Question XXVIII.

On the Stipends of Ministers and Ecclesiastical Goods.

Whether some stipend is owed to the ministers of the church? Affirmed, against the Anabaptists.

I.

This question was previously raised by the Anabaptists, who held that the gospel must be preached freely — either by the wealthier sort, who have sufficient means of their own to live on, or even by the poor, who secure their livelihood and necessities through some trade and their own labor after the example of Paul, who practiced tent-making and worked with his own hands (1 Corinthians 4:12). They considered the Reformed ministers to be not true ministers but mere hirelings, who take up the ministry after the manner of a business transaction and are accustomed to selling and hiring out their labor to whoever offers the highest wage. They do indeed acknowledge in the Emden Colloquy, Act 78, sect. 4, that the church is bound to provide necessities for the ministers it has called — but only in the case where ministers lack sufficient means to support their households honorably, whether from an inheritance, trade, craftsmanship, or some other secular calling. Outside that case, however, they hold that ministers are bound to preach out of charity and without charge.

II.

The orthodox establish the following position. Not only may a minister live from his ministry, but he ought to. And although in a case of necessity — namely, when he can be supported neither by the church he serves nor by others — he may provide the gospel without charge; and indeed, even outside a case of necessity, he may, for weighty reasons and out of Christian charity and prudence, remit to some church that debt, and thus refresh it by his own alms for a time or permanently; nevertheless he is not bound by divine and human law to do so. Rather, it is the church that is absolutely bound to the procurement and payment of a just stipend.

III.

The arguments are as follows. 1. From the passage of Paul in 1 Corinthians 9:4–19, where the seat of this doctrine resides, and the Apostle not only claims this right to receive a due stipend — and this authority — for himself and for all ministers, but confirms it by various arguments drawn from both divine and natural law, and from approved examples. The first argument is taken from the Apostles (v. 5–6): “Do we not have the right, as do the other Apostles, to take along a believing wife? Or is it only Barnabas and I who have no right to refrain from working?” The second is from the analogy of the soldier, the farmer, and the shepherd, to whom natural equity and reason dictate that stipends are owed (v. 7): “Who serves as a soldier at his own expense? Who plants a vineyard and does not eat of its fruit? Who tends a flock and does not drink of the milk of the sheep?” The third is from the prescription of the law concerning the threshing ox, argued from the lesser to the greater: since God forbids muzzling an ox while it threshes (Deuteronomy 25:4), and thus prohibits that laboring oxen be barred from their fodder, how much less should the ministers of the church be deprived of the fruit of their labor? For by this law God has in view not so much oxen as men, lest they be cheated of a just wage for their work (vv. 9–10): “Is God concerned with oxen? Or does he say this entirely for our sake? Because the one who plows ought to plow in hope,” etc. The fourth argument is from the comparison of unequal things — labor and wages (v. 11): those who sow spiritual things ought to reap material things. The fifth is from the divinely instituted order in both the Old and New Testaments (v. 13): “Do you not know that those who perform sacred rites eat of the things of the sanctuary, and those who serve at the altar share in what is offered at the altar? So God has ordained that those who proclaim the gospel should live from the gospel.”

IV.

2. From the command of Christ in Matthew 10:10 and Luke 10:7, where, sending the Apostles to preach the gospel in Judea, he forbids them to carry anything on the road — not even food — but wills that they live at the expense of those to whom they are sent. He gives the most just reason for this, namely, that the laborer is worthy of his food and wages. This shows that the βιωτικά necessary for sustaining themselves and their households are no less justly owed to the ministers of the gospel by their hearers than a wage is justly owed to a hired laborer for his work and effort. Nor should the words of Christ in v. 8 be urged against this: “Freely you have received, freely give.” For it is plain that there he is not dealing with the preaching of the Word, but with the charismatic gifts and miraculous powers of healing and wonders, for

for which he forbids that any price be received, let alone that they be sold, as Simon Magus attempted in Acts 8:10. “Heal the sick,” he says, “cleanse lepers, raise the dead, cast out demons; freely you have received, freely give.” But that the words cited cannot be extended to the just stipends of ministers, the passage in verse 10 makes clear. For why does he want the apostles to be sustained and fed by their hearers on the ground that “the laborer is worthy of his wages,” if they were obligated to preach without charge?

V.

III. From the stipends of the sacred ministers in the Old Testament, Numbers 18, verses 8–12, to which the sacrifices, tithes, firstfruits, and other things of that kind were ordinarily allotted, besides certain cities and suburban fields, Numbers 35. Although in the New Testament we are not bound by those laws with respect to the specific material from which, and the manner in which, stipends were given, they nevertheless remain in force with respect to their general principle and analogy, as is clear from the passage cited above in 1 Corinthians 9:13.

VI.

