Londons Resurrection, Discourse 47
DISCOURSE XLVII.
Of the rebuilding of Churches.
HOw earneſtly were it to be wiſhed, that men, and women of Eſtates, would apply their charity to the building of Churches? Did I call it charity? ſurely that word is beneath the thing: for what is given to Gods uſe immediately, or to the uſe of his worſhip, and ſervice, is not Charity (ſtrictly ſo called) but Piety. Our charity extends not to God, but to the Saints that are upon the earth: for God receives no alms for his own uſe, but tribute, as do Princes. Yet I have let the word Charity ſlip, becauſe whatſoever is given without conſtraint, and of a willing mind, is vulgarly called by that name, (and loquendum cumvulgo is no ill rule) at leaſtwiſe when it is given to thoſe that want it: now though the great God do not want Churches, (Acts 17.25. God dwelleth not in Temples made with hands, neither is worſhipped with mens hands, as though he needed any thing, ſeeing he giveth to all life, and all things.) Yet his ſervants do want them, yea and money too (many of them) wherewith to contribute any thing towards the building of them, and Churches are given as to God, in one ſenſe, viz. as places dedicated to his worſhip, ſo in another ſenſe to men, as good accommodations, and conveniences, for that publick worſhip which they ſhould tender unto God; now upon this latter account it is perfect charity to build Churches, though in reſpect of the former it was piety, now where piety and charity go hand in hand, where they greet and kiſs each other, they ſpeak the work excellent, in which they two concur, and give great hopes of good ſucceſs to them that ſhall take it in hand, as the appearance of Caſtor and Pollux both at once, had wont to be conſtrued by Mariners as a good preſage of a proſperous voyage to inſue.
As needful a work as I do apprehend it, to rebuild Churches, I would not ſay one word of it, if I did not think there were perſons enough in England, to bear the charg of it: and do themſelves no great hurt. There are, whoſe cups are full, and do overflow, who have enough, and to ſpare, who have more than heart can wiſh, that is, need to wiſh, for matter of eſtate, &c. Many wealthy perſons have no heirs of their own bodies, nor can expect any, nor kindred it may be that are very near, and dear to them: others have heirs of their own bodies, but not fit to be made heirs of their whole eſtates (or haeredes ex aſſe) becauſe they can expect no other, but that they will quickly run out all, and bring themſelves to husks, as did the prodigal, Luk. 15. Or as that great Lawyer propheſyed of his eldeſt ſon; to whom he ſaid in his laſt Will and Teſtament, that he left his eſtate to be ſcambled away, and imbezled, for he could hope no better. (neque enim de illo melius ſpero)
Have ſuch perſons as theſe nothing to ſpare towards the rebuilding of Churches. If God had given them many children, (whom he hath been pleaſed to write childleſs) they could have given every child a fair portion, and made them all rich; and will not their hearts ſerve them to give the value of one childs portion, or of what they could have given to one, if they had had ſeven, or ten children (as they have none) towards building up convenient places for the worſhip of God? would ſuch a proportion undo them? yea would they ſo much as feel it? what if the wealthy parents of hopeleſs children, did ſay to them as David ſaid to Mephiboſheth? Thou and Zibah divide the inheritance, ſo in this caſe, thou and the deſolate Churches, and other pious uſes, ſhall even divide my eſtate betwixt you; ſurely in this caſe foreign, that half is more than the whole, is as true as in any, viz. that half a fathers eſtate, is more to be given to a hopeleſs child, than the whole of it, to one that is good and hopeful.
