PAW. 
 
 SUM. 
 
 
 PASTORAL ADDRESS, 
 
 BY THE RIGHT REVEREND 
 
 WITH notes and a review of the recent work of the 
 
 REV. R. ANDERSON, D.D. 
 
 ENTITLED 
 
 66 
 
 Tlie Hawaiian Islands. 
 
 99 
 
 
 ft 
 
 HONOLULU : 
 
 PRINTED AT THE HAWAIIAN GAZETTE OFFICE. 
 
 1865. 
 

PASTORAL ADDRESS, 
 
 BY THE RIGHT REVEREND 
 
 Cjje Sis I) op of Honolulu, 
 
 DELIVERED IN HIS CHURCH ON NEW YEAR ? S DAY, 1865 , IN 
 REPLY TO CERTAIN MIS-STATEMENTS IN A 
 RECENT REPORT OF THE 
 
 AMERICAN BOARD OF 
 
 COMMISSIONERS FOR FOREIGN MISSIONS 
 
 (PRESBYTERIANS AND CONGREGATIONALISTS.) 
 
 PUBLISHED AT THE REQUEST OF THE CONGREGATION, 
 
 WITH NOTES AND AN APPENDIX, CONTAINING SOME ANIMADVERSIONS ON 
 THE NEW WORK OF REV. DR. ANDERSON, ENTITLED 
 
 “The Hawaiian Islands.” 
 
 T 1 VU t-fc\esVi»> SVaUv, W. 
 
 HONOLULU : 
 
 PRINTED AT THE HAWAIIAN GAZETTE OFFICE. 
 
 1865 . 
 

 
 J m 
 
 SfP 28 1915 
 
 */ 
 
 
 
 *• /J f // b V u 
 
 l| qoizf 
 
 
 
 ' 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 *<» ._ .VI/ r 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 
 
 The interval between the delivery and publication of 
 this address, with the accompanying notes, has been 
 somewhat longer than I intended, owing to nearly a 
 month’s absence from this island. 1 have been obliged 
 in consequence to hurry it through the press. 
 
 Some of the facts referred to may appear unnecessary 
 to have been mentioned here , where they are so well 
 known, but it should be borne in mind that this pub- 
 lication will be read in England and the United States. 
 
 It has been my course hitherto to bear in silence the 
 many proofs which have come under my notice of the 
 deep rooted hostility entertained to the Episcopal Church, 
 by the original Evangelizers of this nation, shown by 
 systematic misrepresentation and open abuse. 
 
 When that hostility culminated in “the appeal to 
 Evangelical Christendom ” by the American Board, fol- 
 lowed by the attack upon the Church in Dr. Anderson’s 
 work, I felt it a duty no longer to remain silent. The 
 charge of “ intrusion ” made by the former, has already 
 been ably refuted by the friends of the Church in 
 England ; but in this Kingdom and the United States, it 
 might, if unnoticed, have some effect. 
 
 The intolerant spirit of Congregational Puritanism, as 
 regards the Anglo-American Church, is nothing new. 
 In the History of the American Episcopal Church by 
 Bishop Wilberforce, p. 110, we read, “In New England, 
 the Church, (the Episcopal.) was rooted amid storms and 
 opposition. Wherever its Missionaries came, the Minis- 
 ters and Magistrates of the Independents were remarka- 
 
. II 
 
 bly industrious, going from home to house to dissuade 
 the people from hearing them. As late as A. D. 1750. 
 they fined an Episcopal Clergyman of English birth and 
 education, on the pretence that he had broken the Sab- 
 bath by walking home too fast from Church. ‘ I cannot,’ 
 said the Rev. Mr. Johnson, writing to the Society for 
 Propagating the Gospel, ‘ but think it hard that the 
 Church of which our most gracious King is the nursing 
 father, should not, in any part of his dominions, be on 
 the same level at least with dissenters, and free fiom 
 their oppressions.’ ’’ 
 
 Let it be distinctly understood, for this controversy I 
 am not responsible. Certain assertions calculated to 
 mislead have proceeded from Dr. Anderson and “the 
 Prudential Committee.” My object is simply to refute 
 these assertions, and put the true facts of the case before 
 the world. 
 
 I would have gladly omitted this unpleasing task. 
 There is so much work for us all to do, in saving the 
 life of this people, that we can ill afford to be wasting- 
 precious moments in contending about who shall do it. 
 nor can the cause of religion generally be expected to 
 flourish amid the strife of tongues. 
 
 Peace, Love, the cherubim entwined 
 Around the mercy sent divine, 
 
 Prayers rise in vain, and temples shine 
 Where they are not.” 
 
 T. N. flONOLULU. 
 
 Mauxa Ala, Nuuanu. March 25. 1865. 
 
ADDRESS. 
 
 Os this, the lirst day of the new year, I would fain have 
 spoken to you only words of congratulation and hope — con- 
 gratulation that you have been brought in safety to the end 
 of I8f)4. now gone by forever, with its hopes and fears, its 
 trials and its blessings ; hope, that you may be spared in health 
 and happiness through this new year of grace, growing each 
 day more and more into the image of your great exemplar, the 
 man Christ Jesus, until you finally reach TIis everlasting 
 Kingdom. 
 
 As it is, something more than this remains lor me to do. 
 
 You are aware how indifferent I have always been to calumny 
 and abuse. 1 have ever felt, during my ministry among you, that 
 the few hours you gave up on Sundays to the duties of the 
 sanctuary, were far too sacred, too precious for me to waste 
 any, the smallest part, of them in meeting frivolous charges or 
 noticing the current gossip of the day. I knew that time would 
 correct wrong impressions, that the secret of success in mission- 
 ary enterprise had ever been the words of the evangelical proph- 
 et. “ In quietness and in confidence shall be your strength.” 
 Speaking for my Reverend brethren, as well as for myself, 1 may 
 say that in the face of the vast work we have found awaiting us 
 in these Islands, in the training of the young, in visiting the 
 sick, and turning sinners to repentance, our feelings have been 
 rather those of the three Hebrew children when shewn the 
 burning furnace of the heathen King, !t 0 Nebuchadnezzar, we 
 are not careful to answer thee in this matter.” But the case is 
 wholly different when men claiming to be ministers of the Gospel 
 of peace and charity, and specially engaged in its propagation, 
 have so lost sight of its spirit and very essence as to utter, with 
 
4 
 
 regard to a body of their fellow Christians, misrepresentations 
 so untrue, cliai'ges so fearful, as those which have been brought 
 against our own Church. I refer to the Report of the Ameri- 
 can Board of Missions. 
 
 Let me say a few words as to the constitution of this Society. 
 Though with a very pretentious title it represents in reality, 
 only the two Calvinistic denominations, known as Presbyterians 
 and Congregationalists. Of these, the former are divided into 
 ten, the latter into four distinct sects. The Methodists, the Bap- 
 tists and the Episcopal Church have each their own Missionary 
 institutions. The bitter hostiliy which “the American Board” 
 displays to our mission is doubtless accounted for, in part, by 
 the fact that the two bodies of which it is composed, have ever 
 been the most relentless in their hatred to the Anglican Church, 
 whether in England or in America. 
 
 In vindicating the Mission from the charges brought against 
 it, I have no desire to sit in judgment on the defects or faults of 
 those devoted men, who were the first to make known the Gos- 
 pel of Christ to the people of Hawaii. I shall pass no opinions 
 whatever of my own, except what may be borne out by facts, as 
 to the results which have attended their teaching for the last 
 forty years, and the work which still is left to be done. I shall 
 appeal to the written testimony of the missionaries themselves, 
 when it is necessary to speak on these subjects. 
 
 The Report sets out with a description of the original degra- 
 ded state in which the first missionaries found the natives of 
 these islands, and the difficulties they encountered ; how they 
 reduced the language to writing, translated the Holy Scriptures, 
 taught old and young to read and write, till at last, within forty 
 years from their arrival, “ the Hawaiian Islands had become 
 substantially a civilized and christianized nation.” “It may be 
 fairly questioned whether there is a larger number of the agri- 
 cultural peasantry of the Diocese of Oxford (in England) who 
 can read the Bible intelligently, and give an intelligent account 
 of what the Christian religion is,” etc. As an Englishman, 
 knowing a little of my own country, and possessing some of tin 1 
 statistics of the vices of our towns and villages, I might, were 
 
5 
 
 this the time and place to do so, dispute the assertion that Ho- 
 nolulu, or the islands generally, can be compared with England 
 in regard to morals. Vice is here the rule, not the exception. 
 I am sure, from my own observation, that the ideas which Hu- 
 waiians have about the Bible and the Christian religion, are any- 
 thing but “intelligent” — nay, are of the most crude and mistaken 
 kind.* But assuming what is here stated to be in part true, is 
 the inference intended to be drawn therefrom also true, that the 
 people are so far advanced in their religious knowledge, and in 
 purity of life, that nothing still remains for us to accomplish : 
 that there was no work for our Church to do, if it came here, 
 except that perhaps a solitary clergyman might minister among 
 a few foreign residents at the capital ? If it can be shown that 
 20,000 natives are in communion with no Christian body, that 
 even 10,000 are living in this Kingdoia “ without God,” without 
 any profession of Christianity at all, we have at least the same 
 right as others to be here and to be working, to say nothing of a 
 Royal invitation, given, not once, but at least twice, to our 
 Church since the first visit of Vancouver, seventy years ago.t 
 
 TESTIMONIES OF THE CHRISTIAN MISSIONARIES NOW AT THE ISLANDS, 
 AS TO THEIR SPIRITUAL AND MORAL STATE. 
 
 I have before me the report to the Propaganda, for 1860, by 
 the Vicar-Apostolic the Right Reverend Louis Maigret. In a 
 table recording the progress of his Church, he divides the 
 people into Catholics, (Roman,) Heretics, (Calvinist,) and Infi- 
 dels. He puts down the Infidels, under which term, I suppose, 
 he includes all who make no profession of Christianity, at 23,000. 
 Say there are only half this number of natives in communion 
 with none of the existing denominations, they might well find 
 employment for at least six clergymen, requiring as they do so 
 much individual supervision. 
 
 But let me read to you, extracts from the report of the 
 Hawaiian Evangelical Association, as the Calvinist missionaries 
 are called. It was published within a year after our arrival, 
 and is circulated in the islands. 
 
 * See Note A in Appendix. fSee Note B in Appendix. 
 
6 
 
 The view it presents, certainly does not seem to justify the 
 glowing picture drawn in this Report of the Board. 
 
 From Hawaii — District of Hilo. — 3Iissionary Titus Goan. 
 
 He tells us, “ Tho Papists have made a long and a strong de- 
 monstration in connection with the building, and consecration of 
 their new temple. Their numbers are gradually increasing, 
 though none of our worthy people* unite with them. The 
 remaining evils are indolence, licentiousness, disease and super- 
 stition.” 
 
 District of Kou. — 0. H. Gv.lick. 
 
 “ The Sabbath is not observed in that sacred manner, indica- 
 tive of a high standard of piety. This is one of the strong 
 holds of popery. They, the Papists, have recruited their ranks 
 from fallen church members. (!) There is but little evidence 
 among us of spiritual life. The large number of professors of 
 religion who take no interest in worship in Sabbath or week 
 day meetings, indicates a sad need of the influences of the 
 Holy Spirit.” 
 
 District of South Kona. — J. D. Paris. 
 
 “ There never has been so much perfect indifference among 
 the ungodly, owing, no doubt, to the increase of rational 
 Christianity and infidelity among foreigners.” 
 
 District of Kohala. — E. Bond. 
 
 “ The church has continued in a lukewarm state, showing- 
 little zeal in the progress of the truth among them.” 
 
 From Maui — District of Hana. — S. E. Bishop. 
 
 “ The great majority of the people are extremely ignorant. 
 The ignorance of the larger part of church members, as to the 
 fundamental facts and doctrines of the Bible is very great. 
 Pew books are found among or purchased by the people. The 
 public sentiment, as to impurity of speech and conduct is very 
 debased. Sorcery has for four years been increasing in this 
 district.” 
 
 District of Lahaina — D. Bald inn. 
 “ The state of religion, in general, is low.” 
 
 * I offer no comment upon this self-complacent and uncharitable style of 
 speaking of their fellow Christians, which the Calvinist teachers generally 
 seem to have adopted. 
 
7 
 
 From Oahu. — A. Bishop. 
 
 “ The religious condition of Ewa has been lower than in 
 former years. There is defection in attendance upon the duties 
 of religion, both on the Sabbath and social meetings.” 
 
 Hauula. — M. Kuaea. 
 
 “ Owing to various causes, the number, as well as the zeal of 
 the church has diminished the past year. Of those cut off last 
 year, only one attends the means of grace. Many of the re- 
 maining church members are apparently drv branches. The 
 contributions of the people have diminished.” 
 
 Kaneohe. — B. IV. Parker. 
 
 “ We have not had the special presence of the Holy Spirit in 
 our church and congregation. Sinners have not been converted. 
 Great efforts have been made the past year, to awaken a new 
 interest in Mormonism. Here is one of the strong holds of the 
 man of sin.” (The Pope ? ) “ Sabbath desecration is fearfully 
 
 prevalent. Gambling is quite common. Licentiousness more 
 prevalent than it was a few' years since.” 
 
 From Kauai — Waidi. — E. Johnson. 
 
 “ A general apathy pervades the Church.” “The Mormons 
 have gained some to their ranks from those who forsake the or- 
 dinances of the Gospel ; a part of them from the ranks of the 
 Church.” At Koloa, J. W. Smith : “ The state of religion 
 throughout the field is low, far from what the pastor desires, 
 and being far from the high standard set forth in the Gospel.” 
 
 From Molokai. — A. 0. Forbes. 
 
 “From June till January of last year, Satan seemed to have 
 full sway. Drunkenness and revelry became more general and 
 rose to a greater height than ever before. The leaders in the 
 work of debauchery and riot were chiefly non-professors of re- 
 ligion, Papists and Mormons, There is reason to believe that 
 some of the ancient idols are secretly worshipped by a small 
 number of the people. Sorcery is practised by a numerous 
 class of kahunas or priests. The whole population are under its 
 influence, and ^ome deaths undoubtedly occur from superstitious 
 fear.” 
 
 These passages show .first, that there is a large body in these 
 islands called “ non-professors of religion,” — attached, that is, to 
 none of the religious bodies — who, in themselves, might present 
 a field large enough to occupy any new agency that might be 
 
8 
 
 brought to bear upon them. Seccmdly, that there is every where 
 prevalent a sad amount of unreality and lifelessness in the ex- 
 perience of even “ nominal professors.” Thirdly , that the Cal- 
 vinistic system has failed to make head against what the 
 missionaries usually class together — Popery* Mormonism and 
 infidelity — or to stem the torrent of returning heathenism. 
 
 THIS MISSION NOT A PROSELYTIZING ONE. 
 
 Have we in our ministrations sought to make it our first care 
 to bring into the fold, those erring and stray sheep who have no 
 spiritual owners, “ to gather up the fragments left by others 
 that nothing be lost ?” I might refer you to my two printed 
 sermons, the one preached as my farewell to England, in 
 Westminster Abbey ; the other, my first words in this church, 
 on Sunday, October 12, 1862. In these occur the following 
 passages : “ It is an admitted fact, that a large number of the 
 
 people are in active communion with none of the existing 
 bodies ; among them, we must seek to labor, not doubting 
 that as we carry to them the Church’s message in all 
 fidelity, zeal and love, she will attract to herself many 
 others, whom she would effectually repel, were she to assume 
 a posture of unfriendliness and aggression. If we keep in 
 mind that the great object of the Mission is the salvation 
 of the souls and bodies of those among whom we are going 
 to labour, and not the numbers we can count as members 
 of our communion, we may hope, by God’s blessing, to escape 
 this danger.” But this, you may say, was merely prospective, 
 and has not been carried into effect. Let me then read to you 
 the testimony of one long a Calvinist missionary here, the Rev. 
 L. Smith. In the Hawaiian Evangelical Report, which I have 
 quoted before, this Divine, so eminent it would appear for his 
 learning or piety that he has just received the degree of I). D. 
 from an American University, makes the following reference to 
 our Church : 
 
 * Every one here remarks on the steady progress of the Roman Church. At 
 the Election of Representatives for Honolulu (early in 1864), which unhappily 
 was made to turn partly on the “ religious persuasion ” of the candidates, of 
 the four members returned, three were Roman Cntholics, one a member of the 
 Episcopal Church. 
 
9 
 
 “ This sect have (sic) come and established themselves 
 at Honolulu since our last general meeting. They have 
 organized a Church, embracing persons who formerly professed 
 to be Episcopalians, and some who never before professed to be 
 pious. The King and Queen, and several foreigners, who but 
 seldom if ever attended worship heretofore, are among their first 
 ripe, gathered, confirmed* fruits.” 
 
 The italics are the writer’s own. I quote this passage, 
 not to expose the vulgar spite and sneering tone which 
 characterize it, or the miserable specimen it affords of the 
 writer’s literary and theological attainments, so little credit- 
 able, as you will doubtless feel any of these to be, to one 
 calling himself a minister of Christ ; but as bearing, at least, 
 an impartial testimony to the direction which our labours 
 have taken. Yes! it is among those “who never before were 
 known to be pious it is among those “ who never frequented 
 worship before” that our chief trophies have been won. If it 
 be a reproach to us that we have among our members those 
 who answer to this description, “ we glory in our shame.” He 
 who came not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance, 
 was blamed by the Pharisees because “ he sat and ate bread 
 with publicans and sinners.” We came here to follow the ex- 
 ample of our dear Lord, and it has pleased him to bless our 
 humble efforts beyond what we might have anticipated. We 
 are able to point to the changed lives of some, both natives and 
 foreigners, who have placed themselves under our spiritual care ; 
 to unions, unblest by the benediction of heaven, solemnly sealed 
 in the sight of God and His Church ; to men and women for- 
 merly known as drunken and licentious, nay, almost lost, now 
 steady, sober, and able to fill with credit positions from which 
 their habits had previously debarred them. This was the work 
 we came to do. We came not to be sources of political disquie- 
 tude ; we came not to act the part of political demagogues, but 
 by our labours for Christ and His Church, on the area still unoc- 
 cupied (if we may credit the assertions of the missionaries them- 
 selves,) to aid the King, as the Father of his People, in his 
 great work of not only raising them to a higher moral life, but 
 
 * Mr. Smith evidently imagines confirmation, instead of being the outward 
 sign of conversion, is the crowning point of the Christian life. 
 
 2 
 
10 
 
 actually saving them from extinction. Do not misunderstand 
 me. I mean not to say that we have not a considerable number 
 attached to the Church who belonged formerly to other com- 
 munions. It was to be expected that many would be attracted 
 by those features of teaching and worship which characterize 
 it. When they come we gladly welcome them. But we do not 
 like some, compass heaven and earth to make proselytes. Rath- 
 er, as I remarked before, we come “to seek and to save that 
 which is lost.” 
 
 THE CHARGE THAT THIS MISSION “ HOLDS OF NO ACCOUNT WHAT GOD 
 
 HAS WROUGHT BY HIS BLESSING, ON THE LABOURS OF THE CAL- 
 VINIST TEACHERS.” 
 
