Project Canterbury

A Refutation of the Charge of Apostacy made by the Bishop of Honolulu
Against the Rector of Honolulu and the Trustees of St. Clement's Chapel, Honolulu

By John Usborne

Honolulu: no publisher, 1901.


This property was a wilderness eighteen months ago, only having come into the possession
of the Trustees of St. Clement's Chapel in October, 1899.


Members of the Anglican Communion


The Bishop of Honolulu has caused to issue two-official documents dated 27th February and March 4th, 1901, copies of which are herein contained.

In these letters I am advertised as a Schismatic, and as having founded a new Sect styled "The Episcopal Church at Large."

By this action the Bishop has placed me in a most serious position, and one in which it is impossible to effectually defend myself, inasmuch as it is unknown to me where these letters have been circulated, and such official documents, issued by a Bishop of the Church, would naturally be regarded as reliable and conclusive.

Under these circumstances but one course is open to me, that of making a public denial of the Bishop's accusation, which I now do.

To all Members of the Anglican Communion to whom these Presents may come.


Be it known to you by these Presents, that the Reverend John Usborne, formally of the City of Toronto, admitted to the order of Priesthood by the Lord Bishop of Toronto, in the year of our Lord, 1889, and appointed in the year 1897 to a position of dignity and trust in the Anglican Church in Hawaii, (the said Church being an offshoot of the Church of England planted in the Hawaiian Islands, in full communion with the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, and with all the: daughter Churches of the Church of England 'throughout; the world) has freely, voluntary, and by his own act [3/4] separated himself from the communion of the Anglican Church aforesaid, having made himself the founder of a new sect under the name and style of "The Episcopal Church at Large," according to the tenor of a deed of Conveyance recorded in the Registry of Conveyances of the Territory of Hawaii, Liber 173, folio 140, dated October 1, 1897, whereby a certain piece of land was conveyed to "Thos. R. Walker," Esq., Tom May, Esq. and Rev. John Usborne, all of said Honolulu, as Trustees in trust for the use and benefit of THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH AT LARGE to have and to hold as Trustees of the Episcopal Church, their heirs, successors in trust, and assigns forever," and for three years has persistently rejected every opportunity offered him of bringing the church built under the trust aforesaid together with himself and his congregation into union with the Anglican Church in Hawaii.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand this twenty-seventh day of February, in the year of our Lord, one thousand nine hundred and one.

ALFRED WILLIS, Bishop of Honolulu.

I certify that the above declaration was this day duly recorded in the Registry of the Diocese of Honolulu, dated the 4th day of March, 1901.

The Church Defence and Extension Association of Hawaii.

To all to whom these Presents may come, Greeting.

Be it known to you by these Presents, that Whereas there was published in the Churchman. Vol. 83, No. 5, dated February 2, 1901, a letter on the "Church in Hawaii," signed, "Geo. S. Harris, President, for the Church Defence and Extension Association of Hawaii, Honolulu, H. I., January 2nd, 1901," intended to make it appear and be believed in the United States that the Rev. A. C. A. Hall, D. D., Bishop of Vermont, had been [4/5] misinformed and was generally in error in the statements concerning the Anglican Church in Hawaii published over his signature in a previous issue (that of Dec. 1) of the same journal.

The position and standing of the said Association is as follows:

1. The said Church Defence and Extension Association has no recognition from the Bishop, Synod, or any of the Parochial Clergy of the Diocese of Honolulu.

2. The said Church Defence and Extension Association was incorporated on March 10, 1899, through the. instrumentality of one John Usborne, Clerk, late of Toronto, Canada, who had previously, in 1897, separated himself from the Anglican Church in Hawaii, in which he had been given a position of dignity and trust, and become the founder of a schism holding property under the name and style of "The Episcopal Church at Large," and it was for the Defence and Extension of this schismatical body, and not of the Church, that the so-called Church Defence and Extension Association was brought into existence.

3. Whilst any one reading the preample of the Charter of Incorporation of the said Association would be led to believe that it was promoted by American Churchmen, it being stated, that "it is deemed by the members of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the Hawaiian Islands to be expedient, that such an Association should be formed,"

(1) Six out of seven of the Charter members are British, one only being an American, and

(2) There is no such body in existence as "The Protestant Episcopal Church of the Hawaiian Islands."

4. Persons unbaptized and persons who do not hold the Faith of the Church are eligible for membership in the Association, provided they are "adherents or attendants of the Church, and accept and agree with the object of the Association."

To which four characteristics of the Society, calling itself the "Church Defence and Extension Association of Hawaii," nothing more need be added to enable you to determine the value to attach to the communication published in the CHURCHMAN, of February 2nd, 1901.

[6] In witness whereof, we have hereunto set our hand this fourth day of March, in the year of our Lord, 1901.

Bishop of Honolulu.

Vice-Dean and Clerical Secretary of the Diocesan Synod.


In the first place, I call upon Almighty God to witness that I have never, in thought, word or deed, either separated myself from the communion of the Anglican Church in Hawaii, or that I have founded any new sect, or contemplated any such step. On the contrary I have lawfully officiated daily in St. Clement's Chapel, Honolulu, as a priest of the Anglican Church in Hawaii and as Rector of Honolulu, and have celebrated the Holy Communion weekly for the past three years, except during my absence at the General Convention in 1898.

I have used only the authorized Prayer Books and forms of prayer, English and American, and the services at St. Clement's Chapel have been, and are, the same as those in other orthodox churches.

The Bishop Doane Manuals of Christian Doctrine are taught in my Sunday School.

I solemnly affirm that his Lordship has no ground whatever for making any such statements, and that in these letters I, and all other people, hear for the first time that I have separated myself from the Church, or have founded any new sect, or that any such sect exists. That this name "Episcopal Church at Large" is now applied to St. Clement's for the first time, and that by the Bishop, and that St. Clement's always has been, and is now regarded by its Trustees, Congregation, and the public of Honolulu as a Chapel of the Anglican Church in Hawaii. A priest's asseverations of loyalty to his Church in the face of such an accusation from his Bishop, would be of [6/7] no value if unsupported by proof. I am therefore compelled to make public what documentary evidence I possess, although I had hoped this to remain strictly private.

If my later letters to the Bishop should be looked upon as intemperate, I would say they were written under strong mental pressure. The Bishop is very little my senior, (he is sixty-four years of age) and I came to this Diocese with the clear understanding that I should have the privilege of speaking plainly should occasion require it.

The one trouble in connection with St. Clement's has been the determination of the Bishop to control the property itself, which the Trustees, in the interests of the Church, have thought it better he should not do.

To enable you to arrive at a just conclusion, it is necessary that a short history should be given of facts that have led up to this climax.

In ordinary justice, I ask you to read it.

I am, yours truly,


Honolulu, May, 1901.

The Rev. John Usborne was the Rector of St. Clement's Church in the City of Toronto, where he was very happily established.

He had visited Honolulu in 1892, where he had found the Church in a very disturbed state.

A few years later, from conscientious motives, he was led to offer himself for the work in this Diocese. This involved a great personal sacrifice, but yielding to the dictates of conscience, he wrote thus to the Bishop of Honolulu in November, 1896:

"You will now see my object in writing to you. It is not to ask you to appoint me to the Cathedral, it is simply to offer you fully and freely my services and to tell you that if you desire it, I am ready and glad to cast in my lot with yours in the work of the Church in Hawaii, and to devote my whole energy to helping you to restore a [7/8] state of things more acceptable to the Lord." * * *

"But a perfect confidence must exist between us. If the Bishop and the Rector have not perfect confidence in each other, you cannot expect the people to have faith in either." * * * *

"About stipend, do not let this influence you, if it is necessary I could do without stipend for six or eight months." * * *

"But do not ask me to go if you do not mean to trust me; with a sheet of paper between us, our influence would be impaired."

''I may say I place my life in your hands." In December the Bishop of Honolulu replied in the kindest terms, and warmly inviting him to go to his Diocese, but frankly telling him that he did not see any immediate prospect of stipend. He said:

"That your offer should have arrived at this particular moment is the more remarkable, because I was just beginning to give up hope of being able to attend the Lambeth conference next July." * * *

"This sense may make them more disposed in a little while to see the necessity of reunion on the basis of a stipend being found for a Rector, to which post it is understood you should be appointed." etc., etc.

On receiving this letter Mr. Usborne resigned his parish in Toronto and prepared to leave with his family for Honolulu, where, he very naturally supposed, he would be appointed Rector, since that post was vacant.

On arriving in Honolulu the Bishop conferred upon him the title of Vice-Dean of the Cathedral.

In reading the Cathedral Constitution, Mr. Usborne observed the following clauses;

"'Until the endowment of the several dignities, Vice-Dean, precentor, chancelor, treasurer, and missioner, any of the canons may be anointed by the Bishop from year to year to perform the duties proper to Vice-Dean, precentor, chancelor, treasurer, and missioner, but in such cases the names are not "titles of dignity" but used to distinguish the persons discharging such functions."

"Until the Vice-Dean is endowed, one of the canons may be appointed Vice-Dean annually, at the January meeting of the Chapter."

[9] Since the office of Vice-Dean was stated to be an annual appointment and conferred no parochial authority, it was useless to Mr. Usborne as a parish priest. He thereupon applied to the Bishop for institution to his expected post as Rector, which only could give him necessary authority in the disquieted state of the parish. The Bishop then instituted him Rector in the following document:

ALFRED, by Divine permission, Lord Bishop of Honolulu.

To my well beloved in Christ, John Usborne, Clerk. Greeting:

By virtue of the authority committed to me, I admit you to the Rectory or Incumbency of the Parish of Honolulu, in the Hawaiian Islands, to which you are presented by the Lord Bishop of Honolulu, the true and undoubted patron thereof. And I do, truly and canonically, institute you to the said Rectory or Incumbency, and invest you with all and singular the rights, members and appurtenances thereunto belonging (you having first before me subscribed the articles and taken the oaths which are in this case by law required to be subscribed and taken, and made the Declaration required to be made.)

And I do, by these presents. Commit unto you the Cure and Government of the Souls of the inhabitants, Members of the Church of England, within the limit of the said Rectory or Incumbency of the Parish of Honolulu, saving always to the said Lord Bishop and his successors, Bishops of Honolulu, the Episcopal Rights.

Given under our seal this fifth day of April, in the year of our Lord One Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety-seven, and of our Consecration the Twenty-sixth.

(Episcopal Seal.) (Signed)


[10] ALFRED, by Divine permission,
Lord Bishop of Honolulu.

To all Rectors and Clerks, whomsoever, wheresoever resident throughout the Diocese of Honolulu in the Hawaiian Islands.


Whereas by the virtue of the authority committed to me, I have admitted John Usborne, Clerk, to the Rectory of the Parish of Honolulu in the said Hawaiian Islands, to which he was presented by the Lord Bishop of Honolulu, the true and undoubted patron thereof and have duly and canonically instituted him in and to the said Rectory and invested him with all and singular the rights, members and appurtenances thereunto belonging: you are therefore hereby desired jointly and severally to induct, and cause the said Clerk, or his lawful Proctor, in his name and for him, to be inducted into the real, actual and corporal possession of the said Rectory of the Parish of Honolulu and of all and singular the rights, members and appurtenances thereunto belonging, and to defend him so inducted: and what you shall do in the premises, you or whosoever of you that shall execute this present Mandate, are duly to certify to the said Lord Bishop, his Suffragan or Vicar General, or General Commissary, or other competent judge or person on his behalf, when required so to do.

Given under our Seal this sixth day of April, in the year of our Lord One Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety-seven, and of our Consecration the Twenty-sixth.

(Episcopal Seal.) (Signed) ALFRED HONOLULU.

This document was endorsed as follows: "On the ninth day of May, in the year of our Lord One Thousand Eight Hundred and Ninety-seven, the within named Rev. John Usborne, was duly inducted [10/11] into the real, actual and corporal possession of the within mentioned Rectory, and of all and singular the rights, members, and appurtenances thereunto belonging, in obedience to the within Mandate.

By me,


In presence of S. MEHEULA.

To establish Mr. Usborne's right to his Rectory at this date, is very important, since it is by virtue of being Rector of Honolulu, that he has officiated in St. Clement's Chapel during the past three years, and on which, he bases his claim to the right to do so.

To show then, that on his induction, he irrevocably became the Rector of Honolulu. The following is copied from "Cripps Law relating to the Church and Clergy. Sixth Edition."

This is a standard work on English ecclesiastical law:

"Induction is, therefore, the investiture of the temporal part of the benefice, and when a Clerk is thus presented, instituted and inducted into a Rectory, he is then, and not before, in full and complete possession, and is called in law persona impersonata, parson imparsonee, for as by institution or collation the spiritual cares of the parish and cure of souls is committed to him, so by induction are committed to him the temporalities of the Church and actual possession of the Church," "by induction he acquires jus in re, or complete and full right, and he has now the real possession of the church, with all the rights, profits, and appurtenances thereto belonging."

Such an appointment, as most people know, is an appointment for life.

Within ten days after Mr. Usborne's arrival in Honolulu, the Bishop left for England by way of Australia, having appointed Mr. Usborne his Commissary during his absence.

[12] A month later, on May 13th, the Bishop wrote from Australia in reply to a letter from Mr. Usborne asking him to put in writing the promise he had made, that in event of the union of the two congregations which worshipped in the Cathedral, they should have the privilege of disbursing the funds they themselves subscribed, their offertories, and so forth. The Bishop replied thus:

"But although I am thus estopped from complying with your request, there is no curtailment of the liberty which members of a reunited congregation will enjoy to organize a new parish and build a new Church in Honolulu whenever they may desire and have the means of doing so.

"The time is not far distant when we ought to have a Church in Palama and another in the Punahou direction. Whenever a sufficient number of people may be able to start such a new organization there is nothing in the Constitution to hinder their doing so. Whilst as Bishop I would not give my consent beforehand to consecrate another Church for the English-speaking race within a mile of the Cathedral, beyond that distance I would be prepared to do so; its erection and support being both satisfactorily guaranteed."

On the strength of this letter, was not the Bishop's Commissary justified, and had he not reason to suppose that the Bishop would approve his action, in building a Mission Chapel in the Punahou suburb, two miles from the Cathedral?

The latter half of this extract Mr. Usborne read shortly afterwards, in a sermon he preached on Church extension, in order to show that the Bishop was in favour of extending' the Church in the suburban parts of the City, which the people would not credit. He did not consider the former part necessary to his point, nor that it conditioned in any way the Bishop's desire for Church extension as expressed in the latter half of the letter. Therefore he did not read the former part, but which, the Bishop contends, qualified his consent given in the latter part.

He then publicly charged Mr. Usborne in his Diocesan Magazine with dishonourable duplicity, and [12/13] intentionally deceiving his people in the building of this Chapel.

The City of Honolulu was five miles across, and this letter very naturally led him to suppose that the Bishop would be pleased if one or two missions were built during his absence, especially since there were three priests besides the Bishop officiating in the Cathedral.

Mr. Usborne therefore in replying to his letter to England on 21st July, said:

"With regard to the extension of the Church in the Punahou district I am quite with you. The town is growing up very fast in the neighborhood of the College which is nearly two miles from the Cathedral, and even the Central Union people have no place of worship there. I have called on a good many people there and find them much in favour of a Church in that locality, and if I can collect the necessary funds, I shall secure a proper site near the College."

Again, on the 21st of August, he wrote the Bishop thus:

"I have two very nice sites offered for a small Church at Punahou, 2 1/2 miles from the Cathedral, and I am collecting for a building. I think one to hold 60 or 70 persons will be large enough. There are a great many people around there without any Church privileges."

He wrote the Bishop again on the 4th of September: "I have some $1,600 promised for the Punahou Church; I think $2,000 will be enough. This will put up a neat building to hold 75 persons, and there are non-church-goers enough in that immediate section to fill it, and a good number of children for a school. I hope to have it open for Christmas."'

On the 23d of September, he wrote to the Bishop again: "I have bought a grand lot at Punahou, corner of Makiki and Wilder avenue, and shall start to work next week building."

In acknowledging these various letters the Bishop made no allusion to the Mission, which Mr. Usborne could only attribute to lack of interest, but on the 5th of October the Bishop wrote thus:

[14] "With regard to the scheme you have on hand for a Church at Punahou, I do not feel that I have yet sufficient data before me to express any opinion at present, either of approval or disapproval. There is not time before my return for me to obtain an answer to several questions that must be answered before I can finally give my sanction. You will see from our Statutes that there are several preliminaries to be carefully observed.''

When this letter reached Honolulu, the money had been collected, the contract was signed and the building well advanced. Mr. Usborne was naturally a good deal surprised at the tone of this letter, since the Bishop had definitely stated in his previous letter, that "Whenever a sufficient number of people may be able to start such a new organization there is nothing in the Constitution to hinder their doing so," but it was too late to stop the work.

At this time the Annexation of these Islands was uncertain, although it was expected; therefore it was thought expedient by the donors, that the deed of the lot which had been purchased for this Chapel, should be drawn, not in trust for the "Anglican Church in Hawaii," but for the "Episcopal Church at large," which name was selected as an appropriate one, that would apply equally to whichever branch of the Church was finally established here.

It was for this reason and this reason only, that this name was selected, and it did not occur to those who chose it that it would ever be questioned.

The words "at large" were interlined in the deed, and appear only once. They were added after the deed was drawn, and not written in conspicuous characters as the Bishop's document would lead one to suppose.

The most liberal subscribers to this Mission requested that the property should be vested in a trust other than the "Board of Trustees of the Anglican Church." Mr. Usborne, being a comparative stranger, did not, at the time, quite realize the force of their reasons.

