Project Canterbury

A Pastoral Address by the Right Reverend the Bishop of Honolulu

[Thomas Nettleship Staley, 1823-1898]

Delivered in his Church on New Year's day, 1865,
in reply to certain mis-statements in a recent report of the
American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions
(Presbyterians and Congregationalists).

Honolulu: Printed at the Hawaiian gazette office, 1865, 68 pp.


THE interval between the delivery and publication of this address, with the accompanying notes, has been somewhat longer than I intended, owing to nearly a month's absence from this island. I have been obliged in consequence to hurry it through the press.

Some of the facts referred to may appear unnecessary to have been mentioned here, where they are so known, but it should be borne in mind that this publication will be read in England and the United States.

It has been my course hitherto to bear in silence the many proofs which have come under my notice of the deep rooted hostility entertained to the Episcopal Church, by the original Evangelizers of this nation, shown by systematic misrepresentation and open abuse.

When that hostility culminated in "the appeal Evangelical Christendom" by the American Board, followed by the attack upon the Church in Dr. Anderson’s work, I felt it a duty no longer to remain silent. The charge of "intrusion" made by the former, has already been ably refuted by the friends of the Church in England; but in this Kingdom and the United States, it might, if unnoticed, have some effect.

The intolerant spirit of Congregational Puritanism regards the Anglo-American Church, is nothing new. In the History of the American Episcopal Church by Bishop Wilberforce, p. 110, we read, "In New England, the Church, (the Episcopal,) was rooted amid storms and opposition. Wherever its Missionaries came, the Ministers and Magistrates of the Independents were remarkably industrious, going from house to house to dissuade the people from hearing them. As late as A. D. 1750, they fined an Episcopal Clergyman of English birth and education, on the pretence that he had broken the Sabbath by walking home too fast from Church. ‘I cannot,’ said the Rev. Mr. Johnson, writing to the Society for Propagating the Gospel, ‘but think it hard that the Church of which our most gracious King is the nursing father, should not, in any part of his dominions, be on the same level at least with dissenters, and free form their oppressions.’"

Let it be distinctly understood, for this controversy I am not responsible. Certain assertions calculated to mislead have proceeded from Dr. Anderson and "the Prudential Committee." My object is simply to refute these assertions, and put the true facts of the case before the world.

I would have gladly omitted this unpleasing task. There is so much work for us ALL to do, in saving the life of this people, that we can ill afford to be wasting precious moments in contending about WHO shall do it, nor can the cause of religion generally be expected to flourish amid the strife of tongues.

"Peace, Love, the cherubim entwined
Around the mercy seat divine,
Prayers rise in vain, and temples shine
Where they are not."


MAUNA ALA, Nuuanu, March 25, 1865.


ON this, the first day of the new year, I would fain have spoken to you only words of congratulation and hope—congratulation that you have been brought in safety to the end of 1864, now gone by forever, with its hopes and fears, its trials and its blessings; hope, that you may be spared in health and happiness through this new year of grace, growing each day more and more into the image of your great exemplar, the man Christ Jesus, until you finally reach His everlasting Kingdom.

As it is, something more than this remains for me to do.

You are aware how indifferent I have always been to calumny and abuse. I have ever felt, during my ministry among you, that the few hours you gave up on Sundays to the duties of the sanctuary, were far too sacred, too precious for me to waste any, the smallest part, of them in meeting frivolous charges or noticing the current gossip of the day. I knew that time would correct wrong impressions, that the secret of success in missionary enterprise had ever been the words of the evangelical prophet, "In quietness and in confidence shall be your strength." Speaking for my Reverend brethren, as well as for myself, I may say that in the face of the vast work we have found awaiting us iii these Islands, in the training of the young, in visiting the sick, and turning sinners to repentance, our feelings have been rather those of the three Hebrew children when shewn the burning furnace of the heathen King, "O Nebuchadnezzar, we are not careful to answer thee in this matter." But the case is wholly different when men claiming to be ministers of the Gospel of peace and charity, and specially engaged in its propagation, have so lost sight of its spirit and very essence as to utter, with regard to a body of their fellow christians, misrepresentations so untrue, charges so fearful, as those which have been brought against our own Church. I refer to the Report of the American Board of Missions.

Let me say a few words as to the constitution of this Society. Though with a very pretentious title it represents in reality, only the two Calvinistic denominations, known as Presbyterians and Congregationalists. Of these, the former are divided into ten, the latter into four distinct sects. The Methodists, the Baptists and the Episcopal Church have each their own Missionary institutions. The bitter hostility which "the American Board" displays to our mission is doubtless accounted for, in part, by the fact that the two bodies of which it is composed, have ever been the most relentless in their hatred to the Anglican Church, whether in England or in America.

In vindicating the Mission from the charges brought against it, I have no desire to sit in judgment on the defects or faults of those devoted men, who were the first to make known the Gospel of Christ to the people of Hawaii. I shall pass no opinions whatever of my own, except what may be borne out by facts, as to the results which have attended their teaching for the last forty years, and the work which still is left to be done. I shall appeal to the written testimony of the missionaries themselves, when it is necessary to speak on these subjects.

The Report sets out with a description of the original degraded state in which the first missionaries found the natives of these islands, and the difficulties they encountered; how they reduced the language to writing, translated the Holy Scriptures, taught old and young to read and write, till at last, within forty years from their arrival, "the Hawaiian Islands had become substantially a civilized and christianized nation." "It may be fairly questioned whether there is a larger number of the agricultural peasantry of the Diocese of Oxford (in England) who can read the Bible intelligently, and give an intelligent account of what the Christian religion is," etc. As an Englishman, knowing a little of my own country, and possessing some of the statistics of the vices of our towns and villages, I might, were this the time and place to do so, dispute the assertion that Honolulu, or the islands generally, can be compared with England in regard to morals. Vice is here the rule, not the exception. I am sure, from my own observation, that the ideas which Hawaiians have about the Bible and the Christian religion, are anything but "intelligent" nay, are of the most crude and mistaken kind. [A] But assuming what is here stated to be in part true, is the inference intended to be drawn therefrom also true, that the people are so far advanced in their religious knowledge, and in purity of life, that nothing still remains for us to accomplish; that there was no work for our Church to do, if it came here, except that perhaps a solitary clergyman might minister among a few foreign residents at the capital? If it can be shown that 20,000 natives are in communion with no christian body, that even 10,000 are living in this Kingdom "without God," without any profession of Christianity at all, we have at least the same right as others to be here and to be working, to say nothing of a ROYAL invitation, given, not once, but at least twice, to our Church since the first visit of Vancouver, seventy years ago. [B]


I have before me the report to the Propaganda, for 1860, by the Vicar-Apostolic the Right Reverend Louis Maigret. In a table recording the progress of his Church, he divides the people into Catholics, (Roman,) Heretics, (Calvinist,) and Infidels. He puts down the Infidels, under which term, I suppose, he includes all who make no profession of christianity, at 23,000. Say there are only half this number of natives in communion with none of the existing denominations, they might well find employment for at least six clergymen, requiring as they do so much individual supervision.

