Production Note
Cornell University Library produced this volume
to replace the irreparably deteriorated
original. It was scanned using Xerox software
and equipment at 600 dots per inch resolution
and compressed prior to storage using CCITT
Group 4 compression. The digital data were used
to create Cornell's replacement volume on paper
that meets the ANSI Standard Z39.48-1984. The
production of this volume was supported in part
by the New York State Program for the
Conservation and Preservation of Library
Research Materials and the Xerox Corporation.
Digital file copyright by Cornell University
Library 1994.DELIVERED IN
DIFFERENT CHURCHES WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE
CLASSES OF POUGHKEEPSIE,
IN BEHALF OF
“ The Fund for the Relief of Disabled Ministers, and of the Widows and
Children of Ministers of the Reformed Dutch Church
BY JOHN H. VAN WAGENEN,
Pastor of the Reformed Dutch Church of Linlithgow, Livingston, Col. Co. N. Y.
HUDSON:
PRINTED BY ASHBEL STODDARD.
1839.
1)PREFACE
.............-
A word or two of explanation, as to the history of the following discourse, may
not be improper. At their semi-annual meeting in October last, the classes of Pough-
keepsie, in obedience to the General Synod, appointed a committee, or rather
committees, of two Laymen in each Church, to gather up Contributions for
the Relief Fund, and appointed the Author, Chairman, with discretionary power,
as to measures to be adopted for the furtherance of the important object. After
mature deliberation, and not a little consultation among the brethren of the min-
istry and others, it was concluded that the mode of proceeding most promising of
success, would be to preach on the subject in the different churches, as a step pre-
paratory to the action of the committees. The following discourse was accordingly
prepared, and during the last winter and spring was delivered in twelve of the
churches, comprising almost the whole of the classes. And although much beyond
the ordinary length of sermons was heard with uniform attention and apparent
interest.
At the regular session of the classes in April, the Author was requested by formal
resolution to publish his discourse in the Christian Intelligencer. The reason for
which mode of publication, as assigned, was, that it might thus be more extensively
disseminated through the churches. By correspondence, however, with the conduc-
tors of the Intelligencer, it appeared inconsistent that it should appear in its
columns, as a pledge has been given that all sermons shall be excluded from pub-
lication in that paper. Such being the case, and knowing the unanimous desire of
the brethren of the classes to have it published, the advice of other friends also con-
curring, it is thought best to issue it in Pamphlet form, in the hope that the impor-
tant and (in some respects) novel subject of which it treats, together with the
pledged agency of brethren and the favoring influence of friends, may give it some
good degree of circulation. The object of its publication and delivery is identical,
viz. to aid as far as in the Author’s power, the permanent establishment and pros-
perous operation of the “ Relief Fund of the Reformed Dutch church.”
Livingston, June 28,1839*	J* H. V. W.
“ Doth God take care for oxen.”—1. Corinthians ix. 9.
Methinks I hear some of you exclaim, “ And what can that
passage have to do with the object of our present assembling ?
What possible relation can it bear to the subject under present
consideration ?” I answer, “ much every way”—For the Apostle
in this chapter speaks very much at length on the subject of min-
isterial support, and fully shows that ministers have a right, based
on Divine authority, to a comfortable maintenance. To establish
this right, besides other considerations, he quotes a passage from
the Book of Deuteronomy, and shows that in the ancient ordinance
there recorded, for the guidance of the Jewish nation, God had
special reference to the sustenance of his own servants in Gospel
times—“ Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth
out the corn.”* The employment of oxen in thrashing grain, was
a mode of husbandry prevalent among the Jews from the earliest
ages, and is practised by the Orientals to the present day. God’s
command was, that these useful animals should not be restrained,
but should have full liberty to eat, while thus engaged in their
labor. But this is not all; the Apostle shows that this command
had a further meaning, and was designed to effect a much higher
object. “ Doth God take care for oxen, or saith he it altogether for
our sakes ? For our sakes no doubt this is written, that he that
plougheth should plough in hope, and that he that thrasheth in
hope, should be partaker of his hope.” Not that the Apostle
would deny God’s Providence to oxen, as though they were un-
worthy of the divine care and regard. By no means. He who
feeds the young ravens that cry, and provideth for all the fowls
of the air; that God, who adorns “ the grass of the field,” and
clothes “ the lilies of the valley,” with such unrivaled beauty,
cannot be indifferent to the happiness of the meanest of his crea-
tures. Yet this passage was mainly designed, according to the
Apostle’s representation, to have an important bearing on the
due maintenance of God’s gospel ministers; a bearing not indirect
* Dent. xxv. 4.4
and inferential, in the form of an argument from the less to the
greater. It might, indeed, be fairly reasoned: if God takes such
care for oxen, and provides for their comfortable sustenance, can
He have forgotten his messengers of mercy, or have failed to
make suitable provision for their support ? Such an argument, I
apprehend, could not be easily confuted. But the application of
this ordinance is more direct and authoritative than this; for Paul
says, that God ordained it altogether for the sakes of his servants
in the gospel. And when he directs Timothy that “ those Elders
that rule well” should be accounted “worthy of double honor,”
(or support,) “ especially they who labor in the word and doc-
trine,” he adds, by way of enforcement, “ For the Scripture saith,
thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn—and the
laborer is worthy of his reward.”* We are thus naturally led
to contemplate the general subject of ministerial support, which
must serve as a basis of the special object of our present discourse.
