Below is the OCR text representation for this newspapers page.

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