Others (it may be) have a child or two not unhopeful, (but that is all they have) and the eſtate is ſo great as would have richly provided for many more; if ſuch ſhall pretend that they have nothing to ſpare to good uſes, neither would they have had, by the rule they go upon, if the whole world had bin theirs, for their rule is this, that whatſoever they have, be it ever ſo much they muſt leave it, intirely to their Children, be they ever ſo few: yea though they have but one, he or ſhe muſt have all, and by that means they load them with thick clay, till they break their backs again, they tempt ſome looſe perſons to ſteal them, if they be daughters, or to inveagle them if they be ſons, they make them ſee ſo great an eſtate before them, that they think they ſhall never come to the end of it, they begin to think of dividing it, as the mother of Siſera and her wiſe ladies ſpake of his dividing the ſpoil, To every man a damſel or two (Judg. 5.30.) a prey of divers colours of needle work, on both ſides meet for the necks of them that take the ſpoil, I ſay they begin to think of dividing, or dedicating it, ſo much to Bacchus, and ſo much more to Venus, and ſo much to other heatheniſh Gods, and Goddeſſes of pleaſure. Thus ſome deſtroy their children as that Tarpeian Virgin was deſtroyed, by overwhelming them with bracelets, I mean with riches more than they know what to do withall.
Were it not better that ſome part of ſuch an eſtate were given to good uſes? went to build Churches? A private mans eſtate may be too great, as well as to little, as ſome Kingdoms have been, which have ſunk with their own weight (mole ruerunt ſua,) A ſhip may have too much ballaſt, as well as too little, and a boat may be overſet by too great a ſail. When thoſe that have more than enough for them and theirs, have ſo much wiſdom as to hear, and ſo much grace as to confeſs it, it will appear that England doth not want for money, ſufficient for the rebuilding of Churches. I doubt not but ſome who have but midling eſtates, and many Children will contribute freely to the building of Churches, and ſhould not they much more who have great eſtates, and no great charg, but few children, or all bad, or none at all? If this be not a reaſonable motion (themſelves being Judges) let it be refuſed.
Many are at great expences every year, upon things of far leſs conſequence than is the building of Churches: I would beg but a year or two's revenue, ſuch and ſo great, as ſome men ſpend upon their luſts, be they the luſts of the fleſh, or the pride of life, I ſay no more, as from them, for and towards the re-edifiing of demoliſhed Churches. Alas that men ſhould be more free, and bountiful to their ſins, than to their Souls, to works of darkneſs, than to works of piety, to damn their Souls, than to promote the means of ſaving them.
Synagogues of State ſwarm every where, and are carefully provided for. There are Temples to Bacchus, and Venus almoſt innumerable, and much frequented. Men are about to build for themſelves better houſes than they had before, and while they they ſo do, would it not be a great ſhame if they ſhould build no houſe for God? muſt God be but as it were a ſojourner, whilſt we dwell in ceiled houſes? muſt the Ark remain as it were in tents? muſt religion be but a tenant at will having here and there a room afforded it, upon meer courteſy? There are (for ought I hear) but a moity of Churches to what were formerly intended to be built, though the inhabitants of London, are like to be as many as ever: if the piety of this time will not extend to that moity, it will be thought to be not half ſo much, as was the piety of former ages.
How gladly would the Hugonites in France rebuild their Churches, which were wilfully pulled down; if they might have leave to do it? we have leave and incouragement, and ſhall we not build ours? How much more decent, how much more convenient, how much more publick, (generally) how much more unſuſpected, and unliable to cavils, and exceptions from the world, is the exerciſe of religion in Churches than in private houſes? How did Infidels take occaſion (though moſt unjuſtly) by the primitive Chriſtians, their aſſembling in private, to charg thoſe horrid things upon them, which they could never have done, if they had met in publick? What religion is there in the world, that hath not publick temples erected for the exerciſe of it (whether Jewiſh, or Mahumetan, (if it be but permitted.)
What noble Temples have been erected to idol Gods, which are no Gods, as that at Epheſus to Diana? It hath been a cuſtome amongſt the Jews to throw down the book of Eſther upon the ground, becauſe the name of God is not found in all that book: I do no more commend them for it, than Moſes for throwing down the two tables of the Law: but this I'le ſay, God may juſtly do ſo by London viz. throw it to the ground again, if his name be not ſo far regarded, and recorded there, as by building up places for his publick worſhip.
