6 Let him that is taught in the word make him that hath taught him partaker of all his goods.

In these words the Apostle sets down another rule concerning the maintenance of the ministry and a competent allowance for the ministers of the word; for it appears that the ministry among the Galatians was at that time much neglected — or at least not so respected as it ought to have been.

In handling this rule, I will first show the meaning of the words; secondly, the reasons for the rule; thirdly, the objections against it; and lastly, the doctrine and practical applications to be gathered from it.

The meaning.

Let him that is taught) The word translated taught signifies one who is catechized, or taught familiarly by word of mouth or living voice, as when children are instructed in the first principles of religion. But here it has a broader signification (as Oecumenius has rightly observed): it refers to anyone who is in any way taught and instructed, whether in the first principles and rudiments or in points of greater difficulty, whether plainly and familiarly (as catechists are accustomed to do) or more profoundly for the instruction of the learned.

Taught in the word) Why is this addition necessary, some may ask — is there any catechizing without the word? Answer. The Apostle adds in the word to show that he means not so much the doctrine of Christian religion contained in the Scriptures as the doctrine of the Gospel, which by an exoche, or peculiar excellency, is called the word. Acts 16:6: They were forbidden of the Holy Ghost to preach the word in Asia — which is explained in verse 10 to mean the preaching of the Gospel. Thus it is used, Acts 14:25: when they had preached the word

in Perga. Mark 4:14: The sower soweth the word. And in many other places. It is further called the word of the kingdom (Matthew 13:19) because it teaches what the kingdom of grace and glory is, and because, when believed — or as the Apostle says, when mingled with faith in our hearts — it makes us free citizens of the kingdom of grace in this life and advances us to the kingdom of glory in the life to come. Secondly, it is called the word of God because he is its author, and no creature, man, or angel (2 Thess. 3:13). Thirdly, the word of salvation (Acts 13:26) because it shows the way and means of attaining salvation. And lastly, the word of life (Acts 5:20) because it not only shows the narrow way that leads to eternal life but is itself a living word and mighty in operation (Hebrews 4:12). For just as the powerful word of God in the beginning gave being to things that did not exist, so the Gospel — being the power of God unto salvation to everyone who believes — makes new creatures by the immortal seed of the word.

Make him that taught him.] That is, catechized him. Yet as before, this must be understood generally of any kind of teaching or instruction, for the word is so used elsewhere in Scripture: Luke 1:4; Acts 18:25; Romans 2:18; 1 Corinthians 14:19. This therefore gives us no just occasion to speak of the origin, manner, use, and profit of catechizing.

Partaker of his goods.] By goods he understands food, clothing, lodging, books, and other necessaries without which a minister of the word cannot pursue his calling; for Paul uses the word goods in accordance with the common opinion that so judges of these things. Luke 12:19: Soul, thou hast much goods laid up for many years. Luke 19:25: Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things.

Make them partaker.] That is, communicate, afford, and give to them these temporal things, seeing that they give you spiritual ones.

Of all his goods.] Not by giving everything away, but by imparting to their teachers what they stand in need of, counting nothing too dear for them. The Papists, on this basis, take tithes of all as the priests did under the Levitical law — whereas Paul says nothing of tithes.

There are four principal duties which the people are to perform toward their pastor, three of which are recorded elsewhere in Scripture. The first is to hear them as ambassadors sent of God, with reverence. The second is to obey them and submit themselves

unto them in the Lord. The third, to love and honor them for the sake of their work. The fourth, the Apostle speaks of in this place: to give them not only respect and esteem, but also material support.

The reasons for this rule are many and weighty.

I. We are bound (even by the bond of nature) to support our parents if they are in need, because they supported us and gave us our being. Paul says it is an honest and acceptable thing before God for children to recompense their parents and forebears (1 Tim. 5:4). Now if this is so, men are bound by the same right to support their spiritual fathers in Christ, who have begotten them anew through the preaching of the word — as Paul says that he travailed in pain for the Galatians until Christ was formed in them (Gal. 4), and that he begat Onesimus in his bonds (Philem. 10), and in 1 Cor. 4:15: “In Christ Jesus I have begotten you through the Gospel.” Hence Paul commends the Galatians (Gal. 4:15) in that, if it had been possible, they would have plucked out their own eyes and given them to him. And surely we owe to our spiritual parents and fathers in Christ not only these temporal trifles, but even ourselves, as Paul says to Philemon in verse 19: “Albeit I do not say unto thee that thou owest unto me even thine own self.”

