Chapter 8 — They bring up many arguments against the religious custom of wearing a poor habit

We will now proceed to refute the malicious accusations brought against religious. These are inspired by the presumption of their enemies. We may, in this connection, aptly quote the words of St. Gregory (Moral., 5), no one would presume to correct the faults of the Saints, unless he entertained a better opinion of himself than of them. (Gregory the Great, Morals 5.11.24 (CCSL 143; PL 75:692B).) St. Jerome likewise says to Sabinianus: lest you should find yourself solitary in evildoing, you pretend that the servants of God have also committed crimes. You do not know that you are speaking iniquity against another and are opening open your mouth against Heaven. It is no wonder that some servants of God are blasphemed by you, since your ancestors have called their father Beelzebub. (Jerome, Epistle 147, para. 2 (CSEL 56:315; PL 22:1196).)

The calumniators of religious, being determined that nothing shall be wanting to fill the measure of their malice, pervert their judgment in a twofold manner. They pass unjust condemnation both on persons and on things. This double perversity of judgment is recognised by the Gloss in the commentary on the text, do not pronounce judgment before the time (1 Cor 4:5). On these words the Gloss says: we must beware lest we be deceived by a false opinion. We cannot know the consciences of men, nor have true and certain knowledge of this affair; nor can we be sure whether such or such a man is moral or immoral, whether he is just or unjust. Let us ourselves abhor immorality and injustice and love justice and morality. We know, in the truth of God, that some things are to be desired and that others avoided. Let us then desire those things that we ought to desire, and avoid those things that we ought to avoid; in order that we may be forgiven if, at times or even often, we do not pass a true judgment upon men. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 1 Cor 4:5 (PL 191:1566A).) But as, according to the Gloss, (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at 1 Cor 4:5 (PL 191:1566B).) it is worse to entertain a false opinion about things than about men, let us attack the greater evil in the first place, and consider how the enemies of religious pervert their judgment as to facts (ch. 8-19). We will then consider their false opinions about persons (ch. 20-23).

The assailants of religious pervert their judgment about facts in three ways.

First, they declare that the good manifestly wrought by religious is evil (ch. 8-12). Thus they fulfil the words of Sirach 11:33, beware of a scoundrel, for he devises evil, and gives a lasting blemish to the elect.

Second, they pretend that the indifferent actions of religious are wrong (ch. 13-19).

Third, they exaggerate the light faults of religious beyond measure (ch. 20).

Now by condemning the good works of religious as evil, they pass judgment on themselves, and they prove that those whom they blame are highly to be commended. They condemn religious because their virtuous lives are offensive to them. St. Gregory, speaking of men of this description, says (Moral., 6), the wicked man detracts from the reputation of the just, and he never ceases to condemn and to blame the good actions which he himself neglects to perform. (Gregory the Great, Morals 6.22.39 (CCSL 143; PL 75:750D).) Detractors of religious, by blaming them, give the best proof of their innocence. They imitate the princes of Daniel, who said in their malice against that prophet, we shall not find any occasion against this Daniel, unless perhaps concerning the law of his God. On these words, the Gloss observes: O spotless life, wherein his enemies could detect no guilt, save in the law which he observes. (Glossa interlinearis, at Dan 6:5 (in Glossa ordinaria 4, 1565-66).) Now the only ground of detraction which they can find against religious, and the only reason for holding them up to contempt, is the law of God to which they are faithful.

First, they blame them on account of the poor habit which they wear (ch. 8).

Second, they condemn them for their charity to others and for compassionately assisting their neighbours in the management of their affairs (ch. 9).

Third, they complain that religious, who have here no abiding city, wander from city to city to preach the Word of God (ch. 10).

Fourth, they find fault with them for studying (ch. 11).

Fifth, they blame them for preaching in a systematic and fluent style (ch. 12).

Now by thus condemning religious, their assailants show that they despise their poverty, their mendicancy, and their teaching, and that they are opposed to the good fruit which, by episcopal permission, they are enabled to produce in souls.

Objections

They bring up many arguments against the religious custom of wearing a poor habit.

Obj. 1: They quote the words of our Lord: beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves (Matt 8:15). This warning they apply to those who wear poor clothing; and, Hence they seek to prove that religious ought to be suspected of being false prophets.