 To this, I give a peremptory denial. I ask you, who, for two 
 years have worshipped with us within these walls, have you 
 ever heard from our lips, with regard to others engaged in the 
 work of evangelizing these islands, one word to disparage their 
 labors, one word inconsistent with Christian charity ? Has not 
 our whole ministry been a continued setting forth of the Divine 
 charity as the beginning and end of the Gospel? Have I not 
 advocated the utmost latitude in the expression of opinion, as 
 far as consists with the great verities of the faith ? Have I not 
 when called on to notice systems which seemed to me erroneous 
 always accompanied my observations with some qualifying re- 
 mark as to the sanctity of conscience, and the duty of giving our 
 opponents credit for the same degree of conviction, the same 
 sincerity, as actuate ourselves ? I preached some time ago to 
 the natives a course of lectures, in the form of question and 
 answer, on the distinctive features of the Church. 1 had to 
 notice its points of difference from, as well as agreement with Ro- 
 manism and Congregationalism. These lectures arc now in print. 
 And how do I conclude? “ What is our duty with regard to the 
 members of other communions than our own ? To love them as 
 our fellow Christians, to pray for theta, to imitate what is good 
 in them, and to remember that a man will be saved, not from 
 the mere fact of belonging to this or that communion, but by 
 seeking to do the Will of Our Father which is in Heaven.” 
 
11 
 
 Listen, again, to some of my farewell words to the Church at 
 home, and to my opening message in this land : 
 
 “ Nothing would shake all religious belief more effectually, 
 than for us to assume an attitude of hostility to those forms of 
 Christianity with which they are now familiar. We must shew 
 the people how, beneath the defects and corruptions of this or 
 that communion, there lies a substratum of truth, in the admis- 
 sion of the great historic facts of the creeds, which may well in- 
 crease their faith in those facts, and lead to greater charity and 
 forbearance in our treatment of those Articles of the Faith 
 which are called in question. We are to speak the truth, but 
 it must be in love, and we are to give all who have been hith- 
 erto labouring with so much devotion and earnestness in their 
 Master’s cause, while we have been looking on with cold indif- 
 ference, the credit they deserve. We must make it clear we 
 do not go forth to ignore or override what has been done by 
 others. * * And we come in all good will to those who have 
 been labouring here before us. However much we may con- 
 scientiously differ from them, we desire not to ignore the work 
 which they have done to the best of their ability, nor withhold 
 from them the credit they deserve. In turn, we claim the same 
 consideration and forbearance.” 
 
 These principles have been carried out in practice. I defy 
 any one to produce me a single instance in which I have “ iguored 
 the work done by the Protestant Missionaries,” either in word 
 or deed. Vague charges of this sort are easily made : let them 
 be proved. No, brethren ! we have ever admitted the zeal and 
 success of the Calvinist Missionaries here, in spreading, partly 
 by their own teaching, partly through the influence of the 
 Chiefs,* that system which they believed to be the true Gospel 
 of Christ, in giving the nation a written language, in translating 
 the Holy Scriptures and in establishing schools. And more 
 than this we are not called upon to say. The ) 7 taught the great 
 facts of the Life, Sufferings and Death of the Redeemer, the ne- 
 cessity of God’s Holy Spirit to renew man’s sinful nature. All 
 these we, too, accept as the basis of the Christian Faith. We 
 owe them many thanks for having prepared the way for us, by 
 familiarizing the people with these mighty truths ! When we 
 are represented in this address of the Board of Congregation- 
 alist and Presbyterian Missions, as “contradicting what has been 
 
 Note C, Appendix. 
 
12 
 
 taught as to our salvation through Christ only,” we might ap- 
 peal to you, who have been wont to listen to our preaching, 
 whether this is not a gross mis-statement. Has it not been our 
 whole aim to point you, by sermon and sacrament, to “ the Lamb 
 of God that taketh away the sin of the world,” to build you up 
 in the graces of the Christian life ? Through whom have we 
 taught you to look for salvation but through that name, other 
 than which there is none whereby we can be saved ? Brethren, 
 this is a terrible thing to say of us, and let us hope in all charity 
 that those who uttered the charge had no deliberate intention 
 to deceive, but were themselves unwillingly misled. If not, 
 may God forgive them! So, too, of that other expression : 
 
 “ This Church (the English) comes not as an ally against ig- 
 norance and sin, but as an enemy !” 
 
 Suppose in the Crimean war the French had said, “You Eng- 
 lish are not allies with us against the Russians, but (mark the 
 antithesis) but our enemy.” There could have been, if words 
 mean anything at all, but one inference — that the English were 
 the allies of the Russians. We are, therefore, I suppose, “al- 
 lies of ignorance and sin !” Oh ! think, dear brethren, of those 
 devoted clergymen who, giving up bright prospects in the 
 Church at home, have come out to this distant land, and have 
 been spending three or four hours a day in teaching Hawaiian 
 boys, in addition to their other duties, carrying on everywhere 
 a noble fight with vice and misery, never weary of ministering 
 to you the word of life and the food of Christ’s Holy Sacraments 
 — think of those holy women* who, for the love of Christ, have 
 given up their lives to works of piety and mercy, and are now 
 training Hawaiian girls to lead virtuous lives, so as to turn out, 
 in the next generation, good careful mothers, Christian women 
 in fact worthy of the name, and then tremble at the lengths men 
 will go to, when embittered by religious intolerance and mad- 
 dened by sectarian jealousy. 
 
 See Note D, Appendix. 
 
13 
 
 THE CHURCH DOES NOT IGNORE, BUT SUPPLIES WHAT WAS LACKING 
 IN THE TEACHING OF THE PURITAN MISSIONARIES. 
 
 In according, however, to individuals the credit they deserve, 
 in accepting thankfully what they have taught, we make this 
 reservation, that the Church of which we are members, has 
 something more to proclaim than was understood by the first 
 evangelizers of these Islands. If not, I fully admit, we have no 
 business here. I mean that some of our inferences drawn from 
 the facts of the Creeds, which we hold in common with them, 
 are essentially different from their inferences. In one word, 
 we do not believe Puritanism to be the legitimate deduction 
 from those facts. We believe it as a system, to be utterly 
 unable to solve the moral problems of the universe. We be- 
 lieve it most unsuited for that light-hearted race, those laugh- 
 ing children of the sun, who dwell in these islands. I have not 
 time to explain what I mean, but will merely give an illustra- 
 tion. Their old athletic games and hulas were from the first 
 tabooed. I do not know enough of those hulas and those games 
 to be able to say how far they were right or wrong. I am told 
 some were very licentious, while others led to gambling and 
 dissipation. Be it so. Were Christian games and Christian 
 dances taught in their place? Nay, — were not the very 
 dances and amusements which grace every Christian court in 
 Europe, and which the most pious Catholic churchmen w r ould 
 regard as essential to the healthy training of his children, de- 
 nounced as too irreligious, too sinful to be tolerated at the 
 court of Hawaii ? So, again, of many other things innocent, 
 when enjoyed in moderation, the enforced abstinence from 
 which is very likely to bewilder, as to all moral distinctions, the 
 minds of a simple uninformed people, making them confound 
 “ the tithing of mint, anise and cummin,” with the weightier 
 matters of charity, justice and truth. Who can doubt that such 
 a system must engender, as all impartial observers contend it 
 has done, a fearful amount of unreality and hypocrisy* ? In my 
 first sermon in this place, I remarked, “ We do not regard reli- 
 
 Note E, Appendix 
 
14 
 
 gion as a system of frames and feelings merely, separate from 
 common life. It is to leaven and hallow all the instincts of 
 our nature not to crush them. It is therefore not a business of 
 one day in seven — Sunday — (often called, I think, most falsely 
 and mischievously the Sabbath") for the Church provides an 
 order of prayer to be said daily throughout the year. On her 
 Christmas, Easter, Ascension tide, she would have all rejoice 
 not only in the temple, but with innocent mirth and healthful 
 recreation. He who was present at the marriage feast of Cana, 
 in Galilee, and turned the water into wine, deigns to unite with 
 us, if we drive him not away by impurity and sin, in our soaial 
 and festal gatherings no less than in seasons of sorrow and be- 
 reavement. Surely Christianity is not all sourness, all taboo ! 
 God would have us use thankfully and in moderation all His 
 gifts, not abstain from their use altogether. This is true self- 
 restraint, this real temperance.’' ' • 
 
 And if I feel that to leave the natives no choice between the 
 attractive licentiousness of their former holidays and amuse- 
 ments on the one hand, and the unlovely austerities of Congre- 
 gational Puritanism on the other, was calculated to work mis- 
 chief, and it is generally believed, has done so, there is yet 
 another point, which, without “ignoring” the value of much 
 that the Missionaries have accomplished, we cannot overlook. 
 Theirs is the denominational, ours the catholic view of Christianity. 
 I do not use the word catholic in the sense in which it is often 
 used as implying that all sects stand on the same footing, so far 
 as their claims to teach God’s truth are concerned — this is a pev- 
 
 * Can it be this allusion to Sabbatarianism which has led to the Boston 
 Board’s accusing me of “ putting contempt on the Christian Sabbath ?’’ Sure'y 
 they rather do so, who have taught the natives here, to call Monday Paakahi, 
 (First day,) Tuesday Poalua, (Second day.) — Sunday Poahiku, (Seventh day !) 
 or Sabalt. Thus leading them to confuse the glorious (estival sacred to our Lord s 
 Resurrection, with the Jewish Sabbath. The Missionaries justify this •* pious 
 fraud,” on the grounl of its greater simplicity, as the institution can there be 
 made to rest immediately on the Fourth Commandment. Be this a6 it may, I 
 am sure, that all who have attended our ministrations will bear witness, that 
 by none is the religious observance of the Lord’s day maintained more strictly 
 than by their Bishop and Clergy ; in no other place, could they have more op- 
 portunities of worshipping “ the Lord in the beauty of holiness,” than in their 
 own Church. 
 
15 
 
 version of the term* — nor as synonymous with Roman. It is 
 true. Rome arrogates to herself that title ; we deny her not to be 
 a branch of the Church, though she has in many points sadly 
 erred from the Catholic faith, and from Catholic practice. I 
 use the term as it was used in the first three centuries, (the 
 purest age of the Church,) as applying to the one visible histo- 
 ric body which has descended in unbroken continuity from the 
 days of the Apostles to our own. We believe that whatever 
 good other societies of Christians have done, who have left that 
 ancient Apostolic organization, 1 mean the Episcopal, be they 
 Meletians, Donatists, Independents, Methodists, etc., and we 
 judge them not — God forbid — yet it is through that one. visible 
 Body, the Catholic Church, we can alone taste the fulness of 
 God's love and assure to ourselves the presence of Him who hath 
 promised to be with it “ to the end of the world.” This is the 
 teaching of the Anglo-American Church, and of her 150 Bishops 
 everywhere with few exceptions. Let me read to you some 
 words of the Rt. Rev. Dr. Kip. Bishop of California, from his 
 “ delineation of the true Catholic Churchman. 
 
 “ The very name which he bears proclaims the principles by 
 which he will be directed. He has received his title from no 
 human teacher. He assumes the badge of no mere sect. He 
 shares in that jealous vigilance which induced S. Paul so sternly 
 to chide the Corinthians, because one party said ‘We are of 
 Paul, 7 and another, • We are of Apollos, 7 and another. ‘We are 
 of Cephas. 7 And this feeling the primitive believers bequeath- 
 ed to those who came after them in the early Church. ‘We 
 take not.’ says S. Chrysostom, ‘our appellation from men. We 
 have no leaders as the followers of Marcion or Anus. 7 Bingham 
 states that when Sempronian, the Novatian heretic, demanded of 
 Pacian the reason why Christians called themselves Catholics, 
 he replied, ‘ To distinguish them from heretics. 7 ‘ Christian, 7 
 he says, ‘is my name, and Catholic my surname ; the one is my 
 
 * A lady now in these islands told me that, meeting the Rev. Dr. Anderson, 
 the Secretary of the Boston Board of Missions, during his visit in 1 8t>3 , she 
 mentioned to him, in the course of a conversation, that she was still unbaptized. 
 He thereupon offered to baptize her himself. The lady expressed her fears that 
 “ she would then be necessarily connected with the Presbyterian denomination, 
 and she preferred the Episcopal church.” u Not at all,” said the Dr., “I will 
 baptize you into the Church Catholic, without connecting you with any visible 
 body of Christians in particular!” May I venture to recommend to this emi- 
 nent Divine, the study of Bishop Pearson on that article of the Creed, “ I be- 
 lieve in the Holy Catholic Church.” 
 
16 
 
 title, the other my mark of distinction.’ Such was the feeling 
 of these early saints. Leaving to those sects which started up 
 on every side to name themselves after their leaders, they still 
 kept to that general appellation which was made expressive of 
 unity and relationship to their Lord. The Churchman of this 
 day has inherited these views, and by the name ‘ Catholic 
 Churchman’ he expresses both his allegiance to his Divine Mas- 
 ter and to that Apostolic Church He founded. Again, other 
 religious bodies endeavor to adapt themselves to the spirit of 
 the times, and thus are drawn into the current, but the Church 
 does not — age after age she alone remains unalterable, while all 
 else is changing.” 
 
 Hear, also, Bishop DeLancey : 
 
 “ Among the thousand evils which result from the endless 
 subdivisions of Christian men into independent organizations, is 
 a miserable waste of ministerial efficiency, and augmented ex- 
 pensiveness in sustaining religion. Is there any effectual cure 
 for this but a return to the ‘ one body of Christ ?’ ” 
 
 In his charge to the clergy of his diocese, 1863, Dr. Whipple^ 
 Bishop of Minnesota, observes : 
 
 “Loyalty to the Lord Jesus Christ is loyalty to His Church, 
 and there is no lack of charity in maintaining the oneness of the 
 Church of Christ. I know of only one Church in the New Tes- 
 tament, and it was visible, planted by the Apostles, and against 
 it the gates of hell have not prevailed. I know of only one 
 ministry, with its threefold orders, in that one Catholic Church 
 of Christ. I only know of one Christian faith proclaimed by 
 that one ministry in that one Catholic and Apostolic Church. 
 I know of only one Lord, one faith, one baptism, set forth in the 
 Revelation of God. An invisible Church is too ethereal for 
 this work-day world. It does not realize our need of brother- 
 hood ; it does not give effectiveness to organization. It has no 
 guarantee of faith or discipline, and leaves no mark on history. 
 We admit the purity, the faithfulness and piety of many, not In 
 the Church. But this no more absolves from loyalty to Christ, 
 or apologizes for Christian divisions and sects, than morality will 
 excuse an upright liver for neglect of Holy Baptism.” 
 
 Now, the continuity of this Holy Catholic Church depends on 
 the ordaining power of the Bishops. Rend over what is said in 
 the preface to the Ordination service in your Prayer Books, and 
 then the service itself, and can you doubt what the principles of 
 the Church really are — that in fact she refuses to take her stand 
 among the various persuasions of the day ; that her Christi- 
 
17 
 
 anity is something definite, something transmitted down to us 
 in creeds and formularies, in a prescribed and visible organi- 
 zation. Now, you will see at once, here is a new element to be 
 added to and infused into the pre-existent Christianity of Ha- 
 waii, and, as honest men true to our Church, we cannot ignore 
 so vital a principle. How is it we see so little fixity in the va- 
 rious Protestant sects around us, each splitting up into new and 
 new fragments ; each, from possessing no dogmatic teaching, 
 eventuating in fanaticism and infidelity, or in secessions, through 
 mere disgust, to the Roman Communion ? The Presbyterian 
 places of worship licensed under the Act of Toleration in the 
 reign of William the Third, and made over forever to that body, 
 are now held by Unitarian teachers, who, in England, call them- 
 selves in consequence Presbyterians. How is it that the Congre- 
 gationalist Missionaries all bear testimony, and you remark the 
 same yourselves, that Romanism is gaining so firm a footing on 
 these Islands, holdimg out the prospect of the people, if they sur- 
 vive long enough, altogether becoming Roman Catholic ; and 
 this, too, notwithstanding a start later by fifteen years than that 
 of the Calvinists, and persecutions, I might add, from ai preacher- 
 ridden Court, which would have disgraced the times of a Tudor 
 or a Stuart ? Why ? but because this denominational system, 
 without creeds* without formularies, is no match for the com- 
 pact and solid organization of Rome. 
 
 Another characteristic of this denxymi national Christianity, is 
 the little weight it attaches to the Holy Sacrament of Baptism. 
 Look out the Hawaiian word for Sacrament in the vocabulary 
 drawn up by the Calvinist teachers at the Lahainaluna Semi- 
 nary : “ Sacrament, 0 ka Ahaaina o ka Haku.” That is, “ the 
 Supper of the Lord.” It seems, therefore, they do not regard 
 baptism as a sacrament at all, though expressly enjoined by the 
 Lord himself as necessary to salvation. (John iii., 2.) It is 
 their practice generally to refuse to administer this holy 
 rite to any but members of their sect or children of such 
 
 * I am told, on the best authority, that it would be difficult to find any one 
 in this so-called Christian nation, (except among the Roman Catholics or our- 
 selves,) be they adults or children, that can repeat accurately the Apostles’ 
 Creed, or in fact has ever heard of its existence. 
 
 3 
 
18 
 
 members. We baptized, soon after our arrival, many infants to 
 whom they had previously refused baptism, taking care first to 
 provide them with suitable sponsors. Let this fact go forth to 
 the eternal disgrace of those whom it may concern, that he, 
 whom the Missionaries delight to honour as their best patron 
 AND FRIEND, AS THE FOUNDER OF HAWAIIAN LIBERTIES, THE GOOD 
 
 King Kamehameiia the III., though most anxious to receive 
 this Holy Sacrament, was allowed to die unbaptized. 
 
 of THE WORDS “ REFORMED ” AND “ CATHOLIC ” AS APPLIED TO THE 
 HAWAIIAN CHURCH. 
 
 From what has been said may be inferred why we chose the 
 name “ Reformed Catholic.” The first word recognizing the 
 fact of the Reformation, when the Anglican Church cleansed 
 herself from the accretions, which had grown round her in the 
 middle ages, and the second asserting her claim to be a branch 
 of that one visible historic Church transmitted down from the 
 beginning. I may state in vindication of this term, that at a 
 recent convention of the Church in the United States, it was 
 proposed to substitute it for the present designation, which was 
 unsatisfactory to some of the Bishops and Clergy, of “ Pro- 
 testant Episcopal.” In the volume of Bampton Lectures, 
 delivered by the Rev. Dr. Jelf, Principal of King’s Church, 
 London, one of our most learned and moderate divines, page 
 378, you will find he speaks of “ the Reformed Catholic Church 
 of England.” In the prospectus originally put forth in London 
 regarding this mission mention is made of “ the two great 
 branches of the Reformed Catholic Church in England and 
 America.” I might quote other authorities for this title, but 
 let these suffice.* Well — it is probably this designation which 
 
 • If I could have foreseen the use, which wne to be made, of this name “Re- 
 formed Catholic,” among the more simple, ignorant natives, by men wholly un- 
 scrupulous in their misrepresentations of the character of our mission, I should 
 have paused beforo adopting it. The report was studiously propagated by the 
 Puritan Missionaries, in their several districts, that we were not “the real 
 Church of England sent for by the King, but a sect of semi-papists who had 
 left that Church and como to Hawaii.” That the word “Catholic” meant 
 “ Popish,” and that by it we intended to imply wo were n slight improvement 
 on the Faranis (French Priests.) Generally the people designate the several 
 Christian communions in the islands by their nationalities. The Congrega- 
 tionalist preachers are careful to represent their communion as the American 
 
19 
 
 has led the American Board to declare that we “ renounce th e 
 tiatne Protestant 
 
 The Church of England never assumed the name, and there 
 fore I suppose, she cannot “ renounce ” it. There is no instance 
 of its being applied to her in the Prayer Book, Homilies, or 
 Thirty-Nine Articles, nor any other of her authorized documents. 
 Still, I grant, she is frequently spoken of as a Protestant Church, 
 where the occasion requires her anti-Roman aspect to be made 
 prominent. Whilst at her coronation, the Queen of Great 
 Britain swore to maintain “the Catholic Faith,” she engaged 
 also “to defend the rights of the Protestant Church of England,” 
 an epithet intended to assert strongly her independence of the 
 Papal see. Here and in all such cases there is an object to be 
 gained in using an appellation which asserts nothing positive, 
 and merely tells us what the Church is not. It is not such a 
 legitimate use as this, which the Board of Congregational and 
 Presbyterian Missions at Boston wishes us to make of the 
 word Protestant. No. What they want is to place our Holy 
 Mother, the ancient Catholic Church of England, with all her 
 great and glorious memories on the same platform with the 
 Congregationalism founded by a Brown, or the Quakerism of a 
 George Fox, and with all the other “isms” that have afflicted 
 the Protestant world during the last 300 years. I will only add 
 more on this subject that the word “Reformed” expresses with 
 sufficient clearness, that the Hawaiian branch of the Anglo- 
 American Church has no sympathy with distinctively Roman 
 teaching. 
 