But let me read to you, extracts from the report of the Hawaiian Evangelical Association, as the Calvinist missionaries are called. It was published within a year after our arrival, and is circulated in the islands.

The view it presents, certainly does not seem to justify the glowing picture drawn in this Report of the Board.

From Hawaii—District of Hilo.—Missionary Titus Coan.

He tells us, "The Papists have made a long and a strong demonstration in connection with the building, and consecration of their new temple. Their numbers are gradually increasing, though none of our worthy people [I offer no comment upon this self-complacent and uncharitable style speaking of their fellow christians, which the Calvinist teachers generally seem to have adopted]. unite with them. The remaining evils are indolence, licentiousness, disease and superstition."

District of Kau.—O. H. Gulick.

"The Sabbath is not observed in that sacred manner, indicative of a high standard of piety. This is one of the strong holds of popery. They, the Papists, have recruited their ranks from fallen church members. (!) There is but little evidence among us of spiritual life. The large number of professors of religion who take no interest in worship in Sabbath or week day meetings, indicates a sad need of the influences of the Holy Spirit."

District of South Kona.—J. D. Paris.

"There never has been so much perfect indifference among the ungodly, owing, no doubt, to the increase of rational christianity and infidelity among foreigners."

District of Kohala.—E. Bond.

"The church has continued in a lukewarm state, showing little zeal in the progress of the truth among them."

From Maui—District of Hana.—S. E. Bishop.

"The great majority of the people are extremely ignorant. The ignorance of the larger part of church members, as to the fundamental facts and doctrines of the Bible is very great. Few books are found among or purchased by the people. The public sentiment, as to impurity of speech and conduct is very debased. Sorcery has for four years been increasing in this district."

District of Lahaina—D. Baldwin.

"The state of religion, in general, is low." * I offer DO comment upon this self-complacent and uncharitable style of speaking of their fellow christians; which the Calvinist teachers generally seem to have adopted.

From Oahu.—.A. Bishop.

"The religious condition of Ewa has been lower than in former years. There is defection in attendance upon the duties of religion, both on the Sabbath and social meetings."

Hauula.—M. Kuaea.

"Owing to various causes, the number, as well as the zeal of the church has diminished the past year. Of those cut off last year, only one attends the means of grace. Many of the remaining church members are apparently dry branches. The contributions of the people have diminished."

Kaneohe.—B. W. Parker.

"We have not had the special presence of the Holy Spirit in our church and congregation. Sinners have not been converted. Great efforts have been made the past year, to awaken a new interest in Mormonism. Here is one of the strong holds of the man of sin." (The Pope?) "Sabbath desecration is fearfully prevalent. Gambling is quite common. Licentiousness more prevalent than it was a few years since."

From Kauai—Waioli—E. Johnson.

"A general apathy pervades the Church." "The Mormons have gained some to their ranks from those who forsake the ordinances of the Gospel; a part of them from the ranks of the Church." At Koloa, J. W. Smith: "The state of religion throughout the field is low, far from what the pastor desires, and being far from the high standard set forth in the Gospel."

From Molokai.—A. O. Forbes.

"From June till January of last year, Satan seemed to have full sway. Drunkenness and revelry became more general and rose to a greater height than ever before. The leaders in the work of debauchery and riot were chiefly non-professors of religion, Papists and Mormons. There is reason to believe that some of the ancient idols are secretly worshipped by a small number of the people. Sorcery is practised by a numerous class of kahunas or priests. The whole population are under its influence, and some deaths undoubtedly occur from superstitious fear."

These passages show, first, that there is a large body in these islands called "non-professors of religion,"—attached, that is, to none of the religious bodies—who, in themselves, might present a field large enough to occupy any new agency that might be brought to bear upon them. Secondly, that there is every where prevalent a sad amount of unreality and lifelessness in the experience of even "nominal professors." Thirdly, that the Calvinistic system has failed to make head against what the missionaries usually class together—Popery, Mormonism and infidelity—or to stem the torrent of returning heathenism.


Have we in our ministrations sought to make it our first care to bring into the fold, those erring and stray sheep who have no spiritual owners, "to gather up the fragments left by others that nothing be lost?" I might refer you to my two printed sermons, the one preached as my farewell to England, in Westminster Abbey; the other, my first words in this church, on Sunday, October 12, 1862. In these occur the following passages: "It is an admitted fact, that a large number of the people are in active communion with none of the existing bodies; among them, we must seek to labor, not doubting that as we carry to them the Church's message in all fidelity, zeal and love, she will attract to herself many others, whom she would effectually repel, were she to assume a posture of unfriendliness and aggression. If we keep in mind that the great object of the Mission is the salvation of the souls and bodies of those among whom we are going to labour, and not the numbers we can count as members of our communion, we may hope, by God's blessing, to escape this danger." But this, you may say, was merely prospective, and has not been carried into effect. Let me then read to you the testimony of one long a Calvinist missionary here, the Rev. L. Smith. In the Hawaiian Evangelical Report, which I have quoted before, this Divine, so eminent it would appear for his learning or piety that he has just received the degree of D. D. from an American University, makes the following reference to our Church:

[Every one here remarks on the steady progress of the Roman Church. At the Election of Representatives for Honolulu (early in 1864), which unhappily was made to turn partly on the "religious persuasion" of the candidates, of the four members returned, three were Roman Catholics, one a member of the Episcopal Church.]

"This sect have (sic) come and established themselves at Honolulu since our last general meeting. They have organized a Church, embracing persons who formerly professed to be Episcopalians, and some who never before professed to be pious. The King and Queen, and several foreigners, who but seldom if ever attended worship heretofore, are among their first ripe, gathered, confirmed [Mr. Smith evidently imagines confirmation, instead of being the outward sign of conversion, is the crowning point of the Christian life] fruits."

The italics are the writer's own. I quote this passage, not to expose the vulgar spite and sneering tone which characterize it, or the miserable specimen it affords of the writer's literary and theological attainments, so little creditable, as you will doubtless feel any of these to be, to one calling himself a minister of Christ; but as bearing, at least, an impartial testimony to the direction which our labours have taken. Yes! it is among those " who never before were known to be pious;" it is among those "who never frequented worship before" that our chief trophies have been won. If it be a reproach to us that we have among our members those who answer to this description, "we glory in our shame." He who came not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance, was blamed by the Pharisees because "he sat and ate bread with publicans and sinners." We came here to follow the example of our dear Lord, and it has pleased him to bless our humble efforts beyond what we might have anticipated. We are able to point to the changed lives of some, both natives and foreigners, who have placed themselves under our spiritual care; to unions, unblest by the benediction of heaven, solemnly sealed in the sight of God and His Church; to men and women formerly known as drunken and licentious, nay, almost lost, now steady, sober, and able to fill with credit positions from which their habits had previously debarred them. This was the work we came to do. We came not to be sources of political disquietude; we came not to act the part of' political demagogues, but by our labours for Christ and His Church, on the area still unoccupied (if we may credit the assertions of the missionaries themselves,) to aid the KING, as the FATHER OF HIS PEOPLE, in his great work of not only raising them to a higher moral life, but actually saving them from extinction. Do not misunderstand me. I mean not to say that we have not a considerable number attached to the Church who belonged formerly to other communions. It was to be expected that many would be attracted by those features of teaching and worship which characterize it. When they come we gladly welcome them. But we do not like some, compass heaven and earth to make proselytes. Rather, as I remarked before, we come "to seek and to save that which is lost."


