Kingsteignton Mission: To the Editor of The Daily Western Times: Sir, l thank you sincerely for the opportune aid you have afforded the Dissenters of Kingsteignton in making known the proceedings of the High Church Party connection with their late “Mission” in this village. They are looking forward to the time when, by aid of mission school, confession, and parish charities, they shall have crushed out Dissent and led back the parishioners as a body into the motherly arms of the old Woman of Rome. The Dissenters are few, poor, and weak, and need aid and sympathy, and in this view I was thankful that you had kindly given the substance of a letter of mine, which had appeared in a local paper on 4th December, where in I had attempted to show the truth a report that agents of the Church party had invited the attendance of the Dissenters at the Mission under false pretences and promises to which report the Rev. G. Y. Comyns, one of the curates, had ventured to give “emphatic” denial, not only for himself, but “on behalf of everyone connected with the mission” After inquiry I was enabled to state that an agent had come with a message from the Vicar inviting Dissenters to the services, and promising that nothing Which the Nonconformists could reasonably except would taught at the services, or words to that effect might have stated further facts which would have borne strong internal evidence of the truth of my informant’s story; but enough was said. With every motive to contradict my assertions, the Church party has not ventured to call my statements in question in a single iota. By their report they tacitly admit the truth of the report of the conversation between the agent and my informant – the pledge given to the Dissenters – that it was given by an agent from the Vicar. They thus admit that in flagrant breach of this pledge the doctrines of transubstantiation and auricular confession were preached to Dissenters, who trusted to the fulfilment the pledge; and as if these Popish doctrines were not enough, the impossibility any Dissenter going to Heaven and the inefficacy of their Services and sacraments, and the status of their ministers, were insultingly remarked on. Mr. Comyns seems to have thought that his simple denial of an awkward report Would have been enough to counteract the effect the original report — that the people of Kingsteignton were so much under control of their clergy that they would back him up his denial, and that others had too little spirit to resent the Jesuitical attempt deceive the Dissenters, and so while be answered for others he did not take care to consult with his friends to ascertain what promises they had made, or authorised be made, to the Dissenters. Your readers charitably imagine that Mr Comyns may have never seen my reply to him, since he has not answered it. But I sent a copy and hold his acknowledgement of its receipt. A fortnight has now elapsed since my letter was printed and published, and a week since I sent him a copy. He has not ventured to deny my statement, nor shown himself manly enough to apologise for himself or his friends. And I may fairly conclude that my statements and those of my informant are indisputable. Let us see what is involved in this. As to Mr. Comyns: He must either (a) have known the truth from the vicar and other friends and denied the report, knowing his denial to be untrue; or (b) he made inquiries of the vicar and his friends and was misled by them or (c) (as would seem more probable) Mr. Comyns ventured to make assertions to the doings his friends and to charge his opponents with making false statements thereon without knowing the least what his friends had really done, and without taking the trouble to make inquiries of his friends about it. Mr. Comyns may think this but a light charge. I leave the point to be decided by your readers who know the honour and truthfulness of a gentleman — and more clergyman. As to the vicar, may (a) have admitted the substantial accuracy of my informant’s statement to Mr. Comyns; (b) he may be able deny that he sent any message to the Dissenters by any agent, and that therefore he is not responsible for any promises made in his name, whether fulfilled or broken; (c) he may admit sending the invitation, but deny his having authorised the Promise. But he has not ventured to explain, and the case is such himself or someone whose character he is obliged to protect, that if he is personally innocent, he prefers to be open and have the burden cast on himself rather than put it on the right shoulder. As to the Church agent referred to, if the Vicar did not authorize the promise, the agent must father it. But in the absence of any further explanations, and whilst the Vicar continues use the same agent in Church matters, I think the public will think it most probable that Mr. Comyns rashly made an incorrect statement and gave his opponents the lie as to