The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-03-25
Whitney & marsh, Id Whitney &IMarsh, Id


Bishop of New York is contrary to the
report of the Committee of the Lambeth
Conference in 1867 dealing with such mat
tiers. Again, he offers to provide for
episcopal duty in the Islands if Bishop
Willis withdraws, but he says nothing of
making up for the grants to the English,
American and Chinese clergy, from
whom the S. P. G.. has withdrawn e4OO
2 year. The mission may, therefore, go
TO pieces, and a bishop 1000 miles away
will supervise the ruins There is no
property of the Church of England in the
Islands to be transferred: il is held by
the corporation of the Anglican Church
in Hawaii. That which does or did be-
long to the Church of England is the
metropolitan authority of the Church of
England over the See of Honolulu Did
this authority pass ipso facto in annexa-
ton, or was a formal cession required ?
1t would appear to be a plain duty of
the Standing Committee of the S. Z. G.,
as the accredited organ of the Episco-
pate to ascertain whether or no the
Archbishop of Canterbury has ceded his
metropolitical authority over the See OF
Honolulu, and to notify the Bishop OF
Honolulu accordingly 5"
From this brief abstract of the some
what voluminous printed and written de-
bate which has already taken place, it
will be seen that this subject can hardly
be ignored in the coming General Con-
vention. Nor ought it to be. Matters OF
such serious Importance ought not to be
settled in a corner nor by any private or
personal authority. They ought to be
done openly, and with such manifest
conformity to constitutional catholic law
that no bad presidents may be establish
ed for the future misleading of the
Church. And we are confident that all
| 4 u
sonally with this matter would desire
it to be finally settled in that way, and
in that way only.
The danger, as We have already said,
is this, that matters of merely local and
temporary significance may be allowed
to obscure greater matters of fundamen-
tai Importance. We desire. then. to sub
nit to the consideration of our readers
and the Church the following as the fun
damental points to be determined:
in the founding of the See of Homo
lulu, there were only two parties. the
Church of England, represented by, and
acting through, it's chief Metropolitan,
the Archbishop of Canterbury. and the
Bishop of Honolulu. Afterwards, as the
work of the Church increased and the
See itself became more and more WIS.,
ible entity, that See acquired certain
corporate ecclesiastical rights which no
external power has any right to take
away. Thus, before the Islands became
a part of the territory of the United
States, there We're really three parties
in interest: the Church of England, rep
resented by the Metropolitan; the Bish-
op OF Honolulu; and the See of Homo
lulu.
What was the effect of the acquisition
of the Sandwich Islands by the United
States? Did that change of civil juris-
diction ipso facto GUST the Archbishop of
Canterbury from his metropolitan au-
thority in those Islands? Did it ipso fac
to transfer the ecclesiastical allegiance
of Bishop Willis from the Church of
England to the Church in the United
States? Did it ipso facto subject the
See of Honolulu to the jurisdiction of the
American Church? We submit that each
and every one of these three questions
must be answered in the negative. 1t
may be true and It doubtless is true,
that, when the territory in which see
is situated is permanently attached to a
different national jurisdiction from that
under which il has previously existed,
the ecclesiastical jurisdiction ought to
follow the civil. But changes of eccle-
siastical allegiance are not effected ipso
facto by changes of temporal sovereignty
which. as history shows, may be caused
by cruel wrong or causeless rebellion as
often as by just and peaceful acquisi-
ways be rights of various kinds to be
respected; and in this case these rights
are of a three-fold character.
l. 1t is needless to argue that the met
ropolitical authority of the Archbishop
of Canterbury ought in some way to be
renowned; for, until IL is in some way
withdrawn, the Bishop and his See
along with him, will continue to be bound
by their settled ecclesiastical allegiance.
2. Again, the Bishop of Honolulu is
fully possessed of all the rights of per-
manent jurisdiction which belong to the
one of those rights can he be lawfully
despoiled because of any change in the
temporal status of the Sandwich Islands.
3. Again, the See of Honolulu after so
many years continuous existence, is an
entity that cannot be ignored When II
is transferred to the jurisdiction OF the
OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES Church, that trans
fer ought to be made on conditions sat
isfactory to the See of Honolulu. If, for
example it's present status is that of an
should be disposed TO question the right
Of the Church in the United States to
reduce it, without its own consent, TO
the status of a missionary Jurisdiction.
These, then. are the three matters to
there doubtless are, peculiar difficulties
to be removed or avoided; but in so far
as these difficulties are of a personal
character, they ought by all means to
be kept out of the field of public dis
cussion.
l. With the Archbishop Of Canterbury