Obj. 2: The Gloss, on the words, behold, a pale horse (Rev 6:8), comments as follows: the devil, finding that he cannot further his schemes against the Church either by persecution or by open heresy, sends forth false brethren who, under the disguise of the religious habit, possess the nature of roan and black horses and pervert the faith. (Glossa ordinaria 6, 1515 at Rev 6:8 (PL 114:722).)

Obj. 3: It is said again that in the early days of the Church an order was sent from Rome to the Bishops of Gaul, commanding them to rebuke those who, under a pretext of humility, chose to wear contemptible garments unlike the ordinary dress of the time. (St. Pope Celestine I, Epistle 4, ch. 1 (PL 50:431B), possibly taken from Dionysius Exiguus, Collectio decretorum pontificum Romanorum: Decreta Coelestini Papae, sect. 13 (PL 67:274D-275A).) This decree is said to be preserved in the register of the Roman Church, although there are no traces of it in the body of the decretals. This alleged Papal command is held to be a proof that men, at least those who live in the world, are not justified in wearing garments unfitted to their station.

Obj. 4: St. Augustine says (De doctrina Christiana, 3), whoever makes a more limited use of temporal things than is customary with those among whom he lives, is guilty either of superstition or of indiscretion. (Augustine, On Christian Doctrine 3.12.18 (CCSL 32; CSEL 80; PL 34:73).) Hence he who wears clothing, meaner than that worn by those around him, is deserving of blame.

Obj. 5: St. Jerome, writing to Nepotianus, says: wear neither sad-coloured, nor white garments. Sumptuous apparel and slovenly dress are equally to be avoided. For the one denotes luxury, and the other vain glory. (Jerome, Epistle 52, para. 9 (CSEL 54:430; PL 22:535).) Hence we see the error of dressing in a beggarly fashion.

Obj. 6: St. Paul says, the kingdom of God does not mean food and drink (Rom 14:17). On these words, the Gloss observes: it matters little of what quality our food may be, or what quantity we may consume, so long as our nourishment is adapted to the condition of those with whom we live and of our own, and to the requirements of our health. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at Rom 14:17 (PL 191:1517C).) For the same reason, the fashion of a man’s clothing has no connection with virtue, provided that he wear what is becoming to his condition. Hence it is no mark of a truly religious man to wear a mean dress as a sign of contempt of the world.

Obj. 7: Hypocrisy would seem to be the worst of all sins. For, our Lord inveighed more forcibly against hypocrites than against any other class of sinner. St. Gregory says (Pastoral.), none do more harm in the Church than sinners who have a reputation for, or appearance of, sanctity. (Gregory the Great, Liber regulae pastoralis 1.2 (PL 77:16A).) Hypocrisy lurks under shabby clothing, just as costliness of attire betokens luxury or stimulates men to pride. It is more sinful, therefore, to exceed the limits of discretion by poverty of attire than by gaudiness of apparel.

Obj. 8: Our Lord Jesus Christ gave us an example of the perfection of holiness and of religion. But, he wore a precious garment, namely, a coat woven throughout (John 19:23). Such clothes are normally sewn with silk and gold. The fact that the soldiers would not divide it, but cast lots for it, is a proof that it must have been costly. Hence wearing mean clothing can be no part of religion.

Obj. 9: The Sovereign Pontiff wears costly silken robes; the kings of old were clad in scarlet; and it would not have been praiseworthy in them had they worn contemptible garments. For the same reason, it is not meritorious on the part of anyone, to wear garments unbecoming his station; rather, the shabbiness of his clothing brings humility into disrepute.

Response

I answer that, we will now expose the fallacy contained in the foregoing arguments. We read (Decretals, XXI, q*.* 9), all extravagance or ornateness of attire is unbecoming holy orders. Therefore, it behoves all bishops or ecclesiastics who attire themselves in costly or showy garments to amend; for if they persist in so doing, a penalty will be laid upon them. (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 21, q. 4, ch. 1 (Friedberg, 1:857).) It is added later on, and if any should be, found to ridicule those who wear poor and religious garments, let him do penance. (Gratian, Decretum, P. 2, C. 21, q. 4, ch. 1 (Friedberg, 1:858).) In the early ages of the Church, every man consecrated to God wore coarse and common clothing. For, as St. Basil says, all that is worn not out of necessity but for the sake of adornment is accounted as pride. (St. Basil, Regulae brevis, resp. 49 (PG 31:1116C).) Hence plainness of attire is to be encouraged; all ostentation is to be avoided; and they who speak ill of men who wear poor garments are to be severely punished.