II. It is a law of nations, and a conclusion grounded on common equity, that those who watch, labor, and spend themselves like a candle to give light to others — and do so for the common good of all — should be maintained out of the common stock by all. And the Lord charges all twelve tribes, even all Israel (Deut. 12:1[9]): “Beware that thou forsakest not the Levite, so long as thou livest on the earth.”

III. Every trade, calling, and condition of life is able to sustain those who live within it, as experience shows; therefore we must not suppose that the ministry, being the highest calling, should be so base or barren that it cannot competently maintain those who give themselves to it.

IV. Ministers are the Lord’s soldiers, his captains and standard-bearers, and therefore are not to go to war at their own expense; they are the Lord’s laborers in his vineyard, and therefore are worthy of their wages and ought to eat of the fruit of the vineyard; they are the Lord’s shepherds, set over the flock of Christ to feed his sheep, and therefore ought to eat of the milk of the flock. And since it was forbidden that no man should muzzle the mouth of the ox that treads out the grain, shall we suppose that God would have those who thresh in his floor and separate the wheat from the chaff, the precious from the vile, to be muzzled

or not to live by their labors? For they are worthy of double honor — that is, of all honor, reverence, assistance, and advancement — who labor in the word and doctrine (1 Tim. 5:17).

V. Ministers are to devote themselves wholly to reading, exhortation, and doctrine, and to continue therein (1 Tim. 4:13, 15, 16); they are to give themselves entirely to the building up of the Church and to the fighting of the Lord’s battles, and therefore are not to be entangled with the cares of this life (2 Tim. 2:4). Therefore they are to have their pay and their allowance, so that they may attend to their callings without distraction.

VI. It is the ordinance of God (as Paul says, 1 Cor. 9:14) that they who preach the Gospel should live by the Gospel; therefore those who do not do their utmost, and do not enlarge their generosity to uphold and maintain the ministry in good estate, resist (insofar as it lies within them) the ordinance of God; moreover, they waste and make havoc of the Church of God, and are guilty of the blood of all who perish for want of instruction.

I add further that it is the will of God that ministers who labor in the word and doctrine should be plentifully and liberally provided for — yet with moderation, that they do not draw all men’s wealth into their purses, as the Pope and Church of Rome have done into their coffers, of whom it is truly said: Religio peperit diuitias, sed filia deuorauit matrem [“Religion gave birth to riches, but the daughter devoured the mother”]. This I prove from the Levitical law: for the whole land of promise, being no larger in compass than Wales, or the fourth part of England, yet yielded unto the Levites, at the appointment of God — besides the share they had from the sacrifices, besides tithes, firstfruits, etc. — forty-eight cities with their suburbs.

It may here be asked whether ministers of the word are now to be maintained by common contribution and the generosity of the people, or not.

Answer: We must consider that if ministers are sufficiently provided for by set stipends — as by some foundation, or by the revenues of the Church — men are not bound to contribute to them and make them partakers of all their goods; although in regard to gratitude they owe to them even themselves, as Paul tells Philemon — but only to such as have no other wherewith to maintain themselves. And we must consider the reason why Paul commands all who are instructed in the word to make their teachers partakers of their goods — namely, because in Paul’s time, and long after, the Church was not endowed with lands or goods

goods by which the ministry might be sustained; nor did it have Christian magistrates in public authority, but was subject to cruel tyrants in persecution. Therefore those who were taught in the word were required to maintain their teachers through generous contribution, lest they should starve. But now that the Church has been greatly enriched, the ministers may be sufficiently maintained from Church goods without such contributions.

