With respect to Old Testament studies Cody could be described as a moderate conservative. This was the period when controversy raged over the authorship of the Pentateuch, Moses or the post-Babylonian writers. Hallam said that Cody was a stabilizing influence in this controversy, meaning that while Cody adhered to Sheraton’s belief in a Mosaic authorship, he was prepared to discuss the opposing view. This was a technique not shared by some of his evangelical associates.
One gets a glimpse of Cody’s approach in the notes one of his students, C.K. Masters (father of the author), took on the authorship of the Pentateuch: “Vide Driver’s Introduction which gives the case for the late date ... Prof. Cody thinks such reconstruction an irresponsible reconstruction. Practical difficulty = the difficulty of saving the moral character of the writer. It is not so that people issued books under other people’s names. Here is a crucial point that it came from Moses. If it did not and came from them [the post exilic writers] then they were frauds.”8 Cody’s lectures, like his sermons, were based on the same premise: he always took the Bible at face value.
Cody’s own lecture notes indicate how conservative his position was in regard to the Scriptures. While many critics maintained that the book of Isaiah had several authors, Cody favoured the view that there was only one Isaiah: “Without second part of book Isaiah’s character would be a puzzle, second part simply completes and vindicates Isaiah’s character.” He regarded the events in Jonah as “within the bounds of possibility.”9
Cody’s church history lectures indicate that he was a moderate Calvinist.10 Like other reformed theologians he did not quarrel with Calvin’s emphasis on the sovereignty of God or on the sinfulness of man and the doctrine of election. Like most Anglican Calvinists Cody stressed the positive side of Calvinism – salvation by God’s grace. He did not dwell on its negative side, the condemnation of the wicked. Cody claimed that Calvin had much in common with the Anglican Church and that his sacramentarian doctrine was “the same as our own” (a view that would have surprised some of Cody’s high church friends). He added that Calvin “thought episcopacy most ancient but not practicable for local circumstances of Geneva.”
Cody was more critical of Calvin’s conduct at Geneva than he was of his theology, maintaining that in his vigorous enforcement of moral and religious discipline, he had shown “no deep conception of liberty of conscience.” Cody said the Church at Geneva made two mistakes: (1) it carried the attempt to enforce its laws to such as extent “as unwarrantably to curtail liberty”; and (2) its power of coercion “subverted all liberty of private judgment.” Yet, in exculpation of Calvin, he said that “stern measures were necessary.”
For obvious reasons, Cody disliked Archbishop Laud, the great exponent of the doctrine of free will (Arminianism) in the Anglican Church. Masters’s notes reported: “Laud held steadily to his purpose of purging the church of Calvinism and puritanism.” It was not a policy of which Cody could approve.
Cody’s lecture notes, particularly those on systematic theology, indicate how very Pauline his theology was. He laid tremendous emphasis on the grace of God. By God’s grace the Christian committed his or her life to Christ. By God’s grace the Christian was justified in the eyes of God. The Christian’s sins were forgiven – that is, through the sacrifice of Jesus, God’s son, they were not imputed or counted against him or her. The Christian became righteous in God’s eyes and transformed through the work of the Holy Spirit, Christ-centred instead of self-centred, with a new relationship to others. The Christian would still have to contend against sin, but through God’s grace the Holy Spirit would enable steady improvement. The Christian was “sanctified” – that is, set apart and strengthened in the fight against sin.
Cody’s view of the Church was conservative. He drew the distinction made by Calvin and many others between the invisible church (“the blessed company of all faithful people”) and the visible church, which contained many believers but also many spurious “Christians.” He did not favour the efforts of some, such as the Plymouth Brethren, to include only known believers in the visible church.
Cody’s view of the ministry was similar to that of other Anglican evangelicals. He regarded the ministry as related to the bene esse, the well-being, of the church; but he was not prepared to say that a Christian denomination that had no ministry was not a proper church. He regarded bishops as enhancing the bene esse but not essential to the esse of the church. He thought that the early Apostles could have no successors. They were witnesses of the Resurrection and endowed with miraculous powers attesting their commission. The Apostles as governors of the church could be said to have successors, but only in a loose sense, “but the Bishops are not successors of the Apostles in the sense that their office is identical or a prolongation of the apostolate.”11 So much for the idea of Apostolic succession.
Cody deplored the fact that the scriptural concept