Ministerial Support.
James Dodson
[from The Reformed Presbyterian, Vol. I. No. XII, February, 1838. p. 359-365.]
The policy of Satan the grand adversary from the days of Constantine until the rise of Antichrist, and to the present time in the Episcopal church of England, has been to pamper the clergy, and by that means to corrupt the church. At present, and especially in this country, his device is to reduce them to poverty, and so discourage youth from dedicating themselves, and parents from dedicating their sons, to the ministry, and to distract the minds of ministers by the anxieties of penury. An intelligent Christian people should be careful to counteract the devices of the enemy of souls, in both these respects. Perhaps as good a rule as could be adopted, would be, that a pastor of a congregation, should be as well provided for in temporal things as the middle class among the people. The means of amassing property equal to the most opulent should neither be sought for, nor furnished. “Thou therefore endure hardness as a good soldier of Jesus Christ. No man that warreth entangleth himself with the affairs of this life, that he may please him who hath chosen him to be a soldier.” 2 Tim. ii. 3, 4. Those whose wish it is earnestly to exhort men that they renounce the world and choose the better part which shall never be taken from them, ought not to be, nor in any respect appear to be, grasping after filthy lucre. Perhaps it is an invariable rule, that great worldly opulence corrupts a minister of the gospel. When a clergyman by the contributions of the people is placed in such a condition of temporal comfort that he can provide for himself and his household things honest in the sight of all men, and owe no man anything but love, there is no apology for his engaging in any secular employment.
The provision made for the temporal support of the priests in Israel, placed them beyond the reach of temptation and rendered it almost impossible for them to embark in secular pursuits. “And the Lord spake unto Aaron, Thou shalt have no inheritance in their land, neither shalt thou have any part among them: I am thy part and thine inheritance among the children of Israel.” Num. xviii. 20. This was a blessed and glorious inheritance, and should comfort the ministers of Christ, amidst all their toils, privation, earthly poverty and reproach. Were it not for this heavenly and most blessed consolation, the faithful ministers of Christ, who generally suffer most in the distribution of earthly sorrows, would many a time fail and be discouraged. “If in this life only we have hope, we are of all men most miserable.”
But at the same time, the priests under the law were amply provided for in earthly good things, by the laws of the God of Israel whom they served. Unless the throne and the people became so corrupt as utterly to disregard the statutes of the Lord, it was quite impossible, that they, or their widowed wives, or orphan children could be reduced to want, while the people of Israel enjoyed a competency. “Command the children of Israel, that they give unto the Levites of the inheritance of their possession cities to dwell in; and ye shall give unto the Levites, suburbs for their cities round about them. And the cities they shall have to dwell in, and the suburbs of them shall be for their cattle, and for their goods and for all their beasts. And the suburbs of the cities, which ye shall give unto the Levites, shall reach from the wall of the city and outward a thousand cubits and round about. And ye shall measure from without the city, on the east side two thousand cubits, and on the south side two thousand cubits, and on the west side two thousand cubits, and on the north side two thousand cubits, and the city shall be in the midst: this shall be to them the suburbs of the city. So all the cities which ye shall give to the Levites, shall be forty-eight cities: them shall ye give with their suburbs.” Num. xxxv. 2—7. Reckoning by the sacred cubit which was probably used, for these cities were especially holy, the whole of these lands, lying without the city, was seventeen hundred and fifty yards, or nearly one mile. If the city was a mile square, the suburbs embraced a territory of eight square miles. As there were forty-eight cities the church lands amounted to three hundred and eighty-four square miles, or two hundred and forty-five thousand seven hundred and sixty acres. The number of all the males in the tribe of Levi, a short time before they passed Jordan, was twenty-two thousand. Num. iii. 39.—Doubling these to include the females, all the souls of the Levitical tribe were forty-four thousand. Were all the land in. Holland equally apportioned among the families, each family would not possess half the amount possessed by each Levitical family, exclusive of their lots in their cities. A similar distribution of the land in Great Britain would make the landed property of each family about equal to that of each family of the Levites. One thousand cubits, or about one third of a mile of the suburbs, in width, is supposed to have been occupied as stalls and yards for cattle, and for gardens, while the remaining two thousand cubits are thought to have been pasture lands. Some such arrangement appears to have been intended by the division of the suburbs into two portions.