Moreover, it is far more fitting for ministers to be maintained by fixed stipends arising from goods proper to the Church than by voluntary contribution, as the following considerations make plain, showing that fixed stipends cut off several inconveniences that in voluntary contributions either cannot be or are hardly avoided. First, flattery and the suspicion of flattery — the appearance of holding certain persons in high esteem for the sake of personal advantage. Second, the poorer sort are in no way put to shame by this means, as they would be in contributions unless they gave proportionally to the rest. Third, deceit and dissembling — making as though one received little, when in truth one has much — is eliminated by a fixed stipend. Fourth, the ill-disposed would not so easily dismiss their minister and seek a new one who would preach for less, or give nothing at all, if they were sharply reproved and stung for their sins. Fifth, ostentation in some, in giving much and despising those who give less. Sixth, suspicion of covetousness and filthy lucre in ministers, who seem to receive from those to whom they ought rather to be giving. Seventh, the disgrace of the ministry, in collecting themselves, or sending others to collect, the people’s generosity from door to door. Lastly, a fixed stipend comes nearer to the order appointed by God for the maintenance of the priesthood under the Levitical law.

In the next place, I will answer the common objections raised to the contrary by those who think it as easy a matter to say the Service in the Church as to do service in the house; to stand at the altar of God as to follow their master’s plough; to preach in the pulpit as to talk in the tavern.

Objection I. 2 Thessalonians 3:10: They who will not work must not eat.

But ministers never plough, nor saw, nor hedge, nor ditch, nor employ any painful labor; for of all men they have the easiest lives — their greatest pains being to read over a few books or to speak a few words once or twice a week. Therefore they are not to be maintained. Answer: There is a twofold labor: one of the body, another of the mind. Now although ministers do not weary themselves

in bodily labor, yet they are not therefore idle; for the labors of the mind far exceed the labors of the body — they are more arduous, they wear out the spirits more, they consume the natural moisture [vital humors], and bring on old age sooner. The Holy Ghost calls the ministry “the work of the ministry” (Eph. 4:12) — nay, a worthy work (1 Tim. 3:1). Therefore Paul says that those elders are worthy of double honor who labor in the word and doctrine (1 Tim. 5:17), and he exhorts the Thessalonians to know those who labor among them, and to hold them in singular love for their work’s sake (1 Thess. 5:12–13). Hence it is that Scripture habitually compares the work of the ministry to the most toilsome labor imaginable: to the work of the husbandman, to setting, plowing, sowing, reaping, laboring in the vineyard; and the minister to a builder, to a shepherd watching his flock, to a soldier fighting in the wars, and so forth. Moreover, one must not judge the painfulness of a calling by its outward appearance; for by that standard a king would seem to have the easiest life of all, when in truth the toil he bears and the cares that possess him exceed all others. If a man knew the travail required to wield a scepter and the pain taken in wearing a heavy crown, he would scarcely stoop down to take the one into his hands or set the other upon his head. The master builder does not hew the stones, nor work the mortar, nor carry the rubble, nor engage in any such drudgery; he only stands by and directs the workmen — and yet his labor is double that of any of theirs. The master of a ship (a man would think) is idle and does nothing: he does not attend to the rigging, he does not stir the pump, he does not drive the oars, he does not sound the deep, he does not ride the ropes — but only sits still at the stern, looks to the pole star, and guides the compass; yet his labor surpasses all the rest. Were it not for him, the ship would run herself under water, or strike upon the rocks, or be split upon the sands, or fall foul upon another (as mariners say). Even so it is, in every respect, with the ministers of the word: they seem to sit still, to be at ease, to do nothing — and yet their labor is double and treble that of other men’s bodily labor, unless they be unfaithful and do the work of the Lord negligently.

Objection II.