The support of the gospel ministry is a subject too little con-
sidered, and consequently very imperfectly understood. Many
imagine, that although the ministry ought to be supported, yet
that such support is nothing more than a free-will offering, which
may be rendered without obligation, and withheld without crim-
inality. Others feel no other obligation in relation to this matter,
than that which arises from the special contract between the
minister and the people. While some, in the heighth of their
superciliousness, look down on those who minister at God’s altars,
as little better than genteel beggars, subsisting on the common
bounty, or beneficiaries of the large charities of the Church.
Such views and sentiments are as false and unscriptural, as they
are degrading to the ministry, and injurious to religion. The
gospel ministry is an institution of God’s ordination. Every true
minister, has, like the Apostles, received his commission from the
great Head of the church, and concerning him, may be said as
was said of the ancient Levitical Priesthood: “And no man
taketh his honor unto himself, but he that is called of God, as was
Aaron.”j* The ministry thus divinely instituted, called and com-
missioned, is not left to look for support to the unobligated beiievo-
lence of the church, much less to the cold and reluctant charities
of the world. The King of Zion has made provision for his
* 1 Tim. v. 17, 18. +Heb. v. 4.5
servants; “ the Captain of salvation,” has ordered full subsistence
for those whom He has appointed to “ train,” by every rule
“ Of holy discipline, to glorious war
The sacramental hosts of God’s elect.”
The sovereign Lord of all, has ordained a competent mainte-
nance for those whom he hath honored with the high commission
of “Legates of the skies,” and “Ambassadors of God, to guilty
men.” Yes, the Bible exhibits the support of the ministers of
Christ, as a plain gospel duty, a strong obligation; a duty as
plain, and an obligation as strong, as that which binds us to the
observance of any positive institution of our holy religion.
But let us rightly understand the amount of this provision,
which God has ordained for his ministers. It is not worldly
wealth, or independent fortune. No, God has not designed that
his servants in the gospel should receive such princely revenues
that they may live in all the luxury and splendor of worldlings.
On the other hand, he has allowed them more than the meagre
and stinted stipend, which many receive, which will scarce keep
them from actual want, and leaves them a constant prey to cor-
roding cares and distressing perplexities. It is styled a living.
“ They shall live of the gospel”—a maintenance, comfortable and
competent, so that the ministers of Christ, may, in the language of
the Apostle, concerning himself and Barnabas, “ have power to for-
bear working,”* be able to “ provide things honest in the sight of
all men,” show hospitality, as they are specially bound, and have
something to give to the poor. In their case, the Lord’s designs
seem much to correspond with the wise, though unpopular prayer
of Agur, the son of Jakeh, “Give me neither poverty nor riches;
feed me with food convenient for me.”f
To maintain this position, (this high ground as it may appear
to some,) that God has ordained a competent provision for his
servants in the gospel, I appeal to the authority of the Holy Scrip-
tures, and especially to this chapter from which our text is taken.
The Apostle Paul, though for special reasons, he declined receiv-
ing a maintenance from the people to whom he preached, yet
asserts positively, and establishes conclusively, his right and that
of his fellow Apostles, to a support from the churches.
1. The Apostle argues the point, by referring to the common
* l Cor. ix, 6, t Proy, xxx. 8,6
practice of men in other occupations, “ 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 ?”# He places the ministry on the same
common footing with other callings, as to yielding a livelihood to
those that pursue it. Men generally expect to be, and are sup-
ported by means of the occupations they engage in; and shall
the ministry, that highest of all vocations, alone be an exception ?
Shall the soldiers of the cross, the laborers in God’s vineyard, the
undershepherds of Christ’s flock, alone go unrequited ?
2.	The Apostle reasons from the greatness of the blessings
enjoyed by the agency of ministers, in comparison with the small
intrinsic value of a temporal support. “ If we have sown unto
you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal
things ?”f The blessings here contrasted are very different in
their nature, and consequently in their value. The one, spiritual,
the other, carnal: the one, eternal, the other, temporal: the one,
affecting our well being, through unending ages, the other, pro-
moting our comfort through the short season of this mortal life.
How reasonable then the claim of the ministry to a comfortable
maintenance. How ungrateful in men to withhold it! It was a
maxim among the Jews, “ that the inhabitants of a town, where
a wise man had made his abode, should support him; because he
had forsaken the world and its pleasures, to study those things
by which he might please God and be useful to men.”
3.	The Apostle draws an argument from a comparison of the
provision made for the support of the ministers of religion under
the gospel dispensation, with that which was ordained under the
ecclesiastical establishment of the old economy. 64 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 who
preach the gospel should live of the gospel.” j The Priests and
Levites of old, enjoyed a liberal provision, made by divine ap-
pointment, out of the sacrifices, and offerings, and first fruits, and
especially the tythes of the whole Jewish nation. Like provis-
ion, the Apostle declares, has been divinely ordained, for the
ministers of the sanctuary, under the gospel. A provision, simi-
* 1 Cor. ix. 7. 11 Cor. ix. 11. i 1 Cor. ix. 13, 14.7
lar, not in kind but in comfort, “ even so,” not in form and manner,
but in degree and obligation. God formerly considered the with-
holding the appointed provision from the Priesthood, as robbing
himself. “ Will a man rob God ? yet ye have robbed me. But
ye say wherein have we robbed thee ? In tithes and offerings.