Do you build Churches, and then truſt God to provide good Miniſters, provide you candleſticks, and God will take ca…e for burning and ſhining lights, as when Iſaac ſaid Behold the fire and the wood, but where is the lamb, &c. And Abraham ſaid God will provide a lamb for a burnt offering, Gen. 22.7. The people found beaſts to ſacrifice, the prieſts preſented them to God, and God found fire from Heaven to conſume them, in token of acceptance, Pſ. 20.3. The Lord remember all thy offerings, and accept, (turn to aſhes it is in the original) all thy burnt ſacrifice, for that God did ſhew he was willing to eat of that meat which they had provided for him. The widdow ſpoken of, 2 Kings 4.4. She found veſſels, and God found oyle to fill them. Shall Papiſts build many and magnificent Churches, for the purpoſes of their Idolatry, and ſhall we build none, or none in compariſon, for the true worſhip of God? They will go nigh to ſay that proteſtants in England had never had any Churches worth the ſpeaking of, but that men of their religion built them. How kindly did God take it, that David did but purpoſe to build him a houſe (though he were prevented) and from Solomon that he did it? How great incouragements were given to building of the Temple, Haggai 1.4, 8. Build the houſe, and I will take pleaſure in it, and be glorified ſaith the Lord.
What if there were a more viſible preſence of God in the temple at Jeruſalem, where he dwelt in the thick cloud, and in many ſenſible tokens of his preſence? yet there is as real (though inviſible) yea ſometimes as comfortable a preſence of God in the places where his people now do or may aſſemble to worſhip him, and God in ſuch Churches as ours, is or may be ſerved in as pure ordinances, and in as acceptable a manner, as he had wont to be in the temple at Jeruſalem.
There was indeed a ceremonial holineſs in that temple, and in the utenſils belonging to it, which is not in our Churches, and in the utenſils thereof, that is to ſay, that temple, and the apurtenances thereof, were ſo peculiarly, and intirely dedicated to God, and to his ſervice, that they could not without prophaneſs be put to any other uſe, neither at one time nor at another. Therefore our Saviour whipt the buyers and ſellers out of the temple, telling them it was a houſe of prayer, and we read of the ſhew-bread that it was not lawful for any to eat, but only for the Prieſts, Mat. 12.14. Doubtleſs Belſhazzar, and his company, were profane in drinking their wine, out of the veſſels of the temple, Dan. 5.2. and that was counted as part of their ſin: but we challeng not to our Churches, and the utenſils thereof, ſuch a holineſs as this, viz. of being appropriated to the uſe of Religion, and to no other uſe, at any time and upon any occaſion whatſoever, witneſs the liberty given in many parts of England, to teach ſchool in publick Churches, though conſecrated; implying that the exerciſe of that civil imployment there, is no ways oppoſite to that which is meant by the conſecration of Churches. Like inſtance might be given in the performance of academical exerciſes, ſuch as are making of ſpeeches, managing of philoſophical diſputes, not only in private Chappels, but in the moſt publick and eminent Churches, belonging to both our univerſities. Now they that allow ſuch things, do thereby intimate that they attribute no ſuch ceremonial holineſs to our Churches, as did belong to the temple at Jeruſalem, which to have ſo imployed had been great profaneneſs, but that they conceive that all civil, and ſecular uſes, and imployments are there, and then only, to be baniſhed from our Churches, when the ſervice of God is there celebrating, or to be celebrated. Juſt as we look upon the bread, and wine that is brought to the Communion Table, to be holy, only ſo far forth as it is made uſe of in, and for the purpoſe of the Lords Supper, and during the time of that adminiſtration, but when that is over, what remaineth may be uſed as common bread, ſopt into wine crum'd into milk, or otherwiſe which may not be done to it, whilſt the Lords Supper is celebrating: ſo in this caſe, when, and ſo long, as there is any occaſion, or opportunity of religious ſervice to be performed in our Churches, they muſt be wholly at the ſervice of Religion, and all things elſe muſt avoid, and give way: but when religion hath no preſent uſe, or occaſion for them, at all ſuch times, they may be for the uſe of thoſe civil, and ſecular affairs, which have need of them, and cannot be elſewhere ſo well accommodated.