Paul labored with his hands making tents (Acts 18:3), so as not to be chargeable to anyone (Acts 20:34; 2 Thess. 3:8). Therefore preachers are to maintain themselves by their own manual labor and not be a burden to the Church. Answer. Paul’s example does not prove

This does not prove that the minister ought to live by the labor of his hands. First, Paul himself received a contribution from the Philippians when he was absent from them (Phil. 4:16): “When I was in Thessalonica, you sent once and afterward again for my necessity.” Therefore, if Paul received support from other churches where he did not labor, it is lawful for ministers to receive from those whom they instruct. Second, consider the reasons why Paul would not take wages from the church of Corinth and certain others: (I) lest he should be a burden to them — “We worked with labor and travail day and night, because we would not be chargeable to any of you” (2 Thess. 3:8); “In all things I kept, and will keep myself, that I should not be grievous to you” (2 Cor. 11:9). (II) That he might set a precedent and example for others to follow in his steps — “Not because we have no authority, but that we might make ourselves an example to them to follow us” (2 Thess. 3:9). (III) That he might make plain what his purpose was in preaching the gospel — not to seek his own advantage, but the salvation of his hearers: “I seek not yours, but you” (2 Cor. 12:14); “We do all things for your edification” (v. 19); “Not that I desire a gift, but the fruit which may further your reckoning” (Phil. 4:17). (IV) That he might confound the false apostles, who did not teach freely but took wages for their labor, whereas he took none — or lest they should slander him and his ministry if he received wages, charging that he did it for filthy gain: “But what I do, that I will do, that I may cut away occasion from those who desire occasion, that they might be found like us in that wherein they glory” (2 Cor. 11:12). Therefore Paul’s example is altogether beside the point and proves nothing. For, first, he himself did accept wages; second, when he refused it, it was upon special consideration; and third, he not only permitted but also commanded that ministers should be maintained.

Objection III.

Matthew 10:8: “Freely you have received, freely give.” Therefore, just as it was unlawful for the apostles to take any reward for their labor, so it is for preachers today. Answer. First, this text is specially to be understood of the extraordinary gift of working miracles, which Christ, having freely bestowed upon them, would have them use freely — not seeking thereby to enrich themselves by exacting or receiving anything, nor to win reputation and glory among men. Second, if we understand it of the whole ministry, as well of preaching as of working miracles, it is to be taken as a precept forbidding only filthy gain — that they should not make merchandise of the word of God, setting it to sale by preaching the word with the purpose of benefiting themselves, feeding their bellies, or gaining a name and reputation in the world. This is forbidden

in other places as well, as 1 Tim. 3:3 and Tit. 1:7. Rather, they are to preach for the glory of God, the discharge of their duties, and the salvation of their hearers. There is good reason for this precept. 1. Because the graces of God exhibited to us in the preaching of the word are so precious that they cannot be valued at any price; all the earthly things a man can desire are not to be compared to them, as the wise man says. Therefore Peter said to Simon Magus: “Your money perish with you, because you think that the gift of God may be obtained with money” (Acts 8:20). 2. Because it is not in man’s power to sell them, seeing he is not lord over them but steward and dispenser of them (1 Cor. 4:1). 3. Because that which God has given freely ought not to be sold basely; for by that means what God would have free is made saleable — which kind of trafficking is practiced in the Church of Rome at this day in their indulgences, wherein they sell pardons for the remission of sins and set even heaven itself to sale for a small sum of money. Third, this text must be expounded in such a way that it does not contradict other precepts in this commission, lest Christ be contrary to himself — which he would be, if it were unlawful for preachers to take anything for their pains. For in the tenth verse he says: “The workman is worthy of his meat”; therefore he may receive it. And in verse 11 he enjoins them to inquire in every town where they came who is worthy, and there to abide. Therefore they were not utterly barred from taking all necessaries, for they might take their lodging, food, and raiment — with these they were to be content, and more than these they might not take, even if it were offered or pressed upon them. Thus Elisha refused the gift offered him by Naaman [the Syrian] for curing his leprosy, lest God’s gifts should be made a gain, or lest that which was given to set forth God’s glory directly should become an occasion for satisfying men’s greedy desires.

Objection IV.

Matt. 10:9: The apostles are forbidden by Christ to possess gold, silver, etc. Answer. We may not take the letter of the text precisely, for if we do, we make the apostles’ practice contrary to Christ’s precept — and Christ would thereby condemn himself, for he had a bag, which Judas carried. He had besides his upper garment (John 13:4) and a coat without seam (John 19:23). Peter had sandals (Acts 12). Paul had a cloak (2 Tim. 4). Indeed, Christ himself afterwards said to them: “But now he that has a bag, let him take it, and likewise a scrip,” etc. (Luke 22:36). Second, it was a temporary precept, given them in commission only for that present occasion, and their going without gold, silver, a scrip, two coats, shoes, or a staff signifies that they should go in haste, committing themselves wholly to the provi-

decree of God, not troubling themselves about provisions or supplies — signified by the bag [scrip], by silver and gold — nor about a change of clothing, signified by two coats, nor about defending themselves against violence by the staff.

