APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. TO THE EDITOR.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 11089, 16 April 1898, Page 3

APOSTOLIC SUCCESSION. TO THE EDITOR.

. Sir,—Out of : the many misstatements which Dr Watt makes iv his lecture ou . " Apostolic Succession" I will note only fcsvo afc present hopiDg that abler psns than mine will daal with the rest. ' " ' . ■ First—WiU Dr Watt kindly g W e us bis reasons for stating that either 'the Anglican Church ol- members of it: asked, the Poce any question about our orders ? This calumcv lias been often repeated both by Papists and Protestants, but it has not the^ slightest foundation. The Anglican* Church is-satisfied as to the yalidity,of her. orders without the Pope's j decision one way or other. The inquiry made ;by the Pope was made by the express purpose \of condemning Anglicau ordnrs because the Pope was afraid the Galliaa^ Church was learning too much about them and becoming assured of their validity. ; Second—Do?s Dr Watt know that the ques-' tion of Leo XIII's succesßion as Pone depends , upon thevaliditv of his election—the question 1 of Bishop jSTevill's succession - as bißhop depends | upon his due consecration ? i,eo Klll'i papacy' | is'alinb in a chaia supposed to be hung otf'Sb' [ Peter, but with three bitrgaps in it, and no book :- !*t tho end. • Bishop Nevili's episcopacy is & j link in a woven network, each of whose links is attached to its neighbours by three or more other liakg. To compare the two positions t shows an utter ignorance of the papal system j and .of the Catholic Church regarding episcoi parcongecration.-^I am, &e.j ■'■.-? .':■ J Kive'rton, April 13." M. W. B. ' I '. ,' TO THE EDITOR.-. .'■ ' | Sir,—All who cherish a sincere love for the unadulterated Christianity of the NawTestamentniust fael grateful.tp the Rev!,Dr,Watt for his1 masterly exposure .of\thej,biseleis'clairn • to spostolib succession. inacje". by the Church of Kome and.its Umf shaobw—the Hi'eh Church" section of ■ tHe ChVrch of Bngla'na. Though all niyjlife a-niember ofthe latter churchl-havs1 always, ■since -I could reason -for'myself' regarded its-;polity of a threefold ministry as a merely ■ human Gbntrivance which, ithoogh possessing merit-of. convenient, chorch gdvernment,,,has no Scriptural authority, and certainly confers no title .whatever to 'the arrogant; lordship over God's heritage, assumed not onlr by the priesthood of: the: Rbmijn' Church'but b? come of those in.the Church of"' ■England-;;';.r. believe it is generally admitted that; the doctrine in question is not; to" be ! found directly or i'hferentially in the New Testament; ■and profoiiud theologians, such as the late Professor'Jowett; and others; i have conclusively ~ demonstrated that until.: .after the, second century, of the Christian era it ha.d.,no existence-iiupraetice or-theorv.' rlthas. »1 ways appeared; to me a • stark absurdityj .to make-the efficacy, of; priestly .minigtica- | tion..' depend upon the continuity r from ■ the time of the ~ Apostleg . . downwards of the, chain of bishops: ' on' episcopal hands (and 'rion'e. of the cleanest in" the daysi of the' infamous Borgias) were laicl'by way of eoiisecration. Apart from'the ■fac6"th"afc" according to learned historians thsl;' chaih: was brok'ea-ages.ago, it-is surely revolting.tosreaso" and common,sense to.bft asked to believe thai the.spiritual beueSts cf the Christian religion are to,: be sought oulyin the ? narrow;.ohann-el of a ■_ line of. priesthood claiming, miraculous spiritrial.:descent, ob the. flirasy fouadatiou of the laxifag-onvpl, a bishop's.hands.—l am, '.&e'.'^ ■".. ; ■ .^;,^;i ,in '-^..':.; ■ t ',y;.,*.^.yox;'""