_Quakers_, in those little particularities of dress, which can answer
no possible end, but to distinguish them from all other people.
To be singular, merely for singularity’s sake, is not the part of
a Christian. I do not therefore advise you, to wear a hat of such
dimensions, or a coat of a particular form. Rather, in things that are
absolutely indifferent, that are of no consequence at all, humility
and courtesy require you to conform to the customs of your country.
2. But I advise you to imitate them, first, in the _Neatness_ of their
apparel. This is highly to be commended, and quite suitable to your
Christian calling. Let all your apparel therefore be as clean as your
situation in life will allow. It is certain, the poor can’t be so
clean as they would, as having little change of raiment. But let even
these be as clean as they can, as care and diligence can keep them.
Indeed they have particular need so to be; because cleanliness is one
great branch of frugality. It is likewise more conducive to health,
than is generally considered. Let the poor then especially labour to
be clean, and provoke those of higher rank to jealousy.
3. I advise you to imitate them secondly, in the _Plainness_ of their
apparel. In this are implied two things; 1. That your apparel be cheap,
not expensive; far cheaper than others in your circumstances wear, or
than _you_ would wear, if you knew not God: 2. That it be grave, not
gay, airy, or showy; not in the point of the fashion. And these easy
rules may be applied both to the materials whereof it is made, and the
manner wherein it is made or put on.
4. Would you have a farther rule, with respect to both? Then take one
which you may always carry in your bosom. “Do every thing herein with
a single eye:” and this will direct you in every circumstance. Let
a single intention to please God prescribe, both what cloathing you
shall buy, and the manner wherein it shall be made, and how you shall
put on and wear it. To express the same thing in other words: Let all
you do in this respect, be so done, that you may offer it to God, a
sacrifice acceptable thro’ Christ Jesus. So that, consequently, it
may increase your reward, and brighten your crown in heaven. And so
it will do, if it be agreeable to Christian humility, seriousness and
charity.
5. Shall I be more particular still? Then I _exhort all those who
desire me to watch over their souls_, Wear no gold, (whatever officers
of state may do; or magistrates, as the ensign of their office) no
pearls or precious stones: use no curling of hair, or costly apparel,
how grave soever. I _advise those who are able to receive this saying_,
Buy no velvets, no silks, no fine linen: no superfluities, no _mere
ornaments_, tho’ ever so much in fashion. Wear nothing, tho’ you have
it already, which is of a glaring colour, or which is in any kind gay,
glittering, showy; nothing made in the very height of the fashion,
nothing apt to attract the eyes of the by-standers. I do not advise
women to wear rings, ear-rings, necklaces, Lace, (of whatever kind
or colour) or ruffles, which by little and little may easily shoot
out from one to twelve inches deep. Neither do I advise men, to wear
coloured waistcoats, shining stockings, glittering or costly buckles
or buttons, either on their coats or in their sleeves, any more than
gay, fashionable or expensive perukes. It is true, these are little,
very little things: therefore they are not worth defending: therefore
give them up, let them drop, throw them away, without another word.
Else a little needle may cause much pain in your flesh, a little
self-indulgence much hurt to your soul.
III. 1_st._ 1. For the preceding _exhortation_, I have the authority
of God, in clear and express terms. ¹_I will that women_ (and by
parity of reason, men too) _adorn themselves in modest apparel, with
shame-facedness and sobriety, not with broidered_ (curled) _hair, or
gold, or pearls_, (one kind of precious stones, which was then most
in use, put for all) _or costly apparel, but (which becometh women
professing godliness) with good works_. Again, ²_Whose adorning let
it not be that outward adorning, of plating_ (curling) _the hair, and
of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel. But let it be――the
ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of_ God
_of great price_. Nothing can be more express, The wearing of gold, of
precious stones, and of costly apparel, together with curling of hair,
is here forbidden by name: nor is there any restriction made either
here or in any other scripture. Whoever therefore says, “There is no
harm in these things,” may as well say, There is no harm in stealing
or adultery.
