The Oxford Methodists : $b Memoirs of the Rev. Messrs. Clayton, Ingham, Gambold, Hervey, and Broughton, with biographical notices of othersTyerman, L. (Luke)
History
The Oxford Methodists : $b Memoirs of the Rev. Messrs. Clayton, Ingham, Gambold, Hervey, and Broughton, with biographical notices of others
In these extracts, the reader may find the reasons why Hervey became a
pluralist. The thing cannot be commended; but, perhaps, in his case, it
may be pardoned. He himself disliked it; but the circumstances of his
widowed mother and fatherless sister, the importunity of his relatives,
and the advice of his friends, overcame his righteous repugnance. At
one time, he seems to have entertained the idea of giving one of the
livings to his friend Dr. Stonehouse;[204] but this was abandoned; and
Hervey placed himself in the extremely objectionable position of holding
two ecclesiastical benefices instead of only one. It is true, that, the
united populations of Weston-Favel and Collingtree were not more than
about six hundred souls; and that the income of the two livings was only
about £180 a year; but the question is, was it absolutely wrong, in
every case, to become a pluralist? If it was not, Hervey was excusable,
for, though £180 then was worth more than £600 now, the presentation to
the two benefices was his own hereditary property, and, subject to the
law of the land, he had a right to do as he liked with it. Still, the
being a pluralist was an ugly fact. Churches have always objected to it.
Even as early as the thirteenth century, at the Lateran council, holding
more than one benefice was expressly forbidden, by a canon, under the
penalty of deprivation; the same canon, however, granting the pope a
power to dispense with it in favour of persons of distinguished merit.
The practical result was, there were so many found with a title to this
merit, that the prohibition became useless. In this way, the holding of
more benefices than one, became legal; and such was the existing state of
things in the time of Hervey. The law of the land created difficulties;
but they were far from being insuperable. Two certificates had to
be obtained from the bishop of the Diocese, one for the Archbishop,
and the other for the Lord Chancellor. Testimonials, also, had to be
procured, from the neighbouring clergy, concerning the presentee’s
behaviour and conversation. He must also exhibit to the Archbishop, not
only his letters of order of deacon and priest, but also a certificate
of his having taken the degree of Master of Arts at the least, in one
of the Universities of the realm. These and other preliminaries had
to be observed; after which, if the Archbishop was satisfied, the
dispensation was granted (not by the pope as in former days, but), by the
Faculty Office; it was then confirmed under the broad seal of the Lord
Chancellor; and, finally, the affair was completed, by an application
to the bishop of the diocese where the living was situated, for the
presentee’s admission and institution into his second cure of souls.
Hervey had to pass through the whole of this worrying process; and,
beside other expenses, had to pay a stamp duty of £30 for every skin, or
paper, or parchment, on which his dispensation was engrossed. No wonder,
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account