Ye are cursed with a curse; for ye have robbed me, even this
whole nation.”* Have We not reason to fear that the same
charge and malediction may be spoken against such congrega-
tions as withhold from their Pastors a comfortable support, while
they have it “ in the power of their hands” to give.
The strong and authorative language of the passage before us,
is worthy of special observation. “ Even so hath the Lord or-
dained, that they who preach the gospel, shall live of the gospel.”
God’s ordination is, let it be remarked, that they shall live, not of
their patrimony, if they should be so fortunate as to have any;
not of the labor of their hands, in some worldly occupation; but
“ of the gospel.” The gospel they preach, must afford them a
living. This is the appointment of the King of Zion, from whose
decree there is no appeal, and in language as plain and forcible
as any that can be used to convey obligation.
4. And lastly, let us notice the express words of our great
Lord and Master, in relation to this matter. When he sent his
Apostles forth to preach the gospel, he directs them to make no
provision for their support, on the ground that they to whom they
ministered wTere bound to maintain them. “ Provide,” says he,
“ neither gold, nor silver, nor brass, in your purses: nor scrip for
your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves:
for the workman is worthy of his meat .’’f In another gospel
after very similar directions to the seventy Evangelists, he adds,
44 for the laborer is worthy of his hire.”J Now in these passages,
our Saviour makes the support of his ministers not only a plain
duty, but he exhibits it as a most equitable obligation. He
places it on the same principles of common justice, with the wages
of the mechanic, or the hire of the laborer* And when we consider
the nature and number of services rendered by ministers, if at all
faithful, and the comparatively small compensation which they
generally receive, we may safely conclude, that there are no
Wages more dearly earned, no hire more righteously due. Yet
* Mai. iii. 8, 9. t Matt. x. 9, 10. X Luke x. 7.8
how many there are, who, if they contribute a pittance to a min-
ister’s salary, think themselves vastly benevolent, and flatter
themselves that they are doing a work of pre-eminent charity.
Nay, further, do not many seem to think that ministers, alone of
all other men, must ex officio, and in a very important sense,
“ labor in vain, and spend their strength for nought.” Men, who
would not think for a moment of employing a Physician or Bar-
rister, without a suitable compensation; yet expect, as a matter
of course, that the minister will perform all kinds of pastoral labors
for themselves and families; baptize their children, visit their
sick, bury their dead, (and probably complain too, if these things
are not done with all possible punctuality;) while at the same
time, though abundantly able, they never have contributed one
farthing to the support of him whose talents and time they thus
employ, and whose unrequited labors they thus appropriate to
themselves.
I know, indeed, a great deal has been slanderously said by infidels
and others, aye, and some too who would arrogate the Christian
name, about ministers preaching for pay, and receiving stated
salaries. The cry of hirelings! hirelings! has oft been raised,
and other opprobious epithets have been liberally applied. Such
censorious spirits pretend to greater wisdom and superior holiness
than Jesus Christ claimed for his ministers; for he said concern-
ing his primitive “ messengers of peace,” “ the workman is wor-
thy of his meat,”—“ the laborer is worthy of his hire.” True
indeed, the preacher whose chief object is earthly gain, and
whose highest expected reward is money, deserves a much worse
name than hireling. “He mocks his Maker, prostitutes and
shames his noble office.” While at the same time, the reception
of a suitable compensation for ministerial services rendered, is a
matter of the strictest justice and propriety, sanctioned by the
Saviour and primitive example. Our Lord’s language, under con-
sideration, has also been perverted to a purpose different from that
for which it was designed. How often do you hear applied to the
ministry, “ Freely ye have received, freely give,”—and how
many changes have been rung on “ Take neither purse nor scrip
for your journey.” As though these words of Christ, bound his
ministers to preach and labor absolutely without compensation or
support; while it is abundantly evident that Christ meant to show9
that they had a right to expect a maintenance from those to whom
they ministered, and therefore should not provide for themselves.
But this design of the Saviour, these perverters of his language,
either are too ignorant to perceive, or too uncandid to acknowl-
edge. Of these alternatives, I freely leave them to their choice.
We have thus long dwelt on the point, that the support of the
ministry is divinely ordained and a gospel obligation, not only
because of its intrinsic importance, but because it is of fundamental
consequence to the special subject under consideration.
