The Hawaiian star. [volume] (Honolulu [Oahu]) 1893-1912, 1907-01-15
-. ANnIL0A. nnnEN.

bishops aud priests made Boo Edward /
NTs time. telling nim mot to reordain
u.m. but to confirm thc Anglican ore
dsIs
Ans The question at issue is not /
whether wc ora dealing with "a new sect 1
or NOT, because tho allegiance to 90 is |
as quickly given up as Do has been
taken The question that arises here
is this. Are the orders conferred under |
King Edward VI valid or invalid? And |
how later ON?
That sacred orders De validity cone !
ferred are required:
j. A vaudly consoCratcd bishop toI
confer orders.
2. A baptized Christian man to re-
coiye orders
g. A valid form signihcative Of the
orders To- be conferred.
4. The intention ON the part of the
Bishops TO confer orders.
g. The intention on the part of the
person TO be ordained to receive orders.
So, allow me to tell you, that it is a
new fallacy on your mind to suppose
that we hold Anglican orders invalid
because they have not been given with
/ the appreciation Of the Pope. ThisSde-
! feet would not make the orders in
valid As to the first Of the enume-
rated points-all the bishops Of the
Catholic period were, Of course, validity
ordained and therefore able to ordain
validly others. But what about Bar
| low the consecrator of Parker No re-
cord can be found Of the fact Of his con-
secration so l conclude that it is at
least very doubtful. Besides he and
! Cramer are on record as asserting that
episcopal conservation or ordination
are not necessary to make one bishop
or a priest, but that election or ap-
lpointment are sufficient. Barlow goes
as far as to say that in early times of
the church bishops consecrated through
neodssityL because Christian princes
were lacking to appoint. How easy it
was for this man to give reasons for his
private opinion? What other conclu-
sion can we draw from this, but that
he lived up to his opinion and has, con-
sequently, never received ordination.
If he was not consecrated validly a
bishop, he was forever unable to con-
secrate or ordain others.
Have the successors of Parker been
certainly baptized?
We do not doubt that baptism if con-
ferred according to the rite Of the Book
of Common Prayer is valid. But has
it always been followed?
During the latter years Of Elizabeth
and the first of James l, Puritanisn
was powerful in England. During the
Parliamentary supremacy it was do
p minant During the first period the
! prayer book was not used by a large
part of the parochial clergy, who hat
obtained livings without receiving epis
copal ordination. For some years dur
ing the second it was forbidden. II
the former period a large part of the
nation grew up unbaptized according t.
| the prayer book rite. In the latter al
most a generation. Nor do we fine
that any provision was made for gen
eral rebaptizing of those. Now many o
these persons, we must expect hav'
l been taken to the ministry and thu
| episcopate. Hence we conclude that I
| dark cloud hangs over the Anglican
| orders But the most serious reason
! for their invalldity is drawn from tn
| insufficient form that has been used il
the rite of ordination.
1 CldnDleT
the form used by the ancient churc
/ from the apostles time. This mutt
lated form has been in use all over Eng
| land up to the year 1862 At that tim
( they revised it and gave it it's wordin
.. of today. Now this is the reason VIII
the Anglican orders are pronounced in
valid. If we pass over the doubt as
the valid conservation Of the frs
bishops of the Anglican church, the In
sufficinecy of the ordination rite EN-
ployed for a hundred years is NOR
than enough to eXtinguish what wa
left in the beginning of validity ordair
W ed priests and bishops.
W Now we can understand also &c
w what reason Pope Julius III prohibite
the coordination. He had the recoT
of the valid conservation of the bishoI
who ordained up to that period and /
knew that they had been ordained aft
O. the unmutilated rite of the old churc
g, But today we must say, am sorry fC
n. you, that for the reasons eXplaine
n, and not for the disconnection fro
a. Rome, the Anglican Orders are invali
MORE QUESTIONS ANsWERE
l. AND CONCLUDING REMARKS.
Us q. Could the Bishops send" II
Pope?
Ans. With authority, no; by a re
pectful request so that he could accel
y or refuse it, yes. If the church or Il
- bishops or the council is reported
"send" the pope, the meaning is tn
they conferred together and agree th
Peter (Act. VIII, 1D or the pope shou
go.
Q. If the Pope took action on ce
., tain matter, could people call him
account and contend with him?
- Ans. The people had no right to
>. So As to (Act XI, 12) where it
stated that after Peter had baptiz
an uncircumcised man, people in ser
salem disputed against him. st. Ell
phanius remarks that Cerinthus wi
was the next heresiarch after simc
Magus, excited the people to this co
tantiop Now II thew did II will