§9. Application.

Here we see that there are two classes of people in the Church: some are teachers, others are to be taught — called in Scripture teachers and hearers. The basis of this distinction rests on the good pleasure of God, who has ordained that human beings should be taught by other human beings, partly because of human weakness, which could not endure the glory and majesty of God speaking directly, and partly so that nothing might be attributed to the excellence of the instrument in the conversion of people, but that God might have all the glory of it — as the Apostle says, 2 Corinthians 4:7: “We have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of that power might be of God, and not of man.” There is set down in Deuteronomy 5:23 and following a notable foundation for the institution of the holy ministry of human beings in place of God’s living voice from heaven. And it was one of the ends God had in giving his law with such great majesty — to teach us that it is for our good that he does not instruct us with his own living voice from heaven and speak to us in his own person, and that therefore we should be content, indeed desirous rather, to be taught by human beings. For when the people requested that they might hear the voice of the Lord no more, but that Moses might speak to them, the Lord answered, “They have done well to say so; I will raise them up a Prophet from among their brethren like unto thee, and I will put my words in his mouth, and he shall speak unto them all that I command him” (Deuteronomy 18:17–18). This rebukes the curiosity of those who, not contenting themselves with the word of God delivered through the ministry of human beings, desire that God would speak to them with his own mouth from heaven. For the Israelites found by experience that it was a fearful thing, full of horror and astonishment, to hear the voice of God; therefore they requested to hear it no more, lest they die (Deuteronomy 5:25). But the Anabaptists object that under the New Testament, Jeremiah 31:34, John 6:45, and Hebrews 8:13 say they shall not teach every man his neighbour and every man his brother, saying, “Know the Lord.” Therefore, they argue, the public ministry is now unnecessary. The answer is that these words must not be understood absolutely, but comparatively, and indicate not [the same degree of external teaching as] was under the Old [Testament]. The Apostle does not say that there shall be no teaching at all — for Christ has given some to be prophets, others pastors and teachers, for the

ministry and the edification of the body of Christ (Ephesians 4:11–12). Rather, the point is that there will be no need for this kind of teaching — catechizing people in first rudiments, as in teaching them what God is. This is understood synecdochically [as a part standing for the whole]: not of perfect and absolute knowledge, for “we all know in part” (1 Corinthians 13:12), but of initial and inchoate knowledge, which will be made complete in the life to come.

Furthermore, from this distinction it follows that hearers must not meddle with the public duties of the ministry, for every person is to abide in the calling in which God has placed them and to live contentedly therein (1 Corinthians 7). For no one may take this honour to himself, but he who is called, as was Aaron (Hebrews 5:4). For although it is true, as Ambrose writes, that in the beginning of the preaching of the Gospel and the founding of the Church of the New Testament all Christians did teach and baptize indiscriminately, yet afterward, when the churches were established, this is no longer lawful, nor is it now. And though there is neither male nor female in Christ, but we are all one in him (Galatians 3:28) — namely, in receiving the Gospel — yet in dispensing it there is great difference, since it is unlawful for a woman to preach or to teach publicly: “I permit not a woman to teach” (1 Timothy 2:12); “Let women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted to them to speak” (1 Corinthians 14:34; Revelation 2:20). This condemns the fantastic opinion of the Anabaptists, that all people may speak publicly without distinction, according to the impulse of the Spirit and the measure of his gifts.