The next point, concerning which inquiry naturally arises, and
which has a still more direct bearing on our subject, is this: Are
ministers entitled to support only for themselves, or is provision
made also for their families? We will not here enter into an
extensive controversy with the Papists, who insist on the celibacy
of the clergy, but will only glance at a passage or two, to prove
the doctrine on which all Protestants are agreed, that marriage
is lawful for ministers as well as others. “ A Bishop then, must
be blameless,” says the Apostle, “ the husband of one wife.”* A
passage, which if it does not make marriage obligatory on the
clergy, certainly makes it lawful. The Apostle insists on the
Pastor’s domestic government, as necessary evidence of his fit-
ness to govern the church. Speaking again of a Bishop, (and
every Pastor is one,) he says, he must be “ one that ruleth well
his own house, having his children in subjection, with all gravity;
(for if a man know not how to rule his own house, how shall he
take care of the church of God ?”) These passages show the
lawfulness of marriage in ministers; nay more, that in most
cases, it is not only lawful, but expedient. Hence we may infer
conclusively, that ministers are entitled to a support, not only for
themselves, but also for their families. Besides we have primi-
tive example and Apostolic claim, bearing on the point under
consideration. Peter and the near kinsmen of the Saviour, were
married men, and their families were provided for, as well as
themselves; and Paul, though for special reasons, a single man
all his life, claimed this right for himself and Barnabas. “ Have
we not power to eat and to drink ? Have we not power to lead
about a sister, a wife, as well as other Apostles, and as the breth-
ren of the Lord, and Cephas.”f
* 1 Tim. iii. 2. 11 Cor. ix. 4, 5.
210
Another inquiry, leading us still nearer to the subject under
consideration, is this: How long is a minister entitled to the sup-
port of which we have spoken ? That he is so entitled as long as
he is engaged in the active duties of the ministry, none who have
right views on this subject, will doubt for a moment. But the
question is: Is he to be cared for any longer, when in the provi-
dence of God, he is laid aside from public ministrations; or when
called away by death, is any provision to be made for his be-
reaved widow and fatherless children ? Where disabled, or
superannuated ministers, or their bereaved families, have in the
good providence of God, a sufficiency of this world’s goods for
their comfortable support, it is well; no further provision is neces-
sary in such cases. But how comparatively rare are such cases ?
How few ministers there are who have wherewith to support
themselves for any length of time, if unable to preach, and de-
prived of their salaries? How few who could bequeath any
thing like a comfortable provision for their afflicted, and in many
cases helpless families ? What shall be done then, in the too
many cases of poverty, in circumstances like these ? Shall such
be forgotten by the church, left to the uncertain dependence of
private benevolence, or to the degrading alternative of subsisting
on the public bounty ? God forbid. Every dictate of humanity
and religion, repeat the reply, God forbid. Such are, in a special
sense, the Lord’s poor, for whom the church ought specially to
care and provide. If there was any just cause for murmuring on
the part of the disciples of old, because the widows of some
“were neglected in the daily ministration,”* much more cause
for complaint must there be, if the church neglect to care for the
desolate and helpless ones of those who have lived and died in
the service of God and his house. Methinks such abandonment
of God’s servants and their bereaved families, would disgrace the
church, and bring upon her, her great Master’s frown, and the
curse of Him who is “ a father of the fatherless, and a judge of
the widows, in his holy habitation.”!
The next question involved in our subject, is: In what way can
provision best be made for the above contemplated cases ? I can
conceive of but three modes, which can be adopted by the church,
with any prospect of success. Either the churches generally
* Acts. vi. 1- t Psalms lxviii. 5,11
must so enlarge the salaries of their ministers, that they may be
able, out of their surplus revenues, to make provision suitable
and sufficient; or, the churches respectively, must sustain the
burden of maintaining their own disabled and superannuated
ministers, and the families of those who die in the service; or, a
common fund must be established for this purpose, uniting the
contributions of our whole Zion, both ministers and churches.
To the first of these plans, besides other considerations, it may
be objected, that it would be impossible to secure any thing like
a uniform provision, on account of the diversity of ability and
liberality in different congregations. While some would be able
and willing to bestow an abundance, others could afford only a
limited measure, or be willing to “ withhold more than is meet.’5
Against the second scheme, it may well be urged, that in many
cases it will be found exceedingly oppressive if not impractica-
ble. To a large and wealthy congregation, it may be no burden
to support a disabled Pastor, or the family of one deceased; but
not so in the case of an infant or feeble church, (and such are
quite as liable as any other, to be placed in such circumstances.)
In such cases, the necessary provision could only be made at the
sacrifice of stated gospel ministrations. The last of the three
modes of relief, seems to me, least liable to objection, and most
promising of success, viz: the establishment of a common fund of
Relief Nor is such an institution a novelty in Christendom, or
even in our own church. About twenty-five years ago, an effort
of this kind was made in our denomination, and an association
was formed, called “ The Widow’s Fund Society, of the Reformed
Dutch Church.” But it proved a failure. Owing to the great
complexity of its arrangements, and most of all to the want of
zeal and unanimity in those most deeply interested, it lingered
out a languishing existence for a few years, and then died a silent
death. For a number of years, little was said and nothing done,
on this important subject. Disabled ministers pined in poverty,
and bereaved families drank the cup of unanticipated wretched-
ness, neglected, if not forgotten. Of late this subject has been
brought anew to the attention of the church. A well digested
plan of proceeding has been devised, fully discussed in our
Classes and Synods, and at length adopted by the highest judica-
tory of our church. A brief outline of this scheme, drawn fromofficial documents, may in this place be neither improper nor
unprofitable.
44 The fund shall be called,4 The Fund for the relief of disabled
ministers, and of the widows and children of ministers, of the
Protestant Reformed Dutch Church,’ and shall be under the
management and control of the General Synod.