They wished this because they had reason to know that any Church property the Bishop controlled, he controlled so effectually, that neither the clergymen or the laity [14/15] were permitted a voice in its management except by the sanction of the Bishop.

The Bishop and the "Board of Trustees" are referred to throughout this paper as convertible terms, since the Bishop controls that Board.

Three Trustees were selected, two being members of the Board of Trustees of the Anglican Church, the most influential and wealthy men in the Church, the Rector being the third. This trust was formed in all good faith, it seemed to them to be perfectly legitimate, safe and in proper form, and in strict obedience to the canons of the Diocese, and Mr. Usborne as the Bishop's Commissary approved it.

The Bishop returned in December.

Shortly afterwards he requested that this property be transferred to the Board of Trustees of the Anglican Church. Mr. Usborne gave his consent to this at once, provided the Board of Trustees assumed, with the property, the liability of the unpaid purchase money $3,000.00 for which amount the Trustees had given their joint promissory note, but the Bishop refused to assume this liability and the Trustees refused to transfer the property unless their note was released.

The matter than seemed to drop, but in February, the following letter was largely circulated:


To All Members of the Anglican Church in the Parish of Saint Andrew, Honolulu.

Honolulu, February 7, 1898.

My Dear Friends:

The utterances delivered from the pulpit of St. Andrew's Cathedral by Canon Usborne yesterday morning, with reference to a certain building recently erected in the direction of Punahou, oblige me to break the silence I have observed since my return from England in regard to that edifice, and explain to all members of the Anglican Church, in Honolulu, why that building is not, and [15/16] cannot be, under present conditions, recognized by the Bishop as having any connection with the Anglican Church in this city.

I have been told that, when the erection of this building, as a Mission Church, was first mooted, it was generally believed that the project had the full sanction of the Bishop, and that a letter purporting to express that approval was read from the Cathedral pulpit. Let me tell you that at the date when a certain letter of mine was read from the pulpit, all that I had written in any way bearing upon the subject, that I have any recollection of, was a general remark that the time was approaching when we ought to have Mission Churches in the outlying parts of the city. On receiving in London information from Canon Usborne that the erection of a church near Punahou was contemplated, I replied to the effect, that no particulars respecting the proposed Church having been furnished, I was not in a position to express either approval or disapproval of the project; but I pointed out that there were certain conditions that must be carefully complied with in any undertaking of that nature. If he was ignorant of those conditions, it was his duty to have made himself acquainted with them before proceeding further.

On arriving here in the middle of December, and learning that a building was already erected, I explained to Canon Usborne that no Bishop could accept it under its present conditions, and furnished him with a copy of the ecclesiastical law governing the consecration of churches (English).

Full opportunity was thus afforded for an effort to be made to rectify the error which had been made, and for placing the edifice in such relation to the Cathedral, that it might at least be possible, other conditions being- satisfied, for the Bishop to accept it as a Mission Church. Meanwhile I have kept silence, thus giving time for steps in that direction to be taken. Nothing, however, has been done, and, in place of this, you were compelled to listen, on Septuagesima Sunday, to an appeal for your sympathy with a proceeding, which has not yet been put on such a basis that any member of the Church can consistently support it.

[17] It being necessary that every one should fully understand the situation, and know the reason why the building in question cannot yet receive Episcopal recognition, I will proceed to point out the conditions that must be satisfied in the erection of Mission Churches here in Honolulu.

It should first be clearly understood that the Incumbent of a Parish Church, whether he be styled Rector, Vicar or Perpetual Curate, has no authority to exercise his public ministry in any building other than the Parish Church without the license of the Bishop. That is a general law.

Here in Honolulu the Rector is also Vice-Dean of the Cathedral, and, as such, has solemnly accepted a Cathedral constitution, which subjects all mission churches that may be built to the control of the Chapter, of which, he is a member. That is a position that Canon Usborne voluntarily accepted, and subject to which he holds his present appointment in the Cathedral. Up to the present, however, the Chapter has received no information of what is being done at Punahou.

Mission Churches, as distinguished from churches of newly formed parishes, do not become separate financial centres. The offerings and contributions of those attending the services in such churches are paid to the common treasury of the Parish Church, out of which the running expenses of the services are defrayed. It is necessary for this principle to be observed to safe-guard the rights of the Parish Church. A Church that becomes a new financial centre is not a Mission Church.

Before the Bishop can consecrate any building for a Church, he requires a guarantee that the site is made Church property forever. The conveyance of the land to the Trustees of the Anglican Church in Hawaii, a corporation authorized by law to hold property for the purposes of the Anglican Church, gives that guarantee. So long as the site is private property there is no such guarantee, and the Bishop cannot accept it.

These are the leading principles to be observed in establishing Mission Churches. Any building erected in disregard of those principles, whatever its external appearance, is merely a private house, which cannot be used [17/18] for public worship. The mind of the Church of England is particularly clear on this point, it being laid down in the 71st Canon:

"No minister shall preach or administer the Holy Communion in any private house, except it be in times of necessity, when any being either so impotent as he cannot go to the church, or very dangerously sick, are desirous to be partakers of the Sacrament, upon pain of suspension for the first offence, and ex-communication for the second."

It will now be clear to every one, without going into further detail, why the Bishop cannot, under present conditions, give any recognition to the building at Punahou; and it will also be plain, if there are persons in that locality really in need of a church, by what steps the building that has been put up can be placed on such a footing that it can be accepted for a Mission Church, believe me,

Faithfully your servant and Bishop,


The sermon referred to above was of a very ordinary character showing that with increase of population there should be an increase of church accommodation, that he thought a city of 30,000, five miles in diameter should have more than one church. It may be remarked that the Bishop was not present and did not hear this sermon.

Mr. Usborne, in a pamphlet, entitled "Two Letters" stated the plain facts of the case, and protested against the Bishop's action as unreasonable, since he had intimated a desire for Church extension, he had tacitly permitted the Chapel to be built, and he might have had the control lie desired, of the property, had he relieved the Trustees of personal liability, and especially, as at the time, three priests and the Bishop officiated in St. Andrew's Cathedral Church.

In deference to the Bishop's wishes the Chapel was not opened, nor would it ever have been opened without the Bishop's consent had not Mr. Usborne been subsequently unlawfully deprived of his Parish Church by the Bishop, when, as Rector of the Parish, without a church, he felt justified in using this Chapel.

[19] With regard to the above letter.

It was expected that the Bishop would license this Chapel, should this step be necessary and it was not intended to be opened without.

The heading of the subscription list proclaimed that the Chapel to be built should be nothing more than a Mission.

It was never intended to be a financial centre, and could not be, its being situated in too poor a section of the town.

It was not intended to be consecrated, being little more than a temporary building.

The Chapter, which is composed of the Bishop's Chaplain, knew all about this Chapel, as did the Bishop also.

There is not one valid reason given in this letter to show insincerity on Mr. Usborne's or the Trustees' part, or why the Bishop should not have accepted this Chapel as a Mission of the Cathedral.

There were many people in this suburb who seldom or never went to church owing to distance (over two miles, and in a tropical country) and children without a Sunday-School.

Mr. Usborne had offered his services gratuitously to the Bishop for eight months, but a year had now passed without mention being made of a stipend, which meantime had became a matter of importance to him.

The Bishop, as Dean, claimed all the receipts of the Church: his Chaplain, the organist and all expenses of the Church were paid but the Rector received nothing, and there appeared no prospect of his receiving any stipend.

It had been ascertained by Mr. Usborne that the Dean and Chapter of St. Andrew's Cathedral had never been legalized by Government incorporation, which authority is necessary to the existence of such a corporation. The Cathedral Constitution proclaims that its Dean and Chapter is, like other such bodies, a ''Body Corporate," but such a body cannot exist without Government authorization, and therefore, the Bishop was not legally Dean, and had not the right as such, to deprive the Rector of his stipend which should be paid from the receipts of the Parish Church. Mr. Usborne therefore caused a notice [19/20] to be served on the Church Wardens, forbidding their disbursing these receipts until it should be learned to whom they belonged.

A few days later, Mr. Usborne became aware of the fact, that in England, the law required every Rector to "read himself in."

Although this was not the law in the Anglican Church in Hawaii, and the Bishop had never spoken of it, the relations between the Bishop and Mr. Usborne being strained, the latter felt anxious not to give the Bishop an opportunity or an excuse for a reprimand, he therefore wrote his Lordship thus:

Honolulu, 15th March, 1898.


My Dear Lord Bishop:

On reading up Ecclesiastical Law lately I have become aware that it is necessary in England, for a Rector to go through the form of publicly reading the Thirty-nine Articles and assenting to the same.

This, of course, I am quite ready and willing to do.

Although you have not spoken of it, I should feel obliged by your appointing a day when I may do this, as I wish to conform, in every respect, to the requirements of the law; and if you would kindly instruct your Secretary to send me a blank form of certificate, I should be obliged.

I am, yours faithfully,


The Bishop replied as follows:

Honolulu. 19 March 1898.

My Dear Sir:--I have to acknowledge the receipt of a pamphlet from you entitled ''Two Letters," from which [20/21] it appears that you regard my appointment of you to a Canonry in the Cathedral, and my making you Vice-Dean, to be null and void and of no effect.

I have also to acknowledge your letter of the 15th March, 1898, in which you inform me that a step, necessary to render valid and effectual your institution as Rector of St. Andrew's has never been taken.

Since you maintain, in your opinion, you have no official position in my Cathedral Church, and you admit you are no lawful Rector of any Parish Church, I must decline for the present to invite you or to give you my permission to take any part in the services of the said Church, whether the same be regarded as a Cathedral or Parish Church, without which permission you are, at the present moment, according to your own statements, without authority to officiate or perform any ministerial act in this city or Diocese.

The questions you have raised are under consideration and as soon as they have been fully and carefully examined, the conclusions arrived at shall be communicated to you.

I am, yours very faithfully,


The Bishop would appear to be mistaken here. Mr. Usborne did not inform the Bishop that "reading in" was a necessary step in this diocese, and the Bishop certainly could not lawfully require him to do anything that was not required by the Statutes and Canons of the Diocese, and "reading in" is not.

Moreover, "reading in" is not necessary to render valid the institution of a Rector anywhere; his induction, as before shown, gives him full and complete possession of his Parish Church.

The law of England states that a Clergyman, when he has been inducted, becomes a complete incumbent, and that he has then full possession of the temporalities, as well as the Spiritualities, of his benefice--but it requires further, that, although he is now in full possession, he [21/22] shall, at some time, publicly, in the hearing of the people, declare his belief in the doctrines of the Church as laid down in the Thirty-nine Articles. Thus--

"Every person instituted or collated to any benefice with cure of souls shall, on the first Lord's day, or on such other Lord's day as the Bishop may appoint and allow, publicly and openly in the presence of the congregation there assembled read the Thirty-nine Articles of religion, and immediately after reading make the declaration of assent." "And if any person so instituted or collated wilfully fails to comply with this provision, he shall absolutely forfeit his benefice. The making this declaration as now required, constitutes what has heretofore been termed "reading in," and if omitted at the proper time the only question which would arise would seem to be whether the omission was wilful." (Cripps.)

It is the Bishop's duty to appoint a day for such "reading in" when requested by the Rector.

As the law provides "that lapse shall not occur because the Church remain void through the Bishop's own default, and he thereby is a "disturber" so a Rector, who is willing and ready to "read in," is blameless, and the nonfulfillment of this requisite, through the Bishop's default in not appointing a day when requested, does not in any way impair his Rectorial rights.

However, Mr. Usborne, perhaps not wisely, accepted this suspension, and joined the congregation in the body of the Church.

There was no one to whom to appeal. Yet he refrained from opening the Chapel.

Without any notice a little later, on Thursday in Holy Week. 1898, the following document was handed to Mr. Usborne. There had been no citation, no charge made, or form of trial, although the Constitution of the Anglican Church in Hawaii provides that

"For the determinations of questions relating to the due fulfillment of the Sacred Ministry in its several functions of administration of the word and Sacraments, and of Spiritual discipline, the Bishop shall summon the Clergy of the Diocese to a synod, to be called the Sacred Synod."

KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that John Usborne who was admitted to the Holy Order of Deacons by the Bishop of Toronto in the year of our Lord, 1887, and in the same year was ordained to the Priesthood by the same Bishop, was licensed by us the Bishop of Honolulu to officiate in the Diocese of Honolulu for six months in the year, 1892, and therefore could not be ignorant of this, that the Hawaiian Islands lie outside the limits of the British Empire, and of the United States of America, and also that the Anglican Church in Hawaii is a Missionary offshoot of the Mother Church of England dependent for its support on the freewill offerings of the faithful, and a grant from the Society for the Propagation of the Gospel having no glebes, tithes, or endowments for the support of its Clergy.

And that he the said John Usborne, having this full knowledge of the situation as aforesaid, did on or about December, 1896, freely and voluntarily, without any previous communication from us, offer his services to us the Bishop of Honolulu, expressing desire to labour for the advancement of the Gospel in the City of Honolulu, within our diocese and jurisdiction:

And that we, the said Bishop, fully confiding in the integrity, fidelity, and good morals of the said John Usborne did accent his offer, and to show our appreciation of his willingness to serve our Cathedral Church without stipend for a period, did signify, to him in writing that we purposed to promulgate a Cathedral constitution and under that constitution install him a Canon of our Cathedral with the office of Vice-Dean, but of making him Rector wrote not a word:

In pursuance of which purpose on our part, we, the said Bishop, did on the 5th day of April, 1897, promulge a Cathedral constitution, and duly and canonically install the said John Usborne a Canon of our Cathedral Church, he first making declarations as follows:

"I will be faithful to this Church of Honolulu, and to the Bishop and chapter of the same Church; I will observe and keep all the statutes, regulations, ordinances, rules, and customs of the same * * * * the rights of this Cathedral Church I will defend nor will I give any assistance, advice, or encouragement to any person or persons whatsoever who shall or will endeavor to violate or [23/24] infringe the same," and after his installation promising obedience to the Bishop as Dean of the said church:

And on the same 5th day of April, 1897 in order to commit to the said John Usborne cure of souls and parochial administration in the City of Honolulu, although this was no part of any previous agreement, we, the said Bishop did at his urgent request give him the title and style of Rector, instituting him Rector of the Parish Church of St. Andrew, such institution having no power to make him a "corporation sole," all freehold rights in the property of the Anglican Church in the Islands, being vested in the "Trustees of the Anglican Church in Hawaii" and should any action at law arise touching the property of the Church, the person to sue and be sued, plead and be impleaded is the said Board of Trustees in its corporate capacity; the mandate for the induction of the said John Usborne as Rector as aforesaid being issued by us on April 7th 1897.

And further fully confiding in the integrity and fidelity of the said John Usborne, we, the said Bishop, did on the 8th day of April, 1807. commission him to be our Commissary during our absence from the Diocese to attend the Lambeth Conference:

Be it further known that on or about the 12th day of March, 1898, a Pamphlet was circulated in the city of Honolulu by the said John Usborne, a copy of which was sent us through the mail entitled Two Letters re the Anglican Church in Hawaii, signed "your Rector, John Usborne" and dated February 22nd, 1898, in this pamphlet he denies (p. 13) the validity of the Cathedral Constitution promulgated by the Bishop, and claims that all appointments under the said Constitution are null and void, and of no effect, and that, if valid, the said constitution took from him all his Rectorial rights, stating as follows:

(a) On page 13, that the Cathedral constitution given and accepted on April 5th "took from me all my Rectorial rights," which did not then exist, for the mandate for his induction was not issued till April 7th, and as will hereafter appear he has not read himself in:

(b) Again on page 13--"as a matter of fact, if I may judge from various Ecclesiastical legal lights, there is [24/25] no St. Andrew's Dean and Chapter at all and no Constitution :"

(c) And again on page 20--"in my opinion our Dean and Chapter is not a legal body, and in fact does not exist. There is no Dean and there is no Chapter, and St. Andrew's is the Parish Church and no more:"

In which belief he states on page 17, that he has "laid before his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury the question of the legality of our Cathedral organization and Constitution," a step on the part of the said John Usborne, of which we had no previous information till we read above statement:

Be it further known that instead of waiting for any reply from his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, the said John Usborne has proceeded to act as if his own opinion were already established, as if there were no Cathedral constitution, no Dean and Chapter, and as if the actual possession of St. Andrew's Church were vested in himself as Rector, together with a lien on all money contributed for the support of the said Church either at the Offertory, or by means of subscriptions, and caused to issue on March nth the following injunction to the Wardens of our Cathedral Church:

CECIL BROWN. Attorney-at-law.


Honolulu, H. I., March 11, 1898.

H. SMITH, ESQ., Church Wardens:

As Attorney for the Rev. John Usborne, who claims that the Dean and Chapter of St. Andrew's Cathedral is not a lawfully constituted body, and therefore has no control over the affairs of said Church, and that, therefore, he, as Rector of said Church, it being the Parish Church, is entitled to the full control thereof.

I now notify you, and each of you, to hold all monies now in hand, or that you, or either of you, may hereafter [25/26] receive on account of said Church through offertories, subscriptions, or in any other manner, and under no consideration whatever to pay over to any person or persons-or disburse any portion of said monies now held or to be hereafter received as aforesaid, until such time as it has been decided by the proper authorities in England who is entitled to receive the same.

And I further notify you that upon failure to comply with the foregoing, you, and each of you, will be held personally responsible for all such monies now in or hereafter coming into your possession or under your control, as such Church Wardens as aforesaid.

