Newspaper Page Text
148
Brethren Editors — l have for some time been
hoping that some of the brethren would write upon
the very important subject of “ the duty of the
churches to their preacher but as no one has at
tempted itj I am disposed, weak as the effort may
be, to write on it. I shall assume that the word of
God is plain and unmistakable upon that subject;
so plain that he “ that runs may read,” and I shall
further assume that we may know our duty from
His word, hence, it is only necessary to stir up our
pure minds by way of remembrance.
The O. S. Baptists contend universally that the
call to the ministry is irresistible, that God is not
frustrated in His choice, that there is a necessity for
the minister to go, that he must and will go, that
his choice is not consulted nor is it left to his option.
With equal truth it is contended that the preacher
is to preach to a people that the same Spirit that
called to the work of the ministry, works in the
minister that preparation, that fitness, arid endows
him with just such gifts and qualifications as the
Lord designs to be useful to His church militant.
It is equally evident that the same Spirit that oper
ates in the heart of the minister, and teaches him
his duty operates in the heart of private church
members teaching them their duty , not only to
God, but to their minister and to each other, so
that there is no schism in the bodv, but a congrui
ty in interest and sentiment. The above positions
are so evident that I need not, nor shall I stop to
prove them. Let us now examine the condition of
most of our preachers.
So far as this world’s goods are concerned they
are poor and have to maintain dependent families.
Their families call as loudly for the comforts and
conveniences of life as others; their children need
food, raiment and education as well as others.—
Being poor, they are compelled to neglect their
worldly interests to serve churches ; the interest of
their families must, in a great measure, be neglect
ed so that they may supply the destitute churches.
If they intimate that their families must be provid
ed for, they are told that they must preach for the
church, and that the Lord will provide, and in
many cases when the preacher has discharged his
duty by riding from 20 to 40 miles monthly, the
church does not give him enough to pay for the
hire ot his horse, to say nothing of his own time
and worth to his family. Brethren, these things
ought not so to be. But some will sav, that if we
give him too much, (it will be time enough to talk
about too much when we give enough,) it will
make him proud and haughty that it is best to
keep him humble, and I am sure upon that reason
ing we ought to have humble preachers if to keep
them in the depths of poverty will make them so.
I may he uncharitable, fearful I am, hut my opin
ion is that the argument to keep preachers poor is
founded in avarice and covetousness, and is but a
pretext to close the purse strings tighter and tight
er; that it is not so much for the glory of God that
they thus reason as it is to pamper up self and to
grow rich themselves, because God can only be
glorified when we oo his will, and his will is plain
upon that subject. And here I wish to quote at
southern baptist messenger.
some length from Paul, “ Who goelh a warfare any
time at his own charges?” Our preachers. ‘‘Who
planteth a vineyard and ealeth not of the fruit
thereof?” The same answer would apply to all the
other questions asked. “Or who feedeth a flock,
and eateth not of the milk of the flock?” How
unreasonable that would be to deny the feeder any
of the comforts of the flock, and yet is it not prac
ticed to a shameful degree ? “ Say I these things
as a man ? or saith not the law the same also?—
For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shall not
muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the
corn. Doth God take care for oxen ? Or saith he
it altogether for our sakes ?” It would seem that
when the apostle wrote the above bethought some
one might misconstrue or misapply his words, and
conclude that oxen literally were meant, and he
stops to explain or preach from the text, and shows
that preachers or ministers were meant, and he goes
on and says, “For our sakes, no doubt, this is writ
ten, that he that plougheth should plough in hope;
and that, he that thrasheih in hope should be par
taker ol his hope.” How can our ministers labor
in hope when we have year by year kept from them
that which they know belongs to them ? They are
compelled to toil on, wear themselves out in the
cause of truth, and for the good of their brethren,
without even hope that their necessities will bead
ministered unto. “It we have sown unto you spir
itual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap
your carnal things?” Here Paul beautifully argues
the doctrine of reciprocity. It is his business to
preach : while his time is taken up in spiritual
things —that too of necessity —it is nothing but a
reasonable thing, and not a great thing—a hard
ship—that he should be supported by those who
were allowed to stay at home and labor in carnal
things. This is a common sense view, and Paul
alludes to it when bespeaks of going a warfare at
his own charges. When we send our soldiers to
fight our battles for us, the government pays each
soldier a compensation to cover his worth of time
at home to his family, besides feeding him at the
public expense, and then when the war is ended be
is often allowed a pension as a mark of gratitude,
and also to insure him against want, aud in order
to raise this fund the people are willingly taxed.
