lical ministers, to abstain from manual la bour, and to live by the reward of their ministry; as appears from the next question

Or I only, and Barnabas, have we not power to forbear working ?-have we not a right, according to the general usage of the ministry, to abstain from a secular employ, and receive the fruit of our spiritual labours?

In the next place, St. Paul evinces the reasonableness of this rule by general analogy:-Who goeth a warfare, 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?

He then proceeds to shew, that this plain deduction of reason is ratified and confirmed by the word of God:-Say I these things as a man? Do I support the claim of the ministry upon mere human arguments? 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. And the moral pre

cepts

of that law remain in force: for thus

the apostle argues:-Doth God take care for

2

oren; or saith he it altogether for our sakes? For our sake, no doubt, this is writtenthat he that ploweth, should plow in hope; and he that thresheth in hope, should be partaker of his hope-that the minister who la boureth in the Gospel might have a wellfounded expectation of support from the members of the church.:

The apostle then proceeds to shew, that Christians, if they disallow this equitable and sacred claim, are chargeable with ingratitude and injustice; and that no debt whatever can be more binding upon a pure conscience. If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great matter if we shall reap your carnal things? If others be partakers of this power over you, are not we rather?

And, finally, though St. Paul, for local and temporal reasons, has waved his equitable claim during the early propagation of the Gospel among the Gentiles; yet he insists upon the general rule of the law, and declares, that the very same rule is still in force in behalf of Christian ministers; and that it is so by the express ordinance of Christ.

Notwithstanding, says the apostle, we have not used this power-have not enforced our claim to a competent support—but suffer all things, lest we should hinder the Gospel of Christ; yet, 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? Granting that it is so appointed under the Levitical law, what follows? Let us hear-even so hath the Lord ordained, that they which preach the Gospel, should live of the Gospel.

*

Upon the whole, then, the apostle's reasoning comes to this conclusion-that it is the sacred duty of Christians, to appoint to their ministers a temporal reward of their labours, a competent means of subsistence, exactly analogous to the provision which is made for the priesthood under the Mosaic law; and, consequently, that it is lawful for ministers to receive and appropriate such reward. This is not an appointment of mere human device. It is the ordinance of Christ and his apostles: and we know that, by the law of Christ, every one who calls upon his name shall be judged in the last

day; and that, whatsoever his apostles have bound on earth, is also bound in heaven.

In this case, the answer of a good conscience is audible and distinct. To him that hath ears to hear, it plainly declares, that the receiving of that temporal and stated provision, to which, by the ordinance of Christ, and the laws of our land, they have an exclusive claim, can be no subject of just reproach to the ministers of our church; and that the temperate vindication of their right is not what St. Peter disallows, when he forbids the elders to superintend the flock of God from the motive of filthy lucre. This lucre, when claimed with moderation, and employed with decency and sobriety, is not filthy it is hallowed and purified by the laws of God and man.

Let us, then, in the next place, enquire what it is which the apostle has here prohibited.

It appears from other passages in which the phrase occurs, that those very revenues of the ministry, which in themselves are lawful and pure, may become filthy lucre, or sordid gain, when they have a corrupt in fluence upon the mind and conduct of him that receives them.

St. Paul gives Timothy certain instruc tions relative to the deportment of a Christian bishop; and the same moral lesson must be understood as affecting the subor dinate ranks of the ministry: a bishop, says the apostle, must not be greedy of filthy lucre, but patient: not a brawler, not covetous. (1 Tim. iii. 2.)

Here we find, that a greediness of filthy lucre is, on the one hand, opposed to patience, and, on the other, identified with a brawling avaricious disposition. Hence it appears, that a hasty, rigorous, and litigious exaction, even of a lawful right, proceeding from a covetous temper, debases that revenue which in its own nature is sanctified and holy. Ac cordingly, the same apostle thus reproves the Corinthians, and expostulates with them upon their unchristian conduct:-There is utterly a fault among you, because ye ga to law one with another. Why do ye not rather take wrong? Why do ye not rather suffer yourselves to be defrauded? (1 Cor. vi. 7.) Not that the minister, or any other member of the church, as it appears by the context, is required to abandon the defence