Yours very truly,


By which injunction the said John Usborne first releases himself from all obligation to observe the Cathedral Constitution and defend the rights of the Cathedral, and, secondly, endeavours to set in motion a civil process-which, if carried out, could have no other effect than to cause the Divine Service to cease in our Cathedral Church to the dishonour of God, and the scandal and offense of all Christian people: for no authority in England or elsewhere, out of the Diocese, having any jurisdiction in the premises, no salaries and no expenses of Divine Service could henceforth be paid:

The said injunction, moreover, being in open and direct defiance of the laws of the Church, which enact in the Rubric after the order for the Holy Communion, that "the money given at the Offertory shall be disposed of to such pious and charitable uses as the Minister and Church Wardens shall think fit, wherein if they disagree it shall be disposed of as the Ordinary shall appoint." Which rubric estops any questions regarding the money given at the Offertory from being carried out of the Diocese, or into any court of law in the Diocese; the decision of the Ordinary is to be final, and the Ordinary in this case is the Bishop.

BE IT KNOWN FURTHER, that after causing the injunction aforesaid to issue on the 11th day of March, [26/27] 1898 he, the said John Usborne, wrote to us on the 15th day of March, 1898, as follows: "On reading up Ecclesiastical law lately, I have become aware that it is necessary in England for a Rector to go through the form of publicly reading the 39 Articles and assenting to the same * * * * * I should feel obliged by your appointing a day when I may do this;'' by which words he admits that on the 11th day of March, 1898, when he caused the injunction aforesaid to issue in his name as Rector, he was no lawful Rector at all, he not having "read himself in," a qualification as necessary for the validity of his appointment as Rector in this Diocese as it is in England.

Now, therefore, by reason of the premises aforesaid, and for divers other reasons, We, Alfred, by Divine permission, Bishop of Honolulu, do, by these Presents, by virtue of our Episcopal authority, pronounce and declare as follows: That our institution of the said John Usborne as Rector of St. Andrews' Parish Church, is now and ever has been without qualification, that said appointment is null and void and of no effect; and, further, that by releasing himself from all obligation to observe and keep the statutes of the Cathedral, which he bound himself to observe and keep at his installation as Canon, and by setting himself to violate and infringe the rights of our Cathedral Church as if it were no Cathedral, and there were no Cathedral Constitution, he has annulled all claim to continue to hold the Canonical Stall to which we duly installed him with the office of Vice-Dean, and we now declare that the said Canonical Stall is vacant, and that all instruments whatsoever given under our hand and seal giving the said John Usborne our authority and license to have cure of souls, minister or officiate, whether as Canon, Vice-Dean or Rector, or in any other manner whatsoever within our Diocese and jurisdiction, are null and void and of no effect.

Given under our hand and seal in the Chapter-house of our Cathedral Church, in presence of our Chapter, on the thirty-first day of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and ninety-eight, and of our Consecration the twenty-seventh.


[28] This is to Certify that the within notification, was this day duly recorded in the Hawaiian Diocesan Registry in Honolulu, H. I., March 31, 1898.

P. JONES, Registrar.

This is a very long document, but if it be carefully read it will be found to contain not one valid charge against Mr. Usborne.

There being no tribunal to which to appeal, three courses were now open to Mr. Usborne.

1st. To leave the Diocese disgraced, although innocent of the violation of a single canon.

2nd. To invoke the law and continue to officiate in the Cathedral in defiance of the Bishop.

3rd. To open St. Clement's 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 a good congregation. And there he has regularly officiated since, except during the absence referred to.

St. Clement's is a handsome property of 1 1-3 acre in a part of the town recently become very popular as a residential suburb. On it stands the Chapel, which is small, seating about one hundred persons and a commodious Rectory, built last year. Its total value is about $20,000.

In March 1899, the Bishop wrote to the Revs. E. A. Renouf, D. D., and E. J. H. Van Deerlin, who were both in Honolulu at the time, as follows:

"I gladly accept the offer of your kindly offices to put before them (the Trustees of St. Clement's Chapel) the situation as it stands today.

"By Hawaiian law, no property is regarded as belonging to the Anglican Church, but such as is in the hands of the Incorporated Board of Trustees.

"What is really required is its (St. Clement's) transfer to the Incorporated Board of Trustees.

"As soon as the present obstacles are removed I shall be able and ready to license Mr. Usborne to St. Clement's Church and assign a District to it subject of [28/29] course, to the final ratification of boundaries by the Synod."

An attempt was made to meet the Bishop's views, but was futile.

It would seem strange that if Mr. Usborne 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. Usborne to officiate in the Cathedral, up to March 1898, at which date Mr. Usborne was suspended, if Mr. Usborne had seceded from the Church the previous year.

It would appear by the following letter that the Bishop must have recognized Mr. Usborne as a priest of the Anglican Church as late as March 1899.

Honolulu, March 11, 1899.

My Dear Mr. Usborne.

All the Clergy of the Anglican Church in the city being invited to take part in the State Funeral tomorrow, a place is arranged for you in the procession and on the platform at Kawaiahao Church.

You should be at St. Andrew's Cathedral, vested, by 1:30 p. m. Violet Stoles will be worn.

Yours very faithfully,


But as late as 9th March, 1900, it seems the Bishop would have received Mr. Usborne into his Diocese as a priest in good standing and assigned him to a Church as expressed in his letter below of that date.

These successive offers of the Bishop to acknowledge and accept Mr. Usborne as a priest of the Anglican [29/30] Church in good standing, render it quite unintelligible, how he could at the same time, have regarded Mr. Usborne as a Schismatic and the founder of a new sect in 1897.

The following correspondence is given to show that the Trustees of St. Clement's Chapel and its congregation have always and do now, regard themselves as loyal churchmen of the Anglican Church of Hawaii, and have always desired the Bishop to view them as staunch supporters of their Church and lawfully administered Episcopal authority.

Honolulu, March 9, 1900.

My Dear Mr. Usborne.

I do not know whether you really wish to bring your church and congregation into harmony with our Diocesan system, but hoping that to be the case, and seeing that the question of the demise of the property was originally the principal factor in placeing you in your present position, which is not less injurious to yourself than it is to the whole Church, I write this to point out that under certain safeguards I now find it possible to concede a point for which you contended.

Your contention was that it is nowhere laid down that Church property must be conveyed to the Incorporated Trustees; to which my reply has been that only in the hands of the Board of Trustees is there perfect security that a Church will be subject to the Constitution and Statutes of the Diocese. As yet we have no statute providing for the Incorporation of Parishes, and until we have arrived at that point, I still hold it to be ordinarily the duty of the Bishop to refuse to recognize any edifice as a Church of the Diocese, unless the site is held by the Incorporated Trustees. In this particular case, however, I am willing to strain a point, if thereby your congregation can be brought into harmony with our Diocesan system. And if you and your co-trustees are unable for any reason to transfer the property to the Trustees of the Anglican Church in Hawaii, and desire to create a [30/31] separate trust, I am ready to consent to such a course, provided there be inserted in your Trust Deed a clause similar to one found in the Trust Deed of every Parish in California that the property "shall be forever held under the Ecclesiastical authority of the Bishop of Honolulu and of his successors in Office, and subject to the Constitution of the Anglican Church in Hawaii, and to all Statutes and Regulations now in force or that shall be hereafter enacted," a certified copy of the said Trust Deed being deposited in the Diocesan Registry. If this receives your consent, and the consent of your co-Trustees, the difficulty in the way of my accepting the church you have built will be removed, the territorial limits of the district for which it will be the Church will be laid down in the deed of Consecration, you will be appointed thereto, and St. Clement's will be entitled to representation in Diocesan Synod.

In making this proposal I am doing all that can be done on my part to bring about peace and harmony in the Diocese, and I trust that it will meet with your cordial acceptance, and that of your co-Trustees.

Requesting an early reply,

I remain,

Yours very faithfully,


P. S.--I send a copy of this to Mr. T. R. Walker.

A. H.

It will be recognized at once that since there was no canon regulating the vesting of property, its temporal control could not affect the spiritual position of either incumbent or congregation.

Moreover, the Bishop makes no allusion to Mr. Usborne's being reinstated Rector of Honolulu.

The fact of the Bishop's holding certain views as to a bishop's duty and which were unknown to other people, in no wise made such views law, unless defined by canon. ''Cripps" says: "The oath of canonical obedience does not [31/32] mean that the clergymen will obey all commands of the bishop against which there is no law, but that he will obey all such commands as the bishop by law is authorized to impose."

The incorporation in the trust deed of the clause suggested by the Bishop, would have made St. Clement's Chapel Anglican Church property forever. And his Lordship would probably have passed at the first Synod, a statute that would have the effect of placing this property in his own possession.

Honolulu, April 18th, 1900.

My Dear Bishop.

I beg now to make further acknowledgement of the receipt of your letter of March 9th, on the subject of your correspondence with the Rev. John Usborne respecting the Trust of the property held by him with Mr. May and myself. I have assumed your permission to confer fully in the matter with Mr. May as my co-trustee, and I now write in expression of his opinion alike with my own.

It is to our mind quite certain that, when the idea assumed practical shape with us of endeavouring to establish a mission-chapel in the Punahou District, Mr. Usborne and we hoped that the proposed extension of work would be in the form of a branch and off-shoot of the church of which he had been appointed Rector.

It is equally certain that no considerable response met this effort without an accompanying condition that such property as might be acquired for the purpose should be vested, as to ownership, in a trust separate from that of the Diocesan Trustees, although having the same general objects as those of the latter body. We therefore considered it our loyal duty, in the interests of the whole Church, to accept this separate trust. Had we refused, or even postponed, acceptance of such an opportunity as was then offered, we do not think that it would soon again have occurred.

[33] Although we have not questioned in any way the Ecclesiastical authority of the Bishop of the Diocese, we do not see that we can, in good faith towards the donors who have placed us in trust, submit the property to the eventual control of a synodical body the members of which I think are in many instances not well acquainted with the circumstances of our case and with the earnest desire for the welfare of the whole Church in Hawaii which has led to the establishment of our trust; and we are aware that some of the said donors would be strongly opposed to our taking this course under all the circumstances alluded to.

We are therefore compelled to say that we do not deem it to be to the interests of the Church that the present status of St. Clement's should be changed on the lines suggested in your letter of March 9th.

I remain, my dear Bishop,

Yours faithfully,


The Right Rev.
The Bishop of Honolulu,

Honolulu, April 26th, 1900.

My Dear Lord Bishop.

In acknowledging your letter of 9th March, I stated that I should lay it before my co-trustees for consideration. This I have done and I have delayed writing further until they had written you. I think it is much better and more straight forward to state very plainly, why we as Trustees of St. Clement's property must refuse to comply with your suggestion. Your Lordship's record of nearly thirty years shows conclusively that disaster, discord and failure have followed every work you have controlled in this city and forbids our reposing in you that confidence we could wish, we therefore dare not [33/34] trust to your care a fuller control of this property than the law requires. In the face of devoted work on my own part and that of a considerable number of faithful people, you have continuously striven for two years to crush this Chapel and its work, merely because you could not get control of the property, while there exists no canon or law requiring that either you or your Board of Trustees should control it. After due consideration we are convinced that if we were to carry out your wishes disaster would soon follow and our work be lost. Your Lordship must be aware of the fact that church people in this city will neither work for, or interest themselves in, any matter controlled by yourself.

You suggest as a consideration for our acceptance of your suggestion, the appointment of myself as Rector of a new Parish of St. Clement's. As I am already Rector of the whole Parish this could not be done; but even so, if you saw fit to go through the form of depriving me of my rights in my Parish Church of St. Andrew, without cause or trial, you would very possibly repeat that action in St. Clement's, for your Lordship recognizes no law further than suits jour purpose, and there is no method to compel you to do so, or appeal.

When you ask that "Episcopal authority" in St. Clement's be secured to the Bishop of the Diocese, may I enquire what jurisdiction you wish to exercise more than you do now?

We do now, and always have granted and yielded you true and lawful obedience as Bishop, and all the rights and privileges due any Anglican Bishop, by a Rector or a Church. We heartily invite you to visit us although you will not acknowledge us. If your Lordship will, show us where we have acted unlawfully or even unwisely we will gladly make amends. Our Chapel is healthy, well conducted, active and aggressive, its guilds and classes are vigorous, its services hearty and well attended, the truth is preached and the Sacraments lawfully administered and harmony reigns supreme, I think I may say for the first time almost in the history of the Church in Honolulu since your Lordship's advent. What more would you have? We wish above all things for the Bishop's presence, the Episcopal blessing and for [34/35] confirmation. What have we done that my people should be refused Confirmation? St. Clement's was built with your knowledge, you were duly notified of every step that was taken and by your persistent silence you gave your consent. It was built by your own Commissary and the Rector of the Parish, who had a perfect right to build it even without your knowledge, and to vest it as they thought fit. Every canon of your Diocese such as they are, was complied with. It is served by the lawful Rector of the Parish. It was built for, and intended to be a Mission of St. Andrew's Cathedral, but this intention you yourself frustrated by refusing to have it so. You made no objection to this Chapel whatever until after it was completed, then you demanded the title Deeds to be transferred to yourself or your Board of Trustees, which is the same thing since you control that Board. I acquiesced at once, providing of course, that your Trustees assume the liability of the unpaid purchase money, resting on the property, which was secured by the personal promissory note of my co-trustees and myself. This you refused to assume, which was utterly unreasonable. Then to force us to relinquish our trust you refused to acknowledge the Chapel, you malign myself through your Diocesan Magazine and attempt to deprive me of my benefice, thinking, no doubt, that I would leave the Diocese as other Clergy have under equally distressing circumstances.



Your whole action in this matter, my Lord, would be pronounced by any judge as an unjustifiable and relentless persecution.

I was unlawfully restrained from officiating in my Parish Church of St. Andrew, which I accepted rather than augment the standing scandal in the Church b^ enforcing my rights by course of law or otherwise, and as the lawful Rector of this Parish, I opened St. Clement's Chapel (which I heretofore had refrained from doing in deference to your wishes) and used it as my Parish Church for the time being, which I hold I was justified in doing. For this you publish us as being schismatics, and refuse my people Confirmation and Holy Communion; yet you offer to receive myself and St. Clement's into good standing in your Diocese provided the Deeds [35/36] are transferred to your Trustees, which would make it appear that our schism really consists in our refusing to oblige your Lordship in a matter of real estate.

Have we torn away from the Church or left it, or have we been ejected? A schism is a rent in the Church, but it appears to me that he who makes the rent is the schismatic.

With regard to your claim that this property would be more safely secured to the Church, vested in your Trustees than in the present Trustees, we do not agree with you. Your charter provides that your Trustees may rent or sell any Church property held by them, at will. Why then would it be safer in their hands? We are very much more interested in this property than the}- are. Had there been any canon providing that all Church property must be, or even should be vested in them, St. Clement's would have been so vested, but there is not, and in vesting this property outside the Board of Trustees we only followed your own example when you vested the Barns bequest in yourself, instead of the Board of Trustees.

You don't truly seek Episcopal authority in St. Clement's for that has never been denied you. You seek the authority of the Rector, the Church Wardens and the Vestry, and this you can only obtain and exercise, whether lawfully or unlawfully, by controlling the property itself, either by holding the Deeds or by the insertion in the Deed of such a clause as you propose, placing the property under the "Episcopal authority" of the Bishop, while there is no canon to define the meaning of the words "Episcopal authority'" and you unaided will be judge and interpreter; but past experience shows us that your interpretation of "Episcopal authority" is absolute authority, autocratic authority in everything, from the appointing of the Sexton to the summary dismissal of the Rector, at will.

Such action on the part of our Trustees as you suggest, would mean a clashing of powers in St. Clement's at once and the ultimate dissolution and ruin of our Church. St. Clement's is now a much stronger congregation than your own Cathedral congregation, numerically, financially, in its work, school, organization and importance.



[37] We must firmly decline to destroy this promising work. We are quite willing to accord you as Bishop all lawful obedience and jurisdiction, as indeed we always have done but my co-trustees and myself are of the firm opinion that the trust deeds must remain as they are. You cannot compare this Diocese with California. An American Bishop must answer to his peers for his wrong doing, you are answerable to no one. This makes all the difference.

My Lord, I should not venture to write to you with this freedom had I not stipulated with you before I came here or took office in your Diocese, that I might do so. Somewhat fearing difference of opinion with you you will remember my stipulation that should occasion arise, the great gulf between the Bishop and the Priest must be abolished and I should have the privilege of addressing you as a brother, which I now do. It is my last wish to say anything offensive or that would unnecessarily hurt your feelings, but I feel that you have done myself, my people and the Church an irreparable wrong and it is better you should know how we view it.

We are in no sense contumacious. We accord every reverence to your Holy Office. We are a law abiding and loyal congregation to the Church, and although you seem to wish to draw us into the general Church quarrel, we are in no way responsible or mixed up with it; that stands much as it did fifteen or twenty years ago. St. Clement's is really the only peaceful piece of Church work that has been done in Honolulu during your Episcopate. My dear Bishop, you must not expect men to follow you blindly, whether right or wrong, because you are the Bishop; they will not submit to sink their manhood or their conscience to gratify your love of power. Forgive me if I remind you that during the three years that I have been here, you have had no less than five head masters in your school. Three from England, one from Australia and your own Chaplain. Of these one has died, and three have resigned under most painful circumstances, and it has been much the same with your Clergy. It is not encouraging to men who want to do their work faithfully. Never was there a fairer field, nor [37/38] do I think there ever was more unhappiness or wretchedness in the Church, or a more complete failure.