 Church. The natives thiuk it is the only one in the United States. The arrival 
 of the Rev. P. Gallagher, M. A., an Episcopal Clergyman, from Geneva, N. Y., 
 to take part in our work, greatly confuses their ideas. One of the leading Ha- 
 waiian members of our Church recently heard a native Kalavina boasting that 
 the great Washington belonged to theirs the American Church. “ No,” re- 
 plied our friend, “ He was one of us!” “How so?” “Because he was born, 
 bred and died in the communion of the old Church planted by the Church of 
 England in the United States, when they were Colonies. The Congregation- 
 alists are only a sect." The information was, I need not say, quite new. 
 
20 
 
 WE REFUSE “TO ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR STANDING AS MINISTERS OF 
 
 CHRIST.” 
 
 Merely in the sense in which the Episcopal Church whether in 
 England or the United States refuses to acknowledge it. A Bo- 
 cnan or Greek priest coming over to that communion is required 
 simply to make the usual subscriptions. He is never re-ordained. 
 A Presbyterian or Independent preacher doing the same, has to 
 submit to ordination at the hands of a Bishop. Why ? Because 
 it is in the very constitution of an episcopal church that the 
 Bishops, as the lineal representatives of the Twelve, can alone 
 confer valid orders. Well! coming here, we wished to hold 
 this principle in all charity. We had no desire to raise the 
 question of their clerical status at all. We simply wished to be 
 let alone, and, in conformity with the system and spirit of our 
 Church, to do the work which God had assigned us to do for 
 Him, quietly and without giving offence to any. Such, how- 
 ever, was not the course permitted us. Immediately after our 
 arrival, it was resolved to put us into an attitude of hostility at 
 once. We were invited to meet them upon a basis not of social 
 but ecclesiastical equality. Perhaps our Puritan friends wished 
 to place us on the horns of this dilemma, either publicly to ab- 
 jure a vital principle of the Church or to seem wanting in 
 Christian charity. Be this as it may, we acted as every consis- 
 tent clergyman, whether in England or America * would have 
 done under the same circumstances. 
 
 WE “HAVE BEEN WANTING IN COURTESY TO THE AMERICAN MISSION- 
 ARIES.” 
 
 To this I give an unqualified contradiction. In social life I 
 recognize no religious distinctions. With several of the mem- 
 bers of the Hawaiian Evangelical Association I exchange visits 
 and count them among my friends. But I certainly cannot say 
 that it is my wish to be on such terms with all of them. I have 
 no sympathy, and possibly may even manifest displeasure, with 
 men who "are not ashamed to speak evil of dignities;” who 
 sow disloyalty and sedition among the native population ; who 
 
 Note F, Appendix. 
 
21 
 
 trade on their superstitious fears ; who significantly hint that 
 God is plaguing this land, and has killed their Prince and King 
 because of the presence here of an English Bishop ; who pro- 
 pagate such slanders as this, that he is a political emissary plot- 
 ting to undermine the independence of the Kingdom and rob 
 them of their liberties. Such, be they who they may, I have 
 no desire to know.* 
 
 THE ARRANGEMENT WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN SATISFACTORY TO THE 
 AMERICAN BOARD OF MISSIONS. 
 
 We are told in the Report, that it is the presence of the 
 Church in her integrity and completeness — which is offensive. 
 
 “The settlement of a Protestant Episcopal Minister at Hono- 
 lulu, would have been welcomed by us as an occasion, not of com- 
 plaint, but of congratulation. His success in gathering a con- 
 gregation of Episcopalians from among the foreign residents, and 
 in ministering to the moral and religious improvement of the 
 royal family, would have given joy to our missionaries and to us. 
 Nor could any complaint have arisen if he had received ever so 
 many native converts into his own communion. Whether the 
 peculiar ritual and ecclesiastical arrangements of Protestant 
 Episcopacy t are suited to promote the Christian life and pro- 
 gress of the Hawaiian people is a question worthy to be solved 
 bv a fair experiment, and to such an experiment, neither we nor 
 our missionaries would have offered any hindrance.” 
 
 I leave it to the Board to show how “ Protestant Episcopacy 
 with its ritual and ecclesiastical arrangements,” could receive a 
 fair experiment without a Bishop. One of “ the ecclesiastical 
 arrangements,” of “ Protestant Episcopacy,” is Confirmation. 
 
 * In his work on the islands, the Rev. Dr. Anderson, speaking of the rela- 
 tions of the Clergy with the members of the Hawaiian Evangelical Association, 
 says, “ There was no collision, the common civilities of life were reciprocated.” 
 The Doctor, in illustration, might have had the candour to state, that as soon 
 as possible after his arrival, the English Bishop, and Presbyters called upon 
 him in a body, to pay him their respects, and, that it was owing to a very 
 recent bereavement in the Bishop's family, as was subsequently explained, 
 that Dr. A. did not receive from him further attentions. 
 
 f Observe — in spite of the attempt to make out that our system, because the 
 Church is called Reformed Catholic, is something different from Protestant 
 Episcopacy ; and on that account only does not meet the approval of the Boston 
 Board — the truth comes out, in the doubt here suggested, about the suitable- 
 ness of Protestant Episcopacy to the Islands. Their objection in reality is not 
 to names. That is all a miserable sham. It is to the whole Church system, 
 call it what you may, when not pared down to the Puritan ideal. 
 
22 
 
 Perhaps the Board considered this holy rite a matter of indif- 
 ference. or would have left its celebration to the solitary “ Epis- 
 copal Minister,” whose arrival would have been “ welcomed ” by 
 them with so much ‘‘joy and congratulation.” Suffice it to say 
 on this point, that the Anglo-American Church does not usually 
 send out its Missions abroad without placing them under Episco- 
 pal control. The rapid growth of her Missionary Episcopate of 
 late years in all parts of the world, is a proof that she is fully alive 
 to her duties in this respect. But I wish you particularly to 
 notice the varied functions which are assigned in this appeal to 
 the unfortunate Protestant Episcopal Minister, who was to be 
 so heartily welcomed at Honolulu. 
 
 First. He was to “ gather a congregation of Episcopalians 
 from among the foreign residents.” Second. He was “ to min- 
 ister to the moral and religious improvement of the royal family.” 
 Third. He was to be “ tutor to the infant prince.” Fourth. 
 He might expect that he would have to “ receive ever so many 
 native converts into his own communion.” Fifth. I might add, 
 though not stated in the document before me, it was hoped that 
 he would be able to educate the sons of 11 the Episcopal ” resi- 
 dents. 
 
 Why, brethren, these (except unhappily the third mentioned 
 one) are the very duties which the Church has been attempting in 
 Honolulu, since its inauguration, duties to discharge which effi- 
 ciently overtaxes the powers even of a Bishop and two Presby- 
 ters. If it would have been a cause “ not of complaint but of 
 congratulation ” to our Puritan friends here, and to their pat- 
 rons in America, to see the work which they lay down for “ the 
 Church to do in this city, going on at all, should they not 
 rejoice far more to think that that work is being well, instead of 
 badly done? Think of this poor isolated over-worked Priest, 
 with all these “ irons in the tire,” cut oil' from all sympathy with 
 his fellow priests, deprived of that episcopal direction, which he 
 had learnt to love as his blessed heritage, his only clerical friends, 
 Presbyterian and Independent “ preachers,” the only variety- 
 in his monotonous life, an occasional invitation to exchange pul- 
 pits, or take part with them in their “ religious exercises.” 
 
And what Board with any bowels, with any of the milk of hu- 
 man kindness in its veins, ought not to be moved to pity. Yet. 
 we are told, from its official lips, “ no complaint would have aris- 
 en!” How is it, brethren, that for twenty years or more the 
 shadow of this “ episcopal minister” has been continually cross- 
 ing your path ? Turn through the volumes of your old news- 
 papers from 1845 downwards, and you will find accounts of meet- 
 ings held, money promised, letters written to churchmen in 
 England and America — yet (he man never to be had. No ; be* 
 . cause it is evident uo man worth having, no man of any princi- 
 ple even, could occupy such a position. And it is just possible 
 that one reason why the. board at Boston and the Calvinist min- 
 isters here, would have uttered “ no complaint,” and would even 
 have rejoiced, if the Church of England had limited her action 
 to sendiug just one clergyman to Honolulu, was the very obvi- 
 ous one that they knew well enough from past experience that 
 this new attempt would fail as others had done before it. 
 
 THE ORIGIN OF THE MISSION. 
 
 The Boston board has no wish to “ impute blame to the Pro- 
 testant Episcopal Church of the United States, or to the 
 authorities of the established Church of England.” For such 
 condescension and moderation, we must of course, be very thank- 
 ful. Even “ the Archbishop of Canterbury in consecrating a 
 Bishop for this enterprise, acted simply under a political neces- 
 sity. the King of Hawaii having been represented as asking 
 that favour of the British Government.” We have read many 
 discussions of late on the action of the royal supremacy in mat- 
 ters spiritual in the English church. But our Puritan friends in 
 America seem to stretch its prerogatives to the very furthest con- 
 ceivable limits when they suppose that the Primate of the church 
 is under a “ political necessity” to consecrate, whenever he is or- 
 dered to do so by the British Government! while the British Gov- 
 ernment is under a “political necessity,” to grant whatever fa- 
 vours the King of Hawaii may choose to ask ! It would therefore 
 seem possible, that the supremacy of the English Crown over 
 the church, might, under given conditions, be found flowing 
 
24 
 
 from the sole will of the Hawaiian Monarch, a view which 
 has, at least, the recommendation of novelty. 
 
 “ Nor does the enterprise proceed from either of the two 
 great societies, through which the members of the Church of 
 England conduct their foreign missions. It represents nothing 
 more than a sect or party in it, a sect which happily for our 
 common Christianity is far less formidable in its influence than 
 it was twenty years ago.” 
 
 To all these assertions, my best reply will be a brief recapi- 
 tulation of the steps which led to the establishment of this mis- 
 sion. • 
 
 It was no new occurrence in the history of this Kingdom, 
 when one of its sovereigns asked for a clergyman of our Re- 
 formed church, to be sent to him from England. You are all 
 familiar with the request made by Kamehameha the First 
 through Vancouver, one, which, owing to indifference of the 
 times, unhappily proved without effect. I have been told, on 
 authority which may not be lightly questioned, that Liholiho 
 had similar aims in view when he visited England in 1823. Be 
 this as it may, during the last fifteen years, several efforts to 
 obtain an episcopal clergyman from that country were made, 
 but always without effect. The sympathy of his late Majesty 
 with the constitution and liturgy of the Church led to a renew- 
 ed attempt, as you have already heard. He had the modesty to 
 ask only for one man, because the pecuniary resources at his dis- 
 posal seemed barely enough to justify him even in that. When, 
 however, benevolent and earnest churchmen felt that if the 
 mission were to be undertaken at all, it ought to be of no such 
 fragmentary kind, representations were made, through the prop- 
 er channel, of the advantages to the church, which would re- 
 sult from sending out a Bishop. At the same time, no addi- 
 tional guarantees in the way of support were required from His 
 Majesty than those which he had already pledged. I need not 
 tell you with how much pleasure he assented to this unlooked for 
 proposal. Early in the year 1861, he wrote an autograph letter 
 to Her Majesty, Queen Victoria. Soon after it had been re- 
 ceived, in the month of April, a debate took place in the House 
 of Convocation of .Prelates of the Province of Canterbury, on 
 
the subject of Missionary Bishops, in the course of which the 
 Bishop of Oxford stated : 
 
 “ That the King of the Sandwich Island was most anxious to 
 see a Bishop of the English Church established in his dominions. 
 His Majesty mentioned, that, ‘according to the Constitution of 
 his kingdom, no established Church in the proper sense of the 
 term can be formed there, that all creeds are left free, to be 
 supported by voluntary contributions.’ He proposes to make 
 the Bishop preceptor to the Crown Prince. He thought it best 
 to communicate with the Queen, and wrote a letter in most ex- 
 cellent English, begging Her Majesty to give all the assistance 
 she can in sending out a Bishop of the Church of which she is 
 the temporal head. The present mail has brought me a letter 
 from the Bishop of California, who points out the importance of 
 making the Islands a missionary centre. Further, the American 
 Church is very anxious to unite with the Church of England in 
 this work. And Bishop Potter states that they will undertake 
 to support one or possibly two Missionary Clergy, to work with 
 the Bishop, whom the Church of England may send out. All 
 this is matter of the deepest interest and the greatest impor- 
 tance, and I think it most important, that we should at once 
 consider the question. If God opens to us new fields, we ought 
 to turn our attention to them, and to occupy them in a manner 
 consistently with primitive customs and primitive practice, and 
 to follow out historical precedents in extending the Kingdom of 
 Christ.” 
 
 The invitation of the King to our Church, being thus publicly 
 and formally announced, and the difficulty to its acceptance be- 
 ing the need of funds, the course usual under such circumstances 
 was taken. Those who sympathized with the object came to- 
 gether and formed a committee, consisting of church dignita- 
 ries, noblemen and gentlemen — men they were, the first and 
 foremost in every good work — men raised far above all party 
 considerations or sectarian bias — several of them members of the 
 committees of the two venerable Societies for the Propagation 
 of the Gospel in foreign parts, and for the Promotion of Chris- 
 tian knowledge. 
 
 Within one month after the Bishop of Oxford’s speech in 
 Convocation quoted above, the statement I now read was pub- 
 lished and circulated : 
 
 “ Polynesian Church. — The committee for promoting the 
 establishment of a church in Honolulu, in communion with the 
 churches of England and America, having taken into consider- 
 4 
 
26 
 
 ation the King of Hawaii's desire to receive a mission from the 
 church of England headed by a Bishop, are of opinion that 
 measures should be taken for fulfilling the desire thus put. we 
 trust, by God into the heart of his Majesty. 
 
 That having respect to the importance of these islands as a 
 probable centre of Christian influence in the North Pacific Archi- 
 pelago, as well as to the immediate needs of the actual popula- 
 tion of the Hawaiian group, an earnest appeal for support be 
 made to the Church at home. 
 
 That as it appears by letters from the Bishop^ of California 
 and New York, that there is a readiness on behalf of the Ame- 
 rican church to unite in this effort, the Committee hail with * 
 gratitude to God such an opening for common missionary action 
 between the two great branches of the Reformed Catholic 
 church. 
 
 That the Bishops of California and New York be requested 
 to convey to the church in America, most earnest invitations 
 from this committee to unite in the work. 
 
 The city of Honolulu contains, besides its native population, 
 European arid American residents. The French Roman Catho- 
 lics possess a cathedral, with a bishop, clergy, etc., and the 
 American congregationalists have also places of worship. The 
 King offers on his own behalf and that of his subjects, and resi- 
 dents who desire the establishment of the English Church, a 
 yearly payment of <£200 and to give the site for a church, par- 
 sonage, etc. It is also probable that a grant of land may be 
 made for the future support of the mission. The resources of 
 the islands can probably not do much more at present than this, 
 and the committee appeal with earnestness to their fellow 
 churchmen to assist in sending forth laborers into this part of the 
 Lord’s vineyard. The authorities of the American church have 
 also undertaken to select and maintain three clergymen to aid 
 any bishop who may be sent out from this country.” 
 
 The two venerable societies to which I have referred, imme- 
 diately signified their approval of the movement by liberal grants 
 in its aid. 
 
 The following August he who now addresses you was desig- 
 nated as your Diocesan, by his Grace the late Archbishop of Can- 
 terbury, the venerable Dr. Sumner, who, I may state, was fully 
 alive to the peculiar trials which, notwithstanding the counte- 
 nance and support of the King, any one accepting the olfice 
 might expect to incur. “ You will indeed be between two fires,” 
 were his words to me on one occasion. After some discussion 
 as to the mode in which the consecration should be effected, 
 whether with or without any action on the part of the Crown, 
 
27 
 
 the Lord Chancellor and Attorney General finally decided that 
 the Royal License of her Majesty would be necessary. It was 
 granted, and on the 15th of December in the same year, 1861, 
 the consecration of an English Bishop for the newly created 
 see of Honolulu took place. 
 
 I was occupied some months in England before mv departure 
 in collecting funds in aid of the establishment and futuro main- 
 tenance of the mission. From men of aU parties in the Church 
 — for I do not disguise the fact that she does allow her members 
 in matters indifferent a considerable diversity of sentiment and 
 practice, and here is one secret of her strength — I received to 
 my representations a liberal response. In that interval the 
 venerable Primate, whose truly evangelical spirit and character 
 were never questioned, was pleased to express to me several 
 times his deep interest in the success of this new missionary 
 enterprise, and I can never be grateful enough to him for the 
 kindness with which he offered me his fatherly sympathy and 
 advice. A few days before leaving England I received from him 
 some lines which I may be permitted to read : 
 
 ”My dear Bishop: — I am much gratified by your kind letter 
 and the opportunity which it gives me of wishing you farewell, 
 which my state of health has prevented my being able to do, as 
 I could have wished, in person. 
 
 I have also to thank you for the Sermon which you have for- 
 warded to me, and the assurance which I receive from it (not 
 that I wanted it before) that the blessing of the Head of the 
 Church will accompany your ministry. 
 
 My earnest prayers go with you and your family, devoting 
 yourselves, as you have done, to a "work which few would have 
 undertaken. I shall not survive on earth to hear of the success 
 granted you, but what we know not now we shall know here- 
 after. 
 
 Yours, my dear Bishop, sincerely, 
 
 J. B. Cantu ar.” 
 
 In a few weeks the trembling hand which must have penned 
 these loving words lay cold in death. The present Primate has 
 given me proofs that he feels the same interest in the Hawaiian 
 Church as his predecessor. With him and other prelates in 
 England — I might add also in America — I am. from time to time, 
 in correspondence. During the last year a considerable sum has 
 
28 
 
 been pledged towards a fund for the endowment of the Bishop- 
 ric. Among the donors to the mission since its commencement 
 have been the present Archbishops of Canterbury, York, Dub- 
 lin and Armagh, the Bishops of London, Oxford, Chichester, 
 Exeter, Lichfield, St. Asaph, with other dignitaries of the 
 Church. From all these facts you will be able to appreciate 
 the truth of the statement — one no doubt intended to shake the 
 confidence of those who have attached themselves to us in these 
 islands — that this mission “ represents nothing more than a sect 
 or party in the Church of England, which, happily for our com- 
 mon Christianity, is far less formidable in its influence than it 
 was twenty years ago !” 
 
 “the violation of the law of comity.” 
 
 The words which conclude this appeal to the public opinion 
 of Protestant Christendom can hardly be passed over. 
 