IV. From the example of Christ and the apostles, who did not refuse to accept from the faithful the necessities for their support. Christ received [support] from women, Luke 8:3, as did Paul from the Philippians, Philippians 4:10, 15–16. And in 2 Corinthians 11:8 he says that he received wages (opsōnion) from other churches in order to carry out his ministry to the Corinthians, so that he might preach the gospel to them without charge — namely, to avoid the ill will of avarice and base gain with which the false apostles were endeavoring to burden him.

VII.

V. From the threats that follow upon the withholding of stipends. For the failure to pay stipends to ministers is counted among the gravest sins of injustice toward one’s neighbor and impiety toward God, with which God threatens punishments, and to those who do the contrary he promises his blessing: Malachi 3:8, 10, 12, Nehemiah 13:10–11, Galatians 6:6–7. “God is not mocked,” says the apostle; “whatever a man sows, that shall he also reap.”

VIII.

VI. From the absurdities and inconveniences that follow. For if the necessity of stipends were denied, it would follow: 1. that in the election of ministers one must look to qualities and prerogatives of the flesh, and that those should be preferred who could support themselves from their own means and preach without charge — with the result that very often the best and most deserving would have to be passed over in elections. 2. That a dangerous distinction would arise among ministers, some of whom out of charity and a consciousness of God would furnish the gospel without cost, while others out of necessity would burden the church — and so the latter would be counted more contemptible, more odious, and less welcome. 3. That stipends would thus be turned into alms, and ministers would be thought to live on alms, which is false, and their condition would be rendered contemptible. Hence the wise provision in the discipline of the Reformed churches of France that fixed stipends be assigned to each pastor, and that no one be promoted to the office without them, article 42 on Pastors.

IX.

VII. From natural justice and equity, the rule of which the apostle sets forth in 2 Corinthians 8:13–14, which does not allow that advantage be gained at another’s expense,

that one person be burdened while the whole community is relieved. Indeed, equity demands that those who are taught should sustain their teachers from their goods, Galatians 6:6, Titus 3:12. And those who receive spiritual things from someone should at least impart temporal things to him in return.

X.

One thing is to lack the right to seek and demand a stipend. Another is to be unwilling to exercise that right for certain reasons. For while the right remains, its exercise and use can here and now be suspended. Paul was able to do the latter and in fact did so for weighty reasons, Acts 20:33 and 2 Thessalonians 3:8–9. But he makes this neither a rule for himself nor for other ministers to follow constantly, since elsewhere he is recorded as having made use of his right.

XI.

One thing is misthophoria [wage-seeking], another is philargyria [love of money]. In Micah 3:11 the priests who taught for reward and the prophets who divined for money are reproved — namely, those who on account of money to be extracted from the wealthy taught falsehoods, who spoke pleasing things and promised a prosperous condition of the commonwealth, so that they might receive more generous stipends; whereas they ought rather to have severely rebuked the sins of their hearers and urged them to repentance by threatening punishment. But from this it cannot be inferred that it is unlawful to receive stipends, because for those very priests who are accused of avarice, God had instituted a liberal provision in his own law.

XII.

One thing is to embrace the ministry for the sake of a stipend and petty gain. Another is to demand a stipend and to agree upon it for the sake of duly carrying out the ministry. The former belongs to hirelings, who aim solely at making profit from the gospel. But the latter belongs to true pastors. Certainly, if no wages at all were owed them for the work they do; if such a collection were truly voluntary and gratuitous, as alms are — then it would not be lawful to negotiate stipends, and a stipulation of that kind would be sordid and simoniacal. But because they are most justly owed in accordance with the prescription of God and Christ, it is lawful to negotiate them when they cannot otherwise be conveniently obtained; nor in doing so is there any blemish, stain, or suspicion of a mercenary spirit, provided they are moderate, not excessive to the burden of the flock, and sufficient for the honorable support of the pastor and his family. The measure of such stipends ought to be determined by the counsel of the prudent and the common consent of the church. But if any persons out of stubbornness and impiety and an ungrateful spirit — not out of poverty — withhold them, they deserve to have the Word of God not proclaimed to them and to be denounced by the pastors.

XIII.

If there are any among the ministers who can comfortably and honorably support themselves and their families from their own patrimony, they are not therefore to be deprived of their ministerial stipends. Nor, unless some particular reason intervenes, ought they to refuse the rewards of their labors, 1 Corinthians 9:18, lest they appear to be angling for the glory of some exceptional holiness, or burden their less affluent colleagues with envy, and lest the people, allured by this immunity, foster avarice, to the great harm of those who come after them,

and of the entire Church, which will not always obtain a ministry rendered without charge — to the great peril of both. But since each minister is the master of the stipend earned by his own labor, it is equitable that he disburse it, as he sees fit, to the poor and to other uses according to his own judgment, not another’s.

XIV.