Believe me my dear Bishop, Respectfully yours,


P. S.--I may say that I have not yet shown this letter to either of my co-Trustees. This letter was not answered.

Honolulu, May 7th, 1900.

My Dear Mr. Walker.

In your letter of April 18th, the receipt of which I have already acknowledged, you have given the definite reply of the Trustees of the Church in the Punahou district, styled St. Clement's to my letter of March 9th.

After more than a month's consideration you have decided you cannot accept the Constitution of the Anglican Church in Hawaii, and so bring this church and congregation into harmony with the branch of the Anglican Church in these Islands.

All doubt as to Mr. Usborne's position and the position of the church at Punahou is now dispelled. It is made plain by your letter that from the very first inception of a plan for erecting a church in the Punahou district the Rev. Mr. Usborne has been engaged in making a schism in the Anglican Church in Hawaii. Your testimony is conclusive that the idea of a church being built in the Punahou district as a mission church of the Cathedral was abandoned long before the church was commenced, contributions being accepted on the condition that the property should not be held under the same trust as the Cathedral, nor be subject to the Diocesan Synod; and this at a date when Mr. Usborne was not [38/39] only regarded as Rector of St. Andrew's, but, as my Commissary, was my representative on the governing body of the Anglican Church.

For here you must permit me to point out that if the conditions imposed on you by the donors be fully stated in the third paragraph of your letter, and it was desired that the trust to be created should have "the same general objects" as those of the Diocesan Trustees, no objection could possibly have arisen to the insertion in the Trust Deed of the clause proposed in my letter of March 9th.

But when in the next paragraph you state that it would be a breach of faith with the donors for the property to be subject to the control of the Diocesan Synod, you make it plain that the Trust created has not the same general objects as those of the Diocesan Trustees, the general objects of their Trust lying within, and being coextensive with the limits of the Constitution represented by the Diocesan Synod while the objects of your Trust lie outside those limits.

Further, your statement that you have not questioned in any way the ecclesiastical authority of the Bishop is not in accordance with the facts of the case. For two years the Trustees of the church called St. Clement's have-usurped episcopal authority. It is by their authority and no other that for a period of two years Mr. Usborne has conducted public worship and administered the Sacraments in a building not licensed by the Bishop, and has appointed lay readers to officiate in his absence. By so doing they have erected altar against altar in the Cathedral Parish of St. Andrew's. Nor would this be otherwise, if the Rev. Mr. Usborne's claim to be Rector of St.. Andrew's could be maintained, for no clergyman whatever his status may be can erect a church and proceed to officiate and administer the Sacraments therein without the license of the Bishop. To do so is to usurp the ecclesiastical authority of the Diocese, and this is what the Trustees of St. Clement's, have done.

Notwithstanding this schismatic attitude of the Rev. Mr. Usborne and his cotrustees, I have continued to entertain the hope that ignorance of Church principles might be pleaded on their behalf, and that they were not [39/40] chargeable with an overt act of schism.

Your letter dispels this hope. You furnish on your own testimony and that of Mr. May direct evidence that the intentions, with which the church at Punahou was erected, was that it should be not only independent of the Diocesan Trustees, but separate also from the Constitution of the Anglican Church in Hawaii, of which the Diocesan Synod is the Representative Governing body, under which members of the Anglican Church in these Islands are united by voluntary compact as a branch of the Anglican Church.

So recently as November of last year a protest was made by the Rev. Mr. Usborne and yourself that the meeting of the Diocesan Synod could not be constitutionally held because St. Clement's was unrepresented, and Mr. Usborne was not invited. Though unable to regard the protest, the Synod passed a resolution looking to the removal of your present disabilities. But you refused to confer with the Standing Committee as such.

And now it is explained that you cannot acknowledge the authority of the Synod without breaking faith with the contributors of funds by which the church in question was built.

This position is an impossible one to maintain. No one can claim the right of representation in a governing body and at the same time repudiate its authority. In this country the Anglican Communion is a purely voluntary association, governing itself by means of the Diocesan Synod. No one is obliged to belong to it. But every one claiming membership, and every organization claiming' union with it, is bound to acknowledge the authority of its governing body.

My letter opened to you a way by which you could place the organization of St. Clement's in union with the Anglican Church in Hawaii. You reply that the church you have built cannot be placed under the control of the Diocesan Synod. This is final. Neither the Bishop nor the Synod can do more than they have done to bring your organization into union with the Church. Of course it is open to you and Mr. Usborne to recede from this position. Otherwise nothing remains but for me to issue a declaration to the whole Anglican Communion of the [40/41] position now definitely taken by the Rev. Mr. Usborne and his co-Trustees.

Believe me,

Very faithfully yours,



The reader must judge as to the soundness of the arguments in this letter, in answer to that of Mr. Walker.

The Trustees and Representatives of St. Clement's did confer with the so-called Standing Committee, with a view of meeting the Bishop's wishes, but their "sine qua non" was that the Rector of Honolulu be reinstated, which was refused.

Honolulu, 11th June, 1900.

My Dear Bishop:

With your permission, I will once more refer to your letter of the 9th of March last. On receiving and reading this letter, I laid it aside to answer later, when I wished to do so I found I had mislaid it and therefore had to reply to it from memory. Having now found it and seeing one or two points I had not touched upon, I beg to be allowed to do so now.

You say "the demise of the property was originally the principal factor in placing you in your present position."

In your document placing me in my present position, under date 31st of March, 1898, you tell me it is because I disagree with you as to the legality of your Dean and Chapter organization, and because I had failed to "read in."

If I owe my "present position," which you recognize as being as injurious to myself as it is to the Church, to [41/42] the vesting of property as you say I do, then you have placed me in that position for monetary reasons and not for any ecclesiastical offense, which is unlawful.

You say with regard to the vesting of Church property "only in the hands of the Board of Trustees is there perfect security that a Church will be subject to the Constitution and Statutes of the Diocese."'

This security, you hold, is in the Board of Trustees controlling the Church, but the property in question which you have demanded to be transferred to the Board of Trustees, had no Church upon it. It was but a vacant lot, occupied by a Portuguese under a long lease.

We had purchased it as a Church site, but had not built upon it, nor could we get possession for two years. On your own showing there could have been no necessity for the Board of Trustees to hold this property until, at least there was a Church building upon if, yet you say that our failure to transfer this property was the initial cause of my being placed in my present position. We only moved the Chapel on to this lot last November, more than a year and a half after you had attempted to deprive me of my Rectory, and you did not ask for the transfer of the lot on which the Chapel actually stood, it being leased but which only could have been of any use to the Trustees, had they the power you claim for them, or had there been occasion to use it.

For myself, I fail to see how the Board of Trustees can in any way affect the observance of the Constitution of either Priests or people or how it can compel obedience of, or give any security that the Constitution will be observed by any Church. If it does, it should not do so. Your own Cathedral of St. Andrew is not held in trust by the Board of Trustees, why should it be more necessary for St. Clement's? If the Board of Trustees have any title to the Cathedral property, which is very questionable, it is held by it in fee simple, not in trust for any Church.

With regard to your letter to Mr. Walker, under date 7th May, I will take the liberty of referring to it, since my actions seem to enter largely into it. Mr. Walker will no doubt reply to it himself.

[43] In the third clause you make some rash assertions. You say "it is made plain by your letter that from the very first inception of a plan for erecting a Church in the Punahou district, the Rev. Mr. Usborne has been engaged in making a schism in the Anglican Church in Hawaii." This, Bishop, is a statement not borne out by facts, nor is any such thing ''made plain" nor yet hinted at, in Mr. Walker's letter. Only yourself could draw testimony from Mr. Walker's letter that the idea of the Chapel being a Mission Chapel was ever abandoned.

I certainly did sanction the vesting of our property in a Trust other than the Board of Trustees, in which I was quite justified, firstly because it made no difference, or should have made no difference whatever in whom it was vested, providing the Trustees were honourable and responsible men and communicants, and secondly because there would have been no St. Clement's or property either, were it to be in the hands of the Board of Trustees. I did not see a vestage of reason why it should not be so vested. Your twenty-five years struggle in this Diocese must have taught you, my Lord, that the people will have nothing to do with any thing controlled by yourself. It is useless to beat about the bush. You know the truth as well as I. The Synod controls the Hoard of Trustees, and you control the Synod, therefore the Board of Trustees as well as the Synod, is your creature, and what they hold, you hold, by this means you exercise powers you have no right to exercise, unlawful, unjust, and oppressive powers, and the people, if they must submit because there is no recourse, will not aid you. Bishop, you would not have dared to have acted with me as you have, had there been a court in this world before which you could have been brought. You have no right to hold property for any such purpose as you say, it can mean but one thing--that it gives you civil authority to close the Church or sell property if the Clergyman is offensive to you, or it suits your purpose. If coercive authority over the Clergy or people has not been conferred on you by England, you have no right to seek it by other methods, but you are determined to control. Again, you say that contributions were received [43/44] towards this Chapel "on condition that the property should not be subject to the Diocesan Synod." This is not in accordance with facts. I solicited all subscriptions for this Chapel. The word "Synod" was never once used either by or to me, during my canvass. Mr. Walker makes use of the words "Synodical body," which you, with characteristic ease, transform into Diocesan Synod. It is the Board of Trustees appointed by the Synod, which is the "Synodical body" which we refuse to allow to control St. Clement's property, the Diocesan Synod could not, as it is not an incorporated body. In any case, Mr. Walker does not say that the Church shall not be subject to it, but that we could not submit the property to its control, a very different thing.

My Lord, your charges of my being engaged in making a. schism from the beginning, of the abandonment of the mission in favour of an independent Chapel, of the repudiating of the authority of the Synod, and that, while I was Rector of St. Andrew's and your Commissary, thereby implying a gross breach of faith on my part, are without foundation and unworthy of comment. If you would not let your hatred of myself blind your reason, you would see that such a course would have been much against my own interests, for why should I, the Rector of St. Andrew's and the whole city of Honolulu, and your Commissary too, enter into the unenviable piece of work of building a little independent Chapel, out of town, in which to officiate and thereby cut myself off from my own Church, when as a Mission, it would be equally under my control as Rector? It appears to me to be unreasonable on the face of it.

Referring to the sixth clause of your letter, it cannot be said by any stretch of imagination that I officiate in St. Clement's by the authority of my cotrustees "and no other." I officiate there, Bishop on your own authority, and no other, by virtue of your own institution of myself as Rector of this Parish, and the power does not exist to change that, until I deserve it, which you know. You say, in any case, the Chapel requires to be licensed by the Bishop before the Rector can officiate therein. By what canon or statute, can you say this? We have no canon or statute requiring a license in such a case. Even so, a [44/45] Bishop must show some reason for refusing to license a Chapel he has permitted the people to build. You have driven me either to officiate here, or to make an unseemly disturbance in my Parish Church by ignoring your unlawful action and proceeding with my work, rather than do this I have retired to my Chapel to await developments. You could not have expected me to leave my Parish on such a cause, or give up my work.

With regard to that portion of your letter in which you deny that the general objects of this trust were the same as those of the Board of Trustees, or we could have no objection to the insertion in the Trust Deed of the clause you propose. The objects were the same when the trust was created, but since then Hawaii has become a part of the United States, and we could not insert, as you wish, any clause in the Trust Deed promising allegiance to the Episcopal authority of the Anglican Church forever, when we hope in the very near future, to extend that allegiance to the Church in America.

As to the last clause, you say that unless we as Trustees recede from the position taken by us, "nothing remains but for me to issue a declaration to the whole Anglican Communion of the definite position now taken by the Rev. Mr. Usborne and his cotrustees," which to my mind savours very much of blackmail, because were we ever so guilty, there would be no occasion for such publicity being given to a wretched scandal in the Church-However, my Lord, you must do as you think best in this matter, we, as Trustees, cannot recede, our position is one that any right minded men would have taken and we feel it is to be for the ultimate good of the Church.

I repeat, we accord to you in St. Clement's all Episcopal jurisdiction. We are all loyal to the Episcopate and to the Church and we stand by and obey the Constitution, the Canons and the Statutes of the Diocese, no church can be asked or expected to do more.

Before closing this letter, I must protest against your attempt to drag St. Clement's before the public, as a schismatic Church. The contention is preposterous. As a Bishop, you cannot be right in attempting to destroy the legitimate work of any church in your Diocese [45/46] because of the existence of a difference of opinion in temporal matters.

I am,

Respectfully yours,



This letter was not answered.

My Dear Lord Bishop:

Honolulu, 20th August, 1900.

You have made two propositions to the Trustees of St. Clement's Chapel at different times, with a view of bringing St. Clement's Chapel into line with your Diocesan system, and have stated that if either were accepted you would consent to acknowledge St. Clement's as a lawful Chapel of the Diocese.

As I have already explained, both these propositions have been of such a character that my cotrustees and myself did not deem it to be in the interests of the Church to accept either.

However, although having to decline these offers, we do not wish you to understand that we are not quite as anxious as you can be that this Chapel should be regarded by you as a legitimate Chapel of the Diocese, and that we are not willing to do all in our power to bring it within the Diocesan system, on proper lines and have it under Episcopal jurisdiction. This has always been our great wish, but with safety to the Chapel and its work.

You have stated that before you could accept this Chapel you required a "guarantee that the Church is made Church property forever," or, in lieu of this, you have consented to acknowledge the Chapel, held in its present trust, on there being inserted in the Trust Deed [46/47] the following clause--that the property "shall be forever held under the ecclesiastical authority of the Bishop of Honolulu and of his successors in office, and subject to the Constitution of the Anglican Church in Hawaii, and to all statutes and regulations now in force or that shall be hereafter enacted."

I think I am correct in saying that my cotrustees fully agree with me in that since we have been unable to accept your propositions, it is but right that we should show our willingness and our desire to overcome the difficulties you have raised, as far as possible, and with that end in view I beg to submit for your consideration a proposal, which I think will meet all your requirements.

I am prepared to do either of two things.

1st. To transfer St. Clement's property, as it stands, to the Presiding Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the U. S. A. to be held by him in trust for the Anglican Church in Hawaii, under its present Constitution, statutes and canons, until such time as the American Church takes charge of the Church in this country, after which date it shall be held for the American Church, or

2nd. To incorporate in our present Trust Deed a clause such as you propose, slightly modified, viz.: That the "property shall be forever held under the lawful Episcopal authority of the Bishop of this Diocese and of his successors in office, and subject to the Constitution, the statutes and regulations of the Anglican Church in Hawaii, now in force in this Diocese, until such time as the American Church takes charge of the Church in this country, after which date it shall be subject to the Constitution of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the U. S. A."

The Episcopal authority to be exercised shall be limited to that exercised by Bishops of the Church in their Dioceses in England and America.

In either way, this Chapel, its property and its obedience will be secured to the Church, which I understand you to say is all you require. For my own part, I do not consider it will be at all safer than it is now.

In return, you will recognize and license St. Clement's [47/48] Chapel as a lawful mission Chapel of St. Andrew's Cathedral Church, which shall be in charge of the Rector of Honolulu.

You will officially withdraw and annul all documents issued and all actions taken, of a disciplinary character, against the Rev. John Usborne.

There shall be some disinterested person, to whom all differences of opinion shall be referred, whose decision shall be final. I suggest that the Bishop of New York be asked to act as arbitrator.

Either of these courses will place St. Clement's precisely in the position its promoters intended and expected it to occupy when it was built.

In your letter to Dr. Renouf and Mr. Van Deerlin on this subject, under date 9th March, 1899, you say "The lines we have to follow are laid down in the Charter and Constitution of the Anglican Church in Hawaii."

On examining these documents you will see that the carrying out of either of these suggestions would be perfectly in accord with the provisions of both.

You have said in the same letter, that "By Hawaiian law no property is regarded as belonging to the Anglican Church, but such as is in the hands of the Incorporated Board of Trustees."

I would say that Hawaiian law recognizes any lawful deed when duly registered. The law is no respecter of persons. Any sane adult can lawfully hold any property in trust for any lawful institution, always providing there is no law forbidding it, which there is not in this case.

Trusting that one or other of these conditions will meet your Lordship's favour and that you recognize the fact that we are prepared to do anything we can to further the solving of this most unhappy difficulty, always providing it can be done on just and fair lines and with the furtherance of the interests of the Church in Hawaii.

I would ask you to favour me with an early reply, on receipt of which, if favourable, I shall lay the whole [48/49] matter before my co-trustees. If it is otherwise, I shall let the matter drop.

I beg to remain,

Respectfully yours,



Honolulu, August 27, 1900.

My Dear Mr. Usborne:

After your rejection of the offer that I made you on March 9th, I am unable to recognize in your communication of August 20th, any readiness on your part to do anything to bring yourself into our Diocesan System, unless you can be admitted on terms dictated by yourself.

Your letter professes to lay before me a proposal for bringing St. Clement's under Episcopal supervision, but on examination it is found to present nothing to which a reply can be formulated. For, in the first place not having been concurred in by the other Trustees of the property, it is not yet in tangible shape to be presented; and, secondly, it is so hedged about with impossible conditions, that, though concurred in by the Trustees, the path to its consideration is closed.

In my letter of March 9th, I went as far as it was possible for me to go in making the way easy for you to come into our Diocesan organization. That was refused, and it now becomes clear from the communication before me that you are not prepared to acknowledge the ecclesiastical authority of the Diocese, unless it is subject to an external authority vested in some one nominated by [49/50] yourself, so that I am reluctantly compelled to leave you where you are.

Yours faithfully,



Honolulu, 3rd September, 1900.

