Letter Robert Tomlinson to Church Missionary Society 06 November 1877
Page 1
[1] Metlakatla
[2] November 6th /77
[3] Reverend and dear Sirs
[4] Not until I reached Metlakatla in the beginning
[5] of September on my way home for my five week tour among
[6] the Kitiksheans did I receive your letter of the 14th June. Since
[7] then I have postponed my reply in the hope of being able to contact
[8] B[isho]p Bonipass on the subject. He has not arrived and this is
[9] probably the last opportunity I may have addressing you for
[10] some months I do not feel justified in making any further
[11] delay.
[12] I have, I fear, inadvertently lead you into the belief that
[13] the statement forwarded to you last April was a defence of my
[14] actions and taking this view you appear to have judged the case
[15] accordingly.
[16] My preaching and receiving the Communion in the Reformed
[17] Episcopal Church, for which B[isho]p Hills thought proper to revoke my
[18] license, when brought under the notice of the Committee, would I
[19] supposed, be considered in two aspects. 1st its legality.
[20] 2nd its {Espidinty?}. Therefore it was that in statement
[21] you received I confined myself entirely to the legal aspect
[22] of the case, fully believing that if on enquiry, you found, as
[23] I felt sure you would find, that I have not broken the law
[24] of the Church as existing in this province, that then you
[25] would demand from me an explanation, and reason
[26] for, an act which though not illegal was an apparent
[27] impropriety, and thus I would be afforded an opportunity
[28] of supplementing my first statement. The turn matters
[29] have taken render such a course needless as anything I
[30] might now say on that point I must say as one already
[31] condemned and not as it would have been one pleading
Page 2
[1] his case before sentence was passed. With this preface I
[2] address myself to the latter seriation.
[3] The Committee say “They hope you will express to the B[isho]p your
[4] willingness not to act again in the same way and request
[5] the restoration of your license”, Here are two points let me
[6] take the second first. The revocation of my license
[7] was not, even in the opinion of the Committee, a punishment
[8] commiserate with the act charged. Now if I request the
[9] restoration of my license, will it not be an acknowledgement
[10] on my part that I had acted in any way that called for the
[11] revocation of my license? Would it be right for me under the
[12] circumstances, and having regard to the relation existing between
[13] the Society, the B[isho]p, and myself to request the restoration of my
[14] license? Would it not be directly encouraging the B[isho]p in the
[15] inflection of excessive penalties for imaginary offences and
[16] thereby therefore hampering the missionaries of the Society?
[17] Secondly you desire that I should give to the B[isho]p a promise not
[18] to again preach or receive the Communion in the Reformed
[19] Episcopal Church. To make such a promise to the B[isho]p I ought to
[20] be assured that it was written his province to demand it. To be
[21] so, I humbly submit, it must be shown that I have acted
[22] illegally. This he has not attempted to do, neither have the
[23] Committee thought fit to examine into the matter, but
[24] simply to put in one side with a “probably“ which we all
[25] know is worth nothing in law. In so far is the B[isho]p may
[26] have thought my action unadvisable or inexpedient I
[27] acknowledge his right to advise, counsel, and admonish, but
[28] not to punish. But secondly I ought to be sure that
[29] I can conscientiously make such a promise: And hear again
[30] unhappily the Committee have not thought fit to inquire
[31] into the point I raised as to the distinction to be drawn between
[32] preaching and officiating. The point was raised in no
Page 3
[1] quibbling or litigious spirit but contains the chief difficulty
[2] in the whole matter. As an ordained deacon I am (supposing
[3] the view of the Committee take of B[isho]p Hills standing to be correct)
[4] amenable to him while officiating. Now the Ridesdale
[5] Judgement declares that the only legal dress for the Minister
[6] while officiating is a white surplice. Have all the Evangelical
[7] Clergy adopted the surplus while preaching? More is is a
[8] matter of ceremony or rubric. I had offended, even where there
[9] was no violation of the order and discipline of the Church, I
[10] would feel in duty bound to apologize and promise not to
[11] do so again. if the Committee disapproved of my conduct.
