REVEREND

Seventh-day Adventist Publishing Association · Battle Creek, Mich. · Jun 7, 1877

Some of the ministers in England have been engaged in a lawsuit, to find out whether a preacher not belonging to the established church had a right to assume the title Reverend as a prefix to his name. If they disliked such unscriptural titles as much as we, they would rather contend for the privilege of leaving them off. Mr. Spurgeon, not approving of giving flattering titles, writes thus in his Sword and Trowel:—

“We cannot lay down the pen without asking why so many brethren still retain the title of Reverend? We are willing to reverence the aged pastor, and we did not hesitate to give that title to our beloved friend, George Rogers, just in the same way as we use the term, ‘the venerable Bede,’ or, ‘the judicious Hooker;’ but we are not prepared to reverence every stripling who ascends the pulpit; and, moreover, if we thought it due to others to call them reverend, we should still want some reason for their calling themselves so. It seems rather odd to us that a man should print upon his visiting card the statement that he is a reverend person. Why does he not occasionally vary the term, and call himself amiable, estimable, talented, or beloved? Would this seem odd? Is there any valid objection to such a use of adjectives, after the fashion is once set by employing the word reverend?”

If a man were to assume the title of Reverend for the first time in history, it would look ridiculous if not presumptuous or profane. Why does not the Sunday-school teacher call himself, ‘the Respectable John Jones,’ or the city missionary club himself, ‘the Hard-working William Evans’? Why do we not, as members of secret orders and others do, go in for ‘worthy masterships’ and ‘past grands’ and the like? I hope that we can reply that we do not care for such honors, and are content to leave them to the men of the world, or to the use of those who think they can do some good thereby.

It may be said that the title of Reverend is only one of courtesy, but then, so was the title of Rabbi among the Jews; yet the disciples were not to be called Rabbi. It is at any rate a suspicious circumstance that among mankind no class of persons should so commonly describe themselves by a pretentious title, as the professed ministers of the lowly Jesus. Peter and Paul were right reverend men, but they would have been the last to have called themselves so.

“No sensible person does reverence us one jot the more because we assume the title. It certainly is in some cases a flagrant misnomer, and its main use seems to be the pestilent one of keeping up the unscriptural distinction of clergy and laity. A lad, fresh from college, who has just been placed in a pulpit, is the Reverend Smith, while his eminently godly grandfather, who has for fifty years walked with God, and is now ripe for Heaven, has no such claim for reverence. A gentleman of ability, education, and eminent piety, preaches in various places with much zeal and abundant success, but he is no Reverend; while a man of meagre gifts, whose principal success seems to lie in scattering the flock, wears the priestly prefix, having a name to be reverenced when he commands no esteem whatever.

“This may be a trifle; many, no doubt, so regard it; why then are they not prepared to abstain from it? The less the value of the epithet, the less reason for continuing the use of it. It may be hard to say who has a right to it, for many use it who have not been pastors for years, and have not preached a sermon for many a day; what on earth are they to be reverenced for? Other men are always preaching, and yet no one calls them Reverend; but why not? The distribution of this wonderful honor is not fairly arranged. We suggest that, as the wife is ‘to see that she reverence her husband,’ every married man has a degree of claim to the title of Reverend and the sooner all benedicts exercise the privilege, the sooner will the present clerical use of it pass out of fashion.

“We wonder when men first sought out this invention, and from whose original mind did the original sin emanate. We suspect that he lived in the Roman Row of Vanity Fair, although the Rev. John Bunyan does not mention him. One thing is pretty certain, he did not flourish in the days of Rev. Paul, or the Rev. Apollos, or the Rev. Cephas.”

As to the origin of this title, in its application to ministers of the gospel, the Rev. Brooke Lambert, in a letter to the London Times, gives some of the desired knowledge. He says, “The registers of the parish of Tamworth date back to the reign of Phillip and Mary, 1556. The first title given in them to a clergyman is the old title ‘Sir,’ with which Shakespeare has made us familiar. In May, 1567, we have an entry, ‘Sir Peter Stringar, curate.’ The clergyman who succeeded him is called ‘Sir Richard Walker;’ but there are other contemporaneous entries, such as ‘sacerdos,’ ‘clericus,’ ‘preacher,’ and ‘verbi minister.’ These latter seem to have obtained till, in King James’ reign, we have the prefix ‘master,’ which, as we know, was applied to the great divine, Master Hooker, and this practice seems by our registers to have been continued through the commonwealth, though ‘Minister of the Gospel’ is sometimes added.

“We have, however, in 1657, the first use of the word ‘reverend,’ evidently in this case as a special mark of respect, not as a formal title. On ‘11 June, 1657, was buried our Reverend Pastor, Master Thomas Blake, minister of Tamworth.’ In 1693 we have a clergyman by name Samuel Collins. I had noticed with curiosity an erasure before his name in each of the casualties, baptismal and funereal, recorded in our register. At last, in 1701, I was lucky enough to find an unerased entry, and it appears that the obnoxious word was the title ‘Revd.’ (so written) prefixed to his ‘Mr.’ However, he seems not to have been able to hold to this title. One of his children, baptized in 1706, is baptized as the child of plain Samuel Collins, minister; and when he died in 1706 he was buried without the title ‘Reverend’—as Mr. (i. e. Master) Samuel Collins, minister of Tamworth. Henceforward the same address is used till November, 1727, and after that date the prefix ‘Reverend’ never seems to have been omitted.”—The Common People.