46 Every minister of the Reformed Dutch Church, may, by the
payment of twenty dollars annually, secure an interest in the fund.-
44 All receipts of money, whether from the payment of annual
subscribers, collections in the churches, or donations by indi-
viduals, shall be safely invested, and allowed to accumulate,
until the fund shall amount to ten thousand dollars : after which,
the payments made by the ministers, and donations when so
specially directed, by the donors, shall be considered income.
All other donations, and the collections in the churches, to be
considered principal, and the interest only to be used as income.
44 The maximum amount* to be paid to parties interested in
the fund, shall be, to a minister disabled by sickness or age, twa
hundred dollars per annum. To the widow of a deceased min-
ister, two hundred dollars per annum. To children of clergy-
men, both whose parents have deceased, seventy-jive dollars per
annum each, until they attain the age of sixteen years.
44 Should the income, upon due experiment, be found to admit
it, this maximum may be increased. But should the income not
be found sufficient, then the whole income shall be divided
among the claimants, in proportion to their claims.
44 To a minister, disabled for duty, who has previously made
but one payment, the maximum of the annuity allowed shall be
seventy jive dollars. Where three annual payments have been
made, the maximum annuity shall be one hundred and jifty dol-
lars ; and when payments have been made for five years or
upwards, the maximum annuity shall be as above stated, two
hundred dollars. The widows and children of such, respec-
tively, to receive according to this graduation.
44 A widow of a minister, contracting marriage, forfeits her
claim to the annuity : but in such case, the children under six-
teen years of age, shall be entitled to their annuities, as though
both parents had deceased.
* i. e. Greatest amount.13
“If a minister shall die before the time appointed for the full
benefits to be realized, his widow, by paying up to the time*
shall then enjoy the full appropriation.
“ In cases in which ministers may find it impracticable to be-
come subscribers to this fund, it is recommended to consistories
to secure for their Pastors an interest therein, by subscribing on
their behalf.”*
Such are the main features and fundamental principles of this
fund. In illustration and recommendation of this scheme of
benevolence, I would submit the following observations:
1.	Its title is worthy of remark. It is not only a “Widow’s
Fund,” as it is frequently styled. It is designed not only to bring
relief to the widows and the fatherless of Christ’s servants, but to
succor the infirm, the disabled, among ministers, whether in the
morning of their lives and ministry, or in the noon or evening
of their days. The propriety of this is manifest. Who does not
see that a clergyman, on whom God lays the hand of protracted
illness, or whose energies are palsied with age, needs relief as
much, nay ofttimes more so, than his family would do, were he
numbered with the dead.
2.	The plan before us promises both stability and safety. It
rests not alone on the fluctuating amount arising from collections
and donations, but on permanent annual subscriptions. Besides,
the capital stock is to be invested in the best possible security,
and the interest alone to be expended. In addition to all this,
the fund is entirely under the control of the General Synod, and
entrusted to the management of the Synod’s “ Board of Direction
of the Corporation.” A corporate body, to whose care are con-
fided all the financial concerns of our church. A board com-
posed of laymen, save one; consisting of men of the first standing
in the city of New-York, for integrity, intelligence, business
talents, and sound responsibility; and men moreover, annually
chosen by the General Synod, to whom they render an account
every year, of all their official doings.
. 3 It is a scheme that is entirely practicable. Practicable, in
most cases, for ministers. There are but few, we hope, who
could not, by extra economy, contribute twenty dollars annually,
* Those who are desirous of consulting official documents, are referred to the
minutes of the General Synod, from the year 1835 to the present time, especially
for the years 1838-9.14
as a subscription to this Fund; and such as are unable, it is
hoped their Consistories, or people, will readily come to their
relief. If no others volunteer, it is confidently expected that
pious females (that larger and choicer portion of the flock of
Christ) will make it their special care to bestow this important
benefit, on their respective Pastors and their families. What
more fitting token could they impart, of their affectionate regard
and enduring confidence ? And as to the practicability of this
enterprise, as regards the churches of our denomination, there
can be no doubt. How easy would it be, if all will do a share,
to raise the comparatively small amount necessary for this pur-
pose. A church which has contributed so many thousands of
dollars to endow her Theological Seminary, and support her
benevolent institutions, cannot find it impracticable or even diffi-
cult, to secure this important object, so deeply affecting the
welfare of her ministry.
4.	This scheme distributes and equalizes the burden of this pro-
vision on the whole church. If left to be borne by only a part,
it would be manifestly unequal, and might prove oppressive. If
it were confined to the ministry alone, then either the amount of
the fund would be so small, as to be almost entirely inefficient,
or the annual subscription would be so large as to be exceed-
ingly burdensome, if not impracticable to many. If the neces-
sary provision be left to be made by the respective churches, in
individual cases, as they may occur, then some would be called
upon to support disabled ministers or their bereaved families,
while others would not have any such occasion. Probably some
feeble churches would have to sustain the burden, while wealthy
congregations would never be placed in such a situation. This
fund, by gathering together the contributions of the ministry and
churches generally, so distributes the burden, and makes it of
such uniform pressure, that it becomes so light as scarcely to be
felt by any.