[12] But in a matter affecting the souls of man the Case is different
[13] in the Command to preach and teach there is no limit while
[14] the earth remains, as a place or time, “in season and out of
[15] season,“ and though as you remind me I have been sent
[16] to the Heathen that can be no excuse for not preaching to
[17] the civilized also whenever an opportunity offers. Rev[eren]d
[18] Sirs. Ye who have heard and are endeavouring to carry out
[19] your departed Lords command “Go teach all Nations“ is
[20] there one among you who will make a definite promise
[21] not to preach to some hundreds of people, promise that you
[22] will not obey your Lord’s commandment to the souls? I
[23] dare not make such a promise to please any man, even a
[24] B[isho]p. “We ought to obey God rather than men“
[25] But your letter is not confined to the consideration of the
[26] trouble which has arisen between B[isho]p Hills and myself.
[27] In it you also to tread on a subject on which I wrote to you
[28] nearly two months before that trouble began and here
[29] I may well admit that it was with with no little surprise
[30] and some pain but I read the following passage of your
[31] letter “While the Committee would not feel it to be right
[32] to insist upon your taking priest orders if you have any
[33] conscientious scruples on the subject they are forced
Page 4
[1] to point out to you that they expect you loyally to conform
[2] to the rules of the Ch[urch] of England of which you are a member
[3] and a minister.“ and again “We cannot help adding that
[4] we shall be great greatly disappointed if as you suggest he finds
[5] you and leaves you a deacon.“. Reverend and Dear Sirs. forgive
[6] me if I speak plainly. You have placed me in a more
[7] difficult position than if you had insisted on my taking
[8] priest orders. If I take the step. I do violence to my conscious
[9] If I do not take the step. I greatly disappoint you and run
[10] the risk of being called disloyal to the Church. What have I
[11] done that you should make my position so difficult.
[12] Mr. Wright in a letter to me says that through my declining
[13] to take the priest’s orders the people are necessarily debarred from
[14] partaking of the Holy Communion. I reply that with me that
[15] argument has no weight as I do not consider that it would
[16] be a breach of order under the circumstances for me to
[17] administer the Lords supper. To express my private opinion
[18] this is one thing. To administer the sacrament without
[19] consulting the committee would be another. I have never
[20] yet administered the Lord’s supper. In one thing I blame
[21] myself viz that though I have referred to this subject
[22] in my letters on two former occasions. I did not discuss
[23] it as fully as I ought and perhaps did not attach to
[24] it the importance the committee seems to think it demands.
[25] This mistake I will now endeavour in some degree to rectify.
[26] In the first place you think I have not sufficiently
[27] considered the influence your my actions will have upon the
[28] Society. To this charge I plead guilty. I have not considered
[29] Society or my own personal interest, in fact, humbly
[30] speaking, I have stood in my own light. Two things I have
[31] endeavoured to keep before me. Whether the step would
[32] conduce towards the advancement of the mission of which
Page 5
[1] I am in charge and secondly to clearly discern the house
[2] of my God guiding me to take the step. You all seem to
[3] be unanimous that it would be an advantage to the mission
[4] for me to be priested. May I refer you to Acts XX I 20-26.
[5] Here we have the whole church of Jerusalem headed by the Apostle
[6] urging Paul to take a step for the very same reason you urge me.
[7] He took it. What cause of it? peace and unity? nay but that
[8] very step proved the match which set the fire burning.