Beside these glebe lands, or parsonage fields, each family owned a house and lot in the city. Attention to their lands and city property, would afford the priests an opportunity to exercise themselves in as much manual labour, as might conduce to recreation and health, while there was little to cherish worldly mindedness, or tempt to the love of filthy lucre.
Beside all this, their clothing was furnished, and their tables supplied by the tithes, or a levy of one tenth on the products of the soil, and on the proceeds of the flocks. They were thus amply supplied with every necessary comfort, freed from worldly cares, and placed beyond the reach of temptation to seek for worldly opulence. It was impossible that they should become possessed of great earthly riches. Their families too were secured in a competency. In view of death, no priest had any more occasion to perplex himself with anxiety respecting the sustenance of his wife and children after his death, than while he was alive and with them. His house, after his decease, was occupied by his widow and children. When any priest's daughter married into another tribe, she lost, during her marriage state, the right to eat of the sacred things, i. e. to be supported by the .tithes ; but if she was divorced, or became a widow, provided she had no children to raise up a family in another tribe, she had the right to return to her father’s house, there to live of the ecclesiastical revenues. Lev. xx. 13. The sons and daughters of the priest all eat, as well as his wife, of the sacred things, and they were not deprived of them by the death of the head of the family. The sons were priests from their infancy. In the account of the census which was taken of the tribe of Levi, all the males from a month old and upward; and of the family of the Kohathites, it is written:—“In the number of all the males from a month old and upward, were eight thousand and six hundred, keeping the charge of the sanctuary.” Num. iii. 28. The males from a month old were priests “keeping the charge of the sanctuary.” If a widow who had married out of the tribe pf Levi, might return to her father’s house and live of the sacred things, much more might the widowed mother of a priest, though he were but a month old, and his orphan sisters, claim their support from the revenues of the priesthood. If a priest died childless, his widow, of course, was supported. for she might return to her father’s house. If at his death, he left daughters only, they were entitled to support from the church, for they might be married and become the mothers of priests. What a wise, beneficent and even bountiful provision was matte by these statutes for the temporal support of the priests of the Lord. It ought to command the admiration of all ages. Why not? It proceeded from infinite wisdom and infinite goodness.
It is true that the Levitical priesthood is abolished, and with it the sacerdotal cities, their suburbs, and the whole tithe system. But is there no lesson of instruction taught by it to the New Testament church? Undoubtedly God clearly declared his will not only that “they who serve at the altar should live by the altar,” and “that the ox that treadeth out the corn should not be muzzled;” but also that their support should be in plenty, but not in opulence. Can any good reason be assigned why God should will his ministers to be supplied less amply in temporal comforts, under the new dispensation, than under the old? In Israel the expense of the sacrifices, the time occupied in attending their three annual festivals, the support of their armies and other numerous incidental expenditures imposed onerous burdens on the worshippers. A very small proportion of what they contributed to the support of their ecclesiastical establishment, would now place the ministers of the sanctuary in a situation where they would have all and abound.