This notion may (for ought I know) remove a ſtumbling block out of ſome mens way, which would have kept them from the contributing to the building of Churches, as thinking that Churches, by virtue of that which is called the conſecrating of them, were lookt upon to be as holy as ever the temple at Jeruſalem was, and in the ſame kind, viz. of ceremonial holineſs; whereas indeed there is no ſuch thing intended, as appeareth by the allowance given to put them to common uſes, as to teach ſchool in them, &c. but only as a religious man would dedicate his own houſe to God, as reſolving to ſerve, and worſhip God in it, though not to uſe it only for the purpoſes of Religion, ſo are Churches dedicated to the uſes of Religion, primarily, and principally, and for as often as Religion hath occaſion for them, but ſo as not to be to thoſe purpoſes ſolely, and only to them, and to no other, in which peculiarity, and entireneſs of Dedication, did conſiſt that Ceremonial holineſs which was in the Temple of Jeruſalem. The places in which we worſhip God, for, and during the time we are actually worſhipping, are, or ſhould be as holy as the Temple was; that is to ſay, wholy devoted to the ſervice of God, and to no other uſe for that time (as I ſaid of the bread and wine in the Communion) though afterwards, they are free for other uſes. Melchiſedeck who was both King and Prieſt, was not the leſs holy as a Prieſt, becauſe he had alſo the ſecular employment of a King, neither are our Churches any wayes prophaned, by being ſomtimes put to uſes that are but civil, and not Sacred.
Moral Holineſs there was none in the Temple of Jeruſalem, for places are not capable of ſuch holineſs as perſons are, viz. that which conſiſts in genere morum, as in loving of God, and delighting in God, &c. for that only reaſonable creatures are capable of: neither was there any intrinſecal and innate holineſs in the Temple, ſuch as is in part of that which we call the Moral Law, which was good, and holy in it ſelf (quaedam Deus voluit quia in ſe bona) but the Temple was holy only by Divine Inſtitution and ſeparation to Gods Service, which otherwiſe had bin no more holy than another place.
Laſtly, A Relative holineſs (or what may be ſo called) was all that could be attributed to the Temple, for it was holy, only in relation to thoſe holy uſes it was ſet apart for, and thoſe holy Ordinances and Priviledges, and manifeſtations of God, which were there to be enjoyed, only becauſe it was by Gods appointment ſeparated from all common uſes, at all times, and appointed to relate wholly, and only to the ſervice of God, therefore we call it Ceremonially Holy. As it were matter of meer Ceremony to bow towards a Chair of State, as well when it is empty, as when the King is in it. So if our Churches ought alwayes to be uſed with the ſame Reverence, and Sequeſtration from all things of a Secular nature, when the ſervice of God is not actually performing there, as when it is, then were they Ceremonially holy, but it is not ſo, as I have ſhewed, therefore in the caſe of our Churches, what was ſaid of the Altar may be inverted, viz. it was ſaid of old that the Altar did ſanctify the Gift; but in this caſe, the Gift ſanctifieth the Altar, that is to ſay, the holineſs of our Churches being nothing elſe, but their relation to holy things, when thoſe holy things are not preſent, when no Ordinance is adminiſtring, for that time they may be put to other uſes, becauſe the ſpecial preſence of God in our Churches, is only then, when his Name is there Recorded, and his people met together in his Name; whereas God was alwaies ſpecially preſent in the Temple, by the viſible manifeſtations of his Preſence, as namely, by the Cloud in which he dwelt, &c. Our Churches do relate to as holy things, and as holy Ordinances, as the Temple did, only thoſe holy things are not ſo conſtantly in it, as was the preſence of God in that Temple, where he conſtantly dwelt.
I have beaten out this notion, to let you ſee that there is no ſuch great odds betwixt the Temple at Jeruſalem and other places built for the ſervice of God (neither of them being morally holy, and both of them being relatively holy, only the Temple was ſo continually, and our Churches are ſo but pro die & nunc, or during the time of Religious adminiſtrations) I ſay the odds between them is not ſo great, but that an Argument may very well be drawn from Gods approbation of what was intended by David, and done by Solomon towards the building of that Temple, to evince what acceptance they are like to meet with, who for ſincere aims and ends, do, or ſhall contribute their aſſiſtance to the building of Churches.
