The Hawaiian gazette. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu, Hawaii]) 1865-1918, 1901-01-29
Anglican ChurChmanOu
The 1--we Question.
RIGHTS Of THE PatLATt
Is HswIii IN Inotpenc,nt Sc or
Mercy an Ordinary
D,Oc-.e2

blSHOp OF liOHOIulu On tne QUESTION VI
the transfer of this Diocese to me AMER
can Church. 1t is not. however. dto-
gether impregnable.
The Bishop bases his argument chieny
on ecclesiastical principle, primitive usage
and precedent.
He seeks to show that a See once
founded by the Catholic Chu, CHI, may
not be permitted to become extinct, and
that It's Bishop may not be removed OF
disturbed in the exercise of his r.piscO-
pal Jurisdiction therein. and that lnere-
lore, in the absorption of TINS MISSION by
the American Church. 1t Is obligatory on
that church not only to perpeLuate the
see but to preserve it's integ.ity.
Whine, no uoubt, 1t Is true that II has
not been the practice Of the Lalho.Ic
Church to Dissolve Sees, nor yet to re-
move or disturb the Bishops IN such
sees, yet no evidence can he brought TO
bear in support of the argument mat Ii
See may not be dissolved. # II should be
considered necessary by the church; nor
yet tat u Bishop Is 50 ilrevocably hXed
to his See that its integrity must be
preserved for the Bishops benent. 1t
would be no argument to say that a See
may not he dissolved. because II has not
been the pracuce OF the Catholic Church
policy on the part of any institution to
create office that might not be L s.
solved, If changing conditions should rem
der its existence menace to the lie of
| the enterprise
! Owing to the weakness of this Diocese
a resident Bishop is not really necessary,
at present at least, and since the Amerl-
can Church has not the advantage OF an
S. +. G.. for n "handmaid." 1t is not prob
able that the Mission Board would feel
justified, under the circumstances, In
making so Large a grant of mission funds
as would be necessary to maintain one
The Bishop of Honolulu takes exception
to the Bishop of New York and the sec
rotary of the S. p. G. referring to his
Diocese as the Church work in Homo
lulu" and at the manner it is proposed
20 deal with his Diocese and his rights.
Has his Lordship good ground for so do
ing?
The Bishop. unquestionably, has certain
rights in this Diocese. which will, no
doubt, be respected by the American
Church: but the value of those rights
must not be overestimated.
! 1t should be remembered, and 1t may
not be generally known. that the Bishop
of Honolulu has never had authority
given HIM by the Church OF England to
excl else Episcopal Jurisdiction over all
churchmen in these Islands. but only ov-
tons and assent to his authority. He
star ds on quite different footing from
ordinary Bishops In ordinary cases a
Bishops jurisdiction covers all the Epls-
copal residents within the geographical
boundaries of his Diocese, but England
has not granted this authority to the
Bishop of Honolulu, because she had no
power to confer upon a Bishop. in for
eign country, any Jurisdiction or author
ity over any persons. against their will.
Therefore the Bishops flock here con-
ststs only of those persons wishing for
his min STATIONS and asserting to his au-
thority.
Since 1864 the British Government has
discontinued the issue of letters patent to
Bishops in countries or colonies possess
ed of an Independent Legislature.
The Constitution of tho Anglican
Church in Hawaii. as well as the voice
OF the Prlvy Council in England. pro-
claims this Church to be a voluntary as
ISOLATION; and although on the first ar
rival of n Bishop here, all those persons
who wished for the mnistrations of the
Church of England gave assent to the
Bishops jurisdiction, by implication, since
that time many have withdrawn their al
loEancc, some have associated them
selves with other religious bodies, some
have not, and have attended no place OF
wor ship, while there are many others
& .ance in favor of an American Bishop.
For argument sake say that only one
half of the Episcopalians here voluntar-
lily accept the ministrations of the Bishop
OF Honolulu and assent to his authority,
1t is clear that the other half are with
out Episcopal oversight and are as sheep
without a shepherd. Therefore only one
half this missionary Jurisdiction can be
claimed by the Bishop as his, since his
jurisdiction covers but one-half OF its
church residents. 1t is clear then that
he Bishops Jurisdiction and authority is
limited to those persons who remain loyal
TO his authority, and should there be
none loyal, the Bishop would be without
a Diocese, although occupying the See,
while the people would be without Epis-
copal ministrations. This would appear
to be anomalous but II cannot be denied.
Can 1t be argued then, that the status
OF the Bishop of Honolulu or of this
mission is such as to entitle either him
or 1t to those rights properly belonging :
10 ordinary doceses?
II may be said. and with apparent JUS
tee, that II the people refuse the minis
.rations OF the Bishop provided by Eng !
and they should forfeit their right to 7
Episcopal ministratons. But England has /
;lven them the choice and they are sure. :.
Y justified in taking H. There have !.
leen many persons who would not con- l
r TO receive confirmation at the hands ;
4 Ne Bishop OF Honolulu. and parents 8
NJ. would not permit their children TO
IL 70. Is II In accordance with the in
ention OF the Church OF England that
UGH persons should forfeit their Church /,
rlvilep 81? A whole Church does .Iot be-
ONE Unaffected without a cause, and, ,
sually, q good one. :
II must be remembered, too, that al ,
hough people may be led In Church mat
ers, they Will not bear being driven. rho ,
'hurch II for the people and not wee
eTsa. Her office Is To gather her chill ,
ren together by cords OF love rather
han scatter them through unnecessary
arshncss.
The weak point IN the Bishops arRu-
nent would appear 10 be that he claims ,
his a. ssion 10 be an independent church, ,
md fur the Bishop OF Honolulu the same ,
.uthor iy and Episcopal Jurisdiction over