The central Presbyterian. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1856-1908, 1881-06-29
Our Contributors.
How Much Should Churches
Cost
BY REV. R. L. DABNEY. D. D.

II
as much as the people can possibly get
the more costly, the more honorable to
God" This sentiment evidently found
full sway in the middle ages when small
communities, in the absence of steam and
the other mechanical appliances which
abridge labor now, built the grand and
ornate stone cathedrals, which are still
the wonders of Europe while the burgh-
ers who furnished the means were living
in dwellings which the households of our
cities would now hardly tolerate as stables
for their carriage-horses. In the more
sober eye of Professionalism, these excess
sive architectural efforts appear prepos-
ferrous; and the enormous diversion of
wealth and labor wholly mischievous and
unphilanthropic But this spirit is not
dead yet. The conscientious opinion of,
perhaps, the majority of Christians is ::
that all the money they can get hold of
is to be lavished in the adornment of
houses of worship; and the more costly
they are, the more they suppose God is
honored.
If the grounds of this opinion are asked
for: we are at once pointed to the taber-
nacle, and the temple. The details of
these, say they were all ordained by in
spiration, and so must have been proper
The tabernacle was but movable tent
indeed, as. it must be, to suit nomadic
people; but it was as costly and beauti-
full as tent could be made; and the gold
and gems of poor, enslaved people were
lavished on its adornment. When this
tent was afterwards reproduced in stone
by Solomon, on a grander scale; then
the wealth of David's conquering king
dom, including the labor of armies of
workmen, tons of the precious metals,
and uncountable tons Of brass and iron,
were, by David own orders, lavshed on
the building. This, they think, is a pre-
cedent for us.
Now, just here join issue with them,
and assert that it is no precedent for us.
In the first place, there were peculiar
reasons why the precious metals might
be appropriated then to religious mon
ument, which have now passed away.
The Hebrew commonwealth was designed
for an agricultural one and especial
means were employed by God to keep
the people equal in wealth. 1t was not
designed that they should be CONNER
cial people. They were to live separate
from the pagan world. Hence there was
not that scope for the useful employment
of the precious metals in currency, which
distinguishes our times. What is more
important, the Church then had no for
eign missionary activities assigned to it.
The middle wall of partition was stand
ing. 1t was the will of God, (not that
Gentiles seeking Him should be repulsed,
but) that the true religion should be
localized in one country, and should have
one noted centre. Hence, it Yves reason
able to put more wealth into the temple,
than it would be now, when the way is
open to employ it in the more blessed
work of missions. Does anybody believe
that the piety of David would have led
him to bury all that money in the one
building, if the way had been open to
spend it in sending missionaries all over
the pagan world?
In the second place, there were reasons
why this one building, the only one in
the whole Church and the whole world,
should have peculiar splendor; which
have no application to our churches. 1t
was the one religious centre of all the
believers in the whole earth. But chiefly,
Its uses were typical. 1t was the dwell
ing place Of the ark and the shekinah,
the place Of the theocracy, the seat of the
oracle, the only proper and lawful place
OF ordinary sacrifice in the whole world.
1t was to the Church, the standing en-
blem Of heaven. But, as heaven is the
seat Of Gods glory, so its emblem was
properly made glorious. Men are con-
tinually forgetting, under the influence
Of prelacy, with its unscriptural pretenses
Of sacrifices and priests that this temple
has no successor IN the Christian Church.
The only thing which now answers to it,