5.	This fund is not liable to the objection, that its annuities are
so great as to enrich those who receive them. Were the annui-
ties to be a thousand dollars a year, or even half that sum, there
would be some ground for such an objection; but in the present
case there is none. Two hundred dollars annually, surely can-
not enrich an individual, much less a whole family. As the sole15
dependance, it would be insufficient to support almost any family,
however small or economical; while at the same time it may
prove an important auxiliary to other means, and afford substan-
tial “ Relief/’ in case of need. Yes, though it cannot enrich, it
may cheer the drooping spirits of some of Christ’s servants, in
their disability to labor for God and souls; it may feed the father-
less “ poor of the flock,” and cause many “ a widow’s heart to
sing for joy.”
6. It will be perceived also, that the sum of ten thousand dol-
lars, is considered indispensably necessary, as a capital stock, to
be secured, before this benevolent institution can go into active
operation, or be established on a permanent foundation. The
calculations on which the conclusion of the necessity of this
amount is based, have been carefully and fully made, by those
who were competent to the task, and who have made it a subject
of special attention. They are not a little abstract and intricate;
profound in principle and extensive in detail. Their introduction
in this place, even would time and space permit, it is to be feared
would prove neither generally interesting or profitable. The
attainment of the above specified amount, is then the special
object of present solicitude, to be accomplished as speedily as
possible. To effect this, the General Synod have directed the
different classes to appoint committees, and that collections be
made in all the churches. Our classes, at their meeting in Octo-
ber last, appointed a committee of two laymen in each church,
to gather up the contributions of their respective congregations,
and the main design of this discourse (in accordance with the
appointment of classes,) is, to prepare their way before them, by
affording necessary information and motive, and if possible, to
excite and diffuse an abiding interest in the important subject.
These remarks on the plan before us, are designed to have, and
I trust have had, a tendency to recommend this enterprise to
your favorable regard, and to attract towards it your unstinted
liberality. Still further, to secure these desirable results, I beg
leave to add a few considerations of a more general nature.
1. Such a provision as this we contemplate, is a matter of the
strictest propriety, if not justice, on the part of the church
towards her ministry. Of the ministers of the ancient sanctuary
was it said, “ Only unto the tribe of Levi he gave none inheritance;16
the sacrifices of the Lord God of Israel, made by fire, are their
inheritance, as he said unto them.”* But why had they no lot
in the division of the promised land, with their brother tribes ?
Evidently because they were chosen to44 the service of the taber-
nacle of the congregation.” And why were such liberal provis-
ions made for the support of the whole tribe, men, women, and
children, by the contributions of the other tribes ? Plainly and
justly, because the sons of Levi were consecrated to the service
of the altar, and could not provide for themselves and their
households. In like manner ministers are devoted to the sanctuary
of God, and consequently are precluded from almost all those
means and opportunities of making necessary temporal provision,
either for the present or future, which are open to all others
besides. The talents, acquirements and labors of ministers, if
devoted to a merely secular pursuit, would, in most cases, lead
not only to a competency 44 of this world’s goods,” but to wealth,
and independence. But now they are so employed in the service
of God and the church, that their possessors cannot, by them,
grow rich, and can ofttimes scarcely provide for present need,
much less .for future support. If then the church enjoys the
fruits of their talents, acquirements and labors, is it not a matter
of proper justice that she should provide for them and theirs, not
only for present comfort, but also when they can no longer labor 1
While able to discharge the duties of their office, it of right
belongs to the congregations to whom they minister, to take care
for their comfortable maintenance; but it would seem to be
more properly the duty of the whole church to provide for them
when disabled, and for their widows and children, when the hus-
bands and fathers are gone to their reward.
2. We have abundant example to justify the adoption of such
a plan. The practice of the primitive church may have a bear-
ing on this subject. They had a careful and 44 daily ministra-
tion,” by which the widowsj* of the church were provided for,
the widows of disciples in general. May we not then infer, that
as a matter of course, the widows of their Apostles and Evan-
gelists would receive special attention ? I would next appeal to
the example of religious bodies in modern times. Such institu-
tions as the one we contemplate, have long existed in the churches
* Joshua xiii. 14. + Acts xi. 1.17
of Europe, and are cherished by almost all sister denominations
in this country. Such a fund has long existed in the Presbyterian
church. The one in the Protestant Episcopal church, is pecu-
liarly efficient and flourishing. Nor are our brethren of the
Evangelical Lutheran church, strangers to such a project. In
the Methodist Episcopal church, where their clergy are sup-
ported from one common fund, they have no need of such an
agency as this; for provision is made as regularly for their disa-
bled ministers* as for those who are able to discharge the active
duties of their office. The Moravians, noted for their economy,
as well as for their zeal and success in the work of missions, make
provision for their disabled missionaries, and for the families of
missionaries gone to glory. Their example has been readily
followed by other missionary institutions. But will not the same
reasons hold good, and with almost equal force, in favor of a
suitable provision for ministers of the gospel at home? Are
they not almost as much unable to provide for the future, as
the “ messengers of the churches” abroad ? And may not the
action of our civil government teach us a lesson on this subject ?
