Statement of the Robert Tomlinson in reference to the withdrawal of his license by Bishop Hills
Page 1
[1] Statement of the Reverend R. Tomlinson
[2] in reference to the withdrawal of his
[3] License by Bishop Hills
[4] On the morning of Thursday the 19th of April
[5] I received the enclosed revocation of License
[6] and the letter from Bishop Hills and Mr.
[7] Drake (also enclosed). Since then no further
[8] communication have passed between
[9] us on the subject.
[10] Bishop Hills in withdrawing my license does
[11] not indicate any law that I have broken
[12] but justifies the adoption of such an extreme
[13] measure by the supposition that, as he had
[14] previously remonst[r]ated with Mr. Duncan
[15] I must have acted in a refractory and
[16] rebellious spirit.
[17] Now I maintain that in simply preaching
[18] in the Reformed Episcopal Church and receiving
[19] as one of the congregation, the Holy Communion
[20] in that church, I have broken no law of
[21] the Church of England. Moreover the remonstration
[22] of Bishop Hills with Mr. Duncan with his
[23] circumstance with him as a layman
[24] for giving and public lecture on the Reformed
Page 2
[1] Episcopal Church and could only be made
[2] applicable to this case had I preached upon
[3] or for the Reformed Episcopal Church, which
[4] I did not.
[5] Again. My visit to Victoria was a matter
[6] not in anyway connected with Bishop Hills
[7] or the Reformed Episcopal Church. So long as
[8] the dispute between Bishop Hills and Mr. Cridge
[9] lasted I refrained from taking any part but
[10] now that all matters of dispute are at an end
[11] I come forward and in the in the spirit and letter
[12] of the Church Missionary Society rules hold
[13] out the hand of fellowship and [Chris]tian brotherhood
[14] to Mr. Craig and finding ^him^ overburdened with
[15] the work of his large district offered my
[16] assistance so far as a consistent with my
[17] position as a Minister of the Church of
[18] England.
[19] Bishop Hills assumes that the effect of his
[20] revocation of my license is to incapacitate
[21] me from officiating in the Church Missionary
[22] Society Missions in this diocese. Now as
[23] none of the churches attached to the Society’s
[24] Missions in this diocese or consecrated
[25] buildings. I cannot see how the revocation
[26] of my license can affect me except
[27] so far as the Church Missionary Society
Page 3
[1] rule can be made to bear on the matter but
[2] it appears to me (and I say it with all deference
[3] to and respect for those in authority) that that
[4] rule cannot be made applicable to this
[5] province at the present time in under
[6] existing circumstances. When Bishop Hills
[7] was appointed he received his letter patent
[8] from the Crown. Since then British Columbia
[9] has become a province of Canada and since
[10] this union no recognition of the Episcopal
[11] church as such has been sought for or obtained
[12] from either the Canadian Government or the
[13] Provincial House of Representatives. Moreover
[14] since the connection of British Columbia with
[15] Canada Bishop Hills has formed a Synod
[16] with full legislative and executive authority.
[17] Himself retaining a veto and this he has done
[18] without any enabling powers from
[19] legislature thereby assuming to himself
[20] the Authority of the Queen as head of the
[21] Church. From this it would appear (and I
[22] may say that I am supported in this
[23] opinion by someone who from their position
[24] and training are competent to Judge of
[25] such matters) that Bishop Hills has
Page 4
[1] no legal statue as a Bishop of the Church of
[2] England in this Province and though Bishop
[3] Hills still uses the name of the church of England
[4] to give affect to his claims of a divine
[5] authority to rule the Church he as he has in reality
[6] no authority except of and by the consent of
[7] the members of the Church. Thus it is that
[8] while it has been thought right (and it may
[9] be experience has proved the wisdom of it)
[10] that the missionaries of the Church Missionary
[11] Society should hold licenses from Columbia
[12] Bishops whose legal status and limit
[13] of authority are regulated by the laws
[14] of the Church of England and that the withdrawal
[15] of any missionary by such a Bishop
[16] should incapacitate that missionary from
[17] officiating as a clergyman of the Church
[18] of England in the Church Missionary Society’s
[19] missions in that diocese such concession
[20] on the part of the Society should not, I humbly
[21] submit, be made a precedent for the
[22] Society to give the same license to a
[23] Bishop the undefined and unlimited
[24] nature of whose authority seems to override
[25] the authority of the Society well at the
[26] same time it opens a door. whenever the
Page 5
[1] Bishop, as the present case is biased
[2] by strong sectarian feelings of hampering
[3] the Missionaries in the lawful exercise
[4] of that [Chris]tian charity and friendship
[5] with the other [Chris]tian bodies as will tend to
[6] encourage and strengthen the hands
[7] of the different labourers in the Lords
[8] harvest field.
[9] While I freely admit that I preached and
[10] received the Holy Communion in the
[11] Reformed Episcopal Church and humbly
[12] submit that by doing so I have not broken
[13] any law of the Church of England nor
[14] compromised the Church Missionary Society
[15] whose servant I am. I would give a
[16] distinct denial to the charge that I officiated
[17] in that church.
[18] Unless the ^word^ “officiated“ in the letter of
[19] revocation of License refers to preaching
[20] the charge is groundless as I have not taken
[21] any part in the service of that
[22] church.
Page 6
[1] In conclusion let me add that I feel
[2] certain that when this matter comes forward
[3] for decision no mere supposition of
[4] bad motives will be let to have any
[5] weight against the simple facts of
[6] the case.