I could eaſily multiply reaſons why, though it is good to draw nigh to God any where, and to worſhip him though it were in Mountains, and dens, and Caves of the Earth, as the Primitive Chriſtians were forced to do, yet it is moſt expedient, and of great uſe, that publick places, ſuch as thoſe we call Churches, ſhould be erected for the Worſhip and Service of God. For firſt of all, no man knows how ſoon the door may be ſhut againſt the exerciſe of Religion in any private place, I mean by them that firſt opened it, or by thoſe that ſhall come after them. Where Religion dwels but precatiouſly, or upon meer ſufferance (and not by the ſanction of Law) it may ſoon be caſt out (like Agar and her ſon) becauſe there ſhe is not Miſtreſs, ſhe cannot call the houſe her own. If the Landlord, or Landlords ſhall take pet at any thing, then out ſhe muſt, and ſo be hunted from place to place, as often as offence is taken, which to take, is the commoneſt thing in the world.
I am miſtaken if private and ſmall Aſſemblies will not neceſſarily multiply in infinitum, if places for publick Worſhip be not built. If a great Family were crowded into a houſe, in which every room were very ſmall (like Cabins in a ſhip) it were impoſſible that whole Family ſhould eat, and drink, and converſe all together, but every one muſt eat and drink by himſelf, or only ſome few in a company, which would be very uncomfortable, and a great diſorder.
Some may think that the variety of Opinions which are in England at this day, would cauſe as great multiplicity of Aſſemblies as now is, though there were ever ſo many publick Churches: but I am not of their mind, for that I have taken notice, that where men of good lives, and of good abilities, have Preached, the Congregation hath conſiſted of ſober perſons, of very different perſwaſions, whoout of a reſpect to publick Ordinances, have there preſented themſelves, though it may be ſcarce two of them of a different ſort, are ordinarily found together at the ſame private Meeting. I do not at all deſpair, but that ſome little prejudices which now keep good men aſunder, will in time wear off, and that (with the bleſſing of God) what I have written in this book, will ſomewhat contribute to it, or they themſelves, by degrees, will ſee the vanity, groundleſneſs, and ill conſequence of their diviſions, and when that is done, one Church will hold them, whom now a few cannot.
The inconvenience and ill conſequence of having many diviſions, and ſub-diviſions of Chriſtian Societies, more than is needful, or than uſe to be, is greater than can eaſily be foreſeen. If one and the ſame Church or Society break into ten, or twenty diſtinct Churches, or Societies, every one of them under ſeveral Teachers, and going their own way, will they not have leſs love for one another, leſs converſe together, leſs of Majeſty and Authority, leſs ſtrength and power to withſtand thoſe that ſhall oppoſe and ſet themſelves againſt them, than they had when they were all together? Who had not rather have any thing whole than in ſmall pieces? who will give ſo much for parcels, and remnants, as for that cloth, or ſtuff, which is cut out of the whole piece? Bread that is cut, drieth and ſpoils preſently, and they ſay that beer drinks ſmaller, and dies ſooner, when there is but a little of it, than when a great quantity is put up together. Should an army be divided into as many regiments, as there are companies in it, and into as many companies, as there are ſquadrons, it would be nothing like ſo able to deal with an enemy, nor would it be half ſo capable, as now it is, of good government, and diſcipline.
Surely a good government in the Church were better than none at all; nor can the Church well ſubſiſt without ſome government, any more than a State can do: but certainly the Church can at no time admit of any government, either of one ſort, or of another, in caſe it were ſo, there were no publick Churches, or publick congregations: for if it happen there be ten, or twenty ſocieties, for one that uſe to be, that have no relation to one another, nor no certain places of meeting, who can take an account of them, or have a due inſpection over them? If a maſter that hath two hundred ſcholars, ſhould divide them into fifty ſeveral forms, or Claſſes, reading diſtinct Authors, how impoſſible would it be for him to teach them all? whereas if he reduce them all to five or ſix forms, with the help of an uſher, or two, he may teach them well enough.