The Pension laws of the United States, are sanctioned alike by
justice and gratitude, for service rendered to the State. But
shall our country provide for the aged veterans of the revolution,
and for the families of those who have died in the defence of their
country ? And shall the church leave to poverty and want, those
who, under the standard of the “ Prince of Peace,” have led her
consecrated hosts to victory, or the surviving dependants of those
who have died in her defence, on the bloodless Gospel field of battle,
fallen at their post, dying in their armor ?	“ Tell it not in Gath.”
3. The establishment of such a fund is desirable, because it
will tend to keep ministers employed in the active duties of their
office, as long as they ought to be, and no longer. Why is it that
so many ministers, somewhat advanced in life, are without pas-
toral charges, and find it so difficult to obtain permanent settle-
ments ? Other reasons may exist, or may be assigned, but I verily
believe one common reason is, the secret fear that they will be able
to labor but a short time, and then may become burdensome.
On the other hand, what causes ministers sometimes to retain
* I should suppose also, for the families of their deceased ministers, although I
am not sufficiently informed to assert it.
3is
their calls, and attempt to “ labor in the word and doctrine,” when
it is manifest to all, that they are not able, on account of age or
illness, to discharge their arduous functions ? Doubtless it is the
consciousness, that they so much need their stipulated, and per-
haps stinted salaries, to support themselves and families. But let
such a fund as this be established, and ministers become interested
in it, and then there need not, and I trust there will not, be, so
many ministers without charge, while as yet their " eyes are not
dim, nor their natural force abated.” Then too, ministers in
feeble health will have no inducement to aggravate and confirm
their diseases, or prematurely sacrifice their precious lives by a
too long continuance in the duties of the Pastoral office. And
then too, no minister will have an excuse for continuing to preach,
when his pulpit efforts excite more pity, if not contempt, for the
messenger, than reverence and regard for his message.
4. Such a fond as this, may exert a happy influence on the .
Pastoral relation, by increasing its permanency. Long and loud
are the complaints about the frequency of ministerial changes,
and the facility with which the bonds between minister and peo-
ple are sundered. Now, one common cause of all this, is the
need or desire, of a more competent provision for present or
future wants. I say not this as any discredit to the ministry;
for ministers, as well others, are bound to “ provide for their
own,” and if they do not, they may as well as others, "deny the
faith,” and be accounted “ worse than infidels.” When then, a
a minister receives a support not even sufficient for his present
wants, he is in duty bound to accept if not to seek a more eligible
situation. And even when a minister receives what will suffice
for his present necessities, and he is called in providence to a place
where the prospect of usefulness is equally great, and the salary
or “ hire,” if you please, such, that he may have some surplus for
future provision, why should he Hot accept it? nay, it is his duty
so to do, as long as the church neglects to provide for him and
his, when he can no longer labor. Let this fund be established,
and one great reason for such changes will be done away.
5. The establishment of such an institution will take away the
greatest temptation for ministers to become worldly and secular
in their habits and pursuits. There are doubtless some ministers,
who, on account of the inability of unwillingness of their people19
to afford them a comfortable support, are obliged to devote a part
of their time to some worldly pursuit, for present maintenance.
But the number of those is much greater, who do so, to provide
something for the time to come. They commenced such a
course probably, more from a sense of duty than from inclination.
While the duties of the ministry constituted their main business,
some secular concern was a mere secondary object. But
gradually the scene changes. Familiarity with worldly men and
worldly things, brings on a spirit of worldliness. They become
more and more secularized, until at length the worldly business
seems to be the primary object, and the ministry of the word of
mere secondary importance. Of such cases, the church and the
world have seen too many—to the reproach of religion and the
ruin of souls. And what is well worthy of notice, the providence
of God seems to have frowned most signally, on such worldliness
and secularly in the ministers of Christ. Many such have had
their fortunes blighted by the mildew of adverse dispensations,
and lived and died in poverty. Let then, this plan of a Relief
Fund be adopted, and the great temptation to worldliness will be
taken away from ministers, they will have no excuse for engaging
in secular pursuits, and the ministry will be delivered for the
time to come, from much desecration and disgrace.
6. I would earnestly urge the full and liberal endowment of
such an institution, because of the direct and important benefit it
will confer on ministers and their families, by relieving their
actual wants or saving them from distressing apprehension. The
prospect of an apprehended evil is* ofttimes as grievous, if not
more so, than the endurance of the evil itself What anxieties
and perplexities of mind must it cause a minister to reflect that
his whole earthly support rests on the precarious continuance of
his health ; and that the whole dependence of his family for a
maintenance, is suspended on the brittle thread of his mortal
existence. Can he be expected to labor in circumstances like
these, with undivided heart and undiminished energies ? No—
not as long as ministers are men of like passions with other men.
For this he must be either more or less than man. Let such
a provision be made, as this scheme proposes, and it will come
over his soul with a soothing and refreshing influence. It will
quiet his apprehensions for the future, and leave all his powers in20
undivided energy, for present effort and usefulness. Then too,
when sickness, in God’s righteous ordinations, overtakes him, and
long prostrates him, he is not called to drink the bitter cup of
actual or anticipated poverty, and when he dies, he can commend
his family to Him who has said, “ Leave thy fatherless children,
I will preserve them alive ; and let thy widows trust in me;”#
without the severe reflection that he has been tempting provi-
dence, by neglecting suitable means for their future welfare.