We are confirmed in this by the example of St. John, who wore a garment made of camel’s hair (Matt 3:4). The Gloss, hereon, observes, that he who preached penance, wore a garment of penance, and that such poverty of apparel was as praiseworthy in him, as it would have been unseemly in a wealthy man. (Glossa ordinaria 5, 71 at Matt 3:4 (PL 114:79).) Another commentary says that, a servant of God ought to use clothing not for pleasure or adornment, but for the purpose of necessary covering. (Glossa ordinaria 5, 71 at Matt 3:4 (PL 114:79).) The Gloss also observes, on Mark 1:6, that the Baptist’s garment of camel’s hair was the raiment befitting preachers. (Glossa interlinearis, at Mark 1:6 (in Glossa ordinaria 5, 485-86).) Hence we learn that the servants of God, especially such as preach penance, ought to wear the garb of humility.

We are told once more that the prophets of old, such as Elijah and others, (Glossa interlinearis, at Heb 11:37 (in Glossa ordinaria 6, 935-36).) went about in skins of sheep and goats (Heb 11:37). The word melota is used indiscriminately for undressed sheep skin, or goat skin, and it signifies consequently a very rough and harsh covering for the body. The Gloss says that the same word is used for camel’s hair. (Peter Lombard, Commentaries on the Psalms and St. Paul, at Heb 11:37 (PL 192:499C).)

We are told of Sts. Hilarion, (Jerome, The Life of St. Hilary, para. 10 (PL 23:32C).) Arsenius, (Cf. Vitae patrum, bk. 3, para. 37 (PL 73:763).) and of other Fathers of the desert, that they wore the very coarsest clothing.

We read the following words in Revelation 11:3: I will grant my two witnesses power to prophesy for one thousand two hundred and sixty days, clothed in sackcloth. This, the Gloss interprets to mean: they shall preach penance both by word and example. (Glossa interlinearis, at Rev 11:3 (in Glossa ordinaria 6, 1565-66).) Another commentary remarks on the same text, you ought, in preaching, to follow their example. (Glossa ordinaria 6, 1566 at Rev 11:4.) From this we must understand that they who preach penance ought to wear a penitential garment.

St. Gregory, in his homily on the text, there was a certain rich man, strongly inculcates the lesson, that poverty of clothing is as much to be commended, as extravagance of apparel is to be condemned. We quote his words: some men consider, that there is no sin in excessive daintiness and magnificence of attire. But, if such were the case, the Word of God would not expressly tell us that the rich man who was tormented in hell had worn purple and fine linen. No one dresses in an ostentatious manner save for the sake of vainglory, and in order to outdo others in splendour. For the very fact that a man does not deck himself out when there is none to see him, proves that he wears his fine garments from motives of vainglory. We shall see more clearly the fault committed by extravagance of dress, if we compare it with the virtue of humility displayed in mean apparel. For, were it not a virtue to wear contemptible garments, the Evangelist would not have expressly told us that the clothing of St. John the Baptist was of camel’s hair. (Gregory the Great, Homiliae in Evangelia, bk. 2, homily 40, para. 3 on Luke 16:19 (CCSL 141; PL 76:1305A-B); Matt 3:4.)

On the words of St. Peter, let not yours be the outward adorning with braiding of hair (1 Pet 3:3), the Gloss makes the following commentary: as St. Cyprian says, they who are clad in silk and scarlet cannot put on Christ. They who are adorned with gold and pearls, and suchlike gauds, have lost the ornament of heart and of body. If the women whom St. Peter admonishes in the text we have quoted were married women, who might have alleged their husbands as an excuse for their vanity in dress, how much more ought virgins, who have no such excuse, to take to heart the warning of the Apostle? (Glossa ordinaria 6, 1325 at 1 Peter 3:3 from Cyprian, De habitu virginum, para. 13 (CCSL 3F; CSEL 3.1:197; PL 4:452A).) It is clear therefore that in ecclesiastics, sumptuousness of apparel is far more to be deprecated than it is in women.

An outward act which reveals the virtue of the heart is, even though liable to abuse, very commendable. Poverty of clothing comes into this category. Thus, St. Jerome, writing to the monk Rusticus, says: a lowly garb betokens a noble mind. A coarse tunic denotes contempt of the world, provided that the soul of one thus clad is not puffed up with pride, and that his words are not inconsistent with his garment. (Jerome, Epistle 125, para. 7 (CSEL 56:124; PL 22:1075).) Hence the habit of wearing coarse clothes is, in itself, one to be adopted, if at the same time pride is banished from the heart.

