1. The practice of J&sit^.- Now it cannot be denied that from very early times there were circles of Christian ascetics avIio pointed to Jesus as the Founder and Example of the ascetic life (Clem. Alex. Strom, iii. 6). They emphasized His forty days' fast, His abstinence from marriage. His voluntary poverty, and leaped to the conclu- sion that the highest life, as exemplified by Jesus, was the life of asceticism or world-denial. Com- plete renunciation of the things of the present was ' the way of perfection according to the Saviour. Even now large numbers of people are of this way of tliinkin" ; but a closer and more detailed exami- nation of Jesus' mode of life seems scarcely to bear out such a conclusion. Offering, as He did, a most wonderful example of self-forgetfulness and self- denial in the service of others, Jesus exlubited nothin" of that asceticism which characterized the Essenes, or John the Baptist, or Christian saints like St. Bernard, St. John of the Cross, and even St Francis, who of all ascetics approached most nearly to the spirit of his Master. He showed no disposition to flee from the world, or liold aloof from it ; He did not eschew the amenities of social life. He accepted the hospitality of rich men and poor. He was present at meals, He contributed to the gaiety of a marriage-feast, He permitted very precious ointment to be poured upon His feet. He liad a love for children, welcomed the society ot women, and clearly enjoyed the domestic life of the home in Bethany. There is no trace m the records that Jesus frowned on innocent plea- sures. His life, entirely devoted to His mission, was undoubtedly hard and laborious in the highest deo-ree ; but the motive of His renunciation- e.jr. of°marriageor property— seems to have been, not the desire to avoid these things as in themselves incompatible with siiiritual perfection, but the desire to leave Himself perfect freedom in the pro- secution of His work. He did not, so far as we know, impose upon Himself unnecessary austeri- ties, or go out of His way to seek suflering. He accepted pleasures and pains as they came, neither avoidin" the one nor courting the other, but.
ASCETICISM
ASCETICISM
with a sublime serenity, subordinating both to His main end and purpose. The so-called ' forty days' fast' need not cause us to modify our view. This fast is not mentioned in the oldest authority (Mk 1'^) ; and at any rate it can scarcely have been a ceremonial observance of fasting, but was rather a necessity imposed on Jesus by His situation in the wilderness. The key to its meaning may perhaps be found in St. Luke's expression, 'in those days he did eat nothing' (Lk 4^), with which we may compare Christ's own description of the life of John the Baptist, ' John came neither eat- ing nor drinking' (Mt 11"). The phrase as ap- plied to Jesus may, as in the case of John, mean merely that He ate no ordinary food, but sup- ported life on such means of subsistence as the wilderness aflbrded. But even if St. Matthew's vrja-Teijas (Mt 4^) be taken literally, yet, in the face of Christ's teaching on the subject (to be mentioned below), we cannot believe that He attributed any great importance to this abstinence from food. He was supremely indifferent to the traditional practices of asceticism ; in the sphere of self- renunciation in which He moved, no one-sided prin- ciple of world-negation could fintl a place. Hence, while Jesus is presented to us ))y tlie Evangelists as the living tj'pe and embodiment of absolute self- denial, — self-sacrifice, as it were, incarnate, — yet the marks of the ascetic are not found in Him. And it is interesting to note that His unascetio deport- ment and manner of life attracted the observation of His contemporaries. 'Jolin came neither eat- ing nor drinking, and they say. He hath a devil. The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say. Behold a man gluttonous and a wine- bibber, a friend of publicans and sinners' (Mt jjis. 19^ Lk7^^''^). There can be no question that the Jews were right when they pointed out tlie absence of asceticism from the practice of Jesus. We have but to contrast tlie life of the Son of Man, who ' came eating and drinking,' with that of such an one as St. John of the Cross, and the fact will immediately become apparent.
2. The teaching of Jesus. — Passing now to the consideration of the teacliing of Jesus, we remark at the outset that, from first to last, it is instinct with the spirit of self-denial. ' If any man will come after me, let him deny himself,' is the refrain which continually recurs. The principle laid down by Jesus is that the doing of the will of God and the promotion of His kingdom is the absolute duty of man, to which all private and particular aims must necessarily give place. ' Seek ye first the kingdom of God ' (Mt 6^, Lk 12^1) is the cate- gorical imperative. The Kingdom of God is the highest good, and as such establishes a claim on man's exclusive devotion. Hence all desires and strivings which have not righteousness as their ultimate goal must be ruthlessly suppressed; all lesser goods and blessings which hinder and ob- struct a man in the pursuit of the summum bonum must unhesitatingly be sacrificed. Thus a man must sell all that lie has in order to purchase tlie held witli tlie treasure, or the pearl of great price (Mt 13"-*). H necessity arise, he must surrender all Jiis possessions to come and follow Jesus (Mt 19'-', Mk 10=') ; he must even renounce the closest ties of earthly relationship,— father and mother, children and wife (Mt 10", Lk 14==), the last im- perative dutiesof affection (Lk 9™- ^''), the courtesies of farewell (Lk 9"- '=) ; nay, the most indispensable goods, the hand, the foot, the eye, must be aban- doned if they cause offence (Mt 5='- ^, Mk 9«-J7) . and, at the call of God, tlie very life itself must be laid down (Mt 16=-"-, Mk S^"-, Lk 9=3'-). ' Who- soever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple ' (Lk H^). No teaching could be clearer or more forcible than VOL. I.— 9