The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1856-1888, 1875-04-03

efforts are made. and persisted in; although the
reason Of the course pursued by the Church has
been amply explained TO them.
eve should continue TO treat their efforts with the
silence they deserve, If We could be assured that all
cur members were too old to be caught with chat.
But We are informed that this continual dropping is
wearing into some minds, which ought to rest as
sured that the order complained Of does not proceed
from the arbitrary choice of an individual Bishop,
but is matter Of principle, and rests on the prece-
dents Of that Church Of which the Anglican Church
in Hawaii is an ofshOot. II is for those who are
thus in doubt that we write, believing that they have
perception enough to understand 3 reason when it
is pat before them. We do not attempt the hopeless
task Of trying to convince those. who have resolved
beforehand that they win not be convinced.
Now, it is alleged that inasmnch as by Royal
Proclamation, Prince LeleiOhOku is heir to the
Throne Of His Majesty King Kalakaua, and takes
precedence Of all other persons IN the Kingdom, that
therefore his name should be mentioned first in the
prayer for the Royal Family, and the order should
be-Prince Leleiohoku, Queen KapiOlani, Emma,
Queen DoWAger.
Now it may be presumed that q Church which has
grown up for more than a thousand years under the
shadow Of, and in connection with Sovereignty would
not be guilty Of any breach Of loyalty in the public
authorised services of religion; and if it can be shown
that the course followed by the Church in Hawaii is
parallel to the course followed by the Church of Eng
and in q similar case, even if the reason for that course
remains unexplained, it may yet be assumed that what
is not disloyal in England is not disloyal in Hawaii.
The Prince Leleiohoku stands in the same relation to
the King Of Hawaii, as the Prince Of Wales stands to
the Sovereign of Great Britain. But yet as long as
the Prince Consort was living, his name was printed
in the Prsyerbooks before that of the Prince Of
Wales, and the name Of the Relict of William "
was printed before them both. Did the Church i'm
ply by this arrangement that she was at variance
with the State in her estimation Of the respective
rank of the Prince Consort and the Prince of Walesi
And in praying for an Aunt Of Queen Victoria be-
fore her Consort and Son, was any 6~isrespect shown
to her Majesty, and her House7 Any one who will
refer to q Prayerbook published early in her Maj
esty's reign will find that the names stood thus -
Adelaide, Queen DoWager, Prince Albert, the Prince
of Wales. And this order was not the arbitrary
choice Of the Archbishop Of Canterbury, but had
the authority of the Queen in Council. What higher
precedent is needed for the course which has been
followed by the Anglican Church in Hawaii
but why is this order followed? Because il is
the natural order, the order in which God has placed
them in the Family. In pleading for the Royal
House before our FATHER IN HEAVEN, the Church
does not look to the earthly rank, or nearness to the
Throne which each holds in the family, but to the
family order, and so prays for the elder generation
before the younger, mentioning the widow of the
deceased monarch before the Queen of the reigning
Sovereign, and the Queen before the Heir to the
Throne. A change Of dynasty does not alter this
arrangement. The Royal Family is still regarded as
one, and the claims which the Queen Dowager would
have on the prayers of the Church. If the successor
to the Throne were of the same House as the deceased
monarch, remain the same, when a King of another
lineage is elected to succeed.
"The reply Of the Anglican Church to those who
demand that she shall ignore the example of the
mother Church, and adopt some insular custom for
which no precedent exists is this-'If any man seem
to be contentious, we have no such custom, neither
the Churches Of God"