That which wins the divine mercy, cannot be wrong. Now many, even great, sinners have, by assuming a garb of penance, gained the mercy of heaven. We are told of the impious Ahab that when he heard those words, that is, of Elijah, he rent his clothes, and put sackcloth upon his flesh, and fasted and lay in sackcloth, and went about dejectedly. And the word of the Lord came to Eli′jah the Tishbite, saying, "Have you seen how Ahab has humbled himself before me? Because he has humbled himself before me, I will not bring the evil in his days; but in his son’s days I will bring the evil upon his house" (1 Kings 21:27). Nevertheless, the humility of Ahab was not, as the Gloss says, true humility of heart. (Cf. Hugh of Saint-Cher, Super 3 Kings 21:27, (Lyon: Antonii Lullieron, 1669), f. 284, 5.) Again, in Jonah 3:7 we read: the word came to the king of Niniveh, and he rose up out of his throne and cast away his robe from him and put on sackcloth and sat in ashes. he also ordered all his subjects to do likewise. Hence we see that humility of clothing is acceptable to God.

Aristotle (Ethics, 10) proves that virtue consists not only in interior, but likewise in exterior acts. (Aristotle, Ethics 10.12, 1178a34-b1.) He is here speaking of the moral virtues. Now humility is, in a certain sense, a moral virtue; for it belongs neither to the intellectual nor to the theological virtues. Hence it consists not merely in interior but likewise in exterior acts. As self-contempt pertains to humility, it follows that it is consistent with humility for a man to render himself exteriorly contemptible.

Evil is never disguised, save under an appearance of good. Now hypocrites cloak their malice under a guise of humility. Hence a humble garb has in itself an appearance of good, and therefore in itself it is commendable, although it is liable to abuse.

As fasting and almsdeeds are praiseworthy exercises of penance, so the habit of wearing a contemptible dress is likewise a commendable custom, although some may make a bad use of it. From all that we have said, while admitting the possibility of its abuse, we maintain that in itself the wearing of a humble dress is praiseworthy, as being an act of penitence and humility practiced by some who, by their station in life, have a right to costly clothing; just as many have the laudable habit of fasting and abstaining who might, according to their condition, make use of flesh meat. But both fasting and wearing a contemptible clothing may, for some exceptional reason, be evil, if for instance it is practiced in a manner annoying to those with whom we live, or if it is done from motives of vainglory. The same remark applies to prayer and to almsdeeds, as our Lord himself teaches (Matt 7). (The text is in reality found in Matt 6:1-16.)

Replies to objections

Ad 1: The fact that false prophets make use of sheep’s clothing to deceive the faithful is rather in favour of the habit of wearing poor clothing than against it. For hypocrites would not thus disguise their malice, unless a contemptible garb carried with it an appearance of good. Otherwise the Scriptures which, as we are told, that heretics abuse (2 Pet 3:16), ought to be reprobated. The same might be said of piety, which heretics often pretend (2 Tim 3:5). Hence the Gloss says, on Matthew 7:15, that false prophets are recognised not by their garments, but by their works. (Glossa ordinaria 5, 150 at Matt 7:16.) Again, the Gloss adds that sheep should not lay aside their clothing, even though, at times wolves may assume it as a disguise. (Glossa ordinaria 5, 150 at Matt 7:16.)

Ad 2: The devil would not clothe his emissaries in a religious habit if this habit were not, in itself a token of goodness. But this is no reason why virtuous persons should not wear the religious habit; nor is it a reason why all who wear it should be accounted wicked (Gloss on Matt 7:16). (Glossa ordinaria 5, 150 at Matt 7:16.) Hence St. Jerome asks in his book against Helvidius, does the fact that it is sinful to pretend to be a virgin, make virginity itself a crime? (Jerome, Adversus Helvidius, para. 21 (PL 23:206A).)

Ad 3: The prohibition, quoted in this objection was not published because poverty of clothing is in itself reprehensible, but because it is assumed by some men or the purposes of deception.

Ad 4: The quotation of St. Augustine, cited in this objection, applies, only, to such rigour of life as causes dissension amongst those with whom we have to live. For, if it be understood absolutely, everyone who fasts when others do not fast would deserve blame. This idea is, of course, absurd.

