The Pacific commercial advertiser. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1885-1921, 1901-05-20
.CHURCHMEN
DISAGREE
The Bishop and
Church Defence
Society.
OF
CONTRIBUTIONS
Bishop Willis Strongly Objects to
Letters Written by a RE
tired Mechanic. .

On Christmas day OF last year the
| Advertiser, in an article referring to a
which the joining of the local diocese
! to the American branch of the Episco-
palian church was to be considered.
reprinted a letter written by Bishop
Hall of Vermont to the Churchman,
relative to that subject That letter
has since created considerable contro-
versy in the columns of the Church
man, and Living Church. To the last
named church periodical Bishop Will
Ills has contributed a letter couched in
vigorous style, which is herewith re-
printed with the rest of the cores
ponlence pro and con, up to date.
| The supreme cause of the bishops ire
may not unlikely be traced to the fact
| that since the publication of the first
letter in the Churchman, funds which
were in the habit of coming from con-
| tributors in the States have ceased to
arrive a situation which has materially
crippled the resources of Bishop Will
| lis The appended reprints tell their
own story.
| The text of the portions of Bishop
Halls letter as referred to by the presi-
dent of the Church Defence and Elk
tension Association, is as follows:
Doubtless there are peculiar diff
cuities in the situation at Honolulu
arising in part from the unhappy polit-
ical complications of the last few
years. But it should also in fairness be
known that no small share of the bish-
/ ops unpopularity is due to his adher-
ence to definite church principles.
The bishops voluntary resigna ton
of the see would doubtless clear the
ground and remove some difficulties:
but it will easily be understood that
many considerations may lead bishop
after twenty weight years occupancy of
| a see to shrink from such a step, es-
peciaily if it seemed to be unwarrant-
ably demanded. At the present time
the withdrawal of the S. P. G. grants on
| the understanding (Which is surely err
Ironeous), that we could at once assume
Irresponsible charge of the diocese, has
thrown upon the aged bishop the sole
responsibility of providing for the sup
port of the mission work, while he is
deprived of most Of his own stipend
The case of accepting and adopting in
to our body ecclesiastical and existing
diocese is altogether new, and suggests
several problems. Being totally unpro-
vided for in our canons, it is evident
that the general convention is the only
body competent to deal with it. 1t is
most desirable that the situation
should be generally and fairly under
stood beforehand, either on general
ecclesiastical principles or according to
our own canons. So long as there Is
bishop of Honolulu we can only treat
with diocese and it's official head or
receive the diocese with it's bishop"
appears in the Churchman of February
I'd:
Referring to a letter from the Bishop
of Vermont on the subject of the church
in Hawaii, which appeared in your issue
of December /, will you kindly permit
us, through your columns, in justice to
our people, to remark upon one or two
points on which we think the bishop has
been misinformed?
The Bishop of Vermont says: Doubt
less there peculiar difficulties in the
situation at Honolulu, arising in part
from the unhappy political complications
of the last few years. But it should also
in fairness be known that no small
share of the bishops unpopularity is due
to his adherence to definite church prin-
ciples.'
1t is our firm belief that the political
complications in Hawaii have had moth
ing whatever to do with our church diff
ficulties, which antedate, by many years.
any such, troubles Many years ago
when the political sky was unclouded,
these peculiar difficulties were as strong
ly marked as now.
The bishop intimates that difference of
opinion in questions of churchmanship
has been a source of trouble No one
we think, has questioned the soundness
of his lordship's church principles nor
do we think that public sentiment has
been Influenced by such considerations.
The difficulties in this uIocese have aris-
en- from causes strictly of temporal
character, and date back five and TWEEN
ty years.
Questions of ritual. doctrine or church
principle have never been subjects of
serious difference of opinion. This Is
shown from letter addressed to the
Archbishop of Canterbury by the people
here. in April, 1882 in which they say:
I'VE are not involved in any controversy
with the bishop as to doctrine or ritual;
1t is not in any spiritual matters that
any question of the position of our bish-
OPP is now made We may say this
holds good today.
The Bishop of Vermont refers to the
withdrawal of the 8. P. G. grant, throw
ing upon the aged bishop the sole re-
sponsibility of providing for the support
of the mission work while he is deprived
of most of his own stipend
Apart from the entirely mistaken per
sonal allusion to our bishop, whose con-
secration took place in 1872, on the occa-
sion OF the anniversary of his 35th BIRTH
day, We believe, Bishop Hall is evidently
under misrepresentation as to the ex
tent of the financial responsibility now
resting upon the Bishop of Honolulu
through the withdrawal of the & p q
grant. His lordship has no provision to
make for the support of this mission.
We feel that in justice to our people