CHAPTER VIII

SHOWING HOW RELIGIOUS ARE ATTACKED BY THEIR ENEMIES FOR MANY FRIVOLOUS REASONS. THE POVERTY OF THE RELIGIOUS HABIT IS THE FIRST POINT ON WHICH THEY ARE ASSAILED

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 (V. Moral.), "No one would presume to correct the faults of the Saints, unless he entertained a better opinion of himself than of them." St. Jerome, likewise, says to Sabinianus: "Lest thou shouldest find thyself solitary in evildoing, thou dost pretend, that the servants of God have, also, committed crimes. Thou knowest not, that thou speakest iniquity against another, and dost open thy mouth against Heaven. It is no wonder that some servants of God are blasphemed by thee, since thine ancestors have called their father Beelzebub." 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, "Judge not before the time" (1 Cor. iv.). 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 be moral or immoral, whether he be 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." But, as, according to the Gloss, 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. We will then consider their false opinions about persons.

             The assailants of religious pervert their judgment about facts in two ways. They first of all declare that the good, manifestly wrought by religious, is evil. Thus, they fulfil the words of Ecclesiasticus (xi. 33), "he lieth in wait, and turneth good into evil; and on the elect he will lay a blot." Then they pretend that the indifferent actions of religious are wrong. 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 (VI. Moral.), "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." 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 observed." Now, the only ground of detraction which their enemies can find against religious, and the only reason for holding them up to contempt, is the law of God, to which they are faithful.

             1. They blame them on account of the poor habit which they wear.

             2. They condemn them for their charity to others, and for compassionately assisting their neighbours in the management of their affairs.

             3. They complain that religious, who have here no abiding city, wander from city to city, to preach the Word of God.

             4. They find fault with them for studying.

             5. They blame them for preaching in a systematic and fluent style.

             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.

             I. Their arguments are, first, directed against the religious custom of wearing a poor habit.

             (1) They quote the words of Our Lord, "Beware of false prophets who come to you in the clothing of sheep," etc. (Matt. vii. 15). This warning, they apply to those who wear poor raiment; and, hence, they seek to prove that religious ought to be suspected of being false prophets.

             (2) The Gloss on the words, "Behold a pale horse" (Apoc. vi.), 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."

             (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 such as, under a pretext of humility, chose to wear contemptible garments, unlike the ordinary dress of the time. 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.

             (4) St. Augustine says, (Bk. III. De doctrina Christiana), "Whosoever 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." Hence, he who wears raiment, meaner than that worn by those around him, is deserving of blame.

             (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." Hence, we see, the error of dressing in a beggarly fashion.

             (6) St. Paul says (Rom. xiv. 17), "The Kingdom of God is not meat and drink." 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 be adapted to the condition of those with whom we live and of our own, and to the requirements of our health." 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.

             (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 (in Pastoral), "None do more harm in the Church, than sinners who have a reputation for, or appearance of, sanctity." Hypocrisy lurks under shabby raiment; 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.

             (8) Our Lord Jesus Christ gave us an example of the perfection of holiness and of religion. But, He wore a precious garment, to wit, a coat woven throughout (John xix. 23). It must, therefore, have been made, as clothes are wont to be 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 raiment can be no part of religion.

             (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; nay, the shabbiness of his clothing brings humility into disrepute.

             We will now expose the fallacy contained in the foregoing arguments.

             (1.) We read (XXI. Quaest. IX.), "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." It is added later on, "And if any should be found to ridicule those who wear poor and religious garments, let him do penance." 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. 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.

             (2.) We are confirmed in this by the example of St. John, who wore a garment made of camel's hair (Matt. ii.). 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." Another commentary says that, "a servant of God ought to use clothing, not for pleasure or adornment, but for the purpose of necessary covering." The Gloss also observes on St. Mark i., that the Baptist's garment of camel's hair, was the raiment befitting preachers. Hence, we learn, that the servants of God, especially such as preach penance, ought to wear the garb of humility.