Moreover, these stipends may be discharged in various ways: either from the spontaneous offerings of the faithful, who contribute generously from their own goods out of Christian charity and justice for the common use of the Church — as was done by the first Christians in the time of the Apostles and for several centuries thereafter; or from a mutual agreement and contributions pooled from individuals; or from the public treasury, paid out by a Christian magistrate; or from tithes; or finally, gathered from the annual income and proceeds of fields and estates donated and bequeathed to the Church, and from other ecclesiastical goods. Whichever of these modes is employed, it matters little or nothing at all to the substance of the matter, provided that sufficient stipends are paid to the ministers of the Gospel, and that a measure be observed in them — that they be not too meager and fall below what is adequate for honorably sustaining the pastor and his family; nor yet so lavish as to conduce more to luxury and ostentation than to what is sufficient and necessary. For either extreme is equally dangerous and to be avoided: lest ministers be held in contempt by an ungrateful people on account of too straitened a household, or lest they waste themselves in luxury, idleness, and empty pomp on account of too sumptuous and splendid a provision — as was done in the Papacy.

XV.

Although a pastor is bound in certain circumstances to minister without charge — if he has the means to do so; when the church is very poor, or newly planted and still tender, and would not receive the gospel unless it were free of charge; or when sectarians do this and reproach our ministers for not doing likewise — it does not follow that this right does not belong to him. But if the church is sufficiently wealthy yet refuses, whether out of avarice or out of contempt and disdain for its minister, to grant the necessary stipend, the minister is permitted to leave that church — after having first tried all other means — and to offer himself for the ministry of another church; for so great a hostility toward the minister, not to say wickedness, warrants and permits his departure.

XVI.

If one asks what is to be thought of the gratis of the monks, and especially of the Jesuits — which is prescribed to them by Ignatius, the founder of the Order, in Rule 17 — the answer is ready at hand: it is not only gross hypocrisy, but also a bold and cunning license for scraping together everything. For however much they pretend to teach gratis, they are nevertheless most ready to receive the choicest fields, the fattest estates, and enormous revenues offered to them in the manner of a free gift or alms. And so they perform their labor not gratis adverbially — that is, δωρεάν — but gratis nominaliter, that is, for those who acknowledge the benefit with a grateful mind and make return for it.

XVII.

Regarding ecclesiastical goods, to say something of their origin and growth. It is certain that their beginning dates already from the time of Christ, through the pious and devout offerings of the faithful — and of women especially, whose names are recorded in Luke 8. The administration of these funds was entrusted to Judas, and they were intended to serve partly for the use of Christ and the Apostles, and partly for the use of the poor, as is explained in John 12. After the ascension of Christ, the first church of Christians gathered at Jerusalem — partly to demonstrate mutual charity, and partly to be less exposed to the injuries of enemies and more ready for migrations and flight — pooled its resources into a common treasury, with the wealthier members relieving the poverty of the poorer even at the cost of their own fields (Acts 2 and 4). This community of goods, however, pertained not to possession (κτῆσις) but to use (χρῆσις), and it obtained neither in the other churches outside Jerusalem nor did it endure there for long; and so individual churches had their own treasuries, into which each would contribute his share, and into which collections would be deposited — as is evident from the Apologies of Justinus [Martyr] and Tertullianus.

XVIII.

It is not established among writers at what time the Church first began to possess fields and landed estates. It is certain that already before Constantinus the churches held lands and properties, and that the Roman church had been enriched above the rest by the most generous offerings — sufficient not only to sustain the clergy and the poor, but also to relieve other churches. But the lavish benefactions by which the Church was enriched to an immense degree first flourished in the age of Constantinus. For this emperor, in his zeal for the Christian religion, restored to the churches what had been seized by his predecessors, and apportioned to them a share of the revenues, tributes, and public grain, and offered most magnificent gifts fashioned from golden and silver statues of idols. But as for the donation of the city of Rome together with the empire of the West, which is attributed to him in Dist. 96, C. Constantinus, it has long been observed and proved by invincible arguments to be false and spurious — by learned men even within the Papacy itself: Petrus de Vineis, Dante, Marsilius Patavinus, Cusanus, Valla, Otto Frisingensis, Volaterranus, Nauclerus, and even Aeneas Sylvius himself. The gift, therefore — whatever it amounts to — ought rather to be attributed to Pipinus than to Constantinus, although even he did not lavish as much or as great as is commonly believed. Far more probable is it that the Popes, when Italy was ablaze with internal wars, had seized no few towns and territories by force and fraud, and thereafter eagerly sought donations from one or another party.

XIX.

As superstition afterward increased — by whose frenzy the common people were so bewitched as to believe that there was no crime so atrocious or disgrace so base that it could not be expiated by such offerings — the torrent of overflowing benefactions could be held back by no embankments, and the Church, overwhelmed and ruined as by a tenth wave, saw its spiritual glory degenerate into the profane splendor and luxury of a Monarchy —

chiae splendor and luxury, and the saying proved all too true: that Religion had given birth to riches, but the false daughter had devoured her mother. Those who wish more on the origin and growth of ecclesiastical goods may consult Hospinianus on Ecclesiastical Goods, Voetius, Politica Ecclesiastica, pt. 1, bk. 4, vol. 2, and the celebrated Italian treatise of Paolo Sarpi of Venice, De Materiis Beneficiariis.