 “ Had such a measure as this intrusive mission to Hawaii pro- 
 ceeded from any Protestant Missionary Society, or from any re- 
 cognized body of Evangelical Christians, it would have been 
 an inexcusable violation of the law of comit} 7 , which is respected 
 spontaneously, and almost universally, by Protestant Mission- 
 aries.” 
 
 How a mission can be said to be “intrusive,” which has been 
 invited hither by successive Sovereigns of this nation quali- 
 fied, at least, by their sympathies and knowledge to judge 
 what was best for the moral and religious elevation of their 
 subjects, I leave to this Board to determine. In the thirty- 
 seventh article of the Church of England, it is expressly said, 
 that she accords “to the Sovereign of the State that prerogative, 
 which we see to have been always given to Princes in Holy 
 Scripture, that they should rule all states and degrees committed 
 to their charge by God, whether they be Ecclesiastical or 
 Temporal.” 
 
 It is not therefore surprising that the authorities of our 
 Church consented to plant a branch of it in a Kingdom, whose 
 chief magistrate had made known to them, through the proper 
 channels, his eagerness to welcome one. Can it be said of 
 either of the other two forms of Christianity now in the Islands, 
 
29 
 
 that it was established with the immediate consent, much loss on 
 the invitation of the Chief Ruler of the State ? Surely, they 
 are far more open to the charge of intrusion, I might almost say, 
 impertinent meddling, who addressed themselves, unasked, to 
 the Prelates, both in England and America, dictating to them 
 what kind of persons they should send out on this mission, and 
 assigning the bounds within which, according to their united 
 wisdom, it ought to be restricted ! 
 
 But observe, “ this mission does not proceed from any body 
 of Evangelical Christians.” None will question, it must have 
 “ proceeded ” from those without whose official action or private 
 contributions, it could not have been initiated. It follows, there- 
 fore, that his late Majesty the King of Hawaii, her Majesty the 
 Queen of Great Britain, who granted her Royal License for my 
 consecration, the Four Primates of the United Church of Eng- 
 land and Ireland, the other Prelates, whose names I have men- 
 tioned, the Committees of the venerable Societies for Propaga- 
 ting the Gospel and for Promoting Christian Knowledge * 
 belong to no “ recognized body of Evangelical Christians.” 
 This fact might be useful in enabling us to arrive at some ade- 
 quate conception of what so called “ Evangelical Christianity” is. 
 
 Happily, the illustrious persons to whom I have referred, are 
 not recognized as within the pale of “Evangelical Christiandom,” 
 or they wotild have been guilty of a very heinous crime indeed. 
 They would have actually violated that ‘‘‘‘law of comity" which is 
 respected spontaneously among all Protestant Missionaries. 
 May I ask my Puritan brethren, when and by whom this law 
 was enacted ? Where, for example, did the Society for Propa- 
 gating the Gospel, through her President, the Primate of the 
 Church, or her Vice Presidents, among whom is the whole body 
 of Anglican Bishops, enter into any such compact with the non- 
 conformist missionary associations in England or the United 
 States. * I trust for the sake of our Presbyterian and Congre- 
 gationalist friends, this “ law of comity ” is some airy, intan- 
 gible creation of their own conjuring up, having no actual ex- 
 istence. 
 
 l 
 
 * These were founded 1698 and 1701 A. D.,and incorporated by Royal Char- 
 ter. 
 
30 
 
 The Indian Empire of Great Britain is divided into dioceses, 
 whose Bishops are appointed by the Crown. There and in 
 Ceylon. English Clergy of the established church, minister to 
 the spiritual wants of the foreign residents and operate among 
 the Hindoo population. Are the American Presbyterian mission- 
 aries there debarred from propagating that form of Christianity, 
 which they believe to be most agreeable to Holy Scripture? 
 Are they told by the Bishops of our Indian Church, “ You have 
 no business here, j r our presence is an intrusion. We have re- 
 ceived our patents from her Most Gracious Majesty, the Sove- 
 reign of our country. The field is ours, if it belong to any one 
 at all. For, though the law of Toleration allows you to teach 
 your distinctive tenets, there is a certain Taw of comity’ among 
 the various missionary societies, never to enter a field where an- 
 other is in possession, much less when that other is a Church con- 
 stituted according to law. Go labourers, therefore, elsewhere?” 
 It is unfortunate as an illustration of the mode in which this 
 Board applies “ the law of comity,” that in the Report of this 
 very year, they complain that by the new constitution of Greece, 
 they are not allowed to proselytize from “ the orthodox Eastern 
 Church of Christ which is the established religion of the coun- 
 try.” (These are the words of the constitution itself.) But 
 then, the Greek Christians, with whom, let me observe, the 
 Episcopal Church of the United States is trying at this moment 
 to enter into more intimate communion, are not a part of “ Evan- 
 gelical Christendom ” ! * 
 
 It would be more to the point, if 1 remind the Evangelical 
 Christians, who assembled at the late annual meeting of the 
 Board.b that neither in their domestic missions nor in foreign 
 
 * The hostility of the Board to Episcopacy as such, and not merely because 
 of its assuming some title like “ Reformed nnd Catholic,” peeps out in 
 this very Report. Speaking of their Eastern Missions, Dr. Wood says, “ The 
 Protestants, some 10,000, have no disposition to connect themselves with any 
 form of Church Government, least of all. with Episcopacy.” A little after 
 speaking still of the native converts in Turkey, he says, “ There is n danger 
 of conflict between some of them and their Missionaries, the former desiring to 
 obtain worldly a (vantage by connecting themselves with the English Church, 
 under the Bishop of Malta.” Consistent and charitable ! 
 
 | The leaders of whom, appear to he Drs. Rufus Anderson, Asa Smith, L. 
 Bacon, Seluli Treat, Messrs. Small, Dodge and others. 
 
31 
 
 parts do they ever scruple to send agents where the Episcopal 
 Church or Methodists have been before them. The question 
 is never raised at all. 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 m 
 
 It is no pleasing task which I have had to perform this day. 
 Perhaps it may be said, “Why notice misrepresentations, why 
 refute calumnies which all here, except those who have an in- 
 terest in their propagation, admit to be so untrue ?” But we 
 must remember there is a limit even to forbearance, a point 
 where silence may be wrongly construed. 
 
 If in the course of this address I have unconsciously spoken 
 about others one unkind word, or done them any wrong, I can 
 only ask their forgiveness. To my Christian brethren, if they 
 will allow me so to call them, whether of the Hawaiian Evan- 
 gelical Association or of the Roman Catholic Church, I wish to 
 say that I feel no animosity, no bitterness. We are all engaged 
 according to our several systems in one and the same great work 
 of “ winning souls to Christ,” of saving this people from that 
 physical and spiritual death, which is the inevitable “ wages of 
 sin.” We may differ widely in our views as to the best means 
 of accomplishing our object : we may feel it our duty to warn 
 our flocks against what we think to be erroneous in the princi- 
 ples of our rivals, provided we fully understand what those 
 principles are ; but let us distinguish between systems and in- 
 dividuals. Let us remember what underlies all creeds, all forms 
 of worship, is the great law of charity ; that the sincere lover 
 of truth, even if led into error, may be nearer the Kingdom of 
 Heaven than one who prides himself on his supposed orthodoxy 
 but is deficient in humility. Let us remember that what we 
 lose in common by exhibiting our miserable divisions in the face 
 of the heathen, exceeds what we severally gain by zeal without 
 love. And to you, the clergy and laity of the Church, I would 
 remark — be not discouraged. If in this remote spot of the 
 globe, the battle between modern Puritanism and primitive 
 Catholicity is to be fought, let our opponents know we are ready 
 to meet them. We have sought, in the quiet and regular dis- 
 
32 
 
 charge of our sacred duties, to avoid unnecessary collision. But 
 if the contest is forced upon us, we have no choice but to ac- 
 cept the position. Of one thing be assured — such attacks as 
 these instead of weakening will greatly strengthen us. Here — 
 for the atmosphere of opposition in the case of every new en- 
 terprise, especially a sacred one, is always more bracing, more 
 invigorating, than one of unqualified prosperity. Abroad — for 
 those who sent us here in compliance with a Royal invitation, 
 will not sit tamely by and see one of their most interesting and 
 hopeful missions crushed by the intolerance and misrepresenta- 
 tions of narrow-minded and disappointed sectaries. “ Doubt 
 not,” then, my brethren, but “ earnestly believe” that all shall 
 work together for good, and that you shall yet see the off-shooot 
 of that sacred vine which, in England and America, “ God hath 
 made so strong for His own Self,” overspreading this Kingdom 
 with its goodly branches, taking “ root downwards and bearing 
 fruit upwards,” even the fruit of “ that Tree of Life whose 
 leaves shall be for the healing of the nations.” 
 
33 
 
 ADDENDA- 
 
 The following petition was presented to the Bishop shortly 
 after the delivery of the address : 
 
 “ We, the undersigned members of the congregation worship- 
 ing in the temporary Cathedral of Honolulu, having had the 
 pleasure of hearing your Lordship’s Pastoral last Sunday, beg 
 most respectfully to suggest that it be printed and widely cir- 
 culated. 
 
 "We cannot but think that its truthful, moderate and charita- 
 ble spirit, iu unison with all your Lordship's teaching during the 
 time of your ministry among us, is eminently calculated to undo 
 the mischievous effect of the very uncalled for and bitter obser- 
 vations contained in a recent report of the American Board of 
 Presbyterian and Congregationalist Missions.” 
 
 [Signed by their Majesties the King and Queen, and other 
 occupants of seats in the Church, natives and foreigners.] 
 
34 
 
 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 As if to strengthen my assertion, that this mission was un- 
 dertaken in the hope of joint action with the American Church, 
 the very next day after this Pastoral address, the Rev. Peyton 
 Gallagher, M. A., of Geneva, New York, arrived, the bearer 
 of letters from two of its Bishops and other eminent clergy- 
 men, expressing their sympathy and interest in the progress 
 of the infant Church. He brought with him as an offering to 
 the Bishop, a Missionary Flag. The circumstances of its pre- 
 sentation are related in the Hawaiian Gazette for January the 
 28 th, from which the following extract is quoted : 
 
 “ The Feast of the Conversion of St. Paul. — On Wednesday 
 last, at P. M., after a short service in the Church, Rev. 
 Peyton Gallagher, M. A., of Geneva, New York, presented to 
 the Bishop his Missionary Flag. It was held up before the con- 
 gregation by two of the choristers during the observations of 
 the Reverend gentleman.’’ * * * 
 
 After explaining that the Red Cross upon it signified 
 the message of “ redemption through the Blood of the Lamb,” 
 and the thirteen stars “ Christ and His Holy Apostles,” he 
 spoke as follows : 
 
 “ In the wise Providence of God it has been ordered that this 
 flag should first float in the Islands once ruled by that devoted 
 servant of Christ and the Church, the late Sovereign of this 
 realm, Kamehameha IV., Father of the infant Church, planted 
 by the mission confided to the care of the Lord Bishop of Hono- 
 lulu, and, unalterably inwrought into its very texture, is a speak- 
 ing witness to the memory of his name, and of the good deeds 
 by him done ‘ for the House of our God, and for the officers 
 thereof.’ 
 
 Presented by an American churchman to a Bishop sent by 
 the Church and Crown of England to these Islands, for the 
 promotion of their spiritual welfare, and at the call of the then 
 Sovereign of the same, it comes laden with the hearty sympa- 
 
35 
 
 thy. deep interest, and earnest prayers of those the Bishops, 
 the Clergy, and the Laity of England’s Daughter Church, who 
 so gladly send their greeting from America. 
 
 May the people of the lands, thus united in the Faith of 
 Christ, so walk before God in the light of the living, according 
 to the teaching of the Holy Apostle St. Paul, whose wonderful 
 conversion and preaching of the Gospel throughout the world 
 this day commemorates, as that they, and they, to whom and 
 for whom, they minister shall rejoice together in His Presence, 
 in His eternal and glorious Kingdom.” 
 
 Mr. Gallagher then turning round, addressed the Bitehop, who 
 was seated on his throne. 
 
 *• Reverend Father in God. Into the hands of the Right 
 Reverend the Lord Bishop of Honolulu, Chief Pastor of the 
 Mission so kindly cared for and warmly cherished by His 
 Majesty, the reigning Sovereign of the Hawaiian Islands, and 
 Her Majesty the widowed Queen of its earliest Friend, do I 
 now commit the ‘ Cross and Stars,’ a token of good-will and 
 fellowship in the Faith. May it indeed prove as it was design- 
 ed to be, a ‘ Christian Mission Flag, a Banner for Christ and 
 the Church.’ May it wave where’er it goes an ensign of the 
 Redeemer, proclaiming to thousands upon thousands, purchased 
 by His most precious blood, that Christ the Lord, who was born 
 King of the Jews, in the city of David, having put away sin by 
 the sacrifice of Himself, that through death He might destroy 
 him that had the power of death, that is the Devil, and ascended 
 upon high that ‘ He might fill all things,’ is ‘ a Light to lighten 
 the Gentiles, the Saviour of the world, the Judge of quick and 
 dead, the Head of all principality and power, the Head over all 
 things to the Church which is His Body, the Fulness of Him 
 that filleth all in all.’ ” 
 
 This very eloquent address being concluded, it was delivered 
 in Hawaiian from a written translation, by Mr. Kahalewai, Lay 
 Reader of the Church, after which the Rev. Mr. Gallagher 
 placed the flag in the hands of the Bishop. His Lordship 
 replied as follows : 
 
 “ My Reverend Brother : — I gladly and thankfully accept, on 
 behalf of the Church committed to my care, this vour gift — 
 whose sacred significance you have so well and beautifully ex- 
 plained. 
 
 Accompanied with the sympathies and prayers of Bishops 
 and Clergy of the United States, it comes a token of our Chris- 
 tian fellowship and inter-communion with one of the purest 
 branches on earth of Christ’s Holy Catholic Church. But I see 
 
36 
 
 in it something more even than this. Borne to these shores by 
 a Presbyter of “England’s daughter Church” in America, it is 
 an earnest of an early, and, let us hope, complete fulfilment of 
 that purpose of co-operation, in full reliance on which our Holy 
 Mother consented to take the initiative in establishing in these 
 islands her own Reformed, yet truly Catholic communion. 
 There is but one cause for regret in the acceptance of this flag, 
 that I have as yet no missionary yacht on which to carry it. 
 Ere long, let us hope, this defect will be supplied, and that to 
 many an islander of this vast ocean, now “ lying in darkness and 
 the shadow of death,” it may symbolize the blessings of the 
 Great Sacrifice, offered on the Cross, once for all. 
 
 Once more I thank you, and in the name of the clergy and 
 laity of this Church, I think too, I may venture to say, on be- 
 half of my fellow Christians here, of whatsoever denomination, 
 I bid you a hearty welcome.” 
 
 The Bishop then pronounced the benediction, and the congre- 
 gation dispersed. 
 
37 
 
 APPENDIX. 
 
 Occasional reference is made in the following notes to a work, 
 which has appeared between the delivery and publication of 
 this Pastoral Address, entitled “ The Hawaiian Islands, by the 
 Rev. Dr. Rufus Anderson, D. D.” A more complete review of 
 its statements and its aims will be found in the form of a note 
 (G) in this Appendix. 
 
 Note A, page 5. 
 
 I am bound to record what is the result of my intercourse with 
 Hawaiians, of all classes, that they have any thing but an intel- 
 ligent acquaintance with Holy Scripture ; of its composite charac- 
 ter, of the times and circumstances of the authors, when they 
 wrote the various books, they know’ nothing. They do not in 
 fact, possess that historical and common information, which can 
 alone render its perusal profitable or even safe. No attempt 
 seems to have been made to teach them how to distinguish the 
 human from the divine in the inspired volume, eternal princi- 
 ples from what is temporary and incidental. 
 
 A gentleman living in one the islands, who know r s the people 
 well, told me that it is very usual for them to think they are 
 possessed by the Devil. 
 
 One of his men had just before been to him, complaining 
 that he distinctly “ felt the evil spirit tugging at his entrails.’’ 
 A dose of medicine with a mustard plaster, of course, soon dis- 
 patched this troublesome guest. A similar case is mentioned 
 in the missionary organ of March 4th of the present year, 
 the Pacific Commercial Advertiser. I read a letter very lately 
 from a District Judge in another island, describing a disturb- 
 ance which had just occurred. A man and w’oman were sus- 
 pected of praying one or more persons to death. A party was 
 formed to turn them out of doors and pull down their house. 
 The ring-leader in the movement was the Calvinist deacon of 
 the place, who proceeded at their head with an open Bible in 
 his hand, and as his justification pointed out the passage “ The 
 house of the w’icked shall be overthrown.’’ 
 
 The Hawaiian Pound-text like his namesake of old rejoices 
 in “improving” the Old Testament. Preaching on the passage 
 of the Children of Israel through the Red Sea, a few T months 
 
38 
 
 ago, an intelligent? native preacher observed — “ Brethren ! you 
 will ask how far it was across ! well I don’t know exactly ; 
 perhaps as far as from Hawaii to Kauai,” (that is about 250 miles!) 
 Questions such as these, the curiosities, if I may not irreverently 
 call them, of the Bible narrative are what they love to dwell on. 
 
 I have visited the natives from house to house in Honolulu 
 and other places. Many of them have a Bible. If you see 
 middle aged or old people reading it. the chances are they are 
 deep in the wars of the Israelites. They are very ready like the 
 old Puritans in Scripture adaptations. “ Oh ! Lord, turn the 
 counsel of this Ahitophel to foolishness,” were the words on 
 one occasion applied to one of our people, in the church of a 
 very intolerant missionary, by a lay deacon. 
 
 The most zealous literalist would be fully satisfied with the 
 ideas of inspiration inculcated on the Hawaiians. Their views 
 of the Christian festival called the Lord’s day, are any thing but 
 intelligent. As I mentioned in my address, Monday is called “first 
 day” in the native language ; Saturday, “sixth day ” ; Sunday, 
 “ Sabati ,” and the penalties prescribed under the Jewish law have 
 been often quoted as justifying the infliction of fines for going 
 on that day in search of a stray horse, bathing, making a fire,* 
 carrying burdens, (sometimes even when necessary,) and the in- 
 terposition of every possible obstacle to the taking in of fuel 
 by the inter-island steamer. With such names for the days of 
 the week, it is hard to conceive what intelligent idea the people 
 can have of the following .passages in the New T'estament : 
 
 “ On the first day of the week, the disciples came together to 
 break bread.” 
 
 “ On the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him 
 in store as God hath prospered him.” “ I was in the spirit on 
 the Lord’s day.” “ That the same words might be preached to 
 to them the next Sabbath.” 
 
 I am bound to mention that my friend the ReV. A. Bishop, 
 tells me that the missionaries are not to be held responsible for 
 the fact that there is one spot on the globe where the Christian 
 Sunday is not the first but the seventh day of the week. Still 
 I am quite sure that at some periods in their history they have 
 exercised enough influence over the powers that be to have 
 changed these names had they been so disposed. 
 
 From the cases which have been cited, but two Or three out 
 of many similar ones which have crossed my observation, may 
 be inferred the degree of intelligence with which the Bible is 
 read by Hawaiians. Would I could say that those who read it 
 
 * Some years ago, these wore actually Darned in the Polico regulations. 
 
.so 
 
 most intelligently, always made the best use ot it ! Too often 
 its plain narratives are perused by young people to gratify a 
 prurient curiosity or justify some youthful lust. 
 
 Note B.,jxi(je 5. 
 