To this, I give a peremptory denial. I ask you, who, for two years have worshipped with us within these walls, have you ever heard from our lips, with regard to others engaged in the work of evangelizing these islands, one word to disparage their labors, one word inconsistent with Christian charity? Has not our whole ministry been a continued setting forth of the Divine charity as the beginning and end of the Gospel? Have I not advocated the utmost latitude in the expression of opinion, as far as consists with the great verities of the faith? Have I not when called on to notice systems which seemed to me erroneous always accompanied my observations with some qualifying remark as to the sanctity of conscience, and the duty of giving our opponents credit for the same degree of conviction, the same sincerity, as actuate ourselves? I preached some time ago to the natives a course of lectures, in the form of question and answer, on the distinctive features of the Church. I had to notice its points of difference from, as well as agreement with Romanism and Congregationalism. These lectures are now in print. And how do I conclude? "What is our duty with regard to the members of other communions than our own? To love them as our fellow Christians, to pray for them, to imitate what is good in them, and to remember that a man will be saved, not from the mere fact of belonging to this or that communion, but by seeking to do the Will of Our Father which is in Heaven."

Listen, again, to some of my farewell words to the Church at home, and to my opening message in this land:

"Nothing would shake all religious belief more effectually, than for us to assume an attitude of hostility to those forms of Christianity with which they are now familiar. We must shew the people how, beneath the defects and corruptions of this or that communion, there lies a substratum of truth, in the admission of the great historic facts of the creeds, which may well in crease their faith in those facts, and lead to greater charity and forbearance in our treatment of those Articles of the Faith which are called in question. We are to speak the truth, but it must be in love, and we are to give all who have been hitherto labouring with so much devotion and earnestness in their Master's cause, while we have been looking on with cold indifference, the credit they deserve. We must make it clear we do not go forth to ignore or override what has been done by others. * * And we come in all good will to those who have been labouring here before us. However much we may conscientiously differ from them, we desire not to ignore the work which they have done to the best of their ability, nor withhold from them the credit they deserve. In turn, we claim the same consideration and forbearance."

These principles have been carried out in practice. I defy any one to produce me a single instance in which I have "ignored the work done by the Protestant Missionaries," either in word or deed. Vague charges of this sort are easily made: let them be proved. No, brethren! we have ever admitted the zeal and success of the Calvinist Missionaries here, in spreading, partly by their own teaching, partly through the influence of the Chiefs, [C] that system which they believed to be the true Gospel of Christ, in giving the nation a written language, in translating tile Holy Scriptures and in establishing schools. And more than this we are not called upon to say. They taught the great facts of the Life, Sufferings and Death of the Redeemer, the necessity of God's Holy Spirit to renew man's sinful nature. All these we, too, accept as the basis of the Christian Faith. We owe them many thanks for having prepared the way for us, by familiarizing the people with these mighty truths! When we are represented in this address of the Board of Congregationalist and Presbyterian Missions, as "contradicting what has been taught as to our salvation through Christ only," we might appeal to you, who have been wont to listen to our preaching, whether this is not a gross misstatement. Has it not been our whole aim to point you, by sermon and sacrament, to "the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world," to build you up in the graces of the Christian life? Through whom have we taught you to look for salvation but through that name, other than which there is none whereby we can be saved? Brethren, this is a terrible thing to say of us, and let us hope in all charity that those who uttered the charge had no deliberate intention to deceive, but were themselves unwillingly misled. If not, may God forgive them! So, too, of that other expression:

"This Church (the English) comes not as an ally against ignorance and sin, but as an enemy!"

Suppose in the Crimean war the French had said, "You English are not allies with us against the Russians, BUT (mark the antithesis) BUT our enemy." There could have been, if words mean anything at all, but one inference—that the English were the allies of the Russians. We are, therefore, I suppose, "allies of ignorance and sin!" Oh! think, dear brethren, of those devoted clergymen who, giving up bright prospects in the Church at home, have come out to this distant land, and have been spending three or four hours a day in teaching Hawaiian boys, in addition to their other duties, carrying on everywhere a noble fight with vice and misery, never weary of ministering to you the word of life and the food of Christ’s Holy Sacraments—think of those holy women [D] who, for the love of Christ, have given up their lives to works of piety and mercy, and are now training Hawaiian girls to lead virtuous lives, so as to turn out, in the next generation, good careful mothers, Christian women in fact worthy of the name, and then tremble at the lengths men will go to, when embittered by religious intolerance and maddened by sectarian jealousy.


In according, however, to individuals the credit they deserve, in accepting thankfully what they have taught, we make this reservation, that the Church of which we are members, has something more to proclaim than was understood by the first evangelizers of these Islands. If not, I fully admit, we have no business here. I mean that some of our inferences drawn from the facts of the Creeds, which we hold in common with them, are essentially different from their inferences. In one word, we do not believe Puritanism to be the legitimate deduction from those facts. We believe it as a system, to be utterly unable to solve the moral problems of the universe. We believe it most unsuited for that light-hearted race, those laughing children of the sun, who dwell in these islands. I have not time to explain what I mean, but will merely give an illustration. Their old athletic games and hulas were from the first tabooed. I do not know enough of those hulas and those games to be able to say how far they were right or wrong. I am told some were very licentious, while others led to gambling and dissipation. Be it so. Were Christian games and Christian dances taught in their place? Nay,—were not the very dances and amusements which grace every Christian court in Europe, and which the most pious Catholic churchmen would regard as essential to the healthy training of his children, denounced as too irreligious, too sinful to be tolerated at the court of Hawaii? So, again, of many other things innocent, when enjoyed in moderation, the enforced abstinence from which is very likely to bewilder, as to all moral distinctions, the minds of a simple uninformed people, making them confound "the tithing of mint, anise and cummin," with the weightier matters of charity, justice and truth. Who can doubt that such a system must engender, as all impartial observers contend it has done, a fearful amount of unreality and hypocrisy? [E] In my first sermon in this place, I remarked, "We do not regard religion as a system of frames and feelings merely, separate from common life. It is to leaven and hallow all the instincts of our nature not to crush them. It is therefore not a business of one day in seven—Sunday—(often called, I think, most falsely and mischievously the Sabbath) for the Church provides an order of prayer to be said daily throughout the year. On her Christmas, Easter, Ascension tide, she would have all rejoice not only in the temple, but with innocent mirth and healthful recreation. He who was present at the marriage feast of Cana, in Galilee, and turned the water into wine, deigns to unite with us, if we drive him not away by impurity and sin, in our social and festal gatherings no less than in seasons of sorrow and bereavement. Surely Christianity is not all sourness, all taboo! God would have us use thankfully and in moderation all His gifts, not abstain from their use altogether. This is true self-restraint, this real temperance."