Let there be no government in the Church and then all will be Prophets, all will be teachers, or as many as pleaſe to make themſelves ſo, and as can gain a few people to hear them, the people will make to themſelves Prophets of the loweſt of the people, as did Jeroboam: (now it is a great evil to make teachers of them that are none, as well as to make no teachers of them that are, or ought to be ſuch) and they that preach will preach what they liſt, none controlling them) and practiſe how they liſt and the end of that will be woful ignorance, error, diſſention and confuſion, which cannot be prevented, unleſs the Church (that great ſchool of Chriſt) do conſiſt of larg forms or Claſſes, I mean publick Churches and congregations, to which the maſters of aſſemblies may have an eye, be thoſe maſters of aſſemblies of one judgment, or of another. If ſcholars repair to their ſchools at ſchool time, and there receive the inſtruction of honeſt and able maſters, (if it be their happineſs to have ſuch) they may better be truſted as to what they ſhal do at other hours, either in their cloſets or chambers, when they are by themſelves, or in company, and conſultation one with another.
Publick Churches will make way for Chriſtians to teſtifie their union, and communion with one another, by joyning there together (whatſoever opportunities over and above thoſe, they ſhall make uſe of in private.
Solomon tels us, that the borrower is ſervant to the lender, Prov. 22.7. If there be publick places erected, primarily, for religious worſhip, then religion will be in a condition to lend: (as when Churches are lent, at ſuch times as they can be ſpared, to ſuch as teach ſchool, and cannot be otherwiſe provided) but if there be no ſuch, Religion muſt borrow, and ſo become a ſervant, which ought to be every ones maſter.
Private places of worſhip frequented by thoſe who altogether refrain the publick, are ordinarily called by ſome name of diſtinction, and appropriation, as namely the place where the Quakers meet, or the Anabaptiſts meeting-houſe, or ſuch like, whereas publick Churches carry no ſuch names of diſtinction with them, nor pretend to any other, than to keep open houſe for all comers, that have a deſire to wait upon God, in his ordinances, (be they of twenty ſeveral judgments) and that methinks is much better: for till names of diſtinction ceaſe diviſions will continue, and I ſee no reaſon why they who agree in the fundamental doctrines, and practiſes of Chriſtianity, ſhould not be willing to pray and hear, and ſing Pſalms together, (where thoſe duties are piouſly and ſolemnly performed) though they differ about twenty little things. Even infidels ſhould be admitted to publick prayer, and preaching, how elſe ſhould they believe in him of whom they have not heard? or how ſhould they be converted? and as for thoſe who in the judgment of charity are true believers though varying from us, in ſome ſmall opinions, and practiſes, I know not why we ſhould exclude them from fellowſhip with us in the Lords Supper, which is to raile in the Communion Table in the worſt of ſenſes.
To have no publick Churches would carry ſuch a face with it, as if no Religion were owned, eſtabliſhed, and countenanced, or any thing more than tollerated, and connived at (like a tollerable evil, rather than an indiſpenſable good) or rather as if all Religion were perſecuted, and driven into corners.
If Religion be exerciſed only in private places, vice hath as much liberty as that comes to: drunkenneſs, and whoredom take their freedom in private houſes, and ſhall Religion appear no more publickly than they? as if it alſo were a work of darkneſs, and aſhamed to ſhew it's head.
If I thought that all the reaſons I have alledged, would not prevail with men of eſtates to contribute freely towards the building of Churches: I could upbraid them, by telling them that which is no news (for were it news I would not tell it them,) viz. that ſeveral places of good capacity, have been erected by a ſort of people that are generally none of the richeſt, and who when they did it, had cauſe to fear leaſt ſome creature or other, would cauſe their ground to wither, and expoſe them to the ſcorching Sun. I ſay ſome perſons have adventured under thoſe perillous circumſtances, to build larg places for the exerciſe of their Religion, all their diſcouragements notwithſtanding: if then the people who are richer than they, who have leave and incouragement, to build publick Churches, and may have many thanks for their labour, who have the law of the land on their ſide, and all the power of the nation divided amongſt them, whoſe Churches are as like to ſtand as the City it ſelf is, or will be, when rebuilt; I ſay if they have not ſo much love for the nation, for themſelves, and for Religion, as to build us more Synagogues in lieu of thoſe that were burnt, the Chappels of eaſe I ſpake of, or ſhrines (what ſhall I call them) will riſe up in judgment againſt you.