¹ 1 Tim. ii. 9, 10.
² 1 Pet. iii. 3, 4.
2. There is something ♦peculiarly observable in the manner wherein
both St. _Peter_ and St. _Paul_ speak of these things. _Let not your
adorning_ (says St. _Peter_) _be that outward adorning; but let it
be the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit_. The latter clause is
not added barely to fill up the sentence, but with strong and weighty
reason. For there is a direct contrariety (as little as we may suspect
it) between that outward and this inward adorning. And that, both
with regard to their source, and with regard to their tendency. As to
their source, all that adorning springs from nature; a meek and quiet
spirit from grace: the former, from conforming to our own will and the
will of man, the latter from conformity to the will of God. And as to
their tendency; nothing more directly tends to destroy meekness and
quietness of spirit, than all that outward adorning, whereby we seek
to commend ourselves, to men and not to God. For this cherishes all
those passions and tempers, which overthrow the quiet of every soul
wherein they dwell.
♦ ‘peculiary’ replaced with ‘peculiarly’
3. _Let them adorn themselves_, saith St. _Paul_, _not with curling
of hair, or with gold, pearls, or costly apparel, but (which becometh
women professing godliness) with good works_. The latter clause is
here likewise added, for plain and weighty reasons. For 1. That kind
of adorning cannot spring from godliness, from either the love or
fear of God, from a desire of conforming to his will, or from the mind
which was in Christ Jesus. 2. It no way tends to increase godliness;
it is not conducive to any holy temper. But 3. It manifestly tends
to destroy several of the tempers most essential to godliness. It has
no friendly influence on humility; whether we aim at pleasing others
or ourselves hereby. Either in one case or the other, it will rather
increase pride or vanity than lowliness of heart. It does not at all
minister to the seriousness which becomes a sinner born to die. It is
utterly inconsistent with simplicity; no one uses it, merely to please
God. Whoever acts with a single eye, does all things, to be seen and
approved of God; and can no more _dress_, than he can _pray_, or give
alms, _to be seen of men_.
♦4. “O! but one may be as humble in velvet and embroidery, as another
is in sackcloth.” True: for a person may wear sackcloth, and have
no humility at all. The heart may be filled with pride and vanity,
whatever the raiment be. Again; women under the yoke of unbelieving
parents or husbands, as well as men in office, may on several
occasions be _constrained_, to put on gold or costly apparel. And in
cases of this kind, plain experience shews, that the baleful influence
of it is suspended. So that wherever it is not our choice but our
cross, it may consist with godliness, with a meek and quiet spirit,
with lowliness of heart, with Christian seriousness. But it is not
true, that any one can _chuse_ this, from a single eye to please God;
or consequently, without sustaining great loss, as to lowliness and
every other Christian temper.
♦ Points ‘7 & 8’ replaced with ‘4 & 5’
♦5. But however this be, can you be adorned at the same time with
_costly apparel_, and with _good works_? That is, in the _same degree_
as you might have been, had you bestowed less cost on your apparel?
You know this is impossible: the more you expend on the one, the
less you have to expend on the other. Costliness of apparel, in every
branch, is therefore immediately, directly, inevitably destructive of
good works. You see a brother, for whom Christ died, ready to perish
for want of needful cloathing. You would give it him gladly: but
alas! _It is corban, whereby he might have been profited._ It is
given already: not indeed for the service of God; not to the treasury
of the temple: but either to please the folly of others, or to feed
vanity, or the lust of the eye in yourself. Now (even suppose these
were harmless tempers, yet) what an unspeakable loss is this, if it be
really true, that _every man shall receive his own reward, according
to his own labour_! If there is indeed a reward in heaven, for every
work of faith, for every degree of the labour of love!
2_dly._ 1. As to the _advice_ subjoined, it is easy to observe, that
all those smaller things are, in their degree, liable to the same
objections as the greater. If they are gay, showy, pleasing to the eye,
the putting them on does not spring from a single view to please God.
It neither flows from, nor tends to advance a meek and quiet spirit.