             (3.) We are told, once more, (Heb. xi.), that the prophets of old, such as Elias and others, "wandered about in sheep's skins, in goat skins." 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.

             (4.) We are told of SS. Hilarion, Arsenius, and of other Fathers of the desert, that they wore the very coarsest clothing.

             (5.) We read the following words in the Apocalypse (ii. 3), "I will give unto my two witnesses; and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred sixty days, clothed in sackcloth." This, the Gloss interprets to mean: "they shall preach penance both by word and example." Another commentary remarks, on the same text, "You ought, in preaching, to follow their example." From which we must understand, that they who preach penance, ought to wear a penitential garment.

             (6.) 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 will 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 vain glory, 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 vain glory. 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."

             (7.) On the words of St. Peter (1st Ep. iii. 3), "Whose adorning let it not be outward plaiting of the hair," etc., 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 such-like 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?" It is clear therefore that in ecclesiastics, sumptuousness of apparel is far more to be deprecated, than it is in women.

             (8.) 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, be not puffed up with pride, and that his words be not inconsistent with his garment." Hence, the habit of wearing coarse clothes, is, in itself, one to be adopted, if, at the same time, pride be banished from the heart.

             (9.) 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 Achab (3 Kings xxi. 27), that, "when he had heard these words (i.e. of Elias), he rent his garments, and put haircloth upon his flesh, and fasted, and slept in sackcloth. And the word of the Lord came to Elias the Thesbite, saying: Hast thou not seen Achab humbled before me? Therefore, because he hath humbled himself for my sake, I will not bring the evil in his days." Nevertheless, the humility of Achab was not, as the Gloss says, true humility of heart. Again, in the third chapter of the book of Jonas we read: "The word came to the king of Ninive; and he rose up out of his throne, and cast away his robe from him, and was clothed with sackcloth, and sat in ashes." He also ordered all his subjects to do likewise. Hence, we see, that humility of raiment is acceptable to God.

             (10.) Aristotle (10 Ethic) proves, that, "virtue consists not only in interior, but, likewise, in exterior acts." 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.

             (11.) 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 be liable to abuse.

             (12.) 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, whilst 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 practised by some, who, by their station in life, have a right to costly raiment; 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 raiment, may, for some exceptional reason, be evil, if, for instance, it is practised in a manner annoying to those with whom we live, or, if it is done from motives of vain glory. The same remark applies to prayer and to almsdeeds, as Our Lord himself teaches (Matt. vi.).

             II. We will now reply to the other objections, alleged against the religious habit.

             (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, of which as we are told (2 Pet. iii.), that heretics make a bad use, ought to be reprobated. The same might be said of piety to which heretics often pretend (2 Tim. iii.). Hence, the Gloss says, on St. Matt. vii., that false prophets are recognised, not by their garments, but by their works. Again, the Gloss adds, that sheep should not lay aside their clothing, even though, at times, wolves may assume it as a disguise.

             (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 that wear it, should be accounted wicked (see Gloss on St. Matt. vii.). 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?"

             (3.) The prohibition, quoted in this objection, was not published because poverty of raiment is in itself reprehensible, but because it is assumed by some men for the purposes of deception.

             (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.

             (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 vain glory, 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 raiment. This is evident from his epistle to Pammachius on the death of Paulina.

             (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, practised 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. 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 raiment. Consequently as religion is evidenced by fasting, so, on the same grounds, is it seen in humility of attire.

             (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.

             (8.) It is not credible that Our Lord Jesus Christ should have been clad in costly raiment. For He commended St. John in that he was not clothed in soft garments. 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.

             (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. Michol cried out, in mockery of David, (2 Kings vi. 20), "How glorious was the King of Israel to-day, uncovering himself before the handmaids of his servants, and he was naked as if one of the buffoons should be naked. 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." Again, Esther, speaking to the Almighty, said, (Esther xiv. 16), "Thou knowest my necessity, that I abominate the sign of my pride and glory, which is upon my head in the days of my public appearance; and I wear it not in the days of my silence." 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.