If you will not build publick Churches, who are like to have the greateſt intereſt in them, when they are built, I was about to ſay thoſe poor people I mentioned but now, (as hardly as they are thought of) would (I am perſwaded ſpare money from their backs and bellies, to build more Churches, if they might be ſure they ſhould be theirs, as much as yours when they are built again: nay, be it how it will be, ſuch is the love, the ſoberer ſort of them do bear to publick ordinances, that I queſtion not but they will bear their full proportion; whenſoever trial ſhall be made, what every man will freely contribute to the building of publick Churches. If thoſe that ſpeak little of the Church, ſhould do more for it than ſome that have the Church, the Church, ever in their mouths (as the Jews of old, the Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord, Jer. 7.4.) it would be a woful ſhame.
But why ſhould I ſeem to miſtruſt, or doubt of the piety, and bounty, of the true ſons and daughters of the Church, towards their diſtreſſed mother? who hath not heard of that noble Lady (whether now living, or dead I know not) who out of her own eſtate hath given ſome thouſands of pounds towards the rebuilding, of the Church of S. Dunſtans in the Eaſt, (now in a good forwardneſs) and of what the liberal Miniſter of that place, is ſaid himſelf to have given towards that good work? even more than many good Miniſters have in all the world. Their zeal (I hope) will provoke many. I hope it will, and I do earneſtly deſire it may: for a ſad climax runs in my thoughts, and I am much perſwaded if it ſhould come to be tried, it would prove to true, viz. no publick Churches, no legal maintenance; no legal maintenance, in time no able Miniſters, (for who will ſtudy to be ſtarved?) no good miniſtry, no good preaching, no good preaching, no converſion, no converſion, no ſalvation. But I hope beter things than that the Churches which are demoliſhed ſhould not be rebuilt, much leſs the Churches that now ſtand ſhould be demoliſhe….
That ſun of charity (or piety rather) which hath begun to riſe in the Eaſt, will I hope, viſit all the dark and deſolate corners of Londons hemiſphere (for that I take to be the figure of it) and not give over its circuit, till having refreſhed every doleſome and gloomy place, at length it ſet in the weſt: where the other Church of that name of (S. Dunſtans I mean) is ſtanding at this day.
I am loath to ſay that the rebuilding of Churches in London, if it be not done by voluntary contribution, and by way of free-will offerings, it will certainly be done by conſtraint, and compulſion from authority: and if authority be forced to interpoſe, in a matter of this nature, it will be no ſmall ſhame and reproach to us, and ſeem to ſignifie that we would not be religious but upon force, which is to be no more religious, than they may be ſaid to be honeſt, who never pay their creditors, but when they ſtrain upon them (or make diſtreſs) which is indeed for creditors to pay themſelves.
Time was when the bounty of men towards the Church was ſuch, and ſo great, that Laws were made to limit, and reſtrain it, for that men were ready to ſay to a father or to a mother, as the Phariſees did, Mat. 15.5. It is a gift, (Corban) viz. to the Church by whatſoever thou mighteſt be profited by me: and we find Moſes was fain to ſet bounds to the ſea of the peoples liberality towards the tabernacle in his time, ſaying hitherto ſhould it go, and no farther, Exod. 36.5. And they ſpake unto Moſes ſaying, the people bring much more than enough, and Moſes gave commandment, and they cauſed it to be proclaimed throughout the camp ſaying, let neither man nor woman make any more work, for the offering of the ſanctuary, ſo the people were reſtrained from bringing. I wiſh that at this day there were an overplus of liberallity towards the demoliſhed Churches, I mean more contributed, than would ſerve to rebuild them, that like as the oinment which was poured upon the head of Aaron ran down upon his beard, and upon the skirts of his garment, ſo that what is more than enough for the re-edifying of Churches, might go to the rebuilding of Hoſpitals, and publick Schools, and of one place more, viz. the late famous, but now deſolate foundation of Sion Colledge.