THE TERM “REVEREND.”

Dunstan Times, Issue 656, 13 November 1874, Page 3

THE TERM “REVEREND.”

o—(From the European Mail.) Just before the close of the Wesleyan Con. feronce a matter of no small Interest to the Wesleyan body was brought forward. A Mr Keet, one of the authorised ministers of that communion, had the misfortune to lose a daughter by death, and, having laid her to rest in the churchyard of Owston Ferry, was desirous of a stone *to her memory. In the epitaph, which was brief and in good taste, the deceased is described as the daughter of the Rev. 11. Keet, Wesieyan minister. The incumbent of a parish has by law a right of veto upon the erection of monuments and upon the inscription of epitaphs. In the exercise of his discretion, the Vicar of Owston Ferry refused to allow the stone to be erected unless the words “Rev.” and “Wesleyan .minister” were struck out. This Mr Keet decliued to do, and appealed from the discretion of Mr Smith to that of his diocesan, the Bishop of Lincoln, who did not interfere. From the discretion of the Bishop Mr Keet appealed —on Mr Holt's principle—to that of the Archbishop, who expressed his opinion that the vicar ought not to press his objection, but be had no power to compel him to withdraw it. He thought, also, that the bishop would concur with him in that opinion. Thereupon Mr Keet sent his correspondence with the primate to the Bishop of Lincoln, stating at the time that Mr Smith, the vicar, refused to hold any communication with him except through the stonemason. The bishop, in reply, entered elaborately into the meaning of the terra “ reverend,” and the limitations of its'use, and finally ruled that on John Wesley’s own principles the preachers of his communion were laymen, and therefore had no right to use a title intended as the official designation of persons in Holy Orders. Undcr these circumstances, M r Keet has placed the correspondence in the hands of the Conference, who’liave referred it to a committee for consideration and report. In reviewing the correspnndcnc it is impossible not to regret that, whatever the powers , with which the law endows an incumbent in relation to such matters, they weren n t exercised with more tenderness and cons deration towards such a person as Mr Keet, at a time whtu his deepest feelings wou’d be most easily wounded. Legally, Mr Smith may be right, but in these days, when the clergy in not a few instances make for themselves little exemptions from the stringency of Ritual law, we think they might without violation of conscience or offence to anyone, use an equal latitude in their interpretation of the law of tombstones and epitaphs.