And if I feel that to leave the natives no choice between the attractive licentiousness of their former holidays and amusements on the one hand, and the unlovely austerities of Congregational Puritanism on the other, was calculated to work mischief, and it is generally believed, has done so, there is yet another point, which, without "ignoring" the value of much that the Missionaries have accomplished, we cannot overlook. Theirs is the denominational, ours the catholic view of Christianity. I do not use the word catholic ill the sense in which it is often used as implying that all sects stand on the same footing, so far as their claims to teach God's truth are concerned—this is a perversion of the term* nor as synonymous with Roman. It is true, Rome arrogates to herself that title; we deny her not to be a branch of the Church, though she has in many points sadly erred from th6 Catholic faith, and from Catholic practice. I use the term as it was used in the first three centuries, (the purest age of the Church,) as applying to the one visible historic body which has descended in unbroken continuity from the days of the Apostles to our own. We believe that whatever good other societies of Christians have done, who have left that ancient Apostolic organization, I mean the Episcopal, be they Meletians, Donatists, Independents, Methodists, etc., and we judge them not—God forbid—yet it is through that one, visible Body, the Catholic Church, we can alone taste the fulness of God's love and assure to ourselves the presence of Him who hath promised to be with it "to the end of the world." This is the teaching of the Anglo-American Church, and of her 150 Bishops everywhere with few exceptions. Let me read to you some words of the Rt. Rev. Dr. Kip, Bishop of California, from his "delineation of the true Catholic Churchman."

"The very name which he bears proclaims the principles by which he will be directed. He has received his title from no human teacher. He assumes the badge of no mere sect. He shares in that jealous vigilance which induced S. Paul so sternly to chide the Corinthians, because one party said 'We are of Paul,' and another, ‘We are of Apollos,’ and another, 'We are of Cephas.' And this feeling the primitive believers bequeathed to those who came after them in the early Church. 'We take not,' says S. Chrysostom, ‘our appellation from men. We have no leaders as the followers of Marcion or Arius.’ Bingham states that when Sempronian, the Novatian heretic, demanded of Pacian the reason why Christians called themselves Catholics, he replied, 'To distinguish them from heretics.’ ‘Christian,’ he says, ‘is my name, and Catholic my surname; the one is my title, the other my mark of distinction.' Such was the feeling' of these early saints. Leaving to those sects which started up on every side to name themselves after their leaders, they still kept to that general appellation which was made expressive of unity and relationship to their Lord. The Churchman of this day has inherited these views, and by the name Catholic Churchman' he expresses both his allegiance to his Divine Master and to that Apostolic Church He founded. Again, other religious bodies endeavor to adapt themselves to the spirit of the times, and thus are drawn into the current, but the Church does not-age after age she alone remains unalterable, while all else is changing."

Hear, also, Bishop DeLancey:

"Among the thousand evils which result from the endless subdivisions of Christian men into independent organizations, is a miserable waste of ministerial efficiency, and augmented expensiveness in sustaining religion. Is there any effectual cure for this but a return to the one body of Christ?"

In his charge to the clergy of his diocese, 1863, Dr. Whipple Bishop of Minnesota, observes:

"Loyalty to the Lord Jesus Christ is loyalty to His Church, and there is no lack of charity in maintaining the oneness of the Church of Christ. I know of only one Church in the New Testament, and it was visible, planted by the Apostles, and against it the gates of hell have not prevailed. I know of only one ministry, with its threefold orders, in that one Catholic Church of Christ. I only know of one Christian faith proclaimed by that one ministry in that one Catholic and Apostolic Church. I know of only one Lord, one faith, one baptism, set forth in the Revelation of God. An invisible Church is too ethereal for this work-day world. It does not realize our need of brotherhood; it does not give effectiveness to organization. It has no guarantee of faith or discipline, and leaves no mark on history. We admit the purity, the faithfulness and piety of many, not in the Church. But this no more absolves from loyalty to Christ, or apologizes for Christian divisions and sects, than morality will excuse an upright liver for neglect of Holy Baptism."

Now, the continuity of this Holy Catholic Church depends on the ordaining power of the Bishops. Read over what is said in the preface to the Ordination service in your Prayer Books, and then the service itself, and con you doubt what the principles of the Church really are—that in fact she refuses to take her stand among the various persuasions of the day; that her Christianity is something definite, something transmitted down to us in creeds and formularies, in a prescribed and visible organization. Now, you will see at once, here is a new element to be added to and infused into the pre-existent Christianity of Hawaii, and, as honest men true to our Church, we cannot ignore so vital a principle. How is it we see so little fixity in the various Protestant sects around us, each splitting up into new and new fragments; each, from possessing no dogmatic teaching, eventuating in fanaticism and infidelity, or in secessions, through mere disgust, to the Roman Communion? The Presbyterian places of worship licensed under the Act of Toleration in the reign of William the Third, and made over forever to that body, are now held by Unitarian teachers, who, in England, call them selves in consequence Presbyterians. How is it that the Congregationalist Missionaries all bear testimony, and you remark the same yourselves, that Romanism is gaining so firm a footing on these Islands, holding out the prospect of the people, if they survive long enough, altogether becoming Roman Catholic; and this, too, notwithstanding a start later by fifteen years than that of the Calvinists, and persecutions, I might add, from a preacher-ridden Court, which would have disgraced the times of a Tudor or a Stuart? Why? but because this denominational system, without creeds, without formularies, is no match for the compact and solid organization of Rome.

Another characteristic of this denominational Christianity, is the little weight it attaches to the Holy Sacrament of Baptism. Look out the Hawaiian word for Sacrament in the vocabulary drawn up by the Calvinist teachers at the Lahainaluna Seminary: "Sacrament, O ka Ahaaina o ka Haku." That is, "the Supper of the Lord." It seems, therefore, they do not regard baptism as a sacrament at all, though expressly enjoined by the Lord himself as necessary to salvation. (John iii., 2.) It is their practice generally to refuse to administer this holy rite to any but members of their sect or children of such members. We baptized, soon after our arrival, many infants to whom they had previously refused baptism, taking care first to provide them with suitable sponsors. Let this fact go forth to the eternal disgrace of those whom it may concern, THAT HE, WHOM THE MISSIONARIES DELIGHT TO HONOUR AS THEIR BEST PATRON AND FRIEND, AS THE FOUNDER OF HAWAIIAN LIBERTIES, THE GOOD KING KAMEHAMEHA THE III., THOUGH MOST ANXIOUS TO RECEIVE THIS HOLY SACRAMENT, WAS ALLOWED TO DIE UNBAPTIZED.

[I am told, on the best authority, that it would be difficult to find any one in this so-called Christian nation, (except among the Roman Catholics or ourselves,) be they adults or children, that can repeat accurately the Apostles' Creed, or in fact has ever heard of its existence.]