[9] You are already aware that I once visited Victoria for the purpose
[10] of being priested and that it was only what then occurred
[11] which prevented my taking the priest orders. By sending B[isho]p
[12] Bonipass to Metlakatla you have adopted a plan whereby the
[13] recurrence of such events is precluded and you have afforded
[14] me an opportunity in every way the most suitable but my
[15] point has been, I humbly submit, entirely overlooked
[16] by you or at least. It is the peculiar position of these missions
[17] in one particular making them to differ from any of the Society
[18] Missions so far as I am aware. I refer to the conjunction of
[19] the secular department with the spiritual. I do not now
[20] refer to such secular work as building churches, schools
[21] &c. which are the necessary adjuncts of any prosperous
[22] mission, but the addition of a secular department of
[23] course for the benefit of the mission and not for any
[24] private gain. Still a pearly purely secular work superintended
[25] and much of it hitherto carried on by those who were
[26] at the same time the spiritual teachers. Some other
[27] missions have I am well aware, their secular departments
[28] nominally under their superintendence of the missionary
[29] but in reality in charge of ^lay^ agents of the Society sent
[30] out for that purpose. At Metlakatla and Kincolith
[31] the secular department has been entirely under the
[32] spiritual teachers, such a position, I submit, conflicts
Page 6
[1] in noway with the duties of a Deacon but that a man
[2] holding such a position should willingly ^take upon him^ the vows and duties
[3] of the Priesthood and still continue in such a position
[4] cannot be consistent. But how why then you will ask, did
[5] I go to Victoria to be a priested? The answer is simple
[6] knowing your anxiety in the manner, the wish of the B[isho]p
[7] as also of the number of my own family and many
[8] friends, and thinking that in this I saw the hand of
[9] God. I made arrangements to put an end to ^my^ connection
[10] with the secular department and thus free myself. The
[11] events which occurred and stopped me then. The earnest
[12] request of the best [Chris]tians at Kincolith that I would not
[13] sever my connection with the secular work until they
[14] were more advanced in civilization or God should send
[15] another qualified to take it led me to see that in God‘s
[16] ways are not our ways nor our ways his ways. I do not
[17] feel that it would be for the advantage of the mission
[18] for me to hand over the care of the secular departments
[19] to the Natives as yet. and there is no one to whom I
[20] could confidently commit it. Therefore I wait God’s
[21] time. sure that those who wait on him will not be
[22] disappointed.
[23] But again you seem to say in your letter that as
[24] a loyal member of the Ch[urch] of England I ought to present
[25] myself for Priest’s orders. For such an opinion I can find
[26] no grounds in the prayer book. The rubric at the end of
[27] the office for the ordering of Deacons will will appear to any one
[28] impartially studying it to have been drawn up. not to
[29] urge deacons to present themselves for priest’s orders
[30] but to prevent too great haste in taking such an important
[31] step. The office of Archdeacon which formally was held
[32] by deacon shews that in early times men could and
[33] did remain deacons for many years
Page 7
[1] To quote from your letter again. “Without addressing other arguments
[2] it seems a matter for plain common sense that as in the medical
[3] and other professions there is a deacon of probation an opportunity
[4] as it were before a man is admitted into the full exercise of his
[5] profession so also it should be in the [Chris]tian ministry and this
[6] the two orders of deacons and priests supply.“ This illlustration
[7] you here address. I will now endeavour to apply to my own case.
[8] For nearly four years before I left home I applied myself as
[9] you are aware to the study of medicine ^but^ not with the view of
[10] becoming a practising physician, for my mind was already
[11] made up to go out as a missionary. I attended the regular lectures
[12] walked the Hospital paid my fees and obtained my certificate.
[13] For six months I was medical resident in one of the Dublin
[14] Hospitals. The responsibilities of the post were great, its duties
[15] arduous, but there were limits, in very serious cases we were
[16] expected to send for the attending surgeon or physician and
[17] were forbidden to attempt the treatment of them on our own.
[18] responsibility. In fact that was the {diaconate?] of medicine.