It does not arise from, nor any way promote, real, vital godliness.
2. And if they are in any wise costly, if they are purchased with any
unnecessary expence, they cannot but in proportion to that expence, be
destructive of good works. Of consequence they are destructive of that
charity, which is fed thereby: hardening our heart against the cry of
the poor and needy, by inuring us to shut up our bowels of compassion
toward them.
3. At least, all unnecessary expences of this kind, whether small or
great, are senseless and foolish. This we may defy any man living to
get over, if he allows there is another world. For there is no reward
in heaven for laying out your money in ornaments or costly apparel:
whereas you may have an eternal reward, for whatever you expend on
earth.
4. Consider this more closely. Here are two ways proposed of laying
out such a sum of money. I may lay it out in expensive apparel for
myself, or in necessary clothing for my neighbour. The former will
please my own eye, or that of others: the latter will please God.
Now suppose there were no more harm in one than in the other, in that
which pleases man, than in that which pleases God: is there as much
good in it? If they are equally innocent, are they equally wise? By
the one, I gratify the desire of the eye, and gain a pleasure that
perishes in the using: by the other, I gain a larger share of those
pleasures that are at God’s right hand for evermore. By the former I
obtain the applause of man; by the latter, the praise of God. In this
way, I meet with the admiration of fools: in that, I hear from the
Judge of All, _Well done, good and faithful servant! Enter thou into
the joy of thy_ Lord.
5. Brethren, whatever ye are accounted by men, I would not have
you fools in God’s account. _Walk ye circumspectly, not as fools,
but as wise_; not in those ways which God _may possibly forgive_;
(to put things in the most favourable light) but in those which he
_will certainly reward. In wickedness be ye children_ still; _but in
understanding be ye men_. I want to see a visible body of people, who
are a standing example of this wisdom; a pattern of doing all things,
great and small, with an eye to God and eternity.
IV. 1. But we may be assured, the wisdom of the world will find out
abundance of objections to this. Accordingly it is objected, first,
“If God has given us plentiful fortunes, if we are placed in the
higher ranks of life, we must act suitably to our fortune. We ought
then to dress according to our rank, that is, in gold and costly
apparel.” Not to insist, that none of _you_ are of this rank, I answer,
Where is this written? Our Saviour once occasionally said, _Behold,
they who wear gorgeous_ (splendid) _apparel, are in king’s courts_:
but he does not say, they _ought_ to be even there: he neither enjoins,
nor countenances it. And where is this either enjoined or allowed, by
him or any of his apostles? Bring me plain, scriptural proof for your
assertion, or I cannot allow it.
2. “But did not God give express command by _Moses_, that some even
among his chosen people should be adorned in the most exquisite manner,
with gold and precious stones and costly array?” Indeed he did: he
expressly commanded this, with regard to _Aaron_, and his successors
in the high-priesthood. But to this I answer, first, this direction
which God gave, with regard to the Jewish high-priest, can certainly
affect no person in _England_, unless the Archbishop of _Canterbury_.
And I apprehend, he does not plead the precedent. Secondly, The Jews
and we are under different dispensations. The glory of the whole
Mosaic dispensation, was chiefly visible and external: whereas the
glory of the Christian dispensation, is of an invisible and spiritual
nature.
3. “But what then are gold and precious stones for? Why have they
a place in the creation?” What if I say, I cannot tell? There are
abundance of things in the creation, which I do not know the use of.
What are crocodiles, lions, tigers, scorpions for? Why have so many
poisons a place in the creation? Some of them are for medicine: but
whatever they are for, in whatever manner they may be useful, they
are certainly not to be used in such a manner as God has expressly
forbidden.