From what has been said may be inferred why we chose the name "Reformed Catholic." The first word recognizing the fact of the Reformation, when the Anglican Church cleansed herself from the accretions, which had grown round her in the middle ages, and the second asserting her claim to be a branch of that one visible historic Church transmitted down from the beginning. I may state in vindication of this term, that at a recent convention of the Church in the United States, it was proposed to substitute it for the present designation, which was unsatisfactory to some of the Bishops and Clergy, of "Protestant Episcopal." In the volume of Bampton Lectures, delivered by the Rev. Dr. Jelf, Principal of King's Church, London, one of our most learned and moderate divines, page 378, you will find he speaks of "the Reformed Catholic Church of England." In the prospectus originally put forth in London regarding this mission mention is made of "the two great branches of the Reformed Catholic Church in England and America." I might quote other authorities for this title, but let these suffice. Well it is probably this designation which has led the American Board to declare that we "renounce the name Protestant."

The Church of England never assumed the name, and therefore I suppose, she cannot "renounce" it. There is no instance of its being applied to her in the Prayer Book, Homilies, or Thirty-Nine Articles, nor any other of her authorized documents. Still, I grant, she is frequently spoken of as a Protestant Church, where the occasion requires her anti-Roman aspect to be made prominent. Whilst at her coronation, the Queen of Great Britain swore to maintain "the Catholic Faith," she engaged also "to defend the rights of the Protestant Church of England," an epithet intended to assert strongly her independence of the Papal see. Here and in all such cases there is an object to be gained in using an appellation which asserts nothing positive, and merely tells us what the Church is not. It is not such a legitimate use as this, which the Board of Congregational and Presbyterian Missions at Boston wishes us to make of the word Protestant. No. What they want is to place our Holy Mother, the ancient Catholic Church of England, with all her great and glorious memories on the same platform with the Congregationalism founded by a Brown, or the Quakerism of a George Fox, and with all the other "isms" that have afflicted the Protestant world during the last 300 years. I will only add more on this subject that the word "Reformed" expresses with sufficient clearness, that the Hawaiian branch of the Anglo-American Church has no sympathy with distinctively Roman teaching.

[If I could have foreseen the use, which was to be made, of this name "Reformed Catholic," among the more simple, ignorant natives, by men wholly unscrupulous in their misrepresentations of the character of our mission, I should have paused before adopting it. The report was studiously propagated by the Puritan Missionaries, in their several districts, that we were not "the real Church of England sent for by the King, but a sect of semi-papists who had left that Church and come to Hawaii." That the word "Catholic" meant "Popish," and that by it we intended to imply we were a slight improvement on the Faranis (French Priests.) Generally the people designate the several Christian communions in the islands by their nationalities. The Congregationalist preachers are careful to represent their communion as the American Church. The natives think it is the only one in the United States. The arrival of the Rev. P. Gallagher, M. A., an Episcopal Clergyman, from Geneva, N. Y., to take part in our work, greatly confuses their ideas. One of the leading Hawaiian members of our Church recently heard a native Kalavina boasting that the great Washington belonged to theirs the American Church. "No," replied our friend, "He was one of us!" "How so?" "Because he was born, bred and died in the communion of the old Church planted by the Church of England in the United States, when they were Colonies. The Congregationalists are only a sect." The information was, I need not say, quite new.]


Merely in the sense in which the Episcopal Church whether in England or the United States refuses to acknowledge it. A Roman or Greek priest coming over to that communion is required simply to make the usual subscriptions. He is never re-ordained. A Presbyterian or Independent preacher doing the same, has to submit to ordination at the hands of a Bishop. Why? Because it is in the very constitution of an episcopal church that the Bishops, as the lineal representatives of the Twelve, can alone confer valid orders. Well! coming here, we wished to hold this principle in all charity. We had no desire to raise the question of their clerical status at all. We simply wished to be let alone, and, in conformity with the system and spirit of our Church, to do the work which God had assigned us to do for Him, quietly and without giving offence to any. Such, however, was not the course permitted us. Immediately after our arrival, it was resolved to put us into an attitude of hostility at once. We were invited to meet them upon a basis not of social but ecclesiastical equality. Perhaps our Puritan friends wished to place us on the horns of this dilemma, either publicly to abjure a vital principle of the Church or to seem wanting in Christian charity. Be this as it may, we acted as every consistent clergyman, whether in England or America, [F] would have done under the same circumstances.


To this I give an unqualified contradiction. In social life I recognize no religious distinctions. With several of the members of the Hawaiian Evangelical Association I exchange visits and count them among my friends. But I certainly cannot say that it is my wish to be on such terms with all of them. I have no sympathy, and possibly may even manifest displeasure, with men who "are not ashamed to speak evil of dignities;" who sow disloyalty and sedition among the native population; who trade on their superstitious fears; who significantly hint that God is plaguing this land, and has killed their Prince and King because of the presence here of an English Bishop; who propagate such slanders as this, that he is a political emissary plotting to undermine the independence of the Kingdom and rob them of their liberties. Such, be they who they may, I have no desire to know.


We are told in the Report, that it is the presence of the Church in her integrity and completeness—which is offensive.

"The settlement of a Protestant Episcopal Minister at Honolulu, would have been welcomed by us as an occasion, not of complaint, but of congratulation. His success in gathering a congregation of Episcopalians from among the foreign residents, and in ministering to the moral and religious improvement of the royal family, would have given joy to our missionaries and to us. Nor could any complaint have arisen if he had received ever so many native converts into his own communion. Whether the peculiar ritual and ecclesiastical arrangements of Protestant Episcopacy t are suited to promote the Christian life and progress of the Hawaiian people is a question worthy to be solved by a fair experiment, and to such an experiment, neither we nor our missionaries would have offered any hindrance."

I leave it to the Board to show how "Protestant Episcopacy with its ritual and ecclesiastical arrangements," could receive a fair experiment without a Bishop. One of "the ecclesiastical arrangements," of "Protestant Episcopacy," is Confirmation. Perhaps the Board considered this holy rite a matter of indifference, or would have left its celebration to the solitary "Episcopal Minister," whose arrival would have been "welcomed" by them with so much "joy and congratulation." Suffice it to say on this point, that the Anglo-American Church does not usually send out its Missions abroad without placing them under Episcopal control. The rapid growth of her Missionary Episcopate of late years in all parts of the world, is a proof that she is fully alive to her duties in this respect, But I wish you particularly to notice the varied functions which are assigned in this appeal to the unfortunate Protestant Episcopal Minister, who was to be so heartily welcomed at Honolulu.

First. He was to "gather a congregation of Episcopalians from among the foreign residents." Second. He was "to minister to the moral and religious improvement of the royal family." Third. He was to be "tutor to the infant prince." Fourth. He might expect that he would have to "receive EVER SO MANY native converts into his own communion." Fifth. I might add, though not stated in the document before me, it was hoped that he would be able to educate the sons of "the Episcopal" residents.

