The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1901-08-08
PRIEST answers BISHOP
UsBORNE REPLIES TO WILLIS
BULL"
A Full Statement of the Anglican
Church Controversy-Is an Appeal to
The American Church.

Rev. John osborne has just issued
another pamphlet in the long drawn
out controversy with Bishop Willis. 1t
is entitled, "a Refutation of the Charge
of Apostacy made by the Bishop of
Honolulu against the Rector of Homo
lulu and the Trustees of st. Clements s
Chapel, Honolulu"
While it contains much that has al
ready been published by Mr.. osborne,
it contains much not heretofore pub
lished, and is apparently complete
collation. of all or most of the cores
pondence between the Bishop and Mr..
Osborne and his co-trustees in st.
Clements, with such explanatory state
ments as give a complete view of the
controversy from Mr.. Usbornes stand
point.
The pamphlet is illustrated with
photo-engravings of the property of St
Clements as it appeared at various
times since il was first erected.
The pamphlet is called out by Bishop
Willis two official documents dated Fe-
bruary q, 1901, and March A, 1901, res
pectively, in which Rev. John osborne
is advertised to the Anglican commu-
nion as having separated himself from
the communion of the Anglican church
and made himself the founder of new
sect; and that the Church Defence and
Extension Association was organized
for the defence and extension of
schismatical body and not of the
church.
The pamphlet is really addressed to
the Protestant Episcopal church in
America, her bishops and other clergy,
and her laity, and is an appeal for re-
lief from what is described as the in
tolerable conditions under which the
church and her children exist in Ha-
waii owing to the administration of the
diocese.
Mr.. Usborne's contention maintained
throughout the pamphlet is that he is
legally the Rector of Honolului that as
such and in conformity with what he
believed, from the bishops letters, were
the bishops views, the property of ST.
Clements was bought, and the chapel
built; that the property was put in the
name of trustees for the Episcopal
church at large for reasons justifying
themselves to the donors and not re-
pugnant to any canon of the church or
duty to the bishop; that because of the
incomplete and uncertain ecclesiastical
organization of the Anglican church of
Hawaii there is no certain law nor for
um by which or wherein the rights of
priests can be determined or defended
against the acts or opinions of the
bishop, so that in effect the bishop can
and does decide all controversies be-
tween himself and the priests. The
bishop, Mr.. osborne insists, enforcing
his own side of the controversy through
the episcopal power thus underlined,
drove him in March 1898 to a point
where one of three courses of action
were open to him.
1st. To leave the Diocese disgraced,
although innocent of the violation of a
single canon.
End. To invoke the law and con-
tinue to officiate in the Cathedral in
defiance of the Bishop.
3rd. To open st. Clements Chapel,
and as Rector use it as his Parish
Church until relief could be found
He chose the last and on Easter
morning. 1898, opened st. Clement S
Chapel with the Holy Communion, and
with good congregation. And there
he has regularly officiated since
In officiating at St. Clements Rev.
osborne insists that he does so as
Rector of Honolulu to which he was
duly instituted and inducted; and that
though the bishop now claims he Sc
parated himself from the church by the
words in the st. Clements property
deed in 1897, yet the bishop has in va
rious ways and at vario Is times since
he had knowledge of that deed, ack-
nowledge Mr.. osborne as a priest in
communion with the church and not Sc
parated from it. And besides letters
from the bishop quoted to show that
the controversy is one solely over the
ownership and control of property, the
pamphlet lays stress on the matter in
the following:
'It would seem strange that if Mr..
osborne had separated himself from
the Anglican Church and founded a
new sect in 1897, as the Bishop states,
that the Bishop should, in this letter of
date 9th March 1899, have offered to
acknowledge, and receive him into his
Diocese, as a priest in good standing
and license him to a Church.
"It is also strange that the Bishop
should have allowed Mr.. osborne to
officiate in the Cathedral, up 10 March
1898, at which date Mr.. osborne was
Continued to page five.)