 Dr. Anderson, p. in speaking of Vancouver’s visit, says : 
 “Excepting a few suggestions to the King, (Kamehameha 1.,) 
 which speak well for his character, there is no trace of any re- 
 ligious instruction having been imparted by the visitors to the 
 natives,” and that when, twenty-five years afterwards, the first 
 missionaries arrived, “ the King (Kamehameha II.,) had some 
 apprehensions, awakened doubtless by foreign residents, lest an 
 American mission might have some injurious effect on his politi- 
 cal relations.” (p. 50.) There is no doubt that the dissatisfac- 
 tion with their religious system, which led to the destruction of 
 the idols and the breaking of the Jcapu, before the arrival of the 
 missionaries, was in a great measure due to the intercourse of 
 Young and Davis with the King and chiefs, and subsecpiently, 
 of Vancouver. The true reason why there was any question 
 about the reception of the first missionaries, was the doubt in 
 Liholiho’s mind whether they would teach the same hoomavo 
 (worship) as that which Vancouver promised to send his prede- 
 cessor from England, and which had been so long expected in 
 vain. It was only when assured by Mr. Young that they Avould 
 inculcate substantially the same faith that they were permitted 
 to begin their labours. 
 
 Note C.,page 11. 
 
 The intercourse of Kamehameha I. with foreigners impressed 
 him with the notion that the old religion could not last.. To 
 Kaahumanu and Keopuolani, his wives, he communicated this 
 idea, and it was under the inspirations they received from him 
 that their support was given to the missionaries after his death. 
 While ascribing the success which attended the first preaching 
 of the Gospel among the Hawaiians to the Holy Spirit, it is well 
 not to overlook secondary causes, and among these the influence 
 of Kaahumanu was undoubtedly not the least powerful. Dr. 
 Anderson carefully keeps out of sight the means she resorted to 
 in accomplishing her object. Those means were often character- 
 ized by more of the fortiter in re than the suaviter in modo. 
 Indeed, they were sometimes marked by oppression and cruelty. 
 Even if it had not been so, with the reverence Hawaiians have 
 always felt for their chiefs, her example alone might be expected 
 to have great weight. 
 
 Note D., page 12. 
 
 I refer in these words to the work of the three ladies, mem- 
 bers of the Devonport Sisterhood of Mei'cy, who have recently 
 
40 
 
 arrived from England. They have opened a family boarding 
 and industrial school for girls, at Lahaina. At the present time 
 they have fifty, chiefly Hawaiians, under their teaching, of 
 whom twenty-four are boarders at almost nominal rates. There 
 are besides fourteen receiving occasional instruction, making a 
 total of seventy-four, more or less, under their influence. The 
 Chinese leprosy is unfortunately very prevalent in Lahaina, 
 and they are unremitting in their attention to the sick of all de- 
 nominations — visiting them and dispensing medicines gratuitous- 
 ly. One of the most influential foreigners there, formerly a 
 Wesleyan and now a communicant of the Church, writing to a 
 friend at Honolulu, refers to them in the following terms : 
 
 “ The Sisters are much liked by the natives and appear to be 
 happy, and it is evident that their system is the very best in 
 operation to save the present generation of girls and to do good 
 among the people. As they go about visiting the natives and 
 attending upon the sick, their influence will be felt outside of 
 their schools. It would be a good thing for this people if there 
 were a hundred of them instead of three." 
 
 I am permitted to make use of this letter, which fell into my 
 hands incidentally. Before their arrival the Calvinist preacher 
 was in the habit of selling medicine to the Hawaiians ; but he 
 has given out his intention for the future to distribute it gratu- 
 itously, except in the case of persons sending their children to 
 the Sisters’ school! He has sought in vain to thwart the pious 
 labours of these excellent and devoted women, not only by de- 
 nouncing them privately but in the pulpit, and assuring the peo- 
 ple that they are aole maikai (bad) ! 
 
 Note E., page 13. 
 
 Those who still survive from the times of the First Kameha- 
 meha agree as to the physical deterioration of the people, 
 with more than one I have conversed on this subject. Their 
 impression is that it has resulted from the disuse imposed by 
 the Missionaries, of their old manly exercises, wrestling, running, 
 throwing the spear, sliding on boards down deep descents, surf- 
 riding, etc. A distinguished English gentleman, in 1831, wrote 
 to the Rev. H. Bingham a letter, a printed copy of which 1 
 have before me, protesting against this policy. Sir E. Belcher, 
 in his voyage round the world, says of Oahu : 
 
 “ On the first glance, 1 thought it had retrograded compared 
 with what we left it just ten years before, in 1827. The ap- 
 pearance of the natives was miserable and dirty. The habit of 
 frequent bathing and swimming which constituted half their ex- 
 istence is exploded.” 
 
 Dr. Anderson virtually apologizes for the missionary prohibi- 
 tion of Hawaiian amusements, by quoting the author of the Poly- 
 
41 
 
 nesian researches as to gambling and the abuse# to which they 
 led. This is the old Puritan principle, which, if carried out, 
 would put an end to the athletic pursuits and recreations of 
 every Christian country in Europe. The abuses must be cor- 
 rected. It is not needful to denationalize a country in order 
 to Christianize it. Not so did the first Evangel izers of Europe 
 after the destruction of the Roman Empire. 
 
 Note F., page 20. 
 
 These words refer to the invitation which was sent to one of 
 the clergy to join the monthly prayer meeting at the Fort street 
 Congregational Church, a few weeks after their arrival. Dr. 
 Anderson says, p. 368 : 
 
 “ The Protestant clergy of Honolulu (missionaries and others) 
 took an early opportunity to invite one of the newly arrived 
 orethren to attend a union monthly meeting for prayer, and he, 
 after consulting his Bishop, made the following reply : 
 
 ‘ He (the Bishop) strengthened my own opinion, viz : that it 
 would be inconsistent in a clergyman of our Church to attend a 
 prayer meeting in a place of worship belonging to a denomina- 
 tion of Christians who do not regard episcopacy as of Divine 
 appointment.’ 
 
 There was no collision. The common civilities of life were 
 reciprocated,” etc. 
 
 In justice to the writer, I feel bound to publish the whole of 
 this letter, of which Dr. Anderson gives us only a part. I think 
 it will serve to show how it is possible for a minister of our 
 Church to feel conscientious scruples about uniting with those 
 of other denominations ecclesiastically, and vet not to forget the 
 claims due to Christian courtesy. 
 
 Nov. 4th, 1862. 
 
 My Dear Sir : — I thank you very much for the copies of the 
 Friend and of the “ Missionary Reports.” Will you allow me 
 to become a subscriber to the Friend for the next year? 
 
 I think it is only straightforward in me to acknowledge that 
 I mentioned to the Bishop* your kind proposal and invitation to 
 unite with you in prayer last evening, and that he strengthened 
 my own opinion, viz : that it would be inconsistent in a clergy- 
 man of our Church to attend a prayer meeting in a place of 
 worship belonging to a denomination of Christians who do not 
 regard episcopacy as of Divine appointment, when his very 
 presence would, as I think you will grant, encourage people to 
 suppose lie also did not consider episcopal ordination as neces- 
 sary for a Christian minister. It would be very different had 
 you invited me merely to unite with you and others in prayers 
 at your own or a private house for some definite object, as for 
 instance prayer for the union of all Christians, for the increase 
 of true charity, and for guidance into all truth. 
 
 6 
 
42 
 
 I write thus plainly, my dear Sir, because I feel sure you are 
 honest, and charitable enough to understand how possible it is 
 for me to sympathize most sincerely with schemes, such as this, 
 of concerted prayer, set on foot for the promotion of our dear 
 Lord’s glory, and yet at the same time, to be unable to take an 
 active part in them, because the doing so would in me be a sin- 
 ning against essential principles of the Church I have sworn to 
 minister faithfully in. 
 
 It is now, as it ever is, painful to me to write thus to such as 
 yourself, at whose feet I might well sit and learn many a spirit- 
 ual and practical lesson. 
 
 Believe me, my dear Sir, yours, faithfully, 
 
 Geobge Mason. 
 
 Note G. 
 
 The brief space at my disposal forbids any attempt to follow Dr. 
 Anderson through the picture which he draws of the primitive 
 condition of the islands. Assuming what he says to be true, and 
 comparing it with the present state of things, the question aris- 
 es, whether a pure morality and a pure religion prevail in them 
 to such an extent as to render the introduction of any new influ- 
 ences for good superfluous ? There can be no doubt of his views 
 on this subject. “ The islands have been Christianized,” p. 
 321 ; he felt that he “ was among a Christian people,” p. 288. 
 fie adopts the testimony of the missionaries that, here, “ is as 
 much morality and as much practical religion, as can be found 
 in any community of equal magnitude, which may be selected 
 in any nation under heaven,” p. 98. Now if this be so, what 
 need of further discussion ? What need for the Doctor to draw 
 his comparison between the Hawaiian Christians and those of 
 the early Corinthian Church, in respect to their prevalent vices 
 and superstitions ? Yet he does so usque ad nauseam. If the 
 morality in this so called Christian community is equal to “ that 
 of any other Christian community under heaven,” and yet the 
 morality of the former is only a “ Corinthian” one, surely it re- 
 quires no profound logician to arrive at the inference that the 
 morals of the Christian Church everywhere are also of the Co- 
 rinthian type — a conclusion which I think might naturally be 
 followed by the question, “Of what use, then, is Christianity at 
 all ?” 
 
 But our author, though he thus tacitly admits the unsatisfac- 
 tory nature of Hawaiian morality, descants in glowing terms on 
 the beauty and fervour of Hawaiian piety. The piety of the 
 islands, after “ a rigid comparison” with piety in general, and 
 “ after making proper allowances,” is found to differ from that 
 of New England Christiana rather in the circumstances than the 
 reality,* p. 288. Licentiousness and intemperance are named as 
 two of these “circumstances,” and we are led therefore to infer 
 
 * Tho italics are Dr. Anderson’s 
 
43 
 
 that the virtues opposed to those are mere accidents, wanting to 
 the piety of the Hawaiians, because it is Hawaiian, but involved 
 in our idea of that quality as exemplified among American and 
 English Christians. The piety is identical as to its nature and 
 essence in the two cases, though its outward manifestations are 
 dilferent. Now, I contend that chastity and the other virtues 
 of social life are involved in the very idea of piety, and that 
 there can be no piety at all, but only a miserable counterfeit 
 without them. Let me illustrate what I mean. Mr. Richards says 
 in his journal quoted, p. 84, that he “ knew a young woman who 
 told him that she knew of thirty-one praying females in Nahiena- 
 ena’s train.” But who would not feel more confidence in the 
 piety of these interesting females if Mr. Richards had been able 
 to state that they were also trying to fulfil the Apostolic pre- 
 cept, “ Let the younger women learn to be sober, to love their 
 children, todove their husbands, to be discreet, chaste, keepers 
 at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of 
 God be not blasphemed.” Titus ii., 4, 5. 
 
 Again, Mr. Lyons of Waimea, whom Ur. Anderson, in regard 
 to his admission of natives into the Calvinistic communion calls 
 “ a bold operator,” declares p. 172 that their standard of morals 
 is as high as can reasonably be expected. “ The people are to 
 be judged by their fruits.” And what are these fruits ? We 
 are of course expecting to read that chastity, temperance, res- 
 pect for an oath, abandonment of heathen practices are widely 
 prevalent throughout the population of his district, more than 
 half of whom “ make a public profession of religion,” causing the 
 Secretary of the Board, himself “to question this state of things 
 as at least very extraordinary.” But the fruits mentioned are 
 the number of meeting houses built, the copies of the Kuokoa 
 taken, the number of Bibles circulated. 
 
 Now, would any one consider the proofs of TVaimean piety 
 quoted by Mr. Lyons so conclusive as would have been a few 
 statistics with regard to the number per cent, of his female 
 members, married or single, who he could feel sure were lead- 
 ing virtuous lives, and eating the bread of honest industry ? 
 I cannot but fear that the circulation of this new work on “ the 
 Hawaiian Islands,” among the native people, will be any thing 
 but conducive to their moral improvement. “ Church members” 
 will say, “ After all, the Secretary of the Missionary society is 
 quite satisfied with us. Our practices are no more than those 
 of the Corinthians whom S. Paul declares ‘ to be enriched by 
 Jesus Christ in all uttei*ance coming behind in no gift,’ p.. 291. 
 Indeed, we are as moi'al as any Christian nation in the world,” 
 p. 98. Thus they will be encouraged to remain at what they ,. at 
 least, feel to be a very low point of moral elevation. 
 
 There is another class too in the Islands affected by the ex- 
 pression of such views on the nature of true piety. Persons of 
 good taste feel reluctant to drag into publicity those matters of 
 
44 
 
 the inner life with which “ a stranger intermeddleth not.” Dr. 
 Anderson, however, on two occasions, pp. 322, 374, assures his 
 readers, that “ the missionary children are nearly all hopefully 
 pious.” Before accepting so dubious a compliment, may they 
 not be expected to ask, “ what are the circumstances you connect 
 with the piety for which you thus give us credit ? Do you 
 mean that we are living as just, pure, good, true hearted men 
 and women under the influences of our holy religion ? Or, do 
 you mean that our piety is of the Hawaiian type, in other words, 
 a species of unctuous cant and glib familiarity with sacred ex- 
 pressions, having no hold on the moral being?” I feel sure 
 they would one and all prefer to be thought irreligious and yet 
 real, rather than to assume credit for a form of godliness with- 
 out its power. t 
 
 But the truth is, no parallel can be drawn between the Ha- 
 waiian and Corinthian Churches in respect to Christian morals. 
 If we are to believe Dr. Anderson, the Hawaiian is now a com- 
 pletely Christianized nation , “ as much as any under heaven.” 
 Corinth was a heathen city, those who had embraced the Gos- 
 pel forming a very small part of the population. When S. Paul 
 wrote, his first epistle to the Corinthians they had been under 
 Christian teaching only three years at the most, llawaiians 
 have enjoyed this advantage now for nearly half a century. There 
 is no reason to think the moral corruption which existed among 
 the Christians of Corinth, was of any long duration. The 
 excommunication of one offender by the Apostle, 1 Cor., v. 3. 
 and the general reproofs which he administered seem to have 
 been effectual. We learn from the second epistle written soon 
 after the first, that already they had “ approved themselves 
 clear in the matter,” having sorrowed with that godly sorrow 
 which worketh repentance not to be repented of.” 2 Cor. viii.. 
 10, 11, Clemens Romanus, one of the Apostolic fathers, in his 
 epistle to this same ’ church written forty years subsequently, 
 though he rebukes them for their divisions and want of disci- 
 pline, no where mentions sensuality and vice as common among 
 them. He even speaks of their early Christianity as one which 
 taught the women “ to do all with a blameless, honourable and 
 chaste conscience, loving their husbands as their duty required.” 
 The power of the Gospel in changing the habits of its profes- 
 sors must, therefore, have made itself felt almost, immediately 
 after the censures of the Apostle. We have no reason to think 
 that “ Hawaiian sins ” characterized the Church for fifty, twenty 
 or even ten years after its establishment in this heathen city. 
 Would that our apologist, writing about these islands forty-five 
 years after the first proclamation within them of the doctrines of 
 the Cross, had found it as needless to refer to the immorality of 
 “ pious ” llawaiians, as Clemens did to speak of similar defects 
 among the Corinthian Christiana of his day ! 
 
 It is strange to find Dr. Anderson at one time seeking to ex- 
 
45 
 
 tenuate the defective morality of the Hawaiian.-*, and at another 
 time declaring that it belongs only to the past. “ Polygamy and 
 polyandry,” we are told, “ have passed away” ! p. 290. 1 shall 
 
 not attempt to refute this startling assertion, but only remark 
 that its author must have been strangely misled during the time 
 of his visit to this Kingdom, if he arrived at any such conclu- 
 sion. If he had paid more attention to the testimony of “ those 
 intelligent and candid men, residents at the islands, graziers, 
 planters and traders, who were more or less sceptical on this 
 subject,” p. 286, and less to that of interested persons, he would 
 most certainly never have uttered a statement so monstrous. 
 Why, the fearful prevalence of polyandry, and that too among 
 married women, is more than any thing else the present cause 
 of the decrease of the population ! So also of the statement 
 that “infanticide has ceased,” p. 276. Dr. Anderson must be 
 aware that there are other forms of it besides putting children to 
 death after their birth, whether bv burying alive or other means, 
 p. 290. He speaks approvingly ot the laws established under the 
 influence of the missionaries for the repression of immorality, and 
 in their defence asks, “ Was it not something to succeed in driv- 
 ing those shameless vices into concealment ? p. 239. Can he 
 not be aware that those laws, now happily modified, gave a fear- 
 ful impetus to the practice of abortion, which was resorted to 
 for the sake of avoiding the heavy fines and imprisonment with 
 hard labour, to which they exposed the unfortunate females ! 1 
 might further say that by destroying in offenders any remains 
 of self-respect, these laws are to be held in a great measure re- 
 sponsible for the little effect which the teaching of their authors 
 had in correcting licentiousness, whether in the Church or out 
 of it. It is hard to see how any man “ of liberal education,” p. 
 91, or the commonest knowledge of human nature, could have 
 sanctioned such laws. The effect of the system adopted on the 
 morals of the female population is testified by one above all par- 
 ty bias. I refer to Dr. Rae, the magistrate at Hana, East Maui, 
 long a resident there and himself married to a native. In one 
 of his letters to the Polynesian in 1862, he observes : 
 
 “ All those who, for the last forty years, have been the real 
 legislators of this people, have somehow or other been furnish- 
 ed with a set of high-powered calvinistic spectacles, and have 
 never permitted themselves to lay them aside. 
 
 “ A glance at the main characteristics of that sect will show 
 that this my hypothesis sufficiently explains how the disastrous 
 condition of affairs we contemplate was brought about. 
 
 “ Of all the creeds of Christian sects the Calvinistic, as laid 
 down by its founder, is the least qualified to take large, gener- 
 ous and comprehensive views of the great mass of humanity ly- 
 ing without its pale. Hence its incapacity at all to apprehend, 
 and still less to sympathize, with the rude virtue of semi-bar- 
 
46 
 
 barous tribes. Hence, in its dealings with them, two terrible 
 errors. 
 
 “Believing itself gifted with a fund of infallible truth, it is rash 
 to seize on, and to deal with things which it neither apprehends 
 nor comprehends. And, again, obstinate in its persuasion that, 
 resting on infallible truth, all its doings must have been just and 
 right, no adverse events can shake its faith in the righteousness 
 of the path it has been pursuing. Conceive we then a set of 
 men in conclave together, each with optics such as I have been 
 describing, met to consider how they were to deal with the Ha- 
 waiian race, and we may easily surmise that these would be the 
 conclusions at which they would unanimously arrive : 
 
 “ ‘ This people has been given over to us to make them a holy 
 and godly, and therefore a prosperous and flourishing nation, 
 showing forth to the world all the benefits of Christian civiliza- 
 tion. We have the means in our hands to effect the glorious 
 transmutation ; we have the Bible, the - preached word, the tem- 
 poral power. Let us be up and doing.’ 
 
 “ Let us see how they followed out this principle, and what 
 have been the results of their procedure. We shall find that 
 they have aggravated the old and introduced new evils. 
 
 “ Smoking tobacco was held by them to be contrary to the 
 law of God, and consequently a sin. Smoking tobacco was 
 therefore anathematized, laid under interdiction, and the most 
 stringent regulations put in force to suppress it. What was 
 the consequence ? It was still smoked in secret. Those who 
 partook not thought it must be something very nice, else smok- 
 ers would not run such risks for its sake, and they, too, were 
 tempted to try it, and, as they tried it, they found it had all the 
 additional zest which stolen waters and bread, eaten in secret, 
 are said to have. The result has been that with few exceptions 
 a pipe is in the mouth of every native every hour of the day. 
 