Why, brethren, these (except unhappily the third mentioned one) are the very duties which the Church has been attempting in Honolulu, since its inauguration, duties to discharge which efficiently overtaxes the powers even of a Bishop and two Presbyters. If it would have been a cause "not of complaint but of congratulation" to our Puritan friends here, and to their patrons in America, to see the work which they lay down for "the Church to do in this city, going on at all, should they not rejoice far more to think that that work is being well, instead of badly done? Think of this poor isolated over-worked Priest, with all these "irons in the fire," cut off from all sympathy with his fellow priests, deprived of that episcopal direction, which he had learnt to love as his blessed heritage, his only clerical friends, Presbyterian and Independent "preachers," the only variety in his monotonous life, an occasional invitation to exchange pulpits, or take part with them in their "religious exercises." And what Board with any bowels, with any of the milk of human kindness in its veins, ought not to be moved to pity. Yet, we are told, from its official lips, "no complaint would have arisen!" How is it, brethren, that for twenty years or more the shadow of this "episcopal minister" has been continually crossing your path? Turn through the volumes of your old newspapers from 1845 downwards, and you will find accounts of meetings held, money promised, letters written to churchmen in England and America—yet the man never to be had. No; because it is evident no man worth having, no man of any principle even, could occupy such a position. And it is just possible that one reason why the board at Boston and the Calvinist ministers here, would have uttered "no complaint," and would even have rejoiced, if the Church of England had limited her action to sending just one clergyman to Honolulu, was the very obvious one that they knew well enough from past experience that this new attempt would fail as others had done before it.


The Boston board has no wish to "impute blame to the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States, or to the authorities of the established Church of England." For such condescension and moderation, we must of course, be very thankful. Even "the Archbishop of Canterbury in consecrating a Bishop for this enterprise, acted simply under a political necessity, the King of Hawaii having been represented as asking that favour of the British Government." We have read many discussions of late on the action of the royal supremacy in matters spiritual in the English church. But our Puritan friends in America seem to stretch its prerogatives to the very furthest conceivable limits when they suppose that the Primate of the church is under a "political necessity" to consecrate, whenever he is ordered to do so by the British Government! while the British Government is under a "political necessity," to grant whatever favours the King of Hawaii may choose to ask It would therefore seem possible, that the supremacy of the English Crown over the church, might, under given conditions, be found flowing from the sole will of the Hawaiian Monarch. a view which has, at least, the recommendation of novelty.

"Nor does the enterprise proceed from either of the two great societies, through which the members of the Church of England conduct their foreign missions. It represents nothing more than a sect or party in it, a sect which happily for our common christianity is far less formidable in its influence than it was twenty years ago."

To all these assertions, my best reply will be a brief recapitulation of the steps which led to the establishment of this mission.

It was no new occurrence in the history of this Kingdom, when one of its sovereigns asked for a clergyman of our Reformed church, to be sent to him from England. You are all familiar with the request made by Kamehameha the First through Vancouver, one, which, owing to indifference of the times, unhappily proved without effect. I have been told, on authority which may not be lightly questioned, that Liholiho had similar aims in view when he visited England in 1823. Be this as it may, during the last fifteen years, several efforts to obtain an episcopal clergyman from that country were made, but always without effect. The sympathy of his late Majesty with the constitution and liturgy of the Church led to a renewed attempt, as you have already heard. He had the modesty to ask only for one man, because the pecuniary resources at his disposal seemed barely enough to justify him even in that. When, however, benevolent and earnest churchmen felt that if the mission were to be undertaken at all, it ought to be of no such fragmentary kind, representations were made, through the proper channel, of the advantages to the church, which would result from sending out a Bishop. At the same time, no additional guarantees in the way of support were required from His Majesty than those which he had already pledged. I need not tell you with how much pleasure he assented to this unlooked for proposal. Early in the year 1861, he wrote an autograph letter to Her Majesty, Queen Victoria. Soon after it had been received, in the month of April, a debate took place in the House of Convocation of Prelates of the Province of Canterbury, on the subject of Missionary Bishops, in the course of which the Bishop of Oxford stated:

"That the King of the Sandwich Island was most anxious to see a Bishop of the English Church established in his dominions. His Majesty mentioned, that, according to the Constitution of his kingdom, no established Church in the proper sense of the term can be formed there, that all creeds are left free, to be supported by: voluntary contributions.' He proposes to make the Bishop preceptor to the Crown Prince. He thought it best to communicate with the Queen, and wrote a letter in most excellent English, begging Her Majesty to give all the assistance she can in sending out a Bishop of the Church of which she is the temporal head. The present mail has brought me a letter from the Bishop of California, who points out the importance of making the Islands a missionary centre. Further, the American Church is very anxious to unite with the Church of England in this work. And Bishop Potter states that they will undertake to support one or possibly two Missionary Clergy, to work with the Bishop, whom the Church of England may send out. All this is matter of the deepest interest and the greatest importance, and I think it most important, that we should at once consider the question. If God opens to us new fields, we ought to turn our attention to them, and to occupy them in a manner consistently with primitive customs and primitive practice, and to follow out historical precedents in extending the Kingdom of Christ."

The invitation of the King to our Church, being thus publicly and formally announced, and the difficulty to its acceptance being the need of funds, the course usual under such circumstances was taken. Those who sympathized with the object came together and formed a committee, consisting of church dignitaries, noblemen and gentlemen-men they were, the first and foremost in every good work-men raised far above all party considerations or sectarian bias-several of them members of the committees of the two venerable Societies for the Propagation of the Gospel in foreign parts, and for the Promotion of Christian knowledge.

Within one month after the Bishop of Oxford's speech in Convocation quoted above, the statement I now read was published and circulated:

"POLYNESIAN CHURCH.—The committee for promoting the establishment of a church in Honolulu, in communion with the churches of England and America, having taken into consideration the King of Hawaii's desire to receive a mission from the church of England headed by a Bishop, are of opinion that measures should be taken for fulfilling the desire thus put, we trust, by God into the heart of his Majesty.

That having respect to the importance of these islands as a probable centre of Christian influence in the North Pacific Archipelago, as well as t6 the immediate needs of the actual population of the Hawaiian group, an earnest appeal for support be made to the Church at home.

That as it appears by letters from the Bishops of California and New York, that there is a readiness on behalf of the American church to unite in this effort, the Committee hail with gratitude to God such an opening for common missionary action between the two great branches of the Reformed Catholic church. That the Bishops of California and New York be requested to convey to the church in America, most earnest invitations from this committee to unite in the work.

The city of Honolulu contains, besides its native population, European and American residents. The French Roman Catholics possess a cathedral, with a bishop, clergy, etc., and the American congregationalists have also places of worship. The King offers on his own behalf and that of his subjects, and residents who desire the establishment of the English Church, a yearly payment of £200 and to give the site for a church, parsonage, etc. It is also probable that a grant of land may be made for the future support of the mission. The resources of the islands can probably not do much more at present than this, and the committee appeal with earnestness to their fellow churchmen to assist in sending forth laborers into this part of the Lord's vineyard. The authorities of the American church have also undertaken to select and maintain three clergymen to aid any bishop who may be sent out from this country."

The two venerable societies to which I have referred, immediately signified their approval of the movement by liberal grants in its aid.