the conduct of some his friends of whom he made inquiries and that the agent’s story was made good faith, and that the Vicar allowed a promise made on his behalf to be broken by the missioners he employed. It may be asked, and what benefit sought by this expose’? I answer, no direct benefit. Clergymen who have reconciled their minds and consciences to the Romish confessional are not likely to be over nice in their moral perceptions to truth, nor to be deterred from pursuing their course of leading their parishioners back to Rome, by the charge that more out of several have deceived Dissenters for the good the Church. They will bow their heads like bulrushes to the breath of condemnation which thi3 case has excited. The less said the sooner forgotten, and when the breeze over and past they will Pursue their plans of open and secret proselytising as before. I further disclaim all ill feelings or revenge for the insults offered to the Dissenters as a body. There has been enough to excite one’s indignation, but unless one could prevent the recurrence of such treatment, I should feel it a sad waste of time to write this length merely to give vent to my feelings. But I write to expose these facts that wiser and more influential heads than mine may consider what is to be done in this emergency. Will the nation tamely sit by whilst the clergy are betraying the Protestant Established Church and rapidly handing it over to the Pope? I can remember the time when the introduction of the surplice in preaching and of the offertory was considered a dreadful evil, but John Bull got accustomed to these innovations, and now he is scarcely moved by the mass and the confessional. How is this? Is it the love of ease or philosophic indifference which shrinks from engaging earnest struggle, which has delayed the contest till the enemy has acquired the formidable strength it now exhibits? The Evangelical Churchmen, the Wesleyans and the Nonconformists (to say nothing of the Secularists) are all opposed to High Churchism and Catholicism. Probably more than half the farmers who are churchmen abstain from the services where these papistical practices prevail. Why then have they allowed a small clique of priests (bent magnifying their office) to make such vast alterations in the spirit and discipline of our Protestant Establishment? In our parish (which I suppose is but a sample of the generality of rural parishes) they preach Transubstantiation — bow to the altar — exhibit a pasteboard crucifix at the back of the pulpit — and have now openly introduced the confessional. I know nothing that remains to complete the round of the peculiarities of Romanism but the worship of the Virgin and the recognition of the Pope as the Supreme Head of the Catholic Church. As to the Virgin Mary, I have been informed that a Book of Prayers has been circulated from the Vicarage, which includes a prayer to the Virgin. During the late mission Roman Catholic medals struck at Lyons (the headquarters of the Roman Catholic Missionary Society) were distributed amongst the children in commemoration of their attendance at the Mission. With these special doctrines the peculiar practices and low morality of Rome are being introduced. Again, I ask, what are Protestants going to do? Are they waiting until the clergy have trained generations to Catholic notions and practices in the Public Elementary Schools? That is what they are doing. I would say a word especially to the yeomen and farm labourers of this and other parishes. I warn them against the apathy they are showing on this subject, and especially as to the introduction of the confessional. Do they really know what it means? I hear that many of them have read my letter previous, and put it aside with the remark that it is but a quarrel between Churchmen and Dissenters, and that the latter are very bitter. As to the bitterness of my letter, you, Sir, can judge, and if I were, I ask, is there no cause? But do these men know what passes in these confessionals? Let them remember what the course of their thoughts was on certain subject between the ages of 18 and 25, for example, and let them ask themselves how they would like their wives and daughters to be questioned by unmarried priests as to such thoughts, and being forced to give explicit answers to such questions; let them remember that after this inquisition their friends are forbidden by the priests to their husbands and parents what has passed between them and the Priest, and knowing this, will they any longer be contented and say that such letters as these are merely the ill-humour and jealousy of Dissenters? S. Pinsent. Dec. 20, 1875.
Transcribed in whole or part from scanned originals: Presented with or without modified text and punctuation. For absolute accuracy refer to the original newspapers. Source: The British Newspaper Archive.
Referenced
GRO0798 Devonport: Savery Pinsent: 1815 – 1886