Ad 5: The words here quoted from St. Jerome apply not to the use, but to the abuse, of a poor and lowly garb. He utters a warning against the vainglory which may arise from such a custom. In his epistles to the monk Rusticus, and to the nobleman Pammachius, he commends poverty and humility of clothing. (Jerome, Epistle 125, para. 7 (CSEL 56:124; PL 22:1075).) This is evident from his epistle to Pammachius on the death of Paulina. (Jerome, Epistle 66, para. 6 (CSEL 54:654; PL 22:642).)

Ad 6: The use of exterior things may be regarded from a double point of view. Their use is indifferent if we consider the nature of the things themselves. If, however, we regard the end for which we use them, their use is commendable in proportion to the excellence of that end. For example, fasting practiced as a means of overcoming lust is more commendable than the eating of ordinary food with giving of thanks. Jovinian denied this proposition; but he was refuted in this and in his other errors by St. Jerome. (Jerome, Adversus Jovinianum (PL 23:221-352).) Hence poverty of clothing, when it is intended as humiliation for the soul and as a conquest over the body, is in itself more to be commended than ordinary clothing. Consequently, as religion is evidenced by fasting, so, on the same grounds, is it seen in humility of attire.

Ad 7: The fact that the assumption of poor garments for hypocritical purposes is a great sin does not prove that poverty of apparel is itself more sinful than extravagance of attire. For poverty of clothing is not as closely connected with hypocrisy as splendour of attire is related to pride and luxury. Ostentation in dress leads of itself and directly to pride and luxury. It is therefore in itself culpable. But meanness of attire does not of itself directly tend to hypocrisy. Hypocrisy results from the abuse of a humble fashion of dress, just as it may result from the abuse of any other good work. Now the more excellent a work is, the more reprehensible is its abuse. Therefore, the heinousness of hypocrisy is a testimony in favour of poverty of apparel and of the other external penitential works of which hypocrisy is the abuse. We do not mean, however, that hypocrisy is absolutely speaking the greatest of sins. For unbelief, whereby a man lies against God, is a more heinous crime than dissimulation, whereby he lies against himself.

Ad 8: It is not credible that our Lord Jesus Christ should have been clad in costly clothing. For he commended St. John in that he was not clothed soft garments. (Cf. Matt. 11:7-8.) The Pharisees laid great stress on exterior sanctity. They accused Christ himself of being a glutton, a wine bibber, and a friend of publicans; so would they have accused the Baptist had he worn soft garments. The soldiers who mocked our Lord would not have clothed him in a purple garment as a mark of sovereignty, if his own tunic had been woven with silk and gold. The soldiers who cast lots for his seamless coat did so, not because it was of costly material, but for the sake of their own profit. For, had it been divided, it would have been of no use to any of them. This alone suffices to prove that his garment was not valuable. Had it been of rich material, they would have divided it. But, as the Gloss says, our Lord’s seamless coat was a figure of the unity of the Church. (Glossa ordinaria (Venice: 1588), f. 239A at John 19:23: "Ne aliquando dissolvatur unitas Ecclesiae.")

Ad 9: Certain stations in life have a dress proper to them, just as each religious order has its own habit. The robes of the kings of old, and of the Sovereign Pontiff at the present time must be considered as the insignia of their office. And, just as a religious has no right to wear a meaner habit than the one belonging to his order, (though it is praiseworthy in him to wear the poorest allowed by the statutes of his rule), so neither would it have been lawful for monarchs of former days, nor for the Sovereign Pontiff in these times, to wear apparel unbecoming their dignity. But the case is different with regard to princes and other men, who have no fixed robes of state. It is not reprehensible in them if they wear the poorest garments compatible with their station.

Michal cried out in mockery of David, how the king of Israel honored himself today, uncovering himself today before the eyes of his servants’ maids, as one of the vulgar fellows shamelessly uncovers himself! (2 Sam 6:20). And David answered: I will both play, and will make myself meaner than I have done; and I will be little in my own eyes (2 Sam 6:22).

Again, Esther, speaking to the Almighty, said, thou knowest my necessity—that I abhor the sign of my proud position, which is upon my head on the days when I appear in public . . . and I do not wear it on the days when I am at leisure (Esth 14:16). Hence we see that it is praiseworthy, even in kings and princes if, when they can do so without scandal or without detriment to their authority, they are content with humble apparel.