The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1907-01-01
RESTARICK
TO FATHER JAMES
PRELATE REPLIES TO PRIEST
IN REGARD TO CHURCH AND
ACTS OF PARLIAMENT.
To the Rev. James c. BeIssel.

in the Star tonight but you have en-
tirely failed to answer my question.
Your statement was: "Tne Church of
England came into existence by an act
Of Parliament" I asked you to state
by what act of Parliament this was
done Knowing that the Church of En-
gland was not brought into existence
by an act of Parliament, [ was per-
fectly aware that you could not name
such an act.
In reply to my question you give first
brief account of the disannulment
mot divorce, properly speaking) Of the
marriage of Henry VIII. which he con-
tracted with his brothers widow,
which marriage was contrary to canon
law. I have nothing to say in favor
of Henry VIII, whom I despise as
much as you can do, and upon whom I
look as one of the worst enemies the
Church of England ever had, because
he robbed her and weakened her.
You then name an act OF Parliament:
Concerning the Kings Highness to
be the Supreme Head of the Church Of
England"
To this 1 will reply: Henry VIII.
! could not have been declared supreme
! head of the Church of England, if the
! church had not been already in exist
ence. Parliament was legislating fol
the church in existence as it had often
done before, and was not legisating to
bring it into existence. 1t was author
izing the transfer of the headship from
foreign bishop to an English king.
1t is important to note here that the
bishops and clergy in cOnvocation mad
agreed to accept this headship 80 far
as the law of Christ will allow" which
| s. Hubert Burke, Roman Catholic, adj
mits destroys the force OF the act. 1t
| is well also to note that this act re-
NAMED in force only until 1853 being
repealed at that time, and it LAS not
revived by Elizabeth, who had per-
sonal dislike to even a modified form
| of the title which it conferred on the
sovereign AS to the Church of Eng
! land coming Unto existence" in 1884
! I will say that the first article OF
! Magma Charta, 1915, declares: ''The
| Church of England shall be free and
have her rights entire and her liber-
ties uninjured." You are entirely in
correct in your statement that the
! Church of England was established by
! law in 1884, for it had been established
! ever since there had been an English
| nation. being one of the three estates
of the realm, and Parliament had fire.
quentIy Iegislated concerning It.
Included in such legislation are the
| Statutes 3. Richard IT, C. 3; I, Ibid, C.
| -. etc. and the statutes of Praemunire
under Richard H. and Henry ", etc.
In 1882 Parliament had passed an act
abolishing the appellate jurisdiction OF
the Bishop of Rome, investing il in the
| archbishoDs. bishops and other ordi-
naries Of the Church of England And
! I'm 1891 an act of Parliament had abol-
! ished the payment Of inmates. IF the
! Church Of ENGLAND had not been es-
| tabIished by law previous to 1884, Par
lament could not have passed acts in
! 1892 and 1891. and many acts before
that. IN reference to the church and its
| government.
! 1t is we'll to know, however, that the
| initiative was taken by the clergy of
| the Church of England in convocation
| in 1881, when the King was petitioned
for an act of Parliament that inmates
be abolished and that if the Pope re-
sisted the operation of such an act
England should withdraw from obedi-
ence to Rome.
Again, if a new church came into eX-
! istence in 1884, how was it that in 1870
| the Pope accommodated Elizabeth
and the English people by the bull
| known as "Regnans in EXcelcis,' by
which Elizabeth and her adherents
"are to be cut off from the Body of
| Christ? If the Church of England
had been considered a sect founded in
1884, how could the Queen and people
| have been "cut off, by the Bishop of
Rome in 1870? will not go into the
matter of the Pope's declaration that
he deprived her of her Kingdom and
all dominion" and absolved her sub
jects from allegiance.
Up to 1870 those in England who
maintained an allegiance to Rome
were accustomed to attend the Church
Of England services. 1t was after this
! CSaa state Trials /, 242; and The Lord
| Coke, His Speech and Charge, 1000.
Again, that Parliament had no idea
of legislating a Church into existence
is shown by the language of the act
of 1884, which in clause 10 reads as
follows: provided always that this
act nor anything or things therein con-
t9ioa1 shall he hereafter iDtprDretpd or
eXpounded that your grace, your no
| bles and subjects intend by the same
to decline or vary from the congrega-
ton Of Christ's Church concerning the
very articles of the Catholic faith of
Christendom, or in any other things
declared by Holy Scripture and the
Word of God necessary for your and
their salvation, but only to make an
ordinance by policies necessary and
CoTyaYfaDt IN paY,pace yriaa a,l r,,. mad