My Dear Bishop:

Your letter of 27th August was duly received. Since you have decided that St. Clement's Chapel cannot be admitted into your Diocesan system, we, as Trustees, can do nothing but bow to your decision. The responsibility rests on you.

At the same time, I, as Rector of Honolulu, must officially notify you that St. Clement's Chapel is now and always has been held subject to your Episcopal authority, and every right and privilege extended by the Churches in either America or England to their respective Bishops, St. Clement's Chapel fully and freely extends to yourself as Bishop. It yields you, as Bishop, true and canonical obedience, it recognizes the lawful authority of the Diocesan Synod, the Board of Trustees, the Constitution of the Anglican Church in Hawaii, its canons and its statutes, and holds itself subject to these as provided by law. If there is ought else a Church should do, it is the desire of St. Clement's to observe the same. If your Lordship refuses to exercise jurisdiction therein, you alone are responsible.

I have no desire whatever to dictate the terms on which St. Clement's shall be admitted into your organization, nor yet to nominate any candidate to exercise external authority, I wished merely to make some suggestion which might possibly meet your views. If you object to the Bishop of New York being asked to act as arbitrator, or the Presiding Bishop, as Trustee, I think we should be satisfied with any American Bishop.

[51] With regard to my proposition not having been concurred in by my co-trustees, you are aware they are very busy men and cannot be approached on Church matters during office hours. They are advanced in years and their evenings of rest are important to them. They are now weary of conflict with you of twenty-five years standing, and have come to St. Clement's only to find peace and rest from Church turmoil, therefore, until it is necessary I prefer not to trouble them. They have confidence in my doing what is right and best, I know their views and it is not probable that there will be any difference of opinion amongst us.

Had we inserted in the Deed the clause you desired, St. Clement's would have become Anglican Church property that could not have been alienated or diverted from the Anglican Church so long as you remained in the diocese and claimed it as Anglican Bishop. The amending of the Charter will arrange for the transfer of the rest of the property, but we, as Trustees, would have been bound to hold St. Clement's to your order.

It would appear that you not only do not want St. Clement's in your Diocesan System, but that you will not have it on any terms, unless it is so tied up to the Anglican Church, that you can hold it against all comers during your pleasure.

Our asseverations of loyalty seem to go for nothing. You find something in every letter we write you, to make it clear that we are rebels. You seem bound to make us sinners although we have not sinned.

You punish us, by refusing the Holy Communion and Confirmation to a whole congregation, and proclaim us schismatics, not for anything we have done, but for what you refuse to do. Of all things we want a Bishop's supervision, we want his jurisdiction lawfully exercised, and we want his recognition of St. Clement's and his sympathy and his help, but these things you refuse to grant, and then you denounce us as contumacious. It is a repetition of your action in the matter of my "reading in." You refused to permit me to "read in," then you suspended me for not having done so.

[52] The conviction is forced upon me that you permitted me, under most sacred words, to resign my Church in Toronto, to break up my home, my family and my life, that I might come out here, at great pecuniary loss, without remuneration, to take your duty in Honolulu while you attended the Lambeth Conference, deliberately intending, on your return, to make my life here so unbearable that it would be impossible for me to stay; or, at any cost, to dispose of my services.

Your own Chaplain almost acknowledged as much to me when on one occasion I intimated to him my fears--he said "your offer was too tempting to refuse."

You could not possibly have required two priests to assist you in the Cathedral to minister to a congregation of less than a dozen persons over and above the schools, when there was neither work or stipend for one, much less two, and no possible prospect of either. You did not want the two congregations united, except on impossible terms, which you knew the people would never accept.

It is quite clear why you tried to evade instituting me Rector and why you assured me so warmly that the Office of Vice-Dean was all that was necessary, and would give me all parochial authority I needed. While at the same time you knew that your Cathedral Constitution provided that the Office of Vice-Dean should be an annual appointment, so that at the end of twelve months you could discover that there was not sufficient work in Honolulu to warrant my remaining here, and I should not have had a single claim upon the Diocese.

Your actions, almost from the time you returned to Honolulu, nearly three years ago, have formed one continuous, unreasonable and otherwise unaccountable persecution. I have not done one wrong deed of any kind, I have not even laid myself open to an excuse for a reprimand, as you well know. Had I been a profligate, you could not have taken stronger measures, and all in direct defiance of, and opposition to, the terms of England's Commission to you, and of the law of the Church in any land.

[53] Bishop, I do not wish to continue this correspondence; we are much too far apart in our views of right and wrong. You say you are reluctantly compelled to leave me where I am. I am quite sure what you say is true, but until I have reason to change my mind, I shall proceed with my work at St. Clement's, which although unacknowledged by yourself, is and ever will be, I trust, loyal to the great Church and to the Episcopate.

I am,

Respectfully yours,



Honolulu, March 28th. 1901.


My Lord:

Your two letters of date 4th March, 1901, addressed "To all Members of the Anglican Communion to whom these Presents may come," and "To all to whom these presents may come," have been received.

Lest you should have been misinformed, and have taken the step you have in ignorance of the actual facts and of the real intentions and wishes of the Trustees of St. Clement's chapel, we think it but right to state definitely what the position of St. Clement's chapel is and what the Trustees desire.

The St. Clement's property was lawfully vested in trust for the ''Episcopal Church at large" (which name, in the deed, is not written in capital or conspicuous letters, as your Lordship's quotation from the deed would [53/54] infer): this was done in perfect good faith and the property was intended to be held only for the use of either one or other branch of the Church, the Anglican or the American. It was vested in trust for the Episcopal Church at large, so that, should necessary occasion arise, it could be the more easily transferred to the American Church, while otherwise it should be held for the use of the Anglican Church in Hawaii.

If your Lordship takes exception to the name, we will, if you wish it, apply to the courts to have it changed--omitting its last two words.

We must officially inform you that we have in no way, known to ourselves, separated ourselves from the Communion of the Anglican Church, nor have we founded any new sect or contemplated such a step.

The Rev. John Usborne lawfully officiates in St. Clement's Chapel by virtue of being Rector of Honolulu, not from choice but because you have compelled him to confine his work to this Chapel.

All the services in St. Clement's Chapel are and always have been strictly in accordance with the rubrics of the Prayer Book and are orthodox in every particular.

Should there be anything in the services of St. Clement's Chapel, or in its conduct, or its teaching of which you, as Bishop of the Diocese, can lawfully disapprove, Mr. Usborne, as Rector, will alter it at once.

We desire your Lordship to understand that our intentions are pure and straightforward; and if you will but point out wherein we have violated one canon or law of the diocese, or have given you just cause for believing that we had either separated ourselves from the Church or founded a new sect, we will rectify the fault, if such there be.

Our desire from the first has been that the Bishop should acknowledge this Chapel and include it among the Churches of his Diocese, to have lawful Episcopal jurisdiction exercised therein, and to make it, as a mission, a strength to the Parish Church: all this we still desire. We once more invite you to extend your Episcopal jurisdiction over this Chapel, which if you will not [54/55] do, we can only feel that the responsibility rests with you.



We are loyal to the doctrines of the Church of England, to those of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States and to those of the Anglican Church in. Hawaii, which are one and the same, and which Churches, are in full communion one with the other, by whatever name St. Clement's may be called. As far as we can see, the only ground on which you base this serious accusation is the name chosen for the trust, which to us seems valid and comprehensive.

If your Lordship has been misinformed and the letters to which we refer have been written under a misapprehension, you will, of course, withdraw your accusation^ but if you permit henceforth the circulation of these letters and do not contradict them publicly, we can only conclude that your action in this matter arises from some ulterior motive.

We are, my Lord,

Your obedient servants,


Honolulu, 15th April, 1901,


My Lord:

Your two documents under date 27th February and 4th March, in which you advertise me as having separated myself from the Anglican Church in Hawaii, and of having founded a new sect, have been duly received.

[56] Either to separate myself from the Anglican Church, or to found a new sect, is the very last thing I have wished or intended to do; therefore, if I have unwittingly done so, I must assure you that it is my most earnest desire to be reinstated immediately, and to bring myself and my congregation again within the Church, and I beg that your Lordship will let me know at once what I-must do and what steps I must take, to reinstate both my congregation and myself in the Church.

I would ask you to be most explicit in your instructions so that I cannot possibly misunderstand you, for I sometimes fail to gather from your letters what your wishes are.

I have also just received your Diocesan Magazine for April.

In referring, in this paper, to the number of Clergy who have left this Diocese, you say "Nor should he (the Bishop) be held responsible for the defection of two priests, Eric Lewis and John Usborne, the one to the ministry of the 'Christian Church,' the other to become the minister of a little sect of his own, which he calls the 'Episcopal Church at Large.'"

Permit me to set you right here, my Lord; you are labouring under a misapprehension. I have never called my Church by this name, I have never heard of this sect you speak of, or heard of this name applied to any Church or congregation, much less mine, until I hear it now from you, which makes it the more unintelligible how and where your Lordship could have received your information.

I regret that you have not thought proper to reply to the letter of the Trustees of St. Clement's, of date 28th of March.

Trusting that I shall hear from you. with full instructions, by return of mail.

I am yours respectfully,


[57] Honolulu, April 17, 1901.

My dear Mr. Usborne.

Yours of April 15th, was received today at noon. So far from not thinking proper to reply to the letter of the Trustees of St. Clement's dated March 28th, let me point out to you that that letter was not delivered at the P. O. till 5 p. m. on April 6th, which was Easter Eve, and was not received by me till the following day; that I had to leave Honolulu on the 9th by the Kinau, and the press of work to be finished before leaving made it impossible for me to reply to a document of 2 1/2 folios; and since my return on Saturday, 13th, an accumulation of matters which could not be postponed has rendered it impracticable for me to attend to it. I hope, however, to be able to send a reply before the end of this week. The reply will probably go far towards answering the enquiry contained in yours of the 15th. Hut I should point out to you that so long as the position assumed by you in the joint letter of March 28th, is maintained, you are not free to follow the instructions you now ask for.

Yours very faithfully,


Honolulu, 20th April, 1901.


My Lord.

Your letter of the 17th inst. reached me last evening. I must express my disappointment at your not answering my questions or giving me the information I asked you for in my letter of the 15th inst.

You have placed me in an intolerable position from which I wish to extricate myself as quickly as possible.

[50] If I have separated myself from the Church, it has been without my knowledge and I very deeply regret it, and I now assure you that it is my most earnest desire to make amends and to be reinstated immediately. I therefore again appeal to you, as my Bishop, for very clear and definite instructions to myself, as to what I must do, or what I must not do, in order to reinstate myself in the Church. I would ask you kindly to be most explicit.

I am

Respectfully yours,


My dear Mr. Usborne.

Honolulu, April 22, 1901.

Yours of the 20th inst. is to hand. My reply to your letter of March 28 is complete and will be mailed to Mr. T. R. Walker at the same time as this. It is very clear in pointing out the first steps to be taken towards reinstating yourself in the Church. To what is written in that letter I may add that it would be reasonable for you to cease charging me with placing you in a situation into which you rushed with your eyes open, in spite of all that could be done to stop you.

Yours very faithfully,


[59] Honolulu, H. I., April 22, 1901.


Trustees of the Episcopal Church at large.

My Dear Sirs: Your communication of March 28th bearing the postmark of April 6th was received by me on April 7, which was Easter Day. Absence from Honolulu during the following week deprived me of the opportunity of sending an immediate reply.

2. The purpose of your letter, as stated in paragraph 2, is to place before me a definite statement of the position of St. Clement's Chapel, and the object that the trustees have in view. You do this to enable me to judge whether your position has been rightfully stated in the documents which have called forth your letter. That I may miss no point, I proceed to review your statement paragraph by paragraph.

3. Your third paragraph makes it plain that I have made no mistake in announcing in the document aforesaid that the property on which S. Clements is built is vested in trust for "The Episcopal Church at large" written, you are careful to inform me with initial capitals only for the first two words, and not in conspicious capitals as in one of the documents that I have issued. You will observe that in one of the documents, in which the title is quoted by itself it is printed with inverted commas in type corresponding letter for letter with that which you yourselves employ; but on the other document capitals are used for this reason,--the title occurs in the middle of an extract from a deed and is printed in capitals for precisely the same purpose as that for which you have employed inverted commas, viz, to distinguish the words constituting the title from the rest of the sentence in which it occurs. It being admitted by you that you are trustees of "The Episcopal Church at large," the character of the type in which the name, under which you hold the property, is printed can neither add to nor detract one iota [59/60] from the fact declared by your deed that S. Clement's Church is built on property belonging to an organization which has adopted the name and style of "The Episcopal Church at large."

(b) You proceed to explain that by thus vesting the property in yourselves with this title, you acted in perfect good faith, intending to hold the property, only for the use of either one or other branch of the Church, the Anglican or American, your view being that should necessary occasion arise, you could more easily transfer it to the American Church, while otherwise you could hold it for the use of the Anglican Church in Hawaii.

Though I am quite willing to accept this explanation of the course you have pursued, without in the least comprehending how the intention thus expressed would be carried out, you must permit me to point out that, when property is conveyed by a deed of conveyance, the only question to be considered is not what was intended to be done, but what has been done. The deed under which you hold this property does not contain a trace of an intention to hand it over to any other body. On the contrary it vests it in yourselves, your heirs, successors in trust, and assigns forever. The last words plainly forbid the supposition that the purpose of the Trust is for future transference to some other organization.

4. By the omission which you offer to make of the word "at large" from the Title, the position of your Trust would not be altered in the smallest degree. It would still bear a name and style altogether unknown elsewhere within the limits of the Anglican Communion, and, in the absence of a single defining clause in the Deed would leave it open to you without let or hindrance to admit the ministrations and usage of the Reformed Episcopal Church or the Methodist Episcopal church equally with the ministrations and teaching of the Protestant Episcopal Church.

5. Hence whatever may have been your intentions in constituting yourselves Trustees of "The Episcopal Church at large," it is incontrovertible that what you have done has been to officially separate yourselves from [60/61] the Anglican Church and found a new organization.

6. Were Mr. Usborne still Rector of Honolulu his authority to officiate as such Rector could not extend further than the authority of the Bishop from whom the clergy derive their authority, and S. Clement's Chapel though built within the Parish of Honolulu being withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the Bishop by being placed under a Trust which is not subject to the constitution of the Anglican Church in Hawaii. No clergyman of the Anglican Church in Hawaii could officiate therein by virtue of any authority conferred on him by the Bishop. But whatever claims the Rev. John Usborne ever had to be Rector of Honolulu ceased on March 31, 1898, by virtue of an instrument of that date declaring the office to be without qualification. You now inform me that in disregard of that instrument he officiates in S. Clements, outside of the Bishop's jurisdiction, not as minister of the Episcopal Church at large, but as Rector of Honolulu. If that is the case, then as Rector of a Parish building a second Church in this Parish, and alienating it from the Constitution of the Diocese to which he belongs, he should be inhibited from any longer officiating in the diocese.

7. When S. Clement's is withdrawn as S. Clement's is from the jurisdiction of the Bishop, and the authority of the Diocesan Synod, neither the orthodoxy of the teaching, nor the strictest compliance with the rubrics of the Prayer Book can constitute a bond of union between that church and the Bishop.

8. Until the church is placed under my jurisdiction I have no more concern in the services and teaching of S. Clement's than I have in the Christian Church or the Central Union.

9. Mr. T. R. Walker's letter of April 18, 1900 written on behalf of the Trustees of the Episcopal Church at large contained your official refusal to place S. Clement's Church under the control of the Diocesan Synod, which is the duly constituted and sole representative body of the Anglican Communion in these Islands; and such refusal not only gave me just cause for believing that you had separated yourselves from the Diocese, and had [61/62] created a new organization, but plainly stated that you had established a new Trust in opposition to the Diocesan Synod, by so doing, not violating any particular statute or canon, but setting aside the entire Constitution.

The way to make rectification of this error, which you declare yourselves ready to make, will be clear to you.

10. If as you state in paragraph 9, your intentions are pure and straightforward, and you really desire to place your Church under lawful Episcopal jurisdiction, you will bring it under the Constitution of the Anglican Church in Hawaii and the control of the Diocesan Synod. For my part it is difficult to believe that you are sincere in inviting me to extend my Episcopal jurisdiction over S. Clement's when you should be aware that the exercise of jurisdiction is not a matter of caprice or choice, but follows the Constitution, the acceptance of which by you would place the church under my jurisdiction without your invitation; and you should be aware also that so long as S. Clements' remains under its present trust, the entire responsibility for its not being under Episcopal jurisdiction rests with yourselves.

11. In this paragraph you are in error. The Church of England, the Protestant Episcopal Church in the U. S. A., and the Anglican Church in Hawaii, whilst in full Communion one with the other, are not one and the same organization. And, as in the United States anyone who is loyal to the Church of the Anglican Communion will be subject to the Constitution of the Protestant Episcopal Church; so in these Islands, all persons, whether English or American, or Hawaiian who are loyal to the Church of the Anglican Communion, will submit themselves to the Constitution of the Anglican Church in Hawaii.

12. Having now shown you that the documents I have issued rest on the unmistakable language of a deed of conveyance, and a carefully, written letter from one of yourselves officially declaring your position, you will, I trust, perceive that the conclusion stated in your twelfth paragraph is an illegitimate deduction from the premises, and will hasten to withdraw it.

Since receiving yours of March 28, Mr. Usborne has [62/63] written expressing his earnest desire to be reinstated in the Church with his Congregation. This letter, for which I am very thankful, gives me good hope that as the first step toward such reinstating, you will acknowledge that the position maintained by you in the letter I have now replied to is untenable, and that you will take steps to place your Church under the Constitution of the Church in Hawaii.