Before anyone can enter well prepared on the ministry, either by his own efforts, or out of his patrimony, there must be expended on his education as much as would have been sufficient to commence any ordinary branch of secular business with a prospect of success. That he should labor through a whole life of toil in the service of the sanctuary, all the time in straightened circumstances, be compelled to practice the most rigid economy, in order to owe no man anything, and after all, leave his widow, and orphan sons and daughters in a state of entire destitution, is not according to the spirit of the divine legislation in this matter. There are many expenditures which a minister must make that are not necessary for others. “A bishop must be given to hospitality.” Being necessarily much abroad, and much resort, both of friends and strangers, to his house, his raiment costs him more than that of others. While all expect, and while he is bound in all humility and duty, to avoid costly apparel, it would be generally disgusting should he appear in a sordid dress. It would be ascribed to a want of decency and taste, or to an avaricious spirit. His correspondence with his brethren, and others, subjects him, very commonly, to a heavy and unavoidable tax, if he would be generally useful, or if he takes an interest in the welfare of the church at large. Attention to intellectual cultivation requires books; to know the movements of God’s providence—what are the signs of the times, and the progress of public sentiment, access to the reading of periodical literature is indispensable. Of all this he must have some knowledge, “to acquit himself as a workman that needeth not to be ashamed.” To deprive him of the means of such enlargement of his intellectual treasures, is most inauspicious to the interests of a congregation. All this he ought to have, and be able, with judicious economy, to leave his widow and children at his death a moderate and decent competency. That it is the duty of the church to provide for all this, is inscribed, as in the light of a sunbeam, on the whole code of laws enacted to make provision for the support of the ministry, and on the reasonings of Paul on the same subject, in his epistles to the church at Corinth.
Even in relation to temporal prosperity, the labors of the faithful minister of the gospel are productive of more worldly advantage to the people of his charge, than all they contribute to his support. The diffusion of intelligence, the cultivation of sobriety, of industry, of temperance, of integrity in dealing, and of economy, tend, as a system of divinely appointed means, to the verification of the Bible maxim:—“The hand of the diligent maketh rich.” There seems to be some allusion to this in the reasonings of the apostle Paul on this subject: “Who goeth a warfare at any time at his own charges? who planteth a vineyard, and eateth not of the fruit thereof? or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk of the flock? 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 shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? Or saith he it for our sakes? For our sakes, no doubt, this is written: that he that ploweth should plow in hope; and he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things? Do ye not know, that they which minister about holy things live of the things of the temple? and they which wait at the altar are partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained, that they which preach the gospel should live of the gospel.” 1 Cor. ix, 7—14. While in some parts of this argument of the apostle on the subject of ministerial support, there appears to be an allusion to the improvement in the temporal estate of Christians, by the collateral effects of gospel ordinances, this is not that, on which the main stress is laid. Through them spiritual good things, incomparably more important than all carnal goods, are imparted in the ministrations of the sanctuary; and therefore on every principle of equity, those who labor in imparting, as ministers of Christ, these far better blessings, are entitled to a competent supply of temporal comforts. After having established the equity of the claim, he ratifies it by the ordination of the Lord.
God’s blessing attends upon liberality in this matter. “Consider now from this day and upward—I will bless you.” Hag. ii. 18, 19. From the day that they began to contribute liberally toward the building of the temple of the Lord, instead of blasting, mildew and hail by which they had suffered for “withholding more than was meet,” God promises that they should be blessed and prospered in their labours. All this is as applicable now, as in the. days of the prophet Haggai. “There is that scattereth and yet increaseth.” The liberal soul shall not want. “The liberal deviseth liberal things, and by liberal things shall he stand.”
If all such texts apply to contributions for the support of the poor, especially poor saints, where the claims are founded on charity, how much more emphatic, their application to ministerial support, in which the claims are founded both in charity and equity, though they are not at present enforced by human laws?
We have reason to bless God that notwithstanding many temporal discouragements, he puts it into the hearts of so many to imitate the most illustrious example of the great and holy apostle of the Gentiles, to dedicate themselves to the Lord for the work of the holy ministry and to look for their reward from the best and most bountiful of masters in a better country, even a heavenly. This too is the more praiseworthy as the difficulties which they have to encounter ordinarily commence long before they enter on their ministry. For while parents who have the means generally educate their sons for the learned professions of the law and medicine, it is commonly thought enough, that those who are destined for the ministry, be furnished with a collegiate education, and then left to their own efforts, or to the liberality of the church, for the attainment of a theological education, qualifying them for the pulpit.
After all, the ministers of the gospel, by owing no man anything, by purchasing no article until they can pay for it, by making the first appropriation out of their salary for the payment of rents, and by a strict economy, can “provide things honest in the sight of all men.” Life, and consequently their toils and privations, are short, and “having turned many unto righteousness, they shall shine as the brightness of the firmament and as the stars for ever and ever.”