4. “But if they were not thus adorned, Kings and Generals would be
despised by their subjects and soldiers.” Supposing they would, that
is nothing to _you_; for you are neither Kings nor Generals. But it is
absolutely certain, they would not, if they were not despised on other
accounts. If they are valiant and wise, they will never be despised,
for the plainness of their dress. Was ever General or King more
esteemed or beloved by his subjects and soldiers than King _Charles_
of _Sweden_? And ’tis sure, he wore no gold or costly apparel, not so
much as a common officer. But we need not go so many years back. Who
is the Prince that is now honoured and beloved both by his subjects
and soldiers, far beyond any other King or General in _Europe_? There
is no need to repeat his name. But does he gain this honour and love,
by the costliness of his apparel? So far from it, that he rarely uses
any other dress, than the uniform of his own guards.
5. “But if all men were to dress like him, how would tradesmen live?”
I answer, 1. God certainly considered this, or ever he gave these
commands. And he would never have given them, had he not seen, that if
they were universally observed, men in general would live better than
they otherwise could: better in this world, as well as that to come.
But, 2. There is no danger at all, that they should be universally
observed. Only a little flock in any civilized nation will observe
them, till the knowledge of God covers the earth. 3. If those who do
observe them, employ the money they thus save, in the most excellent
manner, then a part of what before only served to fat a few rich
tradesmen for hell, will suffice to feed and clothe and employ
many poor, that seek the kingdom of heaven. 4. And _how_ will those
tradesmen themselves _live_? They will live like men, by honest labour,
most of whom before lived like swine, wallowing in all gluttony and
sensuality. But, 5. This is all mere trifling. It is only a copy of
your countenance. For it is not this, it is not a regard to trade, or
the good of the nation, that makes you disobey God. No: it is pride,
vanity, or some other sinful temper, which is the real cause of these
sinful actions.
6. “But we cannot carry on our own trade, without dressing like other
people.” If you mean only, conforming to those customs of your country,
that are neither gay, nor costly, why should you not “dress like other
people?” I really think you should. Let an Englishman dress like other
Englishmen; not like a Turk or a Tartar. Let an English woman dress
like other English women; not like a French woman or a German. But if
you mean “conformity to them in what God has forbidden,” the answer
is ready at hand. If you can’t carry on your trade without breaking
God’s command, you must not carry it on. But I doubt the fact: I know
no trade which may not be carried on by one who uses plain and modest
apparel. I fear, therefore, this too is but a copy of your countenance:
you _love_ these things, and therefore think them necessary. Your
heart carries away your judgment: if you were not _fond_ of them, you
would never dream of their necessity.
7. In one single case these things may be necessary, that is,
unavoidable, namely, that of women who are under the yoke of
self-willed, unreasonable husbands or parents. Such may be constrained
to do in some degree, what otherwise they would not. And they are
blameless herein, if 1. They use all possible means, arguments,
intreaties, to be excused from it; and when they cannot prevail,
2. Do it just so far as they are constrained, and no farther.
V. 1. And now, brethren, what remains, but that I beseech you who
are not under the yoke, who are, under God, the directors of your
own actions, to set prejudice, obstinacy, fashion aside; and yield
to scripture, to reason, to truth. Suppose, as some affirm, you acted
on no higher motive than to please _me_ herein, I know not that you
would have need to be ashamed; even this you might avow in the face
of the sun. You owe something to _me_: perhaps it is not my fault, if
ye owe not your own souls also. If then you did an indifferent thing,
only on this principle, not to give me any uneasiness, but to oblige,
to comfort me in my labour, would you do much amiss? How much more
may you be excused in doing what I advise, when truth, reason and
scripture advise the same? When the thing in question is not an
indifferent thing, but clearly determined by God himself?
2. Some years ago, when I first landed at _Savannah_ in _Georgia_,
a gentlewoman told me, “I assure you, Sir, you will see as
_well-dressed_ a congregation on Sunday, as most you have seen in
_London_.” I did so: and soon after I took occasion to expound those
scriptures which relate to dress, and to press them freely upon
my audience, in a plain and close application. All the time that I
afterward ministered at _Savannah_, I saw neither gold in the church,
nor costly apparel. But the congregation in general was almost
constantly cloathed in plain, clean linen or woollen.