 “ But the crying sin of the land was the licentious habits of 
 the people. This vice, therefore, must be crushed out with the 
 strong hand. 
 
 “I admit that this crushing it out would have been a very 
 desirable thing if it could have been effected : but I submit 
 that the means used might have been expected to aggravate, 
 and have immensely aggravated, the evil which they were in- 
 tended to abate. These means ran counter to principles which 
 it is vain to strive against. 1st. No law can be carried into 
 effect if it be opposed to the sentiments of the people. 2d. No 
 penal law can be carried into effect if it be generally thought 
 that the penalty exceeds the measure Of the offence. 
 
 “The measures carried through here were far more harsh 
 and severe, because the manners of the people caused them to 
 be felt everywhere, and to strike alike at both sexes. They 
 were, besides, unwarrantable, because they were unjust. The 
 majority of the people at the time they were enacted, eonceiv- 
 
47 
 
 iug that intimate relations might often exist between the sexes, 
 not terminating in marriage, and yet not in themselves culpable. 
 
 “ Notwithstanding all this, however, no resistance was offered, 
 no rebellion ensued. The people quietly submitted. This was 
 partly owing to their habits of implicit obedience to the will of 
 their chiefs, and partly because they themselves, as well as their 
 chiefs, were desirous that they should become civilized men. 
 
 “ It was not, however, in the nature of things, that a blow so 
 heavy should not produce corresponding effects. Let us see 
 what these were : 
 
 “ 1st. As to the men and women who thus suffered as crim- 
 inals, it will be granted that one of the chief ends of punishment 
 is, or ought to be, the reformation of the guilty, by withdraw- 
 ing them from the contagion of evil manners, and inducing more 
 virtuous habits, Especially ought this to be aimed at of trans- 
 gressions of the sort of which we speak, and brought under the 
 cognizance of the laws. But this requires preparation, the pro- 
 viding of suitable buildings, of well trained and moral officials, 
 and of all the things necessary -for the proper classification and 
 strict supervision of offenders. None of these things were pre- 
 pared. Offenders of all sorts, the shameless abandoned and 
 those not void of shame, were herded together. It was impos- 
 sible to watch their outgoings and incomings, and, unless during 
 their hours of labour, they did pretty much as they choose. 
 The inevitable consequence was that the comparatively inno- 
 cent were contaminated by associating with those hardened in 
 every vice. No woman could serve out her term at the Gov- 
 ernment work and retain the slightest personal respect for her- 
 self. The punishment was simply vindictive, and no heed was 
 taken of its being, at the same time, in the highest degree, de- 
 basing and demoralizing.* 
 
 “ As to the onlookers, like all excessive punishments, it com- 
 pletely overshot the mark, and entirely missed producing any 
 good effect upon them. The penalty seemed in their eyes so 
 far to transcend the transgression, that they were rather inclin- 
 ed to regard those enduring it as victims to the new order of 
 things than as offenders- — to pity them as unfortunate rather 
 than to censure them as guilty. The punishment had thus 
 little or no tendency to inflict a stigma on them, or to cause 
 them to lose caste. They might associate, as before, with what 
 we may call the “ aristocracy of the land.” • 
 
 “ But, secondly, the operation of the law was in direct contra- 
 vention of our first principle. To enforce it was to act contrary 
 to the wishes of parents and husbands. Their efforts therefore 
 act in opposition to it, and thus, while it has nearly destroyed 
 their authority, these their efforts very much weaken its power. 
 
 * The S. 7. Gazette, No. 31, 1839, gives an account of fifteen of these un- 
 fortunate females being yoked to a wagon load of cane, which they were made 
 to draw like beasts of burden ! 
 
48 
 
 “ A father learns that his daughter, just approaching woman- 
 hood, has been, seduced by a certain young, and very possibly, 
 a married man. He would wish to have the one punished whom 
 he considers the really culpable person. But if he apply to the 
 law he finds that if he attempts this he in effect is using his ef- 
 forts to have a heavy penalty inflicted on his daughter, or rather 
 on himself, and it is a poor satisfaction to him either to pay for 
 her a fine of fifteen or thirty dollars, or to see her taken away 
 from him to Government service, and very possibly returned on 
 his hands completely demoralized. He therefore remains 
 quiet.” 
 
 But at least the Board of Missions at Boston has the satisfac- 
 tion of eradicating from the minds of the people the principles 
 of their old religion, and substituting for it a pure and scriptural 
 form of faith and worship. Dr. Anderson, wherever he went, 
 found crowds assembled at the various meeting houses to wel- 
 come him and join in prayer. Such crowds would of course as- 
 semble to hear and see a visitor holding a position so import- 
 ant. From them no inference should be drawn. The mis- 
 sionary of the district through which the Reverend Secretary 
 was passing on a tour of inspection, would be expected in the 
 ordinary course of things, to marshall all his forces in the best 
 possible array. Religious fervour is catching, and numbers fa- 
 vour its developement. ft is not surprising therefore that the 
 Doctor’s “ feelings were drawn out,” p. 158, on such occasions. 
 For information of those of my readers who may not live in these 
 islands, I will briefly state what is the system of Divine worship 
 adopted in the meeting houses of Hawaii. These are usually 
 oblong buildings, fitted up with benches, opposite to which is a 
 large, unsightly stage, where officiate the minister and his assist- 
 ants. The people enter without any sign of reverence, frequently 
 laughing and talking, till their “exercises” begin. These con- 
 sist of singing hymns, (far the most creditable part of the ser- 
 vice,) extempore prayers and an exposition. During prayer the 
 minister stands and the people sit or loll. Kneeling is invaria- 
 bly discouraged as “ popish.” In the week, meetings are 
 held, ostensibly of a religious kind, but sometimes the topics of 
 the day, politics, the American war, the prices of cattle, etc., 
 are discussed. Occasionally the newspaper is read and explain- 
 ed, the whole being mingled with prayer. Entertainments are 
 given in the meeting houses, and of dramatic representations. 
 It may be that the war between the North and the South, 
 now raging in America, is parodied by two large dolls which 
 are made to fight till one loses its head,* or perhaps the aw- 
 ful scenes connected with the Passion of our Lord are acted on 
 
 Such an exhibition was given at Waimea at the end of 18(53. 
 
40 
 
 the stage.* The principles of teetotalism held by the missiona- 
 ries, have led them to discard the use of wine in the Lord’s Sup- 
 per. Dr. Anderson, in his work, in one place, speaks of “ the 
 wine or what was used instead of it,” p. 181. He prefers not 
 to mention its name, viz : “ molasses and water.” The Rev. T. 
 » Coan formerly used "baked taro and water” as the sacramental 
 ® element. S. I. Gazette, No. 7, 1889. 
 
 Such a system, without appealing to any sense of beauty or 
 fitness, incapable of inspiring reverence because wholly without 
 dignity, trampling on some of the holiest instincts of the human 
 heart, may be expected to have little influence on the moral and 
 spiritual life of its professors. How far it has such influence, 
 how far even the great truths of which it is supposed to be the 
 expression are themselves generally matters of belief, will ap- 
 pear from the testimony given by Dr. Rae, in 1862 : 
 
 “ Even in open Court I have known a belief in the power of 
 Pelet and the shark admitted, and again I have known a disbe- 
 lief in the existence of the Supreme Being avowed. 
 
 “ These things have so wrought on the native mind, that there 
 is a tendency to return to the ancient faith. Under all that 
 tide of light which foreign intercourse pours over the land, 
 there is a strong current setting towards heathendom. In case 
 of severe sickness, for instance, invocation of the ancient deities 
 and sacrifice to them is very common, and men officiate there 
 whom you would never suspect of being concerned in such affairs. 
 It is true that in copies of these invocations, of which I have 
 obtained a sight, the name of the Christian God is not omitted, 
 hut he comes at the tail of the others, under the title of the 
 Lord of Heaven. I am told by very good authority, that if 
 natives take an oath to each other, it is never a Bible oath. 
 They swear by the old deities. I once asked a native why a 
 man and woman who had been repeatedly fined and had suffered 
 other punishments for an improper connection continued for 
 many years, and who at last abandoned considerable property and 
 wandered to some distant part in order that it might be contin- 
 ued — I asked this native how it was that they were so firmly at- 
 tached that nothing could break the connexion. Oh, he said, they 
 are hoohiki, (sworn) and cannot part till one die. Again, should a 
 man suspect his wife — should he, for instance, have been absent 
 in Oahu, for two or three weeks, and on his return hear stories 
 to her disadvantage, he will challenge her with having been un- 
 true to him. She disavows the imputation, and offers to take 
 
 * An occurrence of this kind, reminding one of the old miracle plays, but 
 without their solemnity, took place at “ The Stone Church,” Honolulu, the 
 first year after our arrival. One native was Pontius Pilate, another Judas ; the 
 cock crowing drew forth loud applause. 
 
 | For the information of my foreign readers, I would state that Pele is the 
 goddess or spirit of the volcano Kilauea. 
 
 7 
 
50 
 
 her oath that it is false. Does any one suppose that she means 
 what, in my country of Scotland, is called a Bible oath, and 
 reckoned the most solemn of transactions. By no means ? Her 
 husband would mock at such frivolity. But if she take a heath- 
 en oath — if, for example, she swear by Pele and the shark, he is 
 satisfied. Perhaps, however, she was really guilty, and, in her * 
 eagerness to clear herself of suspicion, had sworn falsely. In • 
 such cases, I am assured, superstitious fears generally so disturb 
 her that distress of mind betrays her, and she is obliged to 
 make a full confession to her husband. What is to be done ? 
 Some great calamity broods over them. They must avert it. 
 Accordingly, the man slaughters a hog, makes a feast in honour 
 of the offended gods, they together pray that the wrath of these 
 may be averted, and thus peace is restored to the household.” 
 
 It is idle to compare such superstitions to the fancies which 
 still linger in European countries. I have found the belief in 
 the old gods, as at least having a place in the Christian panthe- 
 on, the rule rather than the exception. 
 
 A system so unimpressive as the Puritan worship, is power- 
 less against that craving for the objective which, if not used and 
 directed aright, draws the Hawaiians back into idolatry. Sev- 
 eral pages, pp. 99-106, of the work before us are devoted to Mr. 
 
 R. H. Dana’s favourable testimony regarding the labours of the 
 missionaries written in 1860. Of that testimony I desire to say 
 nothing, except that there is much in it with which I fully concur. 
 
 It is a pityhowever that Dr. Anderson did not give us the whole 
 of Mr. Dana’s remarks instead of leaving off where he does. But 
 he only hints at the remainder : “ Then follow suggestions on the 
 probable effect of certain modifications in the Protestant wor- 
 ship of the island churches, should such modifications be made,” 
 p. 106. 1 will supply “the suggestions” which have been 
 
 omitted from Mr. Dana’s description : 
 
 “The only system of worship and discipline which the mis- 
 sionaries have introduced, has been that which is known at home 
 as the Puritan or Independent ; and in this they have had the 
 field to themselves. The houses of worship are plain, naked 
 buildings, with pews and benches, and a large desk, in which the 
 preacher, sometimes dressed in the tweed sack coat of the shop 
 and market, (or, as I once saw, with the spurs on his boots,) 
 stands to read, preach and pray. The congregation sit through 
 the whole service, not only never kneeling or standing in prayer, 
 but not even bending the head forward in token of reverence. 
 
 The music is solely the singing of one or two rhyming hymns, 
 performed by a small choir. The congregation have no part in 
 the service — they are simply listeners from beginning to end : 
 young or old, learned or unlearned, they are expected to be at- 
 tentive listeners for some two hours, without a word to say, a 
 thing to do, a sound to utter for themselves. My observation, 
 
51 
 
 after attending several places of worship in the principal islands, 
 is, that tho natives, except there be some stirring passage in the 
 sermon, are languid and easily-distracted listeners and irreverent 
 actors. In their family worship they kneel, and are more rev- 
 erent, being left more to their instincts. At public worship 
 they come in at all times, sit, look about, easily fall asleep, and 
 when the last prayer ends, start for the door, a good deal as a 
 theatre breaks up — hardly ever waiting for the benediction.” 
 
 After some observations on tho system of the Roman Catholic 
 Church he goes on : 
 
 “The subject has attracted attention in the islands. I found 
 that many who agreed with me in- a high estimate of the good 
 the missionaries have done, yet felt the defects of the public- 
 worship ; and one of the missionaries told me he had long- 
 thought that changes must be made in their system in the direc- 
 tion of the ritual and liturgy of the English Church .” 
 
 It is very painful to think that there was less of the fearful 
 practice of polyandry and the corruption of girls in the heathen 
 than in the Christian days of this people. In 1863 evidence to 
 this effect was received by a Minister of the Crown, from one of 
 the oldest inhabitants in the island of Kauai, in the presence of 
 the missionary of the district. I give it in the form in which 
 it was taken at the time : 
 
 “ Had your parents any children besides yourself ?” 
 
 “Yes. Two boys and three girls. All grew up. My sister 
 is still alive.” 
 
 “ Did the men then take care of their wives, or did they allow 
 other men to have access to them ?” 
 
 “ The men were very angry if wives were unfaithful. The 
 Avomen only consorted with one man." 
 
 “ Did the parents of young girls allow them to consort with 
 men at a tender age, or did they take good care of them till they 
 were groAvn up ?” 
 
 “ They kept them carefully till they Avere groivn up.” 
 
 “ Was the island full of people when you Avere young ?” 
 
 “ Yes, there were many people.” 
 
 How sadly all this is altered ndAv is notorious among those 
 who have any knoAA-ledge of the habits of the people, and the 
 change for the worse, I do not hesitate to say, has been greatly 
 aided by Puritanism, working partly by faulty legislation* partly 
 
 * I might add, also, by the too rigid distinction which it draws between sacred 
 and secular. The early missionaries were often accused of discouraging indus- 
 try, as taking off the attention from heavenly things. Mr. Richards speaks, 
 in 1825, of “ houses for prayer multiplying in every part,” and “ interest is 
 manifested in the concerns of eternity ,” p. 84. “ The spiritual weakness” of 
 
 Waiobinu is attributed by Dr. Anderson to one of its former pastors having 
 “ given an undue proportion of time and strength to merely civilizing influences 
 and the material prosperity of the people !” p. 141. The Gospel of the Incar- 
 
52 
 
 by the religious unreality which it too commonly fosters. If it 
 is said that contact with foreigners has brought into play influ- 
 ences unfavourable to morality such as never existed before, 
 offering pecuniary inducements to parents even to prostitute 
 their own wives and children, we may surely reply that a pure 
 Christianity ought to have at least prevented any deterioration 
 under the action of those influences, if it did not produce a 
 change for the better. And I cannot but think that a Christi- 
 anity, working with and directing those natural instincts which 
 God has planted within us, and not seeking to override and crush 
 them, would have done so. 
 
 The author has devoted a chapter to “Schools and literature.” 
 It may be fairly questioned whether the action of the former 
 has been on the whole conducive to female morality. The com- 
 mon schools throughout the Kingdom are mixed, boys and girls, 
 young men and young women, in appearance, at least, are taught 
 together, often by a young master. The advantages of learning 
 to read and write, especially, considering the miserable quanti- 
 ty, and still worse, quality of Hawaiian books * * — are hardly a 
 compensation for the demoralizing consequences of such an ar- 
 rangement. Facts have, from time to time, been brought to 
 light which shew that this is no imaginary danger. The Mis- 
 sionaries fell into the mistake of supposing, that as the sexes 
 were often taught together in New England, it might be done 
 with equal safety here. Far better would it have been to have 
 confined the common school system to boys, and have educated, 
 even, a smaller number of girls in family boarding schools. The 
 habits of industry and virtue which would have been acquired 
 under such training, even by a few in each island, would have 
 been felt ere this by the whole population. The division of the 
 sexes is now being carried out by the Board of Education, as far 
 as can be done, consistently with the means at its disposal, and 
 from the encouragement which it is giving to family industrial 
 schools, it is hoped, much good will result. It is impossible to 
 conceive a work more noble, more worthy of our heartiest sym- 
 pathy than the one which “ the Sisters,” both of the Roman and 
 Anglican Churches are attempting, that of raising up a body of 
 industrious and virtuous women, to become good Christian moth- 
 ers for the next generation. On the success of such efforts, as 
 theirs will depend the preservation of the race. The attention 
 of Dr. Anderson was drawn to the discontinuance of the female 
 boarding school at Wailuku, and it seems to have met with his 
 
 nation, converting the meanest duty into a sacrifice to God, should teach a very 
 different doctrine from this. Culling on a member of the congregationalist 
 mission here, soon after my arrival, I remarked on the painful decrease of the 
 population. “ Yes !” was his reply, “ we have sent thousands to glory !” 
 
 The growth of tobacco and the vino involved excommunication equally with 
 adultery. Even the planting of coffee is said to have been discourugod. 
 
 * I refer not to the school books, but those for general reading. 
 
53 
 
 disapproval. For ho Bays : “ My inquiries on the islands 
 
 BROUGHT NO UNMARRIED NATIVE FEMALE, TO MY KNOWLEDGE, WHO 
 WAS DEEMED SUITABLY EDUCATED FOR A NATIVE PASTOR’S WIFE.” 
 This too, in a completely “ christianized nation!'' 
 
 Of the institutions for the education of boys in the islands, 
 
 I will say nothing, except, that it is startling to read that 
 the Punahou College ‘ is one of the more important elements 
 of safety and prosperity for the Hawaiian nation,” p. 206. 
 This school was founded twenty-five years ago, for the educa- 
 tion of the children of the Missionaries. It received with char- 
 acteristic liberality endowments from the Government, in re- 
 turn for the benefits which the American Miesion had conferred. 
 It was thrown open to foreign children in 1851. There are gen- 
 erally two or three Hawaiians attending it, though, I am told, 
 none at this present moment. It is difficult to see in it any “ im- 
 portant elements” for the nation , or how the statement of Mr. 
 Dana, quoted by the author can be sustained, that “it is the 
 chief hope of the people." p. 103. 
 
 Dr. Anderson sees repeatedly in the history of the evangel- 
 ization of the Islands, signs of the Holy Spirit’s special interpo- 
 sition. The great revival which raised the number of church 
 members, in the course of five years, from 1,259 to 19,210, com- 
 menced in 1838. These sudden movements, the result of im- 
 pulse, rather than conviction, are always to be viewed with 
 more or less of suspicion. It is a fact, that, up to that time, 
 few had “joined the Church,” after nearly twenty years’ labour 
 on the part of the Missionaries. Letters were continually sent 
 to the Society at home, complaining of the little progress that 
 was being made. “ Chiefs are darkhearted and fickle.” “ They 
 refuse as a nation to avail themselves of proffered aid.” “ They 
 will not gc to Christ.” These are actual quotations. Suddenly, 
 there is a “ shaking among the dry bones.” In the memorable 
 year 1838, in one district alone, 2,600 were brought into the 
 fold bv the missionary, whom Dr. Anderson admits to have been 
 “ a bold operator,” and “ to have carried the public profession of 
 religion too far,” pp. 171, 172. 
 
 I doubt not that religious fervour was developed in “ the 
 great revival,” that many who shared in it were persons of 
 earnest piety and simple faith. It is, nevertheless, a coinci- 
 dence, that this was the very year in which the Rev. Mr. Rich- 
 ards was released from all connexions with the Mission, by “ the 
 Prudential Committe,” that he might act as constitutional ad- 
 viser to the Crown. Beyond exercising a general influence on 
 the chiefs, the agents of the Board, up to that time had enjoyed 
 no political status. The chiefs alone were the responsible ad- 
 visers of the King. Mr. Richards’s appointment in this secular 
 capacity virtually placed him in the rank with, if not over, the 
 high chiefs themselves. Would not many who before were 
 halting “ between two opinions ” now make up their minds to 
 
 4 
 
54 
 
 join the new hoomana, (religion,) if not actuated by interested 
 motives, vet feeling doubts, until it was thus firmly seated in the 
 state, how far it would ultimately prevail? The movement 
 thus begun, would rapidly spread, and numbers would evoke 
 enthusiasm. 
 