[19] After I was accepted as a missionary of the Society, it
[20] would have been necessary for me, had I wished to obtain
[21] my Medical Diploma to have remained some months
[22] longer in Ireland. This delay I did not feel it right
[23] to make so was reluctantly obliged to leave without my
[24] medical Diploma. Thus I am as it were, still only
[25] a deacon in Medicine. As for the last 10 years these
[26] missions have been without a missionary in full orders
[27] so they have been without the services of a qualified
[28] doctor. During that time I have seen and treated all
[29] kinds of cases, and performed many operations. On one
[30] occasion I extracted a vesical calculus an ounce
[31] weight. Had I attempted such a thing while in hospital
[32] I would’ve been expelled in disgrace, and justly so
Page 8
[1] for their were those who were properly appointed to perform
[2] such operations. While I might only assist. Have I got
[3] myself into disgrace by performing the operation here? On
[4] the contrary I have called forth the admiration of those who
[5] have heard of it. And why? I was enabled to afford relief
[6] without claiming any right to as opposed to others properly
[7] appointed but simply because they were not to be had
[8] at the time. It is in this spirit and this spirit alone
[9] that I would wish to act with my ministerial duties. I approve
[10] as fully as you yourselves do of the two orders of the Deacons and
[11] priests and believe them to be scriptural. and I entirely
[12] disclaim any intention of setting up my private judgement
[13] against the order of the Church or habitually assuming the
[14] duties of the priesthood before being called thereto. Just as I
[15] would decline to take the responsibility of treating any severe
[16] bodily ailment were there those properly qualified
[17] to do it. Dear and respected [Chris]tian friends you must not
[18] think that I am ruthlessly conventing your feelings
[19] and turning contrary to your wishes by not taking
[20] priest’s orders. Not you alone bear this burden. I too have
[21] my share. By the stand I take I am opposing the wishes
[22] of the B[isho]p of the diocese, the Society under whom I work
[23] nearly all the members of my own and wifes family
[24] and many of my best friends. is that no burden? What
[25] would you have me to do? Is it not to exercise myself
[26] always to have a conscience void of offence toward
[27] God and man? I appeal to you as brethren as [Chris]tians.
[28] Will any amount of advantage likely to accrue to the Mission
[29] justify my coming forward and saying I think I am
[30] called of God when I do not in my most earnest soul think
[31] it? In every step in my life, hitherto I could {???} his
[32] hand and shall I move in this before I see his finger
Page 9
[1] pointing out the way and feel his strong arm stretched
[2] out to help me through the temptations which beset the office.
[3] No. No. Methinks I hear the echo of your reply “wait on the
[4] Lord be of good courage and he shall strengthen their heart,
[5] wait I say unto the Lord“
[6] You express a fear of my leaving the Church of England
[7] which you liken to a goodly ship in which we are sailing
[8] and truly goodly ship she is which for so many years
[9] has ridden out the storm and wave and well I
[10] know her timbers are sound, her nails untorn, her masts
[11] unsprung, fully formed is she to combat the battle and
[12] the breeze. but— and hear lies the danger. While most
[13] of her admirals, captains, officers, petty officers and crew
[14] are intent on beautifying her hull, decking her with
[15] flags and viewing her certificate of A.1. at Lloyd’s
[16] your “unscrupulous mutineers“ deep down in her
[17] dark hold or silently driving their noiseless augurs
[18] and piercing her best planks. How long will the
[19] good ship stand this? Thus much I say, but
[20] I am thankful that I have not been called upon
[21] as yet to decide the question of learning or remaining
[22] in any church. I do not and never did belong to the
[23] English Church. Except in so far as she was united
[24] to and formed part of the Irish Church. My being
[25] ordained in London was not from predilection, but
[26] simply because before disestablishment of the
[27] Irish Church no B[ishop] except the B[isho]p of London and the
[28] A[r]rchB[isho]ps of Canterbury and York could ordain for
[29] the Colonies when the Churches were disunited I took
[30] the stand with the Church of Ireland. Now the Irish
[31] Church has taken all the work augers from her
[32] “unscrupulous mutineers“ and stopped many of the holes.
Page 10
[1] so that the mutineers finding too hot for them have
[2] been off to the English ship there to carry on their
[3] deadly work unmolested. What therefore aught have
[4] been a serious question for me. has been solved for
[5] me with but a little anxiety on my part.
[6] You will perhaps think that I have addressed you
[7] too independently and have not shewn that respect
[8] and deference to which you are entitled. Should
[9] any such thought strike you I would beg you to bear
[10] in mind that the matters referred to in this letter only
[11] indirectly affect the actual work of the mission. Here
[12] I feel can speak more freely than if I had been
[13] accused of introducing any novelty or teaching
[14] anything opposed to the principals of the Ch[urch] Miss[ionary] Soc[iety].
[15] Still if there is any passage or word in the letter
[16] which seems to {???} of disrespect I willingly apologize
[17] for it was not with that intention was it written.
[18] Yours Very Sincerely
[19] Robt Tomlinson