Again, when Paul says “he that is taught in the word” should communicate to “him that taught him in the word,” he shows what the duty of the minister is who looks to live by his ministry — namely, not to feed his congregation with philosophy, or fables, or lying legends; not to preach scholastic disputes, Thomism, Scotism, tedious questions, trivialities, Popish decrees, or human constitutions; nor to tickle the itching ears of his congregation with the fine ringing sentences of the pagans — “for what is the chaff to the wheat?” — but he must preach the word of God. For there is no other word or writing in the world that carries a promise of being “the power of God unto salvation” (Romans 1), able to “make men wise unto salvation” (2 Timothy 3:15), “to give an inheritance among them that are sanctified” (Acts 20), to be “lively and mighty in operation, sharper than any two-edged sword, entering through even to the dividing asunder of the soul and the spirit, the joints and the marrow, and a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart” (Hebrews 4:12), and that can “make the man of God absolute to every good work” (2 Timothy 3:17) — none but this word

word given by divine inspiration. For it is not only the seed by which we are begotten and born anew, but the food by which we are nourished: both milk for the babe — that is, the novice in religion — and solid food for the one who is mature. Being therefore perfect nourishment, the bread of life for the hungry and the water of life for the thirsty, what more could be needed? Beyond this, no word or writing possesses the property of fire save only the word of God: to dispel the darkness of ignorance by enlightening the mind with the saving knowledge of truth, and to inflame the affections with a zeal for God’s glory by burning away the corruption of nature. Again, Divinity is the mistress; all the liberal arts, languages, histories, and the like are but handmaids to attend upon her. Now, when the mistress is speaking, it is good manners for the maid to hold her peace. To this word alone the Prophets were bound by their commission: “Whatever I shall command you, that you shall say.” And the Apostles likewise: “You shall teach what I have commanded you.” Christ himself taught nothing but what he had heard and received from his Father (John 8:28). Paul delivers nothing but what he received from Christ (1 Cor. 11:23), and nothing beyond what Moses and the Prophets had written (Acts 26:22). Paul commands Timothy to charge the pastors of Ephesus that they teach no divergent doctrine — whether in matter or manner, in substance or circumstance. Yet here we must beware of extremes, for in certain cases it is lawful in preaching to make use of the testimony of profane writers and citations from the Fathers.

I.

When we have to deal with heathen men, who will not be so much moved by the authority of the Scriptures, we may convict them by the testimony of their own writers — as Paul did with the Athenians, Epicureans, and Stoics, by the testimony of Aratus (Acts 17:28), and with the Greeks by the testimony of Epimenides (Tit. 1:12).

II.

In preaching to a mixed congregation, where some are infected with Popery or some other heresy and will not receive the doctrine delivered, nor yield to the truth, unless it bears the consent of the Fathers of the Church.

III.

In treating some controversial point of divinity, to show that the doctrine we teach is no new doctrine, but that which was taught in the Primitive Church — especially in speaking to the weak, who have not yet departed from the old superstition in which they were reared.

IV.

To cut off the calumnies of malicious adversaries, who

must have their mouths stopped by some means other than the Scriptures.

V.

In the necessary unfolding of the meaning of certain passages of Scripture which cannot be grasped without philosophy. In such a case we may employ human learning in descending to the reach and capacity of the audience, and teaching heavenly things by earthly things — as our Savior Christ taught regeneration by the similitude of the wind (John 3). Yet all such things must be used: first, sparingly; second, when there is just cause; third, without ostentation; and fourth, delivering nothing to the people the ground of which is not in the word.

This shows that the chief scope of the ministry is to preach the word purely and to apply it powerfully to the consciences of men. It condemns all deceitful handling of the word and all huckster-like dealing — mingling wine and water, wheat and chaff, gold and dross; perverting it with feverish and foolish conceits; wresting it with allegories, tropologies, and anagogies; and wringing the text until they make it bleed, and so (as an ancient writer says) pressing the two dogs of the Scriptures — the Old and New Testaments — so that instead of milk they drink nothing but blood. This also teaches hearers to rest content with the plain words, without hungering after new doctrines as the Athenians hungered after news, or being drawn away from the simplicity that is in Christ by the subtlety of seducers or by the devices and quiddities of human invention. Let those, therefore, who loathe the manna and long for quails remember that if God grants their desire, he will likewise give them their desert. Let them take heed lest he punish them with a famine — not of bread, nor a thirst of water, but of hearing the word (Amos 8:11). And let those who have itching ears, heaping up for themselves a multitude of teachers, take heed also that they have not tingling ears when they hear of God’s judgments for the contempt of his word.