3. And why should not my advice, grounded on scripture and reason,
weigh with _you_ as much as with them? I will tell you why. 1. You are
surrounded with saints of the world, persons fashionably, reputably
religious. And these are constant opposers of all, who would go
farther in religion than themselves. These are continually warning you
against running into extremes, and striving to beguile you from the
simplicity of the gospel. 2. You have near you still more dangerous
enemies than these, Antinomians, whether _German_ or _English_; who
when any Christian practise is enforced, come in with the cookoo’s
note, “The law, the law;” and while they themselves glory in their
shame, make you ashamed of what should be your glory. 3. You have
suffered by false teachers of our own, who undermined the doctrine you
had received: negatively, in publicly, by not insisting upon it, by
not exhorting you to dress as persons professing godliness: (and, not
to speak _for_ a Christian duty, is in effect to speak _against_ it:)
and positively in private, either by jesting upon your exactness in
observing the scripture-rule, or by insinuations, which if you did
not mind them then, yet would afterward weaken your soul. 4. You have
been, and are at this day _in perils among false brethren_: I mean,
not only those of other congregations, who count _strictness_ all one
with _bondage_: but many of our own; in particular those, who were
once clearly convinced of the truth: but they have sinned away that
conviction themselves, and now endeavour to harden others against it:
at least, by example; by returning again to the folly, from which they
were once clean escaped. But what is the example of all mankind, when
it runs counter to scripture and reason? I have warned you a thousand
times, not to regard any example, which contradicts reason or
scripture. If it ever should be (pray, that it may not be; but if it
ever should) that I or my brother, my wife, or his, or all of us
together, should set an example contrary to scripture and reason: I
intreat you, regard it not at all: still let scripture and reason
prevail.
4. *You who have passed the morning, perhaps the noon of life, who
find the shadows of the evening approach, set a better example to
those that are to come, to the now-rising generation. With you the day
of life is far spent; the night of death is at hand. You have no time
to lose: see that you redeem every moment that remains. Remove every
thing out of the way, be it ever so small (tho’ indeed gay or costly
apparel is not so) that might any ways obstruct your lowliness and
meekness, your seriousness of spirit, your single intention to glorify
God, in all your thoughts and words and actions. Let no needless
expence hinder your being in the highest degree you ♦possibly can,
_rich in good works: ready to distribute, willing to communicate_,
till you are cloathed with glory and immortality.
♦ ‘possible’ replaced with ‘possibly’
*Our carcases will soon fall into the dust: then let the survivors
adorn them with flowers. Mean time let us regard those ornaments only,
that will accompany us into eternity.
5. *You that are in the morning of your days, either your form
is agreeable, or it is not. If it is not, do not make your person
remarkable: rather let it lie hid in common apparel. On every account,
it is your wisdom, to recommend yourself to the eye of the mind: but
especially to the eye of God, who reads the secrets of your hearts,
and in whose sight the incorruptible ornaments alone are of great
price. But if you would recommend yourself by dress, is any thing
comparable to plain neatness? What kind of persons are those, to whom
you could be recommended by gay or costly apparel? None that are any
way likely to make you happy: this pleases only the silliest and worst
of men. At most, it gratifies only the silliest and worst principle
in those who are of a nobler character.
6. *To you whom God has intrusted with a more pleasing form, those
ornaments are quite needless,
“The adorning thee with so much art
Is but a barbarous skill:
’Tis like the poisoning of a dart,
Too apt before to kill.”
That is, to express ourselves in plain English, without any figure
of poetry, it only tends to drag them faster into death everlasting,
who were going fast enough before, by additional provocations to lust,
or at least, inordinate affection. Did you actually _design_ to raise
either of these, in those who looked upon you? What, while you and
they were in the more immediate presence of God? What profaneness
and inhumanity mixt together! But if you designed it not, did you
not _foresee_ it? You might have done so, without any extraordinary
sagacity. “Nay, I did not care or think about it.” And do you say this
by way of excuse? You _scatter abroad arrows, firebrands and death_;
and do not care or think about it!