But liete 1 must stop and explain, else someone
may say that I am in favor of applying this taxing
or tything principle to the church. Nothing is
farther from my views or desires, but T simply wish
ed to show that human government, corrupt as they
are, make provision for their soldiers, and shall the
church of God with their duty plainly marked out
and defined, withhold from its servants the reward
of their obedience ?
There is nothing compulsory except duty in our
offerings to our ministers. “ Freely ye have re
ceived, freely give,” is the command ; but brethren
must not suppose that this applies exclusively to the
ministers, and has no other application, they have
freely received the gospel from heaven ; they preach
it to us freely, and yet it is of necessity; now inas
much, as they give us freely of that which they
freely received, it is our duty freely to give to them
our temporal gifts, and here is reciprocation. I
hope no one will fur a moment conclude that I am
in favor of the hireling system by which a church
promises to give a certain salary to support gentle
men in broadcloth, living proud, profligate lives
and their families the most aristocratic in the com
munity, while the poor ate compelled in order to
support these hirelings to forego the comforts of
li f e. And 1 certainly hope that no one will for a
moment conclude that I am iu favor of taking the
preachet’s time for nothing, his wife and children
having to toil incessantly in order that they may
have the bare necessities of life, while he is ruling
through heat and cold to preach to his opulent
brethren who can boast of the number of bands
they work ; tell of their bales of cotton, and of goods
laid up in store for many days to come. The preach
er’s children are expected to have as good or better
education than others ; they are expected to dress
as well, and as to behavior, why that must be en
tirely unexceptional, or else their sins must be vis
ited upon their poor father: they are watched over
by the whole community, and no excuse can pal
liate delinquencies, tiny are a preacher’s children
and ought to be perfect. How current is the re
mark, “ That preachers have the worst children.”
How in the name of common sense can their chil
dren be educated when they have not the opportu
nity to go to school ? How can they dress well
when it takes all they can make to feed the family *
How can they behave better than other children
when their father is most of the time from home
and cannot cultivate their manners ? But if our
preacher is not dressed as well as other men, we
complain at liis want of pride: bis wife, all would
say, should be well dressed, and yet it takes money
or credit to buv clothes, he has not the former and
must resort to the latter : his brethren fail to re
munerate him as they should, his crops are cut
oft by drought, he fails, and then the cry is “ he is
too extravagant, iiv_-s too fast, dresses too fine,”and
very often the unkindest cut of all is, “ he is lazy.”
If this picture, and it is an ugly one I know, is not
true to the life, ttren I am most happily mistaken.
Brethren, are we not too exacting with our preach
er ! We require him to come at our bidding
through all sorts of weather, a storm is hardly a
good excuse, he must come great as the distance
may be, we will go if it suits our convenience ; ho
must preach whether he can spine the time from
his family or not we will give him something if it
has been a good crop year, and we are not too
%
much in debt, but above all if we have the will.
But l must be allowed to say that preachers are
reaping in some sense the reward of their own in.
discretion. They have been wont in times past to
condemn in such severe terms money paid preach
ers that in many instances’ no doubt the brethren
have slept over, Or have forgotten their duty. The
preachers were right then and now in condemning
the hireling system; but then the line of distinc
tion shall he drawn. D scriunnaliun is necessary,
separate ihe chaff from the wheat. At the risk cf
being presumptuous, 1 will say that I think they do
not now bring this subject to the notice of tht