 The political reign of the Puritan missionaries began with the 
 installation of Mr. Richards in his new functions. The first Ha- 
 waiian Constitution was granted by Kamehameha III. the next 
 year. It recognized the feudal tenure of land, and allowed seven 
 representatives to the people, who were to sit in council with 
 the King and sixteen Nobles. Under this Magna-Charta, as Dr. 
 Anderson calls it, p. 238, was enacted that series of cruel laws 
 and penalties which has proved so detrimental to female morali- 
 ty. It was the policy of the missionaries, if we may judge them 
 by their deeds rather than their professions, to undermine the 
 authority of the chiefs generally, and become themselves chiefs 
 in their several districts. If any one has a doubt on this sub- 
 ject, let him read the Doctor’s argument, p. 313, for granting 
 the native clergy and people a more prominent part in the man- 
 agement of their church affairs.. “ I could not,” he says, “dis- 
 cover any prudential reason of much weight in favor of delay. 
 The reverence for missionary authority, so far as it grew out 
 of former reverence for chiefs, could not long survive the loss 
 of authority by the chiefs themselves.” The accession to pow- 
 er of two other Puritan missionaries, one of whom governed for 
 a time with almost despotic sway, hastened on the complete de- 
 struction of all feudal relations in the tenure of lands, in the 
 rights of forced labour ,* and in the Government. The demo- 
 cratic Constitution of 1852, with its universal suffrage, vote by 
 ballot, no property qualification, could only end, as it did, in 
 placing the whole legislative power in the hands of the preach- 
 ers. They must have known, if they really were “ the liberally 
 educated men” Dr. Anderson contends they were, that institu- 
 tions so democratic, however admirably adapted for the people 
 of the United States, a race trained through all the gradations 
 between serfdom and liberty, during the course of centuries, could 
 not be suitable to the Hawaiian, just released from the control 
 of his chief, unprepared by education, requiring even sump- 
 tuary laws for the regulation of his diet. They well knew that 
 the missionary of any district would be the chief in that district, 
 that he would be able to dictate the candidate to be sent up to 
 the Legislature, and exercise all the lawful prerogatives of chief- 
 dom. How entirely these expectations were fulfilled is matter 
 of history. Mr. Wyllie, the Foreign Minister in 1852, recorded 
 his solemn protest against the permission, which the Constitu* 
 
 # The missionaries were glud to make use of this forced labour, against which 
 they are so often found now to inveigh, for the erection of their stone meeting 
 houses. 
 
 ft 
 
tion accorded to clergymen to sit in the Legislature, and against 
 their political interference generally. It was in vain. Dr. An- 
 derson gives us in extenso the rules laid down by the Prudential 
 Committee for the guidance of their agents in 1838, which that 
 well known Minister pronounced “worthy to be printed in let- 
 ters of gold,’’ p. 233. Some of the orders prescribed are, “ to 
 withhold themselves entirely from all interference and intermeddling 
 with the political affairs and party concerns of the nation .” 
 “To guard the subject against contempt for the authority of 
 their rulers, or any evasion or resistance of government orders,” 
 to teach “ that the law of disloyalty deserves reproof as prompt- 
 ly as any other violation of the commands of God, etc.,” p. 234. 
 Beautiful rules! But of what use are rules if they are not ob- 
 served ? Will Dr. Anderson ask the Foreign Minister who 
 commended them so highly in 1846, how he can, in 1865, speak 
 of the manner in which they have been carried into practice by 
 those clergymen, for whose guidance they were framed? Will Dr. 
 Anderson then give to the world the result of his investigation? 
 No. lit; dare not. Perhaps the reason why the Reverend Sec- 
 retary passes over in silence the Constitution of 1852, and stops 
 in the constitutional history of the islauds at 1846 is, that he 
 well knew, the less said about that great mistake the better, a 
 mistake it was, as regarded both the Missionaries themselves 
 and the truest interests of the people. But knowing, as he 
 must do, that the members sent up to “ the biennial parlia- 
 ment,” were often nominees of the former, knowing that the 
 indifference of the people themselves about the exercise of a 
 franchise for which, in their hearts, they felt themselves to 
 be wholly disqualified, would naturally lead them to seek 
 the guidance of their spiritual pastors in the matter, it is sur- 
 prising to hear him coolly declare “ the mission had necessarily 
 for a time, much influence with the Government, but no power f 
 p. 310. What is “ power with a government,” if it is not the 
 power to control the legislation of the country by creating the 
 legislators ? 
 
 The well known incapacity of ecclesiastics generally for the 
 work of government or legislation was verified here. “ The 
 Act to mitigate” a great social evil met with a stout resistance. 
 Another for preventing parents from sending their daughters 
 from the other islands to Honolulu was rejected, as interfering 
 with the rights of the subject. Even the Queen’s Hospital was 
 denounced, because of its provision for a class of patients whose 
 diseases were considered to be a just reward for their deeds, and 
 whose cure would operate as an encouragement to vice. It is 
 not surprising that when his present Majesty came to the throne, 
 acquainted as he was with its practical working, he resolved not 
 to take the oath to a Constitution which virtually gave supre- 
 macy to a single class, and impeded every measure for the social 
 
56 
 
 and sanitary advancement of the Hawaiian, if not found to ac- 
 cord with their illiberal views and sectarian aims. 
 
 How his Majesty called a Convention of Nobles and Delegates 
 of the People, to deliberate with him on certain proposed 
 changes, is a matter of history, and I shall not enter into its de- 
 tail further than 1 am obliged to do in order to prove that “ the 
 golden rules” of the Prudential Committee, forbidding their 
 missionaries “ to intermeddle” with politics and “ to show con- 
 tempt for the authority of their rulers,” p. 233, have been any- 
 thing but faithfully observed. 
 
 It was the wish of the King to consult with his subjects un- 
 biassed by any extraneous influence. But in this, he was thwarted 
 by the Missionaries, who, with some honourable exceptions, cir- 
 culated in their districts if they did not invent the most absurd 
 rumors with regard to His Majesty’s intentions. “ The people 
 are credulous to the last degree. We are never asked the why 
 or the wherefore of that we tell them.” So wrote a certain 
 missionary of his Hawaiian flock in 1835. ( Missionary Herald. 
 
 p. 187.) It would seem that those who propagated the rumors 
 to which I refer, thought that thirty years of subsequent edu- 
 cation had produced so little improvement in this credulous ten- 
 dency that they might safely venture to put it to test in 1864. 
 and turn it to their own advantage. 
 
 Everywhere, meetings were convened in their chapels to op- 
 pose the King’s policy. Three Missionaries were actually re- 
 turned as delegates, by the influence of “ the brethren ” in the 
 districts which they represented. The language and doings of 
 these Reverend incendiaries are printed in the Reports of the 
 Convention, and speak for themselves. We have seen that the 
 Prudential Committee at Boston, in their famous rules, specially 
 sets its face against “ contempt for authority, and resistance 
 to Government, and reminds its agents, that the sin of disloy- 
 alty tends to confusion, anarchy and ruin,” p. 234. What then 
 are we to think of one, who came out in the “ second reinforce- 
 ment,” in 1828, using, as a delegate in this Convention, before 
 his Sovereign, expressions such as the following, lie, (the King.) 
 had but “ one hundred soldiers who would be of no more use 
 than one hundred shavings.” (Reports, Aug. 3, No. 9. The 
 small capital letters are as in the Reports.) 
 
 I shall have occasion to refer in the sequel to one of the false 
 statements circulated before the meeting of the Convention, 
 concerning myself and the Church which 1 represent. 
 
 1 have spoken of the political meddling of the mission body ;* 
 but I might ask Dr. Anderson further whether it was in accord- 
 ance with the spirit of the Boston regulation for the missions - 
 
 * Let it be understood that I am not speaking of individuals, but tbe system. 
 My remarks do not apply to all tbe members of the Hawaiian Evangelical Asso- 
 ciation, among whom I might name tbe truly venerable missionary Thurston, 
 who has been hero since 1819, and the Revs. L. Andrews aud Arteuias Bishop. 
 
57 
 
 ries to become agents in their several, districts for the sale of Crown 
 lands ? In 1851 the following pastors were appointed to serve 
 in this capacity, Revs. E. Bond, L. Lyons, I). B. Lyman, J. S. 
 Emerson, E. Johnson, S. G. Dwight. During their tenure of 
 office, a period of ten years, some of them were accused of fa- 
 vouring “church members” in the sales which they effected, 
 and of throwing every difficulty in the way of any foreign pur- 
 chaser, who did not sympathize with their distinctive tenets. 
 Instances have been mentioned to me of their having done so, 
 with what degree of truth I cannot pretend to determine. The 
 temptation would be great 1o use their office, as far as they could 
 do so consistently with honesty, as a means of promoting the 
 interests of their peculiar religious system. The Rev. Mr. Paris 
 told Dr. Anderson “ that to prevent the lands immediately about 
 him from going to strangers he knew not who, he invested his 
 own private funds in them,” p. 155. This of course is only 
 natural. It is possible the same feelings may have influenced 
 the transactions of these clerical land agents. Be this as it 
 may, they were released from their duties in 1860. While I am 
 on the subject of land I cannot refrain from expressing my ad- 
 miration of the way in which the chiefs and the Government 
 sought to aid the work of Christianizing the islands bV their 
 liberal endowments. They no doubt thought that by entrusting 
 their gifts to the hands of the American Board of Missions, a 
 perpetual provision would be gradually made for the mainte- 
 nance of a gospel ministry, when foreign aid should be with- 
 drawn. What then must have been the mortification of the do- 
 nors, if they had formed such expectations, to find that the 
 Prudential Committee in July, 1848, “entered upon a series of 
 measures with the avowed purpose of putting it in the power of 
 the missionaries to remain here with their families. They en- 
 couraged them to take a conditional release from their connec- 
 tion with the Board and become Hawaiian citizens. They pro- 
 vided for the transfer of the greater part of the property held 
 by the Board — houses, lands, herds, etc., to the missionaries, with 
 the understanding that they would remain at the islands. The 
 lands were originally received from the rulers of the islands, and 
 the Government * which was favourable to the measure, to make 
 the transfer more sure, gave the missionaries a right to the lands 
 in fee simple !” p. 109. That is, what w r as intended as an annuity 
 to the Church for ever, Avas to be used as an annuity termin- 
 able with the life of the holder, into AAdiose family it then 
 passed, the only compensation alleged being the great ad- * 
 vantage of the mission families settling in the islands “ as 
 Hawaiian citizens ! ” Why could they not do so Avithout such a 
 condition ? If the clergy of the Church of England in medice- 
 
 * The Judd administration. Dr. Judd belonged to the Mission from 1823 to 
 1843. 
 
 8 
 
58 
 
 val times had so treated the endowments granted to the Church 
 in perpetuity by the Anglo-Saxon and English Kings or feudal 
 chiefs, where would have been at this moment the Christianity 
 of Great Britain ? Where would have been that of Dr. Ander- 
 son himself ? Is it surprising that the future of “ the Hawaii- 
 an Churches” should be to him a matter of uneasiness ? Is not 
 that anxiety a just penalty for the throwing away by the Board 
 of means which might have done so much to obviate the need for 
 anxiety as to the future support of their missionaries ? 
 
 But not content with these temporal advantages, far the ma- 
 jority of 44 the brethren” applied for further grants of land, not 
 as donations, but to be paid for by them at very reduced prices. 
 Ten received 3,578 acres among them at about one-third of the 
 price charged to lay purchasers.* Eleven former lay members 
 of the mission party received similar grants.! 
 
 After this the reader will not be surprised to learn that 44 in 
 his toiy through the islands the brethren every where made him 
 acquainted with their temporal affairs, and he was glad to find 
 so many of them in circumstances favourable to their comfort 
 and to the settlement of their children.” p. 110. But it is sur- 
 prising to find so much made of the number of dollars spent on 
 the evangelization of the islands by American Christians, p. 340. 
 and so little said of what has been received in the way of mate- 
 rial support from the chiefs of this Kingdom. I may say that 
 nothing has come under my notice on the part of the friends of 
 the Congregationalist and Presbyterian missions here, more 
 offensive than this continual reminding the Hawaiians of the 
 amount of money which has been spent upon them by the bounty 
 of others ! It is always an ungracious business, to say the least, 
 to remind our friends of the favours of which they have been 
 the recipients. 
 
 One would expect that men who have received from the 
 nation these substantial proofs of its gratitude would be far 
 from acquiescing in the prospect of its extinction, and would 
 at least entertain a feeling of loyalty to the dynasty to which 
 they owe so much. But I am in possession of facts which shew 
 that in some instances both these sentiments are wanting. Let 
 me quote from the Pacific. Christian Advocate published in Ore- 
 gon, October 29, 1864. This paper takes its inspirations on 
 Hawaiian affairs from the organ of the missionaries, the Pacific 
 Commercial Advertiser. After commenting severely on the policy 
 of His Majesty in dissolving the Convention, it concludes with 
 « these words, “ It is possible Kamehameha V. may never have 
 A SUCCESSOR TO SIT ON THE THRONE. A REPUBLICAN FORM OF 
 
 # The exact ratio of the prices was 55 : 145. 
 
 f This statement is taken from the Polynesian, May 8, 1852. The Committee, 
 appointed to consider the applications the previous June, had had them under 
 consideration in the interval. 
 
50 
 
 Government may be established by the people. It is not 
 
 PROBABLE THE HAWAIIAN NATION WILL TAMELY SUBMIT THEIR NECKS 
 TO THE YOKE OF DESPOTISM. MaY Goi) PROSPER THE RIGHT!” Ill 
 a number of the Eclectic Magazine, published in 1862, there is a 
 notice of an article in the London Quarter!)/ Review for October, 
 in the same year, on “The Hawaiian Islands.” In the course of 
 his criticism, the writer quotes a published letter of the Rev. 
 Titus Coan, the missionary at Hilo, in which, referring to the 
 possibility of an extinction of the race, that gentleman says, 
 •‘Let it be — God will provide himself with a people and 
 Church for this land.” It is pleasing to find the Reverend 
 Secretary of the Board expressing himself in terms very differ- 
 ent from this. “ The decrease of population has diminished so 
 greatly of late as to encourage the hope, should the Govern- 
 ment not repeal the laws against ardent spirits, that it will soon 
 be altogether arrested,” p. 271. 
 
 There is, however, a certain sang froid mingled with some- 
 thing of superciliousness in the following remark of the author- 
 ized representative of the missionaries, considering the political 
 and pecuniary advantages which they have received from the 
 chiets of this Kingdom, “ What the Board now expected was 
 that it would act impartially to the different denominations of 
 Christians ! ” p. 122. 
 
 At the time these words were spoken, (and of their intended 
 application there can be no doubt.) neither myself nor clergy held 
 any office under the Government whatever, and we had receiv- 
 ed no material aid from the Islands, beyond the private contri- 
 butions of our people, and a plot of land on which to build a 
 Church, given by his late Majesty. What then excited all this 
 jealousy and apprehension ? Simply the fact that, the King and 
 Queen had in their court a Bishop acting as their Chaplain ! Our 
 very presence, it is too plain, was a source of irritation from the 
 first, which we sought in vain to allay by the quiet and unobtru- 
 sive discharge of our sacred duties, ignoring altogether the. mis- 
 representations, and calumnies, to which we were subjected, and 
 as Dr. Anderson admits “ reciprocating the common civilities of 
 Christian life,” p. 348. As the author has devoted a chapter of 
 his work to his own unfavourable impressions of the Anglo-Ameri- 
 can mission, I will briefly describe what has been the attitude 
 assumed towards us by the Puritan missionaries, from the time 
 of our arrival till now. Their first hope was that the effort 
 which was being made to send a Bishop and Clergy to 
 the Islands would fail. No* one can have any doubt on 
 the point who reads the chapters of Dr. Anderson’s work on 
 “ the Reformed Catholic Mission.” Disappointed in this, they 
 trusted we might be prevailed upon to stand with them on the 
 same ecclesiastical platform. The Clergy were reminded of chap- 
 lains of the Navy, who had preached in this or that Congrega- 
 tional church. To this they replied, “ that they would probably 
 
60 
 
 have done the same — in the absenee of any ‘ Episcopal ’ place 
 of worship,” that “ at Aspinwall during our passage, the Metho- 
 dist Episcopalian chaplain had kindly lent his church to the 
 Bishop for a confirmation. But it was a very different matter 
 to take part in their ordinary ministrations, or lend them our 
 pulpits.” I am persuaded from many facts, which have come 
 under my notice, that nothing short of this could have ever re- 
 conciled them to our presence here. Every stray incident to 
 prove that there am instances of “ Episcopal ” Clergymen tak- 
 ing part with dissenters in their services is eagerly seized on 
 and published by the “ Evangelical ” press. One is mentioned 
 in the Friend of this very month, (March, 1865.) We published 
 six months ago a new edition of our Hawaiian Hymn Book, 
 formed partly from translations of Hymns, Ancient and Modern, 
 and partly from hymns in use before our arrival. The Friend, 
 (January, 1865,) remarks, “ our neighbours will admit the Ameri- 
 can missionaries to their choirs, not to their pulpits.” 
 
 Hinc illce lacrymce. When the invitation to attend the Fort 
 Street prayer meeting was declined, the note of war was sounded. 
 The pulpits of the Congregational meeting houses-rang with 
 denunciations. “ It was uncertain whether we should preach the 
 word of God,” “We were not true Episcopalians, Papists in 
 disguise.” The people were warned against attending the ser- 
 vices of the Church, and every possible influence brought to 
 bear, to prevent their doing so. In order to confuse the native 
 mind, it was resolved by some of the Missionaries to take hence- 
 forth the name of “ Bishop.” This proceeding drew on its au- 
 thors the ridicule even of their own organ the Pacific Commer- 
 cial Advertiser. But it was actually carried into effect. For, 
 the day after the invitation to the prayer meeting had been 
 declined, one of them called at my house, presenting his 
 
 carchas “the Bishop of .” And, in explanation of this 
 
 unexpected address, entered into a dissertation to prove that 
 Bishops were only overseers in the same sense as Presbyters. 
 
 During my second visit to the island of Maui, in 1863, I was 
 requested by a body of foreigners from all parts to celebrate 
 Divine service and baptize in a certain building, which had been 
 erected by them on the distinct understanding that they could 
 invite whom they liked to be their minister, and that it was in 
 connection with no denomination. At the appointed time I went 
 with the judge of the island, and found the congregation assem- 
 bled outside, unable to get in. The missionary of the district (Dr. 
 Anderson’s “ old friend and correspondent,” (p. 179) happened 
 to have the key and sturdily resisted all entreaties to give it up. 
 The people wished to break open the door, but the judge and 
 myself prevailed on them to keep the peace, and under a meri- 
 dian and tropical sun, bareheaded, standing on the steps of this 
 humble edifice, a Bishop of the Church of God proclaimed the 
 Divine Charity. A calabash filled with water placed on a table 
 
61 
 
 was used as a font, and some of those little ones to whom Puritan 
 bigotry had refused admittance into the Christian fold, because 
 of their parents being “ won-church-members,” were baptized. 
 