Furthermore, whereas Paul says that he who teaches is to be maintained: this is a good caution to all idle drones who will not labor and all dumb dogs who cannot bark — they may not expect the maintenance that is due to ministers. For it is generally true of all men, and much more true of the minister, that he who will not labor must not eat. And it is entirely reasonable that he who looks for his hire should do his work; that he who would live of the sacrifice should minister at the altar; that he who looks to be fed with bodily bread should break unto his hearers the bread of life; that he who would reap carnal things should sow spiritual things; that he who would

who would not have his mouth muzzled should thresh out the grain; he who would drink of the wine should plant the vine; he who looks for milk should feed the flock — that is, he who would live of the Gospel should teach the Gospel. It is a maxim not only of canon law, but one grounded in the law of nature, that beneficium postulat officium [a benefit demands its corresponding duty] — or more plainly, a benefit requires an office, and diligence in the performance of that office. Those therefore who care not so much for the feeding of the sheep as for the feeding of themselves, and who fear not so much the loss of the flock as the loss of the fleece, do not only violate the law of God, but even the law of nations and the law of nature.

Again, from this I gather that those who labor in the word and doctrine may lawfully receive wages, even if they have sufficient means of their own to maintain themselves — for such is the very equity of this text. For if those who are instructed in the word are to make those who instructed them partakers of their goods, then it is lawful for those who instruct and teach to receive something in recompense of their labor, seeing that the laborer is worthy of his wages. Yet this one caveat must be remembered: that if the receiving of wages is a hindrance to the Gospel (as it would have been in Paul’s case), it is not lawful — for we may not so use our liberty as thereby to hinder the free course of the Gospel.

We may here further perceive the great want of devotion that is in most men of these days. For as the cry of the poor in the streets and at our doors is evidence that there is no mercy, no bowels of pity and compassion: so, in that there are so many needy, poor, wandering Levites who would gladly serve for a morsel of bread or a suit of clothing, there is abundant proof that there is very little devotion in men for the maintenance of religion — especially in those who are so strait-laced and short-sleeved in bestowing anything for the good of the ministry, and yet in the keeping of hounds and hawks, and worse pursuits, in maintaining players, jesters, fools, and the like, are very lavish and profuse at great cost. This has been the practice of the world and the contemptible estate of the ministry in former times. Four hundred false prophets were richly provided for at Jezebel’s table (1 Kgs. 18:19), whereas the true prophets of God in the meantime were forced to hide their heads, having scarcely bread and water, and that not without danger. Well, her practice shall condemn a number of professors; nay, our forefathers’ zeal and forwardness — notwithstanding that they lived in blindness — shall condemn our coldness in this regard. What, do I speak of our forefathers? Even the

the very stones of the ruined abbeys and other religious houses shall rise up in judgment against us: for those places could maintain thirty or forty idle bellies who did nothing but nurse men in superstitious idolatry, whereas now the same places will not competently maintain one or two to instruct people in the way to eternal life. And no wonder — for we take from the Church as fast as they gave to it. In old time men were wont to say, What shall we give the man of God? (1 Sam. 9), but now with the sacrilegious church-robbers they say, Come and let us take the house of God in possession (Ps. 83:12). The Jews were exceedingly forward and liberal in their contribution to the Tabernacle: some brought gold, others silver, silk, precious stones; the meaner sort brought rams’ skins, goats’ hair, and the like — so much more than enough was offered by them that Moses was compelled to cause a proclamation to be made, restraining the people from offering (Exod. 36:5–6). Their example in being so forward to contribute to the material temple shall condemn our backwardness in contributing so little to the ministers, who are the living temples of God, and to the ministry, which stands in the place of the altar. For by how much God has diminished the cost of the altar and the charges of the ceremonial worship under the Old Testament, by so much more does he require the ministry to be maintained and spiritual worship to be furthered under the New.

Lastly, if those who do not put their helping hand to upholding the ministry are to be condemned, what condemnation, I ask, then belongs to sacrilegious persons who rob the Church of her revenues and devour holy things?