The following August he who now addresses you was designated as your Diocesan, by his Grace the late Archbishop of Canterbury, the venerable Dr. Sumner, who, I may state, was fully alive to the peculiar trials which, notwithstanding the countenance and support of the King, any one accepting the office might expect to incur. "You will indeed be between two fires," were his words to me on one occasion. After some discussion as to the mode in which the consecration should be effected, whether with or without any action on the part of the Crown, the Lord Chancellor and Attorney General finally decided that the Royal License of her Majesty would be necessary. It was granted, and on the 15th of December in the same year, 1861, the consecration of an English Bishop for the newly created see of Honolulu took place.

I was occupied some months in England before my departure in collecting funds in aid of the establishment and future maintenance of the mission. From men of all parties in the Church—for I do not disguise the fact that she does allow her members in matters indifferent a considerable diversity of sentiment and practice, and here is one secret of her strength—I received to my representations a liberal response. In that interval the venerable Primate, whose truly evangelical spirit and character were never questioned, was pleased to express to me several times his deep interest in the success of this new missionary enterprise, and I can never be grateful enough to him for the kindness with which he offered me his fatherly sympathy and advice. A few days before leaving England I received from him some lines which I may be permitted to read:

"MY DEAR BISHOP:—I am much gratified by your kind letter and the opportunity which it gives me of wishing you farewell, which my state of health has prevented my being able to do, as I could have wished, in person.

I have also to thank you for the Sermon which you have forwarded to me, and the assurance which I receive from it (not that I wanted it before) that the blessing of the Head of the Church will accompany your ministry.

My earnest prayers go with you and your family, devoting yourselves, as you have done, to a work which few would have undertaken. I shall not survive on earth to hear of the success granted you, but what we know not now we shall know hereafter.

Yours, my dear Bishop, sincerely,


In a few weeks the trembling hand which must have penned these loving words lay cold in death. The present Primate has given me proofs that he feels the same interest in the Hawaiian Church as his predecessor. With him and other prelates in England—I might add also in America—I am, from time to time, in correspondence. During the last year a considerable sum has been pledged towards a fund for the endowment of the Bishopric. Among the donors to the mission since its commencement have been the present Archbishops of Canterbury, York, Dublin and Armagh, the Bishops of London, Oxford, Chichester, Exeter, Lichfield, St. Asaph, with other dignitaries of the Church. From all these facts you will be able to appreciate the truth of the statement—one no doubt intended to shake the confidence of those who have attached themselves to us in these islands—that this mission "represents nothing more than a sect or party in the Church of England, which, happily for our common Christianity, is far less formidable in its influence than it was twenty years ago!"


The words which conclude this appeal to the public opinion of Protestant Christendom can hardly be passed over.

"Had such a measure as this intrusive mission to Hawaii proceeded from any Protestant Missionary Society, or from any recognized body of Evangelical Christians, it would have been an inexcusable violation of the law of comity, which is respected spontaneously, and almost universally, by Protestant Missionaries."

How a mission can be said to be "intrusive," which has been invited hither by successive Sovereigns of this nation qualified, at least, by their sympathies and knowledge to judge what was best for the moral and religious elevation of their subjects, I leave to this Board to determine. In the thirty-seventh article of the Church of England, it is expressly said, that she accords "to the Sovereign of the State that prerogative, which we see to have been always given to Princes in Holy Scripture, that they should rule all states and degrees committed to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or Temporal."

It is not therefore surprising that the authorities of our Church consented to plant a branch of it in a Kingdom, whose chief magistrate had made known to them, through the proper channels, his eagerness to welcome one. Can it be said of either of the other two forms of Christianity now in the Islands, that it was established with the immediate consent, much less on the invitation of the Chief Ruler of the State? Surely, they are far more open to the charge of intrusion, I might almost say, impertinent meddling, who addressed themselves, unasked, to the Prelates, both in England and America, dictating to them what kind of persons they should send out on this mission, and assigning the bounds within which, according to their united wisdom, it ought to be restricted! But observe, "this mission does not proceed from any body of Evangelical Christians." None will question, it must have "proceeded" from those without whose official action or private contributions, it could not have been initiated. It follows, therefore, that his late Majesty the King of Hawaii, her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain, who granted her Royal License for my consecration, the Four Primates of the United Church of England and Ireland, the other Prelates, whose names I have mentioned, the Committees of the venerable Societies for Propagating the Gospel and for Promoting Christian Knowledge These were founded 1698 and 1701 A. D., and incorporated by Royal Charter.] belong to no "recognized body of Evangelical Christians." This fact might be useful in enabling us to arrive at some adequate conception of what so called "Evangelical Christianity" is.

Happily, the illustrious persons to whom I have referred, are not recognized as within the pale of "Evangelical Christendom," or they would have been guilty of a very heinous crime indeed. They would have actually violated that "law of comity" which is respected spontaneously among all Protestant Missionaries. May I ask my Puritan brethren, when and by whom this law was enacted? Where, for example, did the Society for Propagating -the Gospel, through her President, the Primate of the Church, or her Vice Presidents, among whom is the whole body of Anglican Bishops, enter into any such compact with the nonconformist missionary associations in England or the United States. I trust for the sake of our Presbyterian and Congregationalist friends, this "law of comity" is some airy, intangible creation of their own conjuring up, having no actual existence.

The Indian Empire of Great Britain is divided into dioceses, whose Bishops are appointed by the Crown. There and in Ceylon, English Clergy of the established church, minister to the spiritual wants of the foreign residents and operate among the Hindoo population. Are the American Presbyterian missionaries there debarred from propagating that form of Christianity, which they believe to be most agreeable to Holy Scripture? Are they told by the Bishops of our Indian Church, "You have no business here, your presence is an intrusion. We have received our patents from her Most Gracious Majesty, the Sovereign of our country. The field is ours, if it belong to any one at all. For, though the law of Toleration allows you to teach your distinctive tenets, there is a certain law of comity' among the various missionary societies, never to enter a field where another is in possession, much less when that other is a Church constituted according to law. Go labourers, therefore, elsewhere?" It is unfortunate as an illustration of the mode in which this Board applies "the law of comity," that in the Report of this very year, they complain that by the new constitution of Greece, they are not allowed to proselytize from "the orthodox Eastern Church of Christ which is the established religion of the country." (These are the words of the constitution itself.) But then, the Greek Christians, with whom, let me observe, the Episcopal Church of the United States is trying at this moment to enter into more intimate communion, are not a part of "Evangelical Christendom"!

It would be more to the point, if I remind the Evangelical Christians, who assembled at the late annual meeting of the Board, that neither in their domestic missions nor in foreign parts do they ever scruple to send agents where the Episcopal Church or Methodists have been before them. The question is never raised at all.


It is no pleasing task which I have had to perform this day. Perhaps it may be said, "Why notice misrepresentations, why refute calumnies which all here,. except those who have an interest in their propagation, admit to be so untrue?" But we must remember there is a limit even to forbearance, a point where silence may be wrongly construed.