I am, dear sirs,

Very faithfully yours,


Honolulu, 24th April, 1901.


My Lord.

Your letter of the 22nd April reached me yesterday, but in it you do not answer the questions contained in either of my letters of 15th or 20th inst, further than to say that you have mailed to Mr. Walker a letter, of even date, which ''is very clear in pointing out the first steps to be taken towards reinstating yourself in the Church."

May I ask why you address to Mr. Walker a reply to my private letter to yourself on so personal and important a matter?

Mr. Walker handed me your letter this morning, and I regret to have to say that it is not clear to me, by any means.

May I ask you, Bishop, to give me a clear and direct answer to a very plain question?

You say that you require St. Clement's to be brought "under the Constitution of the Anglican Church in Hawaii and the control of the Diocesan Synod," and lawful Episcopal jurisdiction, but St. Clement's is and always has been so, we have never questioned their authority; how then is this to be more completely accomplished? [63/64] What remains to be done? Am I to understand that it is only on the transfer of St. Clement's property to the Board of Trustees, that you will receive St. Clement's and myself into your Diocesan system and withdraw the Declarations you have issued, or is there anything else you require and what is it?

Will you be good enough to write me as concisely as possible, and state definitely, not only the first step, but all that I must do in order to have these Declarations publicly withdrawn.

I do not wish to discuss this question further, I only want to know all that you require, and in language that is unmistakable.

Trusting that I shall hear from you by return mail.

I am respectfully yours,


Honolulu, May 1, 1901.

My Dear Mr. Usborne.

My letter mailed to Mr. Walker is addressed to yourself equally with Mr. Walker being a reply to the letter of March 28, which bore the joint signatures of Messrs. Walker, May and yourself.

In replying to yours of April 15, I pointed out that so long as the position assumed in your letter of March 28, is maintained you are not free to follow the instructions you ask for, (from which it was clearly to be inferred that to give such instructions yet was premature and useless.

Hence you seem to me to be trifling when for the third time you repeat your request for instructions on a course to which your letter of March 28th has closed the door.

Until the correspondence of the Trustees of the Episcopal Church with myself is brought to a conclusion. I must decline to carry on a separate correspondence with yourself on the same subject.

If my letter to the Trustees of the Episcopal Church [64/65] is not clear, I may as well cease writing to you. From first to last that letter tells you that so long as you keep your Church and congregation under a separate trust, so long you keep yourself and them separate from our Diocesan system, and the only way by which you can place the Church under my jurisdiction from which you have withdrawn it, is by placing it under the Diocesan Trustees, and so under the constitution of the Anglican Church in Hawaii.

Having now answered your question I must decline to continue a correspondence with yourself individually (which can lead to nothing) until the correspondence initiated by yourself and by your co-Trustees is concluded.

I am

Yours very faithfully,


Honolulu, 4th May, 1901.


My Lord.

Your letter of 1st of May has been duly received.

I now learn definitely what my offence has really been, and also the only terms on which you will reinstate me and St. Clement's congregation in the Church in Hawaii, and on which, I presume, you will withdraw the declarations you have issued, viz.: that the Trustees of St. Clement's chapel transfer their trust to the Diocesan Trustees.

It would appear then, that you have issued these declarations of my defection, not for any ecclesiastical offence, committed by me but for the failure of the Trustees of St. Clement's to transfer to the Diocesan Trustees [65/66] a property, the retaining of which by them, you acknowledge is '"not violating any particular statute or canon," while the Constitution does not affect the case, or even touch upon the vesting of property. Therefore, although one in my position might be ever so desirous of having this declaration withdrawn and to be reinstated in the Church on your own terms, it would be possible for his co-trustees to prevent it. This cannot be right.

You place a construction on Mr. Walker's letter of April 18, 1900, that it will not bear, and that is totally-foreign to what he either did say or meant to say. He refers in it, only to the vesting of the property itself, and not to spiritual jurisdiction as you infer; the lawful spiritual control we have always acknowledged to be yours, but the property itself, while encumbered, here, as in the United States and the colonies, we hold, may be vested in any desirable Trustees. Yet you think that this letter gives you just cause for believing that we had left the Church and had founded a new sect.

I fear, my Lord, you are the only one who has set aside the Constitution; you first suspended me, and then deprived me, and have now officially declared me and St. Clement's people to be schismatics, untried, while the Constitution requires certain procedure in matters of discipline, thus: "For the determination of questions relating to the due fulfilment of the Sacred Ministry in its several functions of administration of the Word and Sacraments, and of spiritual discipline, the Bishop shall summon the Clergy of the Diocese to a Synod to be called the Sacred Synod of the Anglican Church in Hawaii."

"The above Provisions shall be deemed FUNDAMENTAL, and it shall not be within the power of the Diocesan Synod, to alter, revoke, add to, or diminish any of the same."

Yet you have not heeded the Constitution. You convened no Sacred Synod, you gave neither myself or my people any form of trial, but you, unaided and alone, have determined as to this serious question, and have condemned us, unheard; and myself, a priest, innocent of offence, and one who had every reason to look to you for sympathy, support and co-operation; while at the same time, you well knew that you had no stauncher [66/67] churchmen in your diocese than the Trustees of St. Clement's, and none that had done as much for the Church, of late years.

Besides this, you have exercised co-ercive jurisdiction contrary to English law and without authority. England has conferred on you no co-ercive authority whatever. You have no delegated authority to suspend, or discipline either the clergy or the laity, except through the action of the civil courts of the country, yet throughout your Episcopate you have exercised a supreme authority in this diocese.

My Lord, I do not understand you--your methods, you reasonings, your arguments and administration are so foreign to anything that I have ever known, either within or without the Church, that I am at a loss to know what action to take in this matter, since it is impossible to foresee what statement you will not make, or what you will not do, if, in your opinion, occasion requires.

Since Mr. May has retired from business and gone to England to live, and Mr. Walker leaves here permanently next week, for the same reason, I think you may consider the correspondence with the Trustees closed; and since I have no desire to continue it, as I now know your views, I trust I shall not have to trouble you again.

I am, my Lord,

Respectfully yours,


[68] One of the outlying missions has lately purchased and paid for a very suitable parsonage adjoining the church, as a mark of appreciation of the work of the incumbent, who is very popular, but to secure to him its undisturbed occupation, it was thought wise to vest the trust in local trustees.

The Bishop is indignant at this, and has refused to receive it as Church property, and has written the incumbent "Please understand the house you are living in is not St. Augustine's Parsonage, and will not be entitled to that designation until it becomes Church property by being conveyed to the Incorporated Board of Trustees."

[insert] "Before the Bishop can consecrate any building for a Church, he requires a guarantee that the site is made Church property forever. The conveyance of the land to the Trustees of the Anglican Church in Hawaii, gives that guarantee. So long as the site is private property there is no such guarantee, and the Bishop cannot accept it."

"Seeing that the question of the demise of the property was originally the principal factor in placing" you in your present position, which is not less injurious to yourself than it is to the whole Church."--[Bishop's letters ]

This is a view of the St. Clement's property, referred to above, as it was from the date of its purchase in October, 1897, to October, 1899, during which time it was held under lease by a Portuguese.

This was its condition when the Bishop required its transfer to the Trustees of the Anglican Church, and when the Rector was deprived of his Parish Church and placed in his "present position" owing to its demise, and also as it was when the St. Clement's congregation was pronounced a schismatical body by the Bishop and refused Holy Communion and Confirmation, because of the refusal of the Trustees of St. Clement's to transfer their trust to the Diocesan Trustees.


Honolulu, 18th July, 1899.

The Rt. Rev. Bishop Willis, D. D.

Rt. Rev. and Dear Sir:

On the 13th inst. I had the honour of writing you as follows: "May I ask whether you will confirm a number of persons I am about to prepare for that sacred rite, if I bring them forward and about what date will it be convenient for you to do so."

Not having heard from you, I fear my letter may not have reached you. Will you kindly let me know before you leave for the south.

I am, yours respectfully,


Honolulu, 18th July, 1899.

My dear Mr. Usborne:

In reply to the enquiry you make, let me say that it should be obvious to you that a Bishop cannot accept candidates for Confirmation from a congregation in the position of that of St. Clement's.

Yours faithfully,


The same property in November, 1899, being prepared to receive the Chapel from the adjoining leased lot on which the Chapel had been built.

Honolulu, 7th September, 1898,

Rt. Rev. Bishop Willis, D. D.

Rt. Rev. and Dear Sir:

Will you kindly inform me whether those persons who have been receiving the Holy Communion at St Clement's Chapel since its opening, will be received at the Cathedral celebration during my absence at the General Convention.

I am yours respectfully,


Honolulu, 10th September, 1898.

Rev. John Usborne: My dear Sir:

In reply to your inquiry I may say definitely that no persons who have been communicants at your Chapel can be received to the Holy Communion in the Cathedral, if they come with the intention of presently returning to your "Society."

But if any wish to return to the Communion of the Anglican Church and to have their names restored to the roll of communicants, they should apply to the Parish Priest of the Cathedral.

I remain, yours faithfully,

Bishop of Honolulu.

[69] The following memorial has lately been addressed to the Presiding Bishop of the American Church, signed by seventy-seven of the more regular adult members of the St. Clement's congregation. This number is not large, but it represents probably, about or nearly, one-third of the adult Episcopal Church goers in the City.

Can it be right on any ecclesiastical principle whatever that these people or their children, should be refused the rite of Confirmation and Holy Communion in the Parish church and be publicly proclaimed schismatics, because they cannot agree with the Bishop as to the wisdom in the vesting of their Church property? Can it, or can it not be said here, "that unscriptural terms of Communion are exacted" by the Bishop.

Honolulu, H. T., May 3rd, 1901.

To the Presiding Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America.

Right Reverend Father in God:

We the undersigned attendants of St. Clement's Chapel in the City of Honolulu, Territory of Hawaii, make petition to the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America as follows:

WHEREAS St. Clement's Chapel in the City of Honolulu was built in 1897 by the Commissary of the Bishop of Honolulu (the Rector of the Parish) and by the people, as a mission chapel of St. Andrew's Cathedral two miles distant from the said Cathedral; and

WHEREAS the Bishop of Honolulu has refused to acknowledge this Chapel or to exercise Episcopal Jurisdiction therein until either the property shall be transferred to the Diocesan Trustees of the Anglican Church [69/70] in Hawaii or the Trustees of the said property shall agree that the property shall be forever held under the ecclesiastical authority of the Bishop of Honolulu and of his successors in office, and subject to the Constitution of the Anglican Church in Hawaii and to all statutes and regulations now in force or that shall be hereafter enacted; and

WHEREAS we strongly fear that the work of the Church would be hindered, in the present condition of negotiations respecting the future status of this diocese, by such transfer or agreement, and no canon or statute or (in our judgment) valid reason exists requiring such transfer or agreement to be made; and

WHEREAS in April, 1898, the Bishop of Honolulu did unlawfully deprive the Rev. John Usborne, Rector of Honolulu, of the use of his Parish Church of St. Andrew's and the said Rector has since that date served St. Clement's Chapel as the Rector of Honolulu, and we are among those who have formed that congregation; and

WHEREAS although we are loyal to the Church, to the Episcopate, the Constitution, the Canons and Statutes of the Anglican Church in Hawaii, the Bishop of Honolulu refuses to visit the Chapel, to confirm those who attend it, to receive them to the Holy Communion in the Cathedral, or to acknowledge it in any way as a chapel of his Diocese, but on the contrary has slanderously advertised the Rector of Honolulu, and ourselves, members of this Congregation, as schismatics; and

WHEREAS we have suffered in this way for the last three years and have unjustly and unreasonably been deprived of the Episcopal rites of the Church to our sorrow and detriment, and to our discredit in the Church in America; and

WHEREAS we are a congregation of loyal Churchmen, adhering to the laws of the Church, denied the pastoral offices of a Bishop, declared by the Bishop of Honolulu to be unattached to any Church, and earnestly desiring that Episcopal oversight which is refused by the said Bishop;

THEREFORE, We pray you, Right Reverend [70/71] Father in God, as Presiding Bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America, to give us relief from this great wrong, and to cause that this Chapel be placed under the jurisdiction of an American Bishop, that the scandal cast upon it by the unjust action of the Bishop of Honolulu may be removed and that we your petitioners and others may know that St. Clement's is a lawful place of worship and we lawful worshippers in an orthodox Chapel of the Great Church.

With the most profound respect,

We beg to subscribe ourselves,

Your most obedient servants,

Seventy-seven Signatures.


Honolulu, March 11th, 1901.

The Editor of "THE CHURCHMAN."
New York.


A letter has been printed, dated March 4th, 1901, signed by the Bishop of Honolulu, the Rev. Vincent H. Kitcat, Vice-Dean and Clerical Secretary of the Diocesan Synod, and Mr. Edmond Stiles, Registrar, addressed "To all to whom these Presents may come," alluding to the letter from this Association which you kindly published in "THE CHURCHMAN" of February 2, 1901, and purporting to explain the position and standing of the said Association.

We feel little doubt that a copy of the first-named letter has been transmitted to you; and deeply regret that (in our opinion) it will tend to cause to its readers an entire misapprehension of our character and objects. In view of your courteous kindness in publishing our communication, and in fear lest the Bishop's letter should convey to you an impression that we had misrepresented to you our standing, we venture to lay before you the following [72/73] facts, referring seriatim to the four numbered clauses in that letter.

1. The Association was organized by churchmen here for the sole purpose expressed in its motto, "Pro Deo et Ecclesia." The Bishop's letter states that it has no recognition from the Bishop, Synod, or any of the Parochial Clergy of the Diocese of Honolulu. The fact remains that two of the three Clergy in Honolulu are amongst its earliest members, whilst others are three members of the Synod, three Church Wardens, and some of the oldest communicants in the Diocese, and we believe it has the sympathy and regard of all classes.

2. We distinctly deny that the Rev. John Usborne, who was a leading promoter of this Association, has "separated himself from the Anglican Church in Hawaii," in which he had been given a position of dignity and trust, and has become "the founder of a schism holding property under the name and style of 'The Episcopal Church at Large.''' The statement seems so absurd as to be almost unworthy of contradiction, but it is nevertheless so serious in effect that we beg by your permission to allude to it. Mr. Usborne was appointed in 1897 to be Rector of Honolulu, and officiates regularly in St. Clement's Chapel; he and the Wardens and Congregations of St. Clement's are as loyal to the Church as are the Clergy and Members of the congregations which meet in the Cathedral. It is, in the interests of the Church, a most unfortunate thing, to say the least, that the Bishop inferentially impugns Mr. Usborne's position.

The "property" alluded to by the Bishop, which is situated at distance of over two miles from the Cathedral, in a growing suburb of Honolulu, was purchased by the donations to a great extent of persons belonging to one or other Cathedral congregations, with the sole view of extending the work of the Diocese; at the time of this purchase the annexation of the Hawaiian Islands to the United States seemed to be an early probability, and it was supposed by the purchasers that the Anglican Church in Hawaii would shortly be absorbed into "the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America;" for this reason, and for this reason only, they caused a conveyance of their gift to be drawn in the name [73/74] of "the Episcopal Church at large,'' a title which they considered would sufficiently apply to either the Anglican or the United States' branch of the Church. Most of the donors, and all of the Trustees, are members of the Anglican Church in Hawaii, by whatever name it may now or hereafter be known; and two of the three Trustees have been for many years, and still are, members of the Board of Trustees of the Anglican Church of Hawaii.

The word "schism" as applied to the congregation of the Church which has thus originated and been gradually formed in a suburban district, has been, we believe, first used by the Bishop, and it is as distinctly repudiated by the members of the Church who form that congregation.

We also utterly and clearly deny that this Association was formed for the Defence and Extension of any schismatical body whatever. And we affirm and declare that its object is only that defined in the preamble of its charter, which reads as follows:

"Whereas, it is deemed by the members of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the Hawaiian Islands, to be expedient, in the interests of Religion in general, and of the Episcopal Church and her members, in particular, that an Association should be formed, whose object should be to encourage harmony and good-will among Church members, to assist and protect such Church members, whether individually or collectively, and to extend the work of the Church in Hawaii; and with a view of having planted in these Islands, a branch of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States of America."

3. We see nothing in the preamble, the whole of which is quoted in our last paragraph, which can lead to the assumption by the Bishop, that this Association desires a belief that it is promoted by American Churchmen. The question of nationality is brought into consideration now for the first time, we believe, and that by the Bishop himself. Why this consideration is invoked we do not know, nor do we desire to infringe upon such opinions as the Bishop may authoritatively hold as to the [74/75] reason why the number of American members of our Church is not larger than it is.

The foregoing words "Members of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the Hawaiian Islands" in the preamble of our charter will, we think be clearly understood to have been used to designate all Episcopalians of either branch of the Church.

4. We have assumed that all adherents and attendants of the Church, who are willing to work for the Church's harmony and extension, are baptized and that thoy hold the faith of the Church. We do not think that any others are members of this Association.

We are compelled to ask permission to make our foregoing defence in review of your kindness in affording publication to our former communication; and, in closing, we respectfully ask your attention to the fact that whilst the Bishop's letter apparently aims at the disparagement of the source of the information which we have endeavoured truthfully to give, he does not in a single detail controvert its accuracy.

We beg to remain,

Very truly yours,


Church Defence and Extension Association of Hawaii.

Law Offices of Alfred S. Hartwell.
Honolulu, H. I., April 9, 1901.

