APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.

New Zealand Herald, Volume XXVI, Issue 9262, 16 January 1889, Page 6

APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION.

TO THE EDITOR. Sir,—Tho question of "Rescue Work and the Women's Home" is now, I think, fully and fairly bofore the public, and as a citizen, and not as a member of any denomination, I trust that tho Supreme Court will so adjudicate that the greatest good will eventuate; to this nothing further need be added. In the discussion, or rather in his original sub-loader, however, your writer made certain remarks with respect to the validity of the claim to Apostolic succession in the Anglican Church, and upon this side issue "Pollex" in your Saturday's number, has made certain statements which, 1 think, call for a brief reply. The facetious column of the weekly issue of the leading journal of an important colony like New' Zealand, which possesses its own independent provincial branch of the Anglican Church, seems hardly the place for a theological discussion ; still, the gauntlet having been there again thrown down, I feel that there is nothing for it but to take it up. In the first place let me say I am not about to lay any stress upon the value of the fact of the unbroken line of succession in the Church of England, nor am I going to decry the efficacy of any ministrations that neither possess, nor wish to possess, that succession ; I am simply proceeding to show the fallacy of " Pollex's" lino of argument, which strongly resembles that of the learned counsel for the alleged borrower of the lost kettle—Plea 1, never borrowed ; plea 2, nob cracked in defendant's possession ; plea 3, returned mended. "Pollex" says that (1) the line is not unbroken ; (2) that the line was so polluted that its life was lost, and at the Reformation the Church of England cut itself adrift from it ; and (3) that the vast mass of English Church people do not value it in the least. To these contentions I beg to say : —1. The validity has never been assailed, save at the alleged " Nag's Head" consecration, and this has been proved to be a pure fabrication. The line is therefore unbroken. 2. Any fault in doctrine or practice in any particular link in the succession does not invalidate the succession. If it did it would break it for every Church alike, and no Church would possess it at all. To use " Pollex's" own simile of a muddy conduit: When a person finds his watersupply befouled, he does nob start another pumping station, as "Pollex" suggests, but he cleans out the existing mains ; and that is precisely what the English Church did at the Reformation. I might suggest a still more practical simile than that of Pollex in the case of the succession to the English throne. When James the Second was deposed, another of the same line of succession took his place, and the

present Royal Family are of exactly the same descent as James, whose failings, though they excluded him, have by no means invalidated the succession of other members of the same line. The simile of the amputated limb and the wooden substitute would admirably represent the case of a new and spurious succession, but certainly not that of a continuity such as exists in the Church of England. 3. Such an assertion as this could not possibly be made by any English Churchman, or indeed any Englishman whatever, for any member of that Church or nationality who knows anything at all about the subject, is fully aware that the fact of the continuity of their Church and its ministry i 6 a thing very real and very dear to the bulk of English Churchmen. Permit me to conclude, as I began, by saying that I am simply arguing I as to fact, and not as to any resultant feel- | ing or action.l am, etc., V