Barclay on Plain Dress
§VII. The third thing to be treated of is the vanity and superfluity of apparel, in which first two things are to be considered, the condition of the person, and the country, he lives in.
We shall not say, that all persons are to be clothed alike, because it will perhaps neither suit their bodies, nor their estates.
And if a man be clothed soberly and without superfluity, though they may be finer, than that which his servant is clothed with, we shall not blame him for it: the abstaining from superfluities, which his condition and education have accustomed him to, may be, in him, a greater act of mortification than the abstaining from finer clothes in the servant, who never was accustomed to them.
As to the country, what it naturally produces may be no vanity to the inhabitants to use, or what is commonly imparted to them by way of exchange, seeing it is without doubt that the creation is for the use of man.
So where silk abounds, it may be worn, as well as wool; and were we in those countries, or near unto them, where gold or silver were as common as iron or brass, the one might be used as well as the other.
The iniquity lies then here, First, when, from a lust of vanity, and a desire to adorn themselves, men and women, not content with what their condition can bear, or their country easily affords, do stretch to have things, that from their rarity, and the price that's put upon them, seem to be precious, and so feed their lust the more, and this all sober men of all sorts will readily grant to be evil.
Secondly, when men are not content to make a true use of the creation, whether the things be fine or coarse, and do not satisfy themselves with what need & conveniency calls for, but add thereunto things merely superfluous, such as is the use of ribbands and lace, and much more of that kind of stuff, as painting the face, plaiting the hair, which are the fruits of the fallen, lustful and corrupt nature, and not of the new creation, as all will acknowledge.
And though sober men, among all sorts, will say that it were better these things were not, yet will they not reckon them unlawful, and therefore do admit the use of them among their church members.
But we do account them altogether unlawful, and unsuitable to Christians, and that for these reasons:
First, the use of clothes came originally from the fall; if man had not fallen, it appears he would not have needed them.
But this miserable state made them necessary, in two respects: 1) to cover his nakedness, and 2) to keep him from the cold, which is both the proper and principal use of them.
Now, for man to delight himself in that which is the fruit of his iniquity, and is the consequence of sin, can be no ways lawful for him; so to extend things beyond their real use, or to superadd things wholly superfluous, is a manifest abuse of the creation, and therefore not lawful to Christians.
Secondly, those that will needs so adorn themselves in the use of their clothes, as to beset them with things having no real use or necessity, but merely for ornament's sake, do openly declare that the end of it is either to please their lust (for which end these things are chiefly invented and contrived) or otherwise to gratify a vain, proud and ostentatious mind; and it is obvious these are their general ends in so doing.
Yea, we see how easily men are puff'd up with their garments, and how proud and vain they are, when adorned to their mind.
Now, how far these things are below a true Christian, and how unsuitable, it needs not great probation.
Hereby, those that love to be gaudy and superfluous in their clothes, show they concern themselves little with mortification and self-denial, and that they mind to beautify their bodies more than their souls, which proves they mind little upon mortality, and so certainly are more nominal than real Christians.
Thirdly, the Scripture severely reproves such practices, both commending and commanding the contrary, as Isa. 3.
How severely doth the prophet reprove the daughters of Israel for their tinkling ornaments, their cauls, and their round tiars, their chains and bracelets, &c., and yet is it not strange to see Christians allow themselves in these things, from whom a more strict and exemplary conversation is required?
Christ desires us not to be anxious about our clothing (Matt. 6:25), and to show the vanity of such as glory in the splendor of their clothing, tells them, that even Solomon in all his glory was not to be compared to the lily of the field, which today is, and tomorrow is cast into the oven.
But surely they make small reckoning of Christ's words and doctrine, that are so curious in their clothing, and so industrious to deck themselves, and so earnest to justify it, and so mad when they are reproved for it.
The apostle Paul is very positive in this respect (1 Tim. 2:8-10): "I will therefore in like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety, not with broidered hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array: But (which becometh women, professing godliness) with good works."
To the same purpose saith Peter (1 Pet. 3:3-4): "Whose adorning, let it not be that outward adorning, of plaiting the hair, and wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel. But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit," &c.
Here, both the apostles do very positively and expressly assert two things: First, that the adorning of Christian women (of whom it is particularly spoken, I judge, because this sex is most naturally inclined to that vanity, and that it seems that Christian men in those days, deserved not in this respect so much to be reproved) ought not to be outward, nor to consist in the apparel.
Secondly, that they ought not to use the plaiting of the hair, or ornaments, &c., which was at that time the custom of the nations.
But is it not strange, that such as make the Scripture their rule, and pretend they are guided by it, should not only be so frequently and ordinarily in the use of these things, which the Scripture so plainly condemns, but also should allow themselves in so doing?
For the apostles not only commend the forbearance of these things, as an attainment commendable in Christians, but condemn the use of them as unlawful, and yet may it not seem more strange, that in contradiction to the apostles' doctrine, as if they had resolved to slight their testimony, they should condemn those that, out of conscience, apply themselves seriously to follow it, as if, in so doing, they were singular, proud, or superstitious?
This certainly betokens a sad apostasy in those that will be accounted Christians, that they are so offended with those who love to follow Christ and his apostles, in denying of, and departing from, the lying vanities of this perishing world, and so doth much evidence their affinity with such as hate to be reproved, and neither will enter themselves nor suffer those that would.