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!
2dly. 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.