|
Plain Text Transcription |
From Edward Kilvington [at Fenstanton near St Ives, Huntingdonshire, to T.H. at Aldwincle] – ‘Substance of a conversation between the Bishop of Lincoln and myself, at Buckden Palace (official residence of the Bishop of Lincoln). September 15th 1794’ The bishop [George Pretyman Tomline] started the conversation by saying that he supposed that Kilvington was here concerning the curacy at Fenstanton. He had received complaints that Kilvington performed ‘divine service in an enthusiastic manner, not only by Mr Cowling, but by several others also, who were better judges than he.’ In such a case, Tomline could not allow the minister concerned to remain in this diocese, but he was prepared to hear Kilvington’s defense. Kilvington replied that he was sorry to have incurred the bishop’s displeasure but did not conceive that he had done anything that could justify dismissal. He went on to say “that there are my Lord, undoubtedly, many pious and well-meaning persons, who have acted irregularly and may be enthusiastically inclined, but I believe that in general I have been thought of very differently, as being of a grave rather than an enthusiastic turn….” He was willing to give the bishop all the reassurances that were in his power, either by responding concerning points of doctrine or by presenting all his sermons before him. Kilvington also urged the bishop to enquire of him from the Bishop of Gloucester and reminded him of the testimonial from Dr Elliston. Tomline said that he had no doubt concerning Kilvington’s moral character ‘but that he must believe I had acted in an enthusiastic manner.’ Kilvington argued that were it not the case that sometimes people were misrepresented as enthusiasts. The bishop denied that he knew of any person who was undeservedly given the label of enthusiast and were there not families in the parish who stayed away from the church because of Kilvington’s conduct? Kilvington denied that such was the case, except for Mr Cowling who always been very irregular in his attendance and had recently stayed away completely. The bishop also asked if there were people from other parishes who attended Kilvington’s services and he admitted that many from the parishes of Drayton and St Ives did attend, but not at his invitation or because of any measures adopted by him with the aim of attracting outsiders. The bishop then challenged him with the recent application to expand the seating capacity. Kilvington accepted that this was the case, but that the late churchwarden (Cowling’s colleague) had also raised the possibility of incorporating some more benches into the chancel, which part of the church was ‘separated from the rest by glass doors and windows.’ Tomline then asked if parishioners had not been deprived of their seats because of the influx of people from outside the parish and had they not complained of this inconvenience? Kilvington answered by saying that he had never heard of any person ‘holding pews’ (people who rented a pew) being deprived of their places and had not received any complaint from anyone whatsoever. Tomline then charged him with allowing other people to officiate despite the bishop’s injunction against the practice. Kilvington denied the accusation and stated that he had even abandoned a planned journey to Yorkshire in order to abide by the bishop’s mandate. Through this abandonment, he had been denied the opportunity of introducing to his relations the young woman who has recently become his wife. Tomline asked if he had intended employing anyone during this absence? The bishop has heard that Kilvington has a very ‘enthusiastical’ acquaintance and if such persons were allowed to operate in the churches, it would give offence. Kilvington replied that he would have avoided employing anyone that could cause such a problem. The bishop asked if Kilvington conformed rigidly to the liturgy? He replied that he did and that was from principle. Was Kilvington in the habit of using one of the collects before the sermon, as is the general custom? He answered that he did sometimes but more often varied the form – however if that is something on which Tomline felt strongly, he would abandon the practice. The bishop said that he must have a general custom followed throughout the diocese. He then asked concerning singing? ‘I told him that it was our custom to sing always one psalm and one hymn; that I had brought with me in my pocket, the small collection of psalms and hymns in use amongst us (and which had been originally published by Mr [Charles] Simeon for his own church in Cambridge) and that I submitted it very readily to his Lordship’s perusal. He said that he objected in toto to the use of hymns as unauthorized and if he were to continue my continuance at Fenstanton…he must insist upon them being laid aside. How often he said, are you in the habit of singing? I replied twice during the service and occasionally once more after sermon; to the custom of singing after sermon, he said, he should undoubtedly object, as only the practice of enthusiasts. He could allow nothing at Fenstanton, but which was usual in the neighboring churches and there was not a church in the county where such a custom obtained, except the minister was enthusiastic – who is that gives out psalms and hymns? I answered, the clerk – NB upon reconsidering the reply which I had made to his Lordship’ several queries. I found it necessary to explain myself further respecting this, I sent therefore…to Buckden a letter of which the following is a copy - My Lord, I am sorry to find upon recollection…that I may very possibly have led your Lordship into an error by the answer which I gave to one of your questions concerning the singing. You enquired who it was that gave out the psalms and hymns to the congregation and I remember that I gave without hesitation, the clerk. I forgot at the time to mention…that I myself have been in the habit of giving out the hymn when we have sung one after the sermon, but at that time only, and that it was not our custom to sing at all after sermon but when the service was in the afternoon…’ Returning to the subject of the audience with the bishop. Tomline said that it was difficult to prove whether or not someone was an enthusiast, but in circumstances such as these, he needed to know if Kilvington would agree to the following conditions of his remaining in the parish: 1. Abandonment of the use of hymns altogether. 2. ‘Confining the congregation to twice singing only’ (singing psalms only) Kilvington agreed as he considered these above points to be non-essential. The bishop then asked about his manner of preaching – whether it was by memory with the help of notes, or delivered from a prepared text. Kilvington responded that during the first part of his time in the parish, he had used written sermons, but had recently used notes only and showed him an example that he had preached on the text “our conversation is in heaven.” (Philippians 3:20) Tomline examined it with great care and then said that he must object to Kilvington preaching in that manner because ‘it might be possible even from some of these heads to speak enthusiastically and that it was a mode of preaching, which none but men of an enthusiastical nature adopted.’ The bishop challenged Kilvington to name one ex-student of Cambridge who preached in this manner who was not an enthusiast. Kilvington argued that while it was the custom of ‘enthusiasts’ to preach extempore, it was still possible to preach that way and not be an enthusiast and he cited one of Kilvington’s own relations as an example - [Thomas] Robinson of Leicester, who the bishop must acknowledge to be a man of solid and judicious piety. Tomline accepted that Robinson was indeed a pious, worthy and sensible man, but he did nevertheless have the reputation of being an enthusiast. The bishop then demanded to know if Kilvington would consent to preach only from a prepared text as a condition of him remaining in his parish? Kilvington replied that he had found great comfort in preaching extempore, having suffered much from a complaint in his eyes that had resulted in very painful surgery and as a result had been advised to avoid writing wherever possible. Tomline stated that he would be satisfied with nothing less than Kilvington’s compliance in this matter and Kilvington therefore felt that he had no choice but to agree. The bishop said that he was hopeful that Kilvington could be recovered from enthusiasm, but that if he continued ‘in the way you have set out, you may be followed and admired by people of a certain class, but you will lose the good opinion of all respectable persons and forfeit all hopes of advancement in your profession, which you may properly look forward to. As to preaching, you must there indeed be left to your own discretion but I hope you will not abuse it. I would wish you to preach with earnestness indeed, but take care that you avoid all rambling. You will remember that if I hear complaints in future (admitting that you are suffered to stay) I shall certainly then remove you; and that it is in my power not only to exclude you from this diocese, but by writing to all the rest of the bishops, every other also…’ The bishop then dismissed him, saying that he would write concerning his decision very soon after he had made further enquiry concerning Kilvington. (1 sheet, 4p.) 15 September 1794 |
Thomas Haweis Documents and Images at Bridwell Library