 All the pent up animosity to which 1 have referred, burst 
 forth after the death of the late King. Ii was hoped that this 
 painful event would in fact be followed by the breaking up of 
 the mission. When it pleased his present Majesty, however, to 
 retain the Bishop as his chaplain and to make him a member of 
 rhe Privv Council, (though the Rev. Lorrin Andrews, formerly a 
 missionary, also received a similar commission,) the system of 
 misrepresentation was again resorted to. Our whole course has 
 been to make the Church Hawaiian, and. like the islands them- 
 selves, a point of union for all nations. Hence the President of 
 the United States is prayed for every Sunday with the Queen of 
 Great Britain and the Emperor of the French. November the 
 28th, 1863, the day of the American thanksgiving, was observed 
 in accordance with the proclamation of the President, and the 
 Queen attended and several of the Ministers, the American Rep- 
 resentative himself being present. My efforts to obtain clergy- 
 men from the United States were well known. Yet in spite of 
 all these things letters were written to newspapers in that coun- 
 try identifying me with imaginary anti- American intrigues. Dr. 
 Anderson in his book gives countenance to such misrepresenta- 
 tions when he says, “ The King, going from England to America 
 in his foreign travels, unhappily imbibed an anti-American preju- 
 dice, which became more apparent after the arrival of the En- 
 glish mission.” p. 326. What was the nature of the prejudice he 
 might have taken the trouble to state, and have had more can- 
 dour than to attempt to lay it, if any existed, at the door of Eng- 
 lishmen. It is clear Dr. Anderson would have his readers think 
 that the late King’s want of sympathy with the missionaries arose 
 from their being Americans. No such thing. It was their religious 
 system which he could not approve, be it English or be it Ameri- 
 can. I may state that His Majesty sent through me a pressing- 
 solicitation to the Right Rev. Dr. Kip, Bishop of California, to 
 be a guest at the Palace, which that prelate was obliged very 
 unwillingly to decline. The fact is, it suited the purpose of 
 rival interests here to make use of this ideal anti-American pre- 
 judice to deprive us of our American supporters and to damage 
 the Church. My being in the Privy Council was assumed to 
 mean that our Church was going to be “ established by law ” as^the 
 national religion, and to be “ supported by fresh taxes levied on the 
 people .” Everywhere this ridiculous idea* was unblusbingly 
 broached, in order to influence the election of delegates to the 
 Convention, and it did more than any other cry to introduce 
 there men opposed to the King’s policv. If there can be anv 
 % 
 
 * The argument put forth was, the English Church is supported by taxes ! 
 Here is an English Bishop, therefore, he mu6t be supported in the same way. 
 
. 62 
 
 doubt, it must be set at rest on reading the resolutions passed 
 at a seditious assembly held in the meeting house of the Rev. L. 
 Smith, May 14th, 1864 : 
 
 “ It is believed [by whom ?] that a revision of the Constitu- 
 tion, as foreshadowed in the Proclamation, would pave the way 
 to the establishment of an undesired [by them ?] Church, to be 
 supported by tithes and taxes on the people.” 
 
 Falsehoods such as these of course served a temporary pur- 
 pose, but a series of wise measures passed in the late session of 
 the Legislative Assembly, convoked under the new Constitution, 
 has already convinced the Hawaiians how much they have been 
 deceived. They feel proud of a King who they know can not 
 be made by any such party manoeuvres to swerve from the line 
 which he has marked out for himself, that of being, if possible, 
 the means of saving the life of his people and raising them to a 
 higher social condition, while their confidence in those who have 
 so greatly misled them is proportionably diminished. Let me 
 SAY ONCE FOR ALL, THAT ON NO OCCASION WHATEVER HAVE I EVER 
 OFFERED HIS MAJESTY POLITICAL ADVICE, OR INFLUENCED HIS MEAS- 
 URES in the slightest. I will say further, that were I to at- 
 tempt to use the sacred relation in which I stand to the King as 
 a means for political intrigue, or for influencing his Government 
 in any way, I should lose whatever respect or weight that rela- 
 tion now carries in the estimation of his Majesty. The only 
 services which I render to the State in the Privy Council, are 
 as its acting Chaplain and as a member of the Bureau of Public 
 Instruction, the King having been pleased to make use of mv 
 familiarity with the subject of popular education, acquired in 
 England. 
 
 I come now to the chapter which Dr. Anderson has de- 
 voted to “the Reformed Catholic Church.” 1 shall dismiss 
 it with a very few words, having already disposed of its 
 assertions, with regard to the origin .of the Anglo-American 
 mission, in my Pastoral and the notes appended thereto. Its 
 principal feature is the attempt to fasten upon the Church 
 the charge of “ Popery.” Let mo first remark on this subject, 
 that I have no confidence in the sincerity of all this affected 
 horror of popery. 
 
 Early in 1863 a controversy broke out between two cor- 
 respondents in the native journals, one advocating the side 
 of the Roman and the other of the Anglican Church. It 
 was a pity that such a strife of words arose, but so it was. 
 The two Hawaiian combatants were believed to obtain their 
 materials from the clergy of their respective Churches. At 
 all events the battle was gallantly and courteously fought, 
 and no personalities were exchange^. It is significant that, 
 throughout, the Calvinist organ sympathized with the Ro- 
 man Catholic correspondent, and actually published an Eng- 
 
63 
 
 lish translation of his last letter as a triumphant refutation of 
 the arguments used in favor of the Reformed Church of Eng- 
 land.* 
 
 Unsuccessful efforts were made before the assembling ol the 
 Convention to induce the Roman Catholic interest to unite with 
 that of the Puritans in a crusade, the aim of which should be to 
 effect our ignominious retreat from the islands. The impor- 
 tance to be attached to the “ anti-popery” views of Dr. Ander- 
 son and his “Prudential Committee ’ may be therefore appre- 
 ciated. 
 
 I shall not condescend to follow the author through his re- 
 marks on the ritual and teaching of the Church in these islands. 
 Suffice it to say that they are strictly in conformity with the laws 
 and usages of the Church in England and America, and that no- 
 where can be found services heartier, more devotional, and more 
 regularly frequented. What I say applies equally to the Ha- 
 waiian and foreign congregations. It appears that Dr. Ander- 
 son objects to “ the surplice and stole,” the attire of every 
 English and American clergyman, and to the “rochet,” worn by 
 all the English and American Bishops, without exception, p. 353. 
 Whence his competency to pronounce on what is consistent or 
 what is inconsistent with the practice of the Anglo-American 
 Church generally may be inferred. 
 
 The object of our author is to damage our cause by all possible 
 means, and shake the confidence of our friends both here and 
 elsewhere in our aims and our churchmanship. He takes com- 
 fort in the assurance that “ his present Majesty, his venerable 
 father, and his sister Victoria, have not connected themselves 
 with that Church,” p.355. He feels sure the service is “too 
 showy” [I am not aware Dr. Anderson ever visited our Church 
 while here] for the religious taste of the people.” p: 353. 
 
 Let me state in answer to all these attempts to represent our 
 ministrations as not appreciated in Honolulu, that theoffertories 
 in “that small church,” p. 353, between January 1, 1864, and 
 January 1, 1865, amounted to $675, exclusive of pledged annual 
 subscriptions for the maintenance fund, amounting to $2,250, 
 making a total raised during the past year of $2,925 or £585 
 sterling. This does not include some $200 raised at Lahaina. 
 
 I append a list of the official personages connected with the 
 Church. 
 
 * There is a notice in tho Friend for May, 1863, in which, referring to the 
 quotations from the Fathers employed in this controversy, the Reverend editor 
 says : “ Away with the musty tomes of the old Fathers, who wrote learned 
 treatises to beguile the weary hours of monastic life !” This is. to say the least, 
 a new view- of the Fathers ! Where would have been that Reverend editor’s 
 Christianity now but for those “ musty tomes?” 
 
64 
 
 LIST OF PERSONAGES CONNECTED WITH THE CHURCH 
 
 BISHOP. 
 
 The Right Reverend T. N. Staley, D. I). 
 
 English, 
 
 American, 
 
 PRIESTS. 
 
 \ The Venerable Archdeacon G. Mason. M. A. 
 ( The Rev. E. Ibbotson. 
 
 ( The Rev. Peyton Gallagher, M. A. 
 j The Rev. H. B. Whipple." 
 
 DEACONS. 
 
 English . — The Rev. J. J. Elkingtox. 
 Hawaiian. — The Rev. W. Hoapili Kaauwai. 
 
 LAY MEMBERS OF THE SYNOD. 
 
 H. R. H. M. KEKUANAOA.t G. H. Luce, Esq., 
 
 The Hon. D. Kalakaua,! D. Smith, Esq., 
 
 His Honour Judge Robertson, T. Brown, Esq., Treasurer. 
 
 The Hon. Att’y Gen. Harris, 
 
 Among the subscribers, besides the above, some of whom are 
 communicants, are — 
 
 His Majesty the King, 
 
 Her Majesty the Queen, 
 
 Her Excellency the Governess of Hawaii, the half sister of 
 tha King ;t 
 
 His Excellency the Governour of Maui,! 
 
 H. R. H. Prince Wm. Lunalilo,! 
 
 Hon. J. S. Kahalewai, Judge of Maui ; 
 
 Hon. W. P. Kamakau, Judge of Oahu ;t 
 
 His Excellency the Minister of Foreign Affairs, 
 
 His Excellency the Minister of the Interior. 
 
 * This gentleman is expected to arrive in a few months, 
 f These are Hawaiian members of the House of Nobles. 
 
05 
 
 SEEMON. 
 
 Dr. Anderson in his work has chosen to avoid all unnecessary 
 mention of his late Majesty, and of his beloved Queen Emma, 
 whose pure and benevolent character has won for her the esteem 
 of all of whatever religious opinions. I have, therefore, ap- 
 pended the following extract from a sermon of the Rev. G. Ma- 
 son, M. A., preached the Sunday after his Majesty’s decease : 
 
 “ Brethren : — As a Christian minister, could I have ventured to 
 speak of the rest of the departed, had I not felt assured that he 
 had found his rest in that only refuge of sinners, his crucified 
 Redeemer ? You may not all know how he loved communion 
 with his Lord. You may not all know how it was his delight in 
 the early morn to enter the courts of the Lord’s house and par- 
 take of the bread of life, after due preparation and hearty con- 
 trition for past sin. Truly to him it was the most comfortable 
 sacrament of the body and blood of Christ. lie ever looked 
 upon the Holy Communion service as a sacrifice of thanksgiv- 
 ing, which it was his “ bounden duty” to offer on all special oc- 
 casions, whether of sorrow or of jov. Thus, when but a few 
 weeks ago God visited him and his beloved Queen with a severe 
 accident, his first thought was to send for his Bishop to cele- 
 brate privately those holy mysteries as a mark of his gratitude, 
 and to express his consciousness of hourly dependence on the 
 protecting hand of the King of Kings. 
 
 Nor need we fear that all this was formal superstition. The 
 man who could appreciate Charles Kingsley's writings, and find 
 keen pleasure in the poetry of Tennyson and Longfellow, is not 
 likely to be the slave of forms and ceremonies. No ! he would 
 have worship indeed surrounded by all those accessories which 
 can help to make it the more meet for the acceptance of the 
 King to whom it is offered. But worship was to him the crown 
 of life. He felt there must be a life in some measure prepared 
 to receive that crown. And such was his. His life, at least for 
 the past year, was a labour of love. Yes ! “ he rests from his la- 
 bours.” Scarce can I trust myself to speak of that labour of sor- 
 row which the Royal Parents have had to bear these past weary 
 months. Yet, when considering his labours, we must recall this, 
 the heaviest of all — the loss of his fondest hope. He rests 
 from that labour. Oh ! will you not agree with me, brethren ? 
 The dashing out of that little star of hope from the horizon of 
 
 9 
 
66 
 
 his earthly future was indeed a fiery purgatory of sorrow — it 
 may be, to cleanse his soul from the stain of past sin, and to fix 
 his alfections upon the eternal crown. Notwithstanding this, 
 you know how manfully he tried to shake off his natural grief, 
 that he might do his duty as a Christian King and friend of the 
 people, despite of physical infirmities and continually recurring 
 depression of spirits. The advent of our mission, at a time when 
 the first burst of grief had scarce subsided, could but really 
 have added weight to the burden he had to bear. But his re- 
 fined, unselfish spirit never allowed his manner to betray the 
 feeling that now one great source of joy at the arrival of our 
 mission was dried up forever. No ! his words, his manner, his 
 deeds ever spoke welcome ! welcome ! To use his own kind po- 
 etry of expression, “ our coming was,” he said, “ as the evening 
 dew on the sun-scorched flowers.” Nor must we omit to notice 
 here the fear his sensitive soul must have felt, on being obliged 
 to manifest his deliberate adoption of a system of worship and 
 education which he was convinced was thebest adapted to his peo- 
 ple, lest by so doing he should appear to show ingratitude to 
 those many benevolent persons who had sought to benefit his 
 native race, though by means of religious systems he himself 
 could not sympathize with. How much he suffered in this way 
 few can tell ! but many ought to be able to appreciate the deli- 
 cacy which made him so anxious not to offend the feelings of 
 any, who might differ from him politically or religiously, by the 
 introduction of any measures calculated to have such an effect. 
 His thoughtful mind saw what was the work God had given 
 him to do, and he did it — wisely, gently, devotedly. And con- 
 nected with this work of planting our mission how many collat- 
 eral works occupied his time and thoughts, and called forth his 
 living and active sympathy 1 * * * The translation of our 
 
 book of Common Prayer into the native language was by no 
 means an amusement for his leisure hours. He gave himself to 
 the work, as to a real, important, wmrk for God; and, as if pre- 
 scient of the coming end, he could not rest satisfied until it was 
 accomplished. That book, with its thoughtful preface, shall re- 
 main a monument of his piety, bis wisdom, and his love for his 
 people. The glorious consequences of this thy noble work, Io- 
 lani, shall follow thee to doom ! 
 
 How many bright remembrances besides those we have al- 
 ready recalled rise up worthy of record as a supplement to the 
 acts of the Royal Saints of Christendom, remembrances culled 
 not only from the past brief year of good works, when the prin- 
 ciple of good within him may be said to have developed, and to 
 have been moulded more definitely, more fixedly; but also from 
 by-gone years, when that same principle was evidently energi- 
 zing, but oftentimes no doubt checked or turned aside by the 
 impetuous rush of passions which inadequate education and 
 
67 
 
 training could not enable him sufficiently to control.* Thus how 
 pleasing it is now to hear of the tender anxiety he felt for his 
 race when that terrible small-pox visited these Islands! Re- 
 gardless of infection he entered their huts and did all he could 
 to relieve their necessities. When he ascended the throne he 
 would not be content till a hospital was raised as a refuge for 
 his disease-afflicted people. And to achieve this many of you 
 remember how he begged from door to door with Royal humil- 
 ity for those dollars his own limited exchequer was unable to 
 furnish ! May it not be said of him as of Cornelius the Centu- 
 rion, “ his prayers and alms had gone up as a memorial before 
 God.” Hence was lie prepared to add to his good works a mod- 
 est faith in the Church and her ordinances. Hence the secret 
 of his Christmas joy last year, when the blazing kukui torches 
 revealed in the streets of his royal city the unwonted sight of 
 a King walking in choral procession at midnight, hymning the 
 nativity of the Babe of Bethlehem, lienee he felt it rather an 
 honour than a condescension to robe himself in the white robe 
 of the sanctuary, when no Priest was with him last Spring on 
 the Island of Hawaii, that he might pray with his people out of 
 our translated office-book, and speak to them words of warning 
 and of hope. Brethren, 1 must pause. Your own memories 
 may help many of you to till up from the details of daily life the 
 description of a man who will ever be endeared to us, as a gen- 
 tleman Monarch and a Christian brother. Let us not, brethren, 
 be surprised if we hear some refer to the failings of the de- 
 ceased King in contradiction to the words of eulogium that have 
 been spoken of his character. The imperfections even of some 
 of God’s great saints have been found sufficient, for a time at 
 least, to blast their pious memories. There always will be found 
 some who disregard the wffiolesome proverb of Charity “ I)e 
 mortuis nil nisi bonum.” Should you meet with any such, breth- 
 ren, recommend to their meditations the Saviour’s parable of the 
 two men w T ho went up into the temple to pray — the one a Phari- 
 see, and the other a Publican. Suggest to them the study of 
 that King of Israel, the “ man after God’s own heart,” the “ sweet 
 psalmist of Israel,” the royal penitent — who out of the fulness 
 of his contrite heart gave expression to this truth of God, to be 
 the confidence of all penitents while the world shall last. “The 
 sacrifices of God are a broken spirit ; a broken and contrite 
 heart, 0 God, thou wilt not despise.” 
 
 * The last thought of my Reverend brother was to attribute any blame to the 
 early instructors of His late Majesty. 
 
68 
 
 POSTSCRIPT. 
 
 It has occurred to rae that iny remarks on Episcopacy maybe 
 misapplied. The case of those 'national churches of Europe, 
 which are non-Episcopal, is quite different from that of the 
 Brownists, (Independents or Congregationalists,) Baptists and 
 other similar seceders from the Anglican Church. This is the 
 view of those of its divines even, who have dwelt most strongly 
 on its Catholicity. “ Though our Government be by Divine 
 right, it follows not there is no salvation without it.” (Bishop 
 Andrewes, 1618, in his controversy with Du Moulin.) The de- 
 fect of the Reformed Churches abroad is “ lamented ” by Hook- 
 er, but extenuated, preface, c II, 4, and book III, c 11. So Arch- 
 bishop Laud, “ Troubles and Trials,” p. 134. “ Your Independ- 
 
 ents, unlike foreign churches, have ho root of orders ; their pas- 
 tors are of lay extraction.” (Dr. Maurice, 1700, Defence of 
 Episcopacy.) It was not from choice that the Lutherans had no 
 Bishops. “ Eos coegit dura necessitas,” were the words of Sara- 
 via. In Sweden the Episcopal succession has been maintained. 
 In Denmark and parts of Germany the crucifix, altar, lights, in 
 the Lutheran Churches, united with the highest teaching on 
 the Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament, and their 
 strongly anti- Sabbatarian views would greatly shock the Puritan 
 mind. Indeed no one would denounce the Judaizing of the Pu- 
 ritans as to the Lord’s day, and their “ touch not, taste not” 
 system more than would Luther and Calvin if alive now. 
 
ERRATA. 
 
 1 stated a> an impression that there were no native Hawaiian 
 scholars now at the Punahou College. I find, however, that 
 there-are tiro, besides several halt-whites. 
 
 ’age 8, note, tor “a member of” read "an attendant at.” 
 13, line 20, for “churchmen” read “churchman.” 
 
 IT, 
 
 22 , 
 
 27. 
 
 20 , 
 
 29, 
 
 30. 
 
 17. for " holdimg” read “ holding. 
 28, dele mark of quotation. 
 
 for " license” read " licence. 
 
 2 , { 
 
 Hi 
 
 32, alter "states” place an “ ? ” 
 
 10. for "Co labourers elsewhere?” read 
 
 Co la- 
 
 bour elsewhere.’ 
 
 Page 30, line 27, for " would” read " will.” 
 
 " 41, “ 1, for "Polynesian researches” read “Polynesia 
 
 researches.” 
 
 Page 48, line 41, dele " of.” 
 
 “ 55, “ 16, for “into" read " out in.” 
 
 " 56, “ 30, for " their” read “ its.” 
 
 " 57, " 31, after “ families” place “ (?)” 
 
 “ 60, “ 32, for " . And” read “ , and.” 
 
 At the end of words like “rumour,” read “ o-u-r.” 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 o 7: 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 GAYLORD 
 
 
 
 PRINTED IN U. S A. 
 
 t