But this fund promises to be of essential service to ministers
and their families, by relieving them in cases not a few, from
actual and distressing destitution. Many have been the instances,
in which, by the decease of ministers, their families have been
reduced to sudden poverty and distress; left destitute, if not
homeless ; and in many cases, owing to previous habits and edu-
cation, more helpless than almost any others in similar circum-
stances. I will not detain you by a detail of specific cases.
Many such have occurred, the recital of which would excite the
tenderest sensibilities of the soul. It maybe supposed, however,
that the cases are rare in which such a fund could be of much
or necessary service to living ministers. This, I apprehend, is a
mistake. Poverty is no such stranger to the ministry. There
are not a few, disabled from preaching, to whom and whose
families, the proposed “ Relief” would be exceedingly opportune,
if not indispensable; and there are some, to whom in their
straitened circumstances, if not deep poverty* this provision
would come with all the welcome of the heavenly manna tor
Israel’s wanderers. There are two cases which now occur to
me, and which may serve as special proof and striking illustration
of the necessity of such an institution. Both in a state of celiba-
cy, and living, as far as known. The one in middle life, the other
in old age. The former, is a brother universally beloved and
esteemed, by all who know him, as “ one of the excellent of the
earth.” He was for some time settled in one of our churches,
where he labored faithfully and successfully. But too soon the
withering influence of Dyspepsia rested on him. His labors
were interrupted. He had recourse to means of restoration,
mended, again labored and again relapsed. After some more
alternations of renewed labor and relapse, each striking deeper
*Jer. xlix. 11.21
the roots of disease, his strength so failed him, that he was con-
strained to give up his charge, and seek for health in a more
genial clime. His limited resources were too soon exhausted,
and he was reduced to poverty, so deep and distressing, that he
was induced to appeal to his brethren in General Synod assem-
bled, for a contribution, to relieve him from his most pressing
wants. I rejoice to add, that this appeal was not made in vain.
The other case is still more humiliating to the ministry, and dis-
graceful to the church. It is that of an, aged preacher of the
gospel, in our own denomination, who has outlived his active
powers, and “ whose strength,” by reason of four score years,
has indeed become “ labor and sorrow.” That aged servant of
the Lord, (whose moral character I have never heard im-
peached,) is now reduced to the humiliation of a public pauper,
and if in the land of the living, is doubtless spending this blessed
day within the walls of one of our county poor houses. Is not this
a case, the bare mention of which is sufficient to fill the whole
church with shame, that no effectual provision has as yet been
made for such* and similar cases. How opportune and important
would have been the provision of such a fund, to those afflicted
and helpless ones. It would have been literally a “ Relief”
Oh ! how it would have alleviated their griefs and quieted their
apprehensions—how it would have cheered “their days of sor-
row” and solaced “ the wearisome nights appointed to them.’
These may be extreme, but not isolated cases, and they exhibit
with a force stronger than argument the propriety and necessity
of such a provision for the aged* the infirm, the bereaved and
helpless of the tribe of Levi.
But I must conclude. Permit me, however, in closing, to
inquire: Will this institution be full of blessings, only to the min-
istry, or will it also favorably affect the church ? It has benefits
in store, I verily believe, for the whole body in all its members.
It has salutary tendencies and benignant influences, which will
overspread the broad surface of Zion. It will be like “ ointment
poured forth,” diffusing its fragrance all around. Of this scheme
of benevolence, it may truly be said hereafter, as was sung by
the gifted bard, of “ mercy in its unstrained quality
“ It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath : It is twice blessed,
It blesseth him that gives, and him that takes.”22
If the church now engage with energy in this “ labor of love,”
and place on a permanent and prosperous foundation this Fund
of Relief for her ministers, thus gladding the hearts and stimu-
lating the enterprise of her “ servants for Jesus’ sake,” who can
tell but she may experience throughout all her borders, a spiritual
fulfillment of the conditional promise made by the mouth of the
last Old Testament Prophet—“ Bring ye all the tithes unto the
storehouse* that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me
now herewith, saith the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the
windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall
not be room enough to receive it.”* And may not individual
believers, engaging in this good work, find themselves “ blessed
in their deeds ?” Will not He who hath said, that the gift of “ a
cup of cold water only, in the name of a disciple,”f shall not go
unrecompensed; remember it, and grant “ a free, but large re-
ward?” Yes, this maybe numbered among the other good
works of those blessed ones “ who die in the Lord,” and which
shall “follow them” when “they rest from their labors,”J and
come up in remembrance at “ that great and notable day of the
Lord,” when Jesus Christ shall occupy “his great white throne,”
and the universe be called to judgment. Then may those who
have contributed to this good object, from right views and motives,
hear the welcome sentence from the lips of their gracious Saviour
and Judge—“ Gome ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom
prepared for you from the foundation of the world: for I was an
hungered, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me
drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: naked, and ye
clothed me : I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and
ye came unto me.” “ Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye
have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have
done it unto meӤ Amen.
* Mai. iii, 10. tMatt, x. 42. t Rev, xiv. 13. §Matt. xxv. 34, 35, 36, 40.