If in the course of this address I have unconsciously spoken about others one unkind word, or done them any wrong, I can only ask their forgiveness. To my Christian brethren, if they will allow me so to call them, whether of the Hawaiian Evangelical Association or of the Roman Catholic Church, I wish to say that I feel no animosity, no bitterness. We are all engaged according to our several systems in one and the same great work of "winning souls to Christ," of saving this people from that physical and spiritual death, which is the inevitable "wages of sin." We may differ widely in our views as to the best means of accomplishing our object; we may feel it our duty to warn our flocks against what we think to be erroneous in the principles of our rivals, provided we fully understand what those principles are; but let us distinguish between systems and individuals. Let us remember what underlies all creeds, all forms of worship, is the great LAW OF CHARITY; that the sincere lover of truth, even if led into error, may be nearer the Kingdom of Heaven than one who prides himself on his supposed orthodoxy but is deficient in humility. Let us remember that what we lose in common by exhibiting our miserable divisions in the face of the heathen, exceeds what we severally gain by zeal without love. And to you, the clergy and laity of the Church, I would remark—be not discouraged. If in this remote spot of the globe, the battle between modern Puritanism and primitive Catholicity is to be fought, let our opponents know we are ready to meet them. We have sought, in the quiet and regular discharge of our sacred duties, to avoid unnecessary collision. But if the contest is forced upon us, we have no choice but to accept the position. Of one thing be assured—such attacks as these instead of weakening will greatly strengthen us. Here—for the atmosphere of opposition in the case of every new enterprise, especially a sacred one, is always more bracing, more invigorating, than one of unqualified prosperity. Abroad—for those who sent us here in compliance with a ROYAL invitation, will not sit tamely by and see one of their most interesting and hopeful missions crushed by the intolerance and misrepresentations of narrow-minded and disappointed sectaries. "Doubt not," then, my brethren, but "earnestly believe" that all shall work together for good, and that you shall yet see the off-shoot of that sacred vine which, in England and America," God hath made so strong for His own Self," overspreading this Kingdom with its goodly branches, taking "root downwards and bearing fruit upwards," even the fruit of "that Tree of Life whose leaves shall be for the healing of the nations."


THE following petition was presented to the Bishop shortly after the delivery of the address:

"We, the undersigned members of the congregation worshiping in the temporary Cathedral of Honolulu, having had the pleasure of hearing your Lordship's Pastoral last Sunday, beg most respectfully to suggest that it be printed and widely circulated.

"We cannot but think that its truthful, moderate and charitable spirit, in unison with all your Lordship's teaching during the time of your ministry among us, is eminently calculated to undo the mischievous effect of the very uncalled for and bitter observations contained in a recent report of the American Board of Presbyterian and Congregationalist Missions."

[Signed by their Majesties the King and Queen, and other occupants of seats in the Church, natives and foreigners.]


As if to strengthen my assertion, that this mission was undertaken in the hope of joint action with the American Church, the very next day after this Pastoral address, the Rev. Peyton Gallagher, M. A., of Geneva, New York, arrived, the bearer of letters from two of its Bishops and other eminent clergymen, expressing their sympathy and interest in the progress of the infant Church. He brought with him as an offering to the Bishop, a Missionary Flag. The circumstances of its presentation are related in the Hawaiian Gazette for January the 28th, from which the following extract is quoted:

"THE FEAST OF THE CONVERSION OF ST. PAUL.—On Wednesday fast, at 7 1/2 P. M., after a short service in the Church, Rev. Peyton Gallagher, M. A., of Geneva, New York, presented to the Bishop his Missionary Flag. It was held up before the congregation by two of the choristers during the observations of the Reverend gentleman." * * *

After explaining that the Red Cross upon it signified the message of "redemption through the Blood of the Lamb," and the thirteen stars "Christ and His Holy Apostles," he spoke as follows:

"In the wise Providence of God it has been ordered that this flag should first float in the Islands once ruled by that devoted servant of Christ and the Church, the late Sovereign of this realm, Kamehameha IV., Father of the infant Church, planted by the mission confided to the care of the Lord Bishop of Honolulu, and, unalterably inwrought into its very texture, is a speaking witness to the memory of his name, and of the good deeds by him done ‘for the House of our God, and for the officers thereof.’

Presented by an American churchman to a Bishop sent by the Church and Crown of England to these Islands, for the promotion of their spiritual welfare, and at the call of the then Sovereign of the same, it comes laden with the hearty sympathy, deep interest, and earnest prayers of those the Bishops, the Clergy, and the Laity of England's Daughter Church, who so gladly send their greeting from America.

May the people of the lands, thus united in the Faith of Christ, so walk before God in the light of the living, according to the teaching of the Holy Apostle St. Paul, whose wonderful conversion and preaching of the Gospel throughout the world this day commemorates, as that they, and they, to whom and for whom, they minister shall rejoice together in His Presence, in His eternal and glorious Kingdom."

Mr. Gallagher then turning round, addressed the Bishop, who was seated on his throne.

"Reverend Father in God. Into the hands of the Right Reverend the Lord Bishop of Honolulu, Chief Pastor of the Mission so kindly cared for and warmly cherished by His Majesty, the reigning Sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands, and Her Majesty the widowed Queen of its earliest Friend, do I now commit the 'Cross and Stars,' a token of good-will and fellowship in the Faith. May it indeed prove as it was designed to be, a Christian Mission Flag, a Banner for, Christ and the Church.' May it wave where'er it goes an ensign of the Redeemer, proclaiming to thousands upon thousands, purchased by His most precious blood, that Christ the Lord, who was born King of the Jews, in the city of David, having put away sin by the sacrifice of Himself, that through death He might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the Devil, and ascended upon high that 'He might fill all things,' is 'a Light to lighten the Gentiles, the Saviour of the world, the Judge of quick and dead, the Head of all principality and power, the Head over all things to the Church which is His Body, the Fulness of Him that filleth all in all.’"

This very eloquent address being concluded, it was delivered in Hawaiian from a written translation, by Mr. Kahalewai, Lay Reader of the Church, after which the Rev. Mr. Gallagher placed the flag in the hands of the Bishop. His Lordship replied as follows:

"MY REVEREND BROTHER:—I gladly and thankfully accept, on behalf of the Church committed to my care, this your gift whose sacred significance you have so well and beautifully explained.

Accompanied with the sympathies and prayers of Bishops and Clergy of the United States, it comes a token of our Christian fellowship and inter-communion with one of the purest branches on earth of Christ's Holy Catholic Church. But I see in it something more even than this. Borne to these shores by a Presbyter of "England's daughter Church" in America, it is an earnest of an early, and, let us hope, complete fulfilment of that purpose of co-operation, in full reliance on which our Holy Mother consented to take the initiative in establishing in these islands her own Reformed, yet truly Catholic communion. There is but one cause for regret in the acceptance of this flag, that I have as yet no missionary yacht on which to carry it. Ere long, let us hope, this defect will be supplied, and that to many an islander of this vast ocean, now "lying in darkness and the shadow of death," it may symbolize the blessings of the Great Sacrifice, offered on the Cross, once for all. Once more I thank you, and in the name of the clergy and laity of this Church, I think too, I may venture to say, on behalf of my fellow Christians here, of whatsoever denomination, I bid you a hearty welcome."

The Bishop then pronounced the benediction, and the congregation dispersed.

Project Canterbury