Rev. John Usborne


Upon further careful reflection and after a further examination of the American cases, I cannot advise you [75/76] to bring proceedings with the view of obtaining the compulsory or restraining powers of the courts against the Bishop.

Whatever would be the law in England on the subject, of which there is little if any doubt, the difficulty here would be to ascertain what law, if any, exists upon that peculiar ecclesiastical body known as the Anglican Church in Hawaii."

The only way out of this present unfortunate condition, which I can see, is that Hawaii be made a part of the diocese of California.

Yours truly,


[77] It would seem but just to accept the foregoing evidence as proof that Mr. Usborne and St. Clement's congregation have in no way separated themselves from the Anglican Church in Hawaii, and there would appear to be no ground whatever on which to build an accusation that Mr. Usborne is the founder of any new sect.

Then the question must be asked, what has prompted Bishop Willis to address such a document to the whole Anglican Communion.

Only those who know the Bishop can answer that question.

Such a charge of apostacy officially made by a Bishop and widely circulated through England and America, as, has been stated this has been, means complete professional ruin to any priest--past redemption--for the accusation penetrates many quarters that the defence will never reach, and few such dark stains are ever perfectly effaced from any mind--they leave their mark indelibly not to comment on the suffering of the family of the accused, and the wrong upon the Church.

Think for one moment of a case similar to this in America.

A Rector of the most important Church in the most important city, innocent of the violation of a single canon of the Diocese, without a charge having been made, or form of trial, or even warning, being deprived of his Church and Parish and forbidden to officiate in the Diocese by his Bishop, and because he contested such action as unjust and continued his work in a Mission Chapel of his Parish, is advertised as a schismatic and the founder of a new sect.

The more Mr. Usborne has submitted to the unlawful action of the Bishop, the more patiently he has borne his persecution, the further has the Bishop gone, until now, this last act so outrages all sense of right, propriety and Episcopal authority, that Mr. Usborne feels compelled, in justice, to the Church, to his family and himself to seek redress through the American Church, since it appears there is no other method of obtaining it, owing to the irregularity of our Church organization.

[78] May not Mr. Usborne with justice look to the Church in America for protection? He is a priest doing duty in the Church in the United States, and as such, is surely entitled to some means of protecting his reputation, which is so much to a man in his profession. In such a case, does not the responsibility properly fall upon the American Church and would not such an action on the part of any Bishop in the United States, if condoned by the Church in that country, reflect upon the whole Episcopate.

If Mr. Usborne, on trial, is found to be guilty of the charge brought against him, he should be removed from the priesthood, but on the other hand, if a bishop, even in an independent diocese, if in that country, should make such a public and slanderous accusation against a priest, falsely, and knowing it to be false, would it not seem but right that he should be called to account by his peers and the wrong undone.

It may be argued that this is not a diocese of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States- This may be true--but neither is it a diocese of any other Church--and its being in the territory of the United States of America is therefore beyond the reach of any tribunal not American. While at the same time it is acknowledged by the Bishop of New York that "The Church in Honolulu, since Honolulu became the territory of the United States, is, in accordance with primitive usage, under the jurisdiction of our Presiding Bishop."

It would seem almost to be an outrage on the Church and on society that it should be possible, either in this or any other civilized country, for one man, be his position what it may, to ruin the reputation of another, and especially in the case of a Clergyman, without a shadow of excuse, beyond private feeling, and to advertise a whole congregation of loyal Churchmen as apostates, with impunity and rest free from all responsibility.

At the risk of being considered accrimonious, it should be stated for the benefit of those readers who know nothing of this diocese what the Bishop's true reasons are for the action he has taken.

The Bishop is of an implacable nature, and the root [78/79] is in a personal animosity towards Mr. Usborne, with a desire to recover the Rectorship of St. Andrew's Church, which post he desires to occupy himself, coupled with disappointment at failing to obtain control of St. Clement's property.

Not only does his Lordship make the groundless charge of a new sect being founded by Mr. Usborne, but he provides a name for it, which, being written by him in conspicuous characters, gives the impression that stress was laid upon this name in the trust deeds of St. Clement's in order to assert and accentuate its independence of the Episcopal authority of this diocese.

The following is a facsimile of that part of the deed which bears upon this trust name:

"Know all men by these presents that consideration of $ me paid by T. R. Walker, Esq., T. May, Esq., and Rev. J. Usborne, as Trustees in trust for the use and benefit of the Episcopal Church at large do hereby grant and sell to them the said T. R. Walker, T. May and Rev. J. Usborne, as trustees for the use and benefit of the Episcopal Church, all that certain lot described in Royal Patent Grant 3216 etc. To have and to hold the said described premises to the said T. R. Walker, T. May and Rev. J. Usborne as Trustees of the Episcopal Church, their heirs, successors in trust forever, etc.. etc.

And I........wife hereby release all my rights of dower in and to the aforesaid premises unto the said Trustees of the Episcopal Church, their heirs, etc."

After reading the foregoing correspondence, it may be asked, does the wording of this deed warrant the Bishop in advertising Mr. Usborne throughout the Anglican Church as "having made himself the founder of a new sect under the name and style of 'The Episcopal Church at Large' according to the tenor of a deed," etc., etc. And his co-trustees as holding property in trust for a new sect called "THE EPISCOPAL CHURCH AT LARGE," or, that Mr. Usborne has "freely, voluntarily and by his own act separated himself [79/80] from the communion of the Anglican Church" "to become the Minister of a little sect of his own, which he calls, the "Episcopal Church at Large." It is not only misleading, but it is untrue, root and branch, and as slanderous as it is damaging and humiliating.

To give strength to the second document, the Bishop has had attached the name of his Chaplain over a very impressive title, but although the veracity of this Association is impugned, not one statement made by this Association in the letter to the "Churchman" referred to, is controverted by his Lordship.

It is true that in the "Living Church" of 20th of April, the Bishop endeavours to show that this Association is wrong in saying that the Church in Hawaii is self-supporting, and he there states the amount of financial assistance it received last year. The Bishop, no doubt, received considerable sums of money last year from sympathizing Americans, but the Association's statement referred to this year, not last year. Since last year the people have learned to realize their responsibility, and not only is the Church in Hawaii now self-supporting, but it is able and willing to do much more than it is now doing.

In reference to a statement made by this Association, that, since 1882, twenty men have come to this diocese to work, either ordained, or to be ordained, while twenty-one had left; the Bishop, in the Diocesan Magazine for April, in extenuation of this exodus proceeds to show how' successfully these men are working elsewhere now, and the high positions they occupy.

Their success elsewhere has not been questioned, for they were, no doubt, good men, but his Lordship is silent on the subject as to the cause of their having transferred their zeal from this, to other dioceses, or the anger and indignation with which many of them went away, or were forced out of this mission. Mr. Usborne's case is not the first by any means.

This Association has been very careful to keep well within the bounds of facts, and any statement made by it may be relied on.

The question of the Episcopal oversight of this Diocese will, no doubt, come before the General Convention next [80/81] October, and the opinions of Churchmen in this Diocese may properly be given here.

Bishop Willis in a letter to the "Advertiser" on 29th January, reproduced in the appendix of this pamphlet, states that "The crown of England in giving permission to the Archbishop of Canterbury to consecrate a bishop for a country outside the British Empire, can only take cognizance of British subjects residing in such country," and it will be seen in the same appendix that such Bishop's jurisdiction is confined to those persons who assent to his authority.

It is probably largely conceded that what Bishop Willis has received from the British crown, he is entitled to retain, that is, Episcopal supervision over those British subjects who wish for such supervision, but there his delegated authority ceases, and it is felt by Churchmen here that on no ecclesiastical principle is Bishop Willis entitled to any fuller jurisdiction in this country than has been conferred on him by the Church of England, and that the clothing him with any new authority by the American Church, to exercise Episcopal jurisdiction over American citizens, or others who desire a change, would be disastrous to the Church to the last degree--it may be almost said to the point of revolution.

The Bishop of Honolulu controls the Cathedral property in Honolulu, and that in four other points where Clergy are working on other Islands.

This, no doubt, he will continue to hold until the charter under which this property is held by the Board of Trustees is abrogated by the American Government, as being one given by the King of Hawaii in 1872, which, under the changed political circumstances of the country, now operates adversely to the freedom and well being of American citizens.

On the other hand, St. Clement's Chapel in Honolulu, and another Church property on the Island of Hawaii, now served by a Clergyman are not controlled by him. In the town of Hilo, a growing town of 5,000 inhabitants, second in importance on these Islands, the Church has never been represented, and although the people are anxious to have a Church, they will not move under Bishop Willis, nor will they subscribe for the erection of [81/82] a building. Under an American Bishop a flourishing Church may be established there in a short time.

On the Island of Kauai, the Garden Island of the group, and very wealthy, the Church is not represented. Here at least are four good points which might be brought under the jurisdiction of the American Church at once and with great benefit, beside several other weaker points. The American Church once established here under new Episcopal supervision, with very little question, all the congregations on these Islands, with the exception of the Bishop's congregation (which apart from strangers and the school children, does not average probably more than a dozen, would demand to be admitted into that Church, without reference as to how their property was vested, and since our missions are now self supporting, the stronger Churches would, no doubt, assist materially in the support of a Bishop.

If the readers of this pamphlet have the good of the Church in Hawaii at heart, let them not try to coerce the people. Mr. Usborne and St. Clement's Church are comparatively of little importance. Their Church trouble is but a side issue and an incident in the general Church -disturbance of many years standing; it is the great mass of the people that must be considered. It would not be true to say that all Churchmen desired a change. Bishop Willis has his friends both in Honolulu and on the Islands. He has drawn some natives to his side through his warm expousal of the ex-Queen's cause and his opposition to annexation, but probably nineteen-twentieths, if not much more, of the white races are strongly in favour of American Episcopal supervision. There are but few Hawaiians left in the Church.

Many feel that the power now lies in the hands of the General Convention of the American Church to redeem this Church, and they pray to the American Church for what they feel they are entitled to expect from it, and that is security of the privilege of worshipping God in harmony and peace and truth, that the Clergy may be permitted to do their duty in a quiet mind and unmolested, that law and order should be established and maintained, that the people should have a voice in the management of the temporal affairs of their Churches, and that [82/83] the rites of the Church shall be open to all Churchmen. They feel this the more strongly because they are satisfied that if the General Convention realized the true condition of this Church, and the source of its trouble, that it would assume control of the American work at once. The people have done all in their power to enlighten the American Church, and the fact of the Church Defence and Extension Association, (which is an honourable and representative corporation) having extended an invitation to the Chairman of the Committee of three Bishops appointed at the last General Convention, to look into Church matters in Hawaii, to pay an extended visit to these Islands that he might obtain a full grasp of the situation, and thoroughly inform himself as to the Church conditions, and from what sources he saw fit, and their having been prepared to furnish a thousand dollars, if necessary, to defray the expenses of such visit, is conclusive evidence that they only desired the plain and unvarnished truth to be known-

Moreover they feel that the extract quoted from the "Report of the Joint Committee on the Increased Representatives of the Church" made to the General Convention in 1898, is strictly applicable to the Church in these Islands, that ample time remains before the meeting of the General Convention in October next for the American Church to satisfy itself on this point, and that should this prove to be the case, as they feel it is, that the American Church has acknowledged itself to be "charged with obligation of duty to extend help."


" * * Where the Historic Episcopate exists in active exercise, the entering in of an extraneous Bishop to act, or a collection of extraneous Bishops as of some other National Church, could only be justified, it would seem, by the gravest of reasons.

[84] "Yet such gravest of reasons may be considered to be apparent if by the Historic Episcopate, wherever existing, unscriptural terms of Communion are exacted, departures from primitive, catholic doctrine which are unauthorized and unsound are inculcated, and unwholesome and immoral practices in the discipline of daily life are permitted and encouraged. If believing souls call aloud for relief from such encompassing error and wrong, then the entering in for help would be rather a rightful Catholic protection of oppressed orthodoxy, than an uncatholic intrusion into a prohibited cure.

''The practical aspect of the matter, in the opinion of your committee, would make the rightfulness of the seeming intrusion to hinge largely upon the question of the number of souls seeking relief.

"If a considerable number protesting against usurpation, tyranny, error and sin join together and seek to reform their own lives and their Church on scriptural and primitive lines, then it would seem to your committee that this Church is charged with obligations of duty to extend help."

In 1890, the following letter, being universally signed was addressed to the Bishop:

Honolulu, September 17, 1890.

My Lord.

We, the undersigned members of the Second English-speaking Congregation of St. Andrew's Cathedral, Honolulu, feel it to be our duty to express our entire accord with a large number of our brethren of your Lordship's Cathedral Congregation in the wish that you may see the desirability of resigning the superintendence of the Anglican Mission in Hawaii.

We do so in the firm belief that whilst your Lordship is in charge of this Diocese, peace and harmonious work cannot exist therein, and the well-being and hoped for [84/85] extension of our Church in this country is impossible.

We remain, my Lord, with great respect,

Your Lordship's obedient servants,

(Here follow the signatures.)

This state of things had existed for many years and has existed ever since, and it now rests with the American Church to determine whether it shall continue, or whether there shall be a change.

By the Canons of this Diocese today, no member of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States is eligible for office in the government of this Church or to vote for a Synodsman, until he signs the following declaration:

"I do declare that I am a member of the Anglican Church in the Diocese of Honolulu in union and full communion with the Church of England, and her daughter Churches throughout the world, and that I belong to no other religious body."

It will be seen then by the foregoing correspondence that Mr. Usborne's crime, which has called forth this grave charge, consists in the refusal of St. Clement's Trustees to transfer to the Diocesan Trustees at the Bishop's request, a trust lawfully and properly held by them.

For this crime their honour, integrity and loyalty have been assailed, Mr. Usborne has been humiliated and persecuted to the limits of endurance for a period of more than three years and a congregation of loyal Churchman refused the rite of confirmation.

Is it a possible thing in the Church in the United States today, that a bishop can with impunity, deprive a rector of his parish Church and issue to the whole Anglican Communion an official declaration of his defection, on such a pretext as the foregoing, without a form of trial--to address to the Church papers copies of this declaration asking the Editors to publish the same and in the [85/86] official Diocesan Magazine, not only to advertise this voluntary apostacy of a priest, but, to strengthen the statement, to say that he had "become the minister of a little sect of his own, which he calls the "Episcopal Church at Large," and this, while such bishop knew well such priest to be innocent of any such thought or intention and recognized by the entire diocese to be innocent of offence.

It seems to be too deep a wrong upon the Church to be ignored.

Mr. Usborne feels that the proper and only course open to him is to appeal to the House of Bishops of the American Church to adjudicate between the Bishop and himself, and if he should be found to be innocent of offence, to anneal to the said House of Bishops to repeal and annul the unlawful documents issued against him by the Bishop of Honolulu.

All the above is subscribed to, and vouched for as correct by the


Honolulu, May, 1901.


The following letters have been copied from the "Commercial Advertiser" of Honolulu.

Editor Advertiser: The Diocesan Magazine for this month contains an able defense of the position taken by the Bishop of Honolulu on the question of the transfer of this Diocese to the American Church. It is not, however, altogether impregnable.

The Bishop bases his argument chiefly on ecclesiastical principle, primitive usage and precedent.

He seeks to show that a See once founded by the Catholic Church, may not be permitted to become extinct, and that its Bishop may not be removed or disturbed in the exercise of his Episcopal jurisdiction therein; and that therefore, in the absorption of this mission by the American Church, it is obligatory on that church not only to perpetuate the See but to preserve its integrity.

While, no doubt it is true that it has not been the practice of the Catholic Church to dissolve Sees, nor yet to remove or disturb the Bishops in such Sees, yet no evidence can be brought to bear in support of the argument that a See may not be dissolved, if it should be considered necessary by the church: nor yet that a Bishop is so irrevocably fixed in his See that its integrity must be preserved for the Bishop's benefit. It would be no argument to say that a See may not be dissolved, because it has not been the practice of the Catholic Church to dissolve Sees. It would be a suicidal policy on the pert of any institution to create an office that might not be dissolved, if changing conditions should render its existence a. menace to the life of the enterprise.

Owing to the weakness of this Diocese a resident Bishop is not really necessary, at present at least, and since the American Church has not the advantage of an S. P. G. for a "handmaid," it, is not probable that the Mission Board:, would feel justified, under the circumstances, in making so large a grant of mission funds as would be necessary to maintain one.

The Bishop of Honolulu takes exception to the Bishop of New York and the secretary of the S. P. G. referring to his; Diocese as the "Church work in Honolulu." and at the manner it is proposed; to deal with his Diocese and his rights. Has his Lordship good ground for so doing?

The Bishop, unquestionably, has certain rights in this Diocese, which will, no doubt be respected by the American Church; but the value of those rights must not be overestimated.

It should be remembered, and it may not be generally known, that the Bishop of Honolulu has never had authority given him by the Church of England to exercise Episcopal jurisdiction over all churchmen in these islands, but only over such of them as wish for his ministrations and assent to his authority. He stands on quite a different footing from ordinary Bishops. In ordinary cases a Bishop's jurisdiction covers all the Episcopal residents within the geographical boundaries of his Diocese, but England has not granted this authority [87/88] to the Bishop of Honolulu because she had no power to confer upon a Bishop, in a foreign country, any jurisdiction or authority over any persons, against their will. Therefore the Bishop's flock here consists only of those persons wishing for his ministrations and assenting to his authority.

Since 1864 the British Government has discontinued the issue of letters patent to Bishops in countries or colonies possessed of an independent Legislature.

The Constitution of the Anglican Church in Hawaii, as well as the voice of the Privy Council in England, proclaims this Church to be a voluntary association; and although on the first arrival of a Bishop here, all those persons who wished for the ministrations of the Church of England gave assent to the Bishop's jurisdiction by implication, since that time many have withdrawn their allegiance, some have associated themselves with other religious bodies, some have not and have attended no place of worship, while there are many others who now wish to withdraw their allegiance in favor of an American Bishop.

For argument sake say that only one-half of the Episcopalians here voluntarily accept the ministrations of the Bishop of Honolulu and assent to his authority, it is clear that the other half are without Episcopal oversight and are as sheep without a shepherd. Therefore only one-half this missionary jurisdiction could be claimed by the Bishop as his, since his jurisdiction covered but one-half of its church residents. It is clear then that the Bishop's jurisdiction and authority is limited to those persons who remain loyal to his authority, and should there be none loyal, the Bishop would be without a Diocese, although occupying the See, while the people would be without Episcopal ministrations. This would appear to be anomalous, but is cannot be denied. Can it be argued then, that the status of the Bishop of Honolulu or that this mission is such as to entitle either him or it to those rights properly belonging to ordinary dioceses?

It may be said, and with apparent justice, that if the people refuse the ministrations of the Bishop provided by England they should forfeit their right to Episcopal ministrations. But England has given them the choice and they are surely justified in taking it. There have been many persons who would not consent to receive confirmation at the hands of the Bishop of Honolulu, and parents who would not permit their children to do so. Is it in accordance with the intention of the Church of England that such persons should forfeit their Church privileges? A whole Church does not become disaffected without a cause and usually a good one.

It must be remembered, too, that although people may be led in Church matters, they will not bear being driven. The Church is for the people and not vice versa. Her office is to gather her children together by cords of love rather than scatter them through unnecessary harshness.

The weak point in the Bishop's argument would appear to be that he claims this mission to be an independent church, and for the Bishop of Honolulu the same authority and Episcopal jurisdiction over this mission that is enjoyed by English or American Bishops in their Dioceses, over which they exercise full Episcopal control. This contention is impossible to maintain because such authority has not been conferred upon him.

If the Church of England had not the power to confer on the Bishop of Honolulu Episcopal jurisdiction over all churchmen in this mission, it certainly could not confer upon him an Episcopal status that would, on any ecclesiastical principle, forbid the entrance of another Bishop to administer the Episcopal rites to those persons who declined the offices of the Bishop of Honolulu. To do this would be practically to invest him with coercive authority, since he would then have the power of depriving people of their Church privileges.

The observance of primitive usage and precedent may be, and is. most useful in the solving of difficult questions in other dioceses, where such limitations of Episcopal authority, have been unknown, but it is not reasonable to suppose that they can be of equal force in this mission, if at all applicable.

The Bishop of Honolulu certainly should not complain if the Church in England or America deal with him and [88/89] this mission without reference to primitive usage or precedent since he himself has ever ignored both primitive usage and precedent in his dealings with his clergy and people, and has refused to recognize the existence of the authority, on which he now seeks to build a claim to the recognition by the American Church of what he considers to be his "inherent rights."

The words, "force him out" are distasteful to the Bishop. Does he remember how often he has applied these words and this action to his clergy?

Inherent rights and primitive usage are equally applicable to the three orders of the ministry.

The Bishop will not question the justice of those words, "With what measure ye mete it shall be measured to you again."

It is quite clear, too, that if the Bishop of Honolulu has any power as a missionary Bishop of the Church of England, acting under its authority, to treat for the transfer of this mission, he and the Synod, can only deal with the interests of those persons over whom the Church of England has given him authority.

The Bishop of Honolulu states that the Church of England does not own a foot of land in the Islands; legally speaking, this is true, but it should not be forgotten that the cathedral property and three of the main outlying missions on the other islands, were given, in Bishop Staley's time, to the joint mission of the churches in America and England, under the name of the "Reformed Catholic Church," which name covered both branches of the church. Bishop Willis had its charter amended the effect of which was to transfer this property from the joint trust to the Anglican Church in Hawaii, thereby excluding American interests. Morally speaking, the church both in England and America, should have an interest in this property.

The question, then, is this: Are the Bishop's rights in this mission, and his status as its Bishop, of such a nature that the American church would feel it incumbent upon it, under existing circumstances, to treat with the Bishop as to the terms of the admission of this mission into the American Church, or to receive this mission in its integrity, or to perpetuate this See, or to decline placing those who desire it, under the jurisdiction of an American Bishop?

Can this mission be regarded as an independent church or as an ordinary diocese, and entitled to the rights enjoyed by such?

We are today in a dilemma. The great majority of the people are dissatisfied with the Episcopal administration. As a Territory of the United States they seek admission into the American Church under the administration of an American Bishop. The growth of the mission in spiritual life and membership has, for five and twenty years, been adnormally small, if there has been growth at all. It is generally conceded that a great reaction would follow a change of administration, which is very generally desired.

On the other hand, the Bishop of Honolulu, claims the right of negotiating with the American Church as to the terms on which this Diocese shall be admitted into that organization, one condition being that he be received with it as its Bishop. He insinuates that otherwise the status of this church shall not be changed, that his position here is one of which the American Church has not the power to deprive him, and which ho does not mean to resign.

It would seem to resolve itself into the question of the well-being and extension of the church at the expense of the Bishop, or the well-being and gratification of the Bishop at the expense of the church.

This would seem to be the dilemma. The American Church, on receiving a transfer of authority from the Church of England, will, no doubt, deal with this difficulty in a calm just and dignified way, weighing well its merits with a due consideration to all rights invested in the premises; yet as the builders and guardians of a great church, with the one great aim in view, that of the, honor and glory of Almighty God, the well-being of His church and the building up of Christ's kingdom.

January 28, 1901.

Editor Advertiser: Your paper this morning contains an anonymous letter, purporting to be an answer to an [89/90] article in the Diocesan Magazine. As the great majority of your readers have not seen that article, may I ask you to give them the opportunity of perusing: it in your columns, that they may the better appreciate the attack now made upon it. For this purpose I enclose a copy of the said article, which I may observe is a criticism of the memorandum of the S. P. G. which has already been published in your columns.

With regard to this morning's letter I have only one or two remarks to make:

1. By fearing to come out into the open and firing from behind the rock of a nom de plume, the writer makes it evident that he has not the courage of his opinions.

2. The principal question he asks, viz., whether this diocese is an independent See or merely an ordinary diocese, is absolutely meaningless. The distinction is unknown in ecclesiastical polity. In church calendars the distinction is between "provincial" and "independent."' This diocese not being in a province has always been classed in the independent group.

3. The ignorance thus displayed of first principles, is further exhibited in the abortive attempt to make it appear that the Bishop of Honolulu's jurisdiction is limited in a way no other bishop's jurisdiction is, or ever was limited. The crown of England, in giving permission to the Archbishop of Canterbury to consecrate a bishop for a country outside the British empire, can only take cognizance of British subjects residing in such country. But were it the case, as the writer supposes, that Episcopal jurisdiction conferred by consecration is subject to this limitation, the purpose for which the permission was given would be defeated.

4. As a voluntary association the Anglican church in Hawaii is in exactly the same position as every other diocese of the Anglican communion in the United States and the Colonies.

5. While the writer appears at the outset to be presenting a sincere disquisition on the subject, the personalities in which he, later on, indulges, plainly reveal a very different spirit. Arrows are shot from behind his cover in the form of statements for the truth

of which he cannot produce any tittle of evidence. That he finds it necessary to resort to this mode of attack is a convincing proof that he finds the position taken in my article to be incapable of direct assault.


January 29, 1901.

Editor Advertiser: In your paper of yesterday "Anglican Churchman" makes a statement that the Bishop of Honolulu has not had full Episcopal jurisdiction in Hawaii conferred on him. Will "Anglican Churchman" give his authority for this statement?


January 30, 1901.

Editor Advertiser: In answer to "American Churchman," asking on what authority "Anglican Churchman" states that the Bishop of Honolulu has not had conferred on him full Episcopal jurisdiction in Hawaii by the Church of England, permit me to say that if "American Churchman'" cares to study the following with an unbiased mind, he will see that what has been stated is true.

It will be obvious to most men that it would be an impossible thing for one country to confer upon any individual in another country, having a government of its own, any authority to interfere with the rights and liberties of any citizen in that country, nor would it be possible to confer on him any exclusive privilege in that country without the consent of its government.

It is the inherent right of every citizen to enjoy unmolested the freedom secured to him by his government, and no power outside may interfere. This applies in all matters, whether commercial, civil, political or ecclesiastical.

How, then, could England appoint a Bishop to Honolulu, a foreign country possessed of an independent Legislature and invest him with a jurisdiction and coercive authority over citizens of that country, that would enable him not only to interfere with, but to deprive them [90/91] of their religious rights and liberties and punish them at will.

In the Diocesan Magazine of April, 1898, the Bishop says, "The Anglican Church in Hawaii is a voluntary association, and here, as in the United States (as it has been decided by the highest courts), the only remedy which the member of a voluntary association has when he is dissatisfied with the proceedings of the body with which he is connected, is to withdraw from it." Consider all those persons in Hawaii who are members of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States. All those who have withdrawn from the Anglican Church in Hawaii, and all those who have not withdrawn, but are refused Episcopal ministration, is it reasonable to suppose that England either could or would give to any bishop an authority which might serve to exclude all these persons from their full church privileges during the bishop's life or pleasure?

If we may judge from the findings of the ecclesiastical courts and privy council of England, on which this argument is chiefly based, England could no more confer on the Bishop of Honolulu the power to administer ecclesiastical law, which included coercive authority over either the clergy or the laity in this country, against their will, than she could grant him power to administer civil law. It does not require a legal mind to grasp the reasonableness of this contention.

In support, then, of the statement made that England has not conferred on the Bishop of Honolulu Episcopal jurisdiction over all churchmen in this mission, but only over such as assent to his authority, permit me to quote two or three important cases from Phillimore and from Cripps, both high authorities on ecclesiastical law.

To make these quotations clearer, it would be better to explain two or three words, that may not be familiar to all persons.

"By "jurisdiction" is meant the right of exercising the functions of a judge or a legal tribunal" "the function or capacity of governing in general." 'controlling authority." (Century Dictionary.)

By "coercive jurisdiction or authority" is meant "having power to coerce, as by law, authority or force." (Century Dictionary.)

By "letters patent" is meant "an open letter under the seal of the State or nation granting some property, right, authority or title." (Century Dictionary) By "crown colony" is meant an English colony which has not a Parliamentary representation. (Phillimore.)

In 1853 Bishop Colenso was consecrated and appointed Bishop of Natal in South Africa, of which Bishop Gray was metropolitan. Later the metropolitan excommunicated the Bishop of Natal, who brought the case before the courts of England. Phillimore states the result thus:

"The privy council in the case of Re The Bishop of Natal, in 1864. said: 'We therefore arrive at the conclusion that although in a Crown Colony properly so called, or in cases where the letters patent are made in pursuance of the authority of an act of Parliament a bishopric may be constituted and ecclesiastical jurisdiction conferred by the sole authority of the Crown; yet that the. letters patent of the Crown will not have any such effect or operation in a colony or settlement which is possessed of an independent Legislature.'

"Let it be granted or assumed that the letters patent are sufficient in law to confer on Dr. Gray, the ecclesiastical status of metropolitan and to create between him and the Bishops of Natal and Graham's town the personal relation of metropolitan and suffragan as ecclesiastics; yet it is quite clear that the Crown had no power to confer any jurisdiction or coercive legal authority upon the metropolitan over the suffragan bishops, or over any other person." (Vol. II, pp. 1783.)

"In an earlier case, Long vs. The Bishop of Cape Town in 1863, the same tribunal expressed itself as follows:

"'The Church of England, in places where there is no church established by law, is in the same situation with any other religious body--in no better but in no worse position; and the members may adopt, as the members of any other communion may adopt, rules for enforcing discipline within their body which will be binding on those who expressly or by implication have assented to them.'

"It may be further laid down that where any religious or other lawful association has not only agreed on the [91/92] terms of its union, but has also constituted a tribunal to determine whether the rules of the association have been violated by any of its members or not, and what shall be the consequence of such violation, the decision of such tribunal will be binding when it has acted within the scope of its authority has observed such forms as the rules require, if any forms be prescribed, and if not, has proceeded in a manner consonant with the principles of justice.'

In such cases the tribunals so constituted are not in any sense courts; they derive no authority from the Crown; they have no power of their own to enforce their sentences; they must apply for that purpose to the courts established by law, and such courts will give effect to their decisions, as they give effect to the decisions of arbitrators, whose jurisdiction rests entirely on the agreement of the parties."

"To these principles, which are founded in good sense and justice, and established by the highest authority, we desire strictly to adhere. (Vol. 11, pp. 1783.) "The privy council having decided that the metropolitan Bishop of Capetown had no coercive jurisdiction over the Bishop of Natal, and, therefore, That deprivation of that prelate by him was civilly null and void, another form of the question came in the case of The Bishop of Natal vs. Gladstone, in 1866, before the Master of the Rolls. The facts of this last case may be stated as follows:

"Funds were subscribed and vested in trustees in England for the creation and endowment of a bishop of the United Church of England and Ireland In Natal--a colony having- an independent Legislature--and the Crown, on the application of the trustees, appointed the plaintiff bishop of the See or Diocese of Natal by letters patent--purporting to give him coercive jurisdiction over his clergy and to make him subject to the Bishop of Capetown as his metropolitan. The plaintiff was consecrated in 1853. A suit was instituted by the plaintiff to obtain payment of the income of the endowment. The trustees alleged by their answer that the effect of the judgment of the judicial committee in Re Bishop of Natal was that, inasmuch as no coercive jurisdiction could be given to a Bishop in a colony possessed of an independent

Legislature, the letters patent had failed to create a legal See or Diocese, and thus the object of the subscribers had failed. Upon this state of facts it was, in substance, decided: That the plaintiff retained his legal status as Bishop of Natal, notwithstanding the said judgment; that though the letters patent had failed to confer upon him any effective coercive jurisdiction over his clergy, he could still enforce obedience by having recourse to the civil courts; and that, as no allegation was raised in the pleadings against the plaintiff's character or doctrine, he was entitled to the income of the endowment. (Vol. II., pp. 1785.)

"Since the decisions in the above cases of Long vs. The Bishop of Capetown and Re Bishop of Natal, the Government has discontinued the issue of letters patent to bishops in colonies possessing an independent Legislature."

The above is from Phillimore.

Cripps, in referring to colonial bishops, says:

"The position of the Church of England in a colony with an established Legislature, and where no church is established by law, is purely that of a voluntary association. The letters patent creating a colonial diocese and appointing a bishop thereto are valid for the purpose of conferring upon such bishop noncoercive powers, but the Crown, after an independent Legislature has been established in a colony, has no power to confer any jurisdiction or coercive authority upon the metropolitan over a bishop or any other person in a colony. Rules for enforcing discipline will be binding on those who expressly or impliedly have assented to them, and the jurisdiction of a bishop rests upon agreement enforceable through the lay tribunals, from which an appeal lies. Although letters patent had failed to confer upon a colonial bishop any coercive jurisdiction over his clergy without recourse to civil courts, it was held that the bishop retained his legal status as bishop." (p. 86.)

The above decisions of the English courts will make it plain that the Bishop of Honolulu or any other bishop under similar conditions has not been invested by England with any jurisdiction or coercive authority over any person in his diocese; that letters patent of [92/93] the Crown, which alone can confer such authority, have not been granted him, since Phillimore states that the issue of such letters was, in 1864, discontinued to bishops in countries possessed of an independent Legislature, which this country is, and Bishop Willis was consecrated in 1872.

Then what is the Bishop's authority, or has he any? He has evidently received none from the English Crown, and the Church of England could not confer temporal authority in this country; therefore he can have no delegated authority at all.

The act of consecration confers upon a bishop the right and power of exercising certain spiritual functions, such as ordaining, confirming, etc., as the granting of a diploma to a physician confers on him the right and power to practice medicine. Either may lawfully exercise coercive authority over their clients who assent to such exercise, but a bishop may not exercise such power, without consent, any more than a physician can compel a patient to take his medicine, and, in point of temporal authority over their fellow countrymen, their powers in this country, as yet, would appear to be equal, and the Bishop's authority confined to the exercise of his Episcopal functions.

"When, in such a diocese as this, a bishop, without just cause, refuses the ministrations of the Church to people desiring them, and who assent to his lawful authority, it would seem but right that such action should at once open the door of this diocese to admit some bishop who would administer these rites, since by refusing to be faithful in the "laying hands upon others"; such bishop has not conformed to his consecration vows, and thereby should forfeit any title to the exclusive exercise of Episcopal ministrations in his diocese.

That a Bishop should not be vested with coercive authority in his diocese is disastrous to a degree. Lawful authority is necessary to the peaceful government of any institution, and especiallly of a religious institution, because men will not bear coercion when administered contrary to law, or by arbitrary or self-constituted authority, and such action cannot fail to result in dissension. Few men will resist lawfully constituted authority, but most men will resist any unlawful infringement on their religious liberties and rights; more so, perhaps, in their religious than in their civil rights.

If the writer is mistaken in his conclusions (which are largely drawn from the above extracts of Phillimore and Cripps) and the Bishop of Honolulu has been invested with any unusual or extraordinary authority by the English Crown, it is to be hoped that the Bishop will make it publicly known, as the people are entitled to this information, for if people are to be coerced, it is but right and just that they should know on what authority they must suffer.


February 2, 1901.

Project Canterbury