Some have maintained that St. Paul tends to regard sanctihcation as mainly absence from sensual sin (Wernle, Beginnings of Christianity, Eng. tr., 1904, ii. 334), and others that he, possibly from his own bitter experience of this sin, empha- sized this aspect of sanctihcation (A. B. Bruce, .S'^. PuuVs Conception of Christianity, 1894, p. 264). But St. Paul's view of sanctihcation includes the whole personality. He was keenlj' alive to the ' inconceivable evil of sensuality,' although he himself had the charism of continence (1 Co V). The reason for his emphasis on personal purity is found in the immoral state of Grecian cities — ' the bottomless sexual depravity of the heathen world ' (Schaff, op. cit. p 202) — and in the sensual bias of human nature. Christians had to learn this grace of purity (1 Th 4-').
The Christian life, then, is a positive life— a life that is being sanctihed ; and this includes all along a negative element, for Christianity does not deal witii innocent men, but with sinners. Hence the crucifying of the flesh, with its attections and lusts, and the mortifying of the bodily members are just the negative side of advance in holiness.
It is sometimes held that at hrst St. Paul's teaching on this point was tinged Avith dualism, and that he tended to regard the body itself as essentially evil, and that it was only later on, when the full consequences of his early views Avere carried into effect, as in Colossians and the Pastoral^
10
ABSTINE]S"GE
ABSTINENCE
L
that he came to repudiate this dualistic asceticism (Baring Gould, A Study of St. Paul, 1897 [see Index, under ' Asceticism ']), or it is maintained that his attitude towards the flesh changes — that at times lie views it as something to be extirpated, while at other times and oftener ' his exhortations to his Christian readers have reference commonly not to the Christian's attitude towards his fleshly nature, but to his relation to Christ or the Divine Spirit within him' (McGifl'ert, Apostol. Age, p. 137 f. ). The truth is that the change was not in St. Paul's principle, but in the circumstances and conditions with which he happened to be at any time dealing, and that this opposition between a negative and a positive attitude is not a contra- diction, but only exhibits the opposite sides of the one Christian principle of sanctihcation. Abstain- ing and retaining, pruning and growth, are not contradictories but complements. Even McGifl'ert, as we have seen, admits that 'there is very little asceticism, in the ordinary sense, in Paul's epistles, while there is much that makes in the opposite direction ' (op. cit. p. 136). These distinctions, however, are largely irrelevant. To St. Paul the Christian life was a life of sanctification, and. this included both aspects.
This positive principle, then, of Christian abstin- ence is found in the very nature of the Christian life, which includes the affirmation of all the per- sonality and its relationships as instruments of the spirit, and also the negation of the flesh and the world, or of personality and its relationships as alienated from the Spirit of God.
This principle, just because it contained these two moments, was ajjt to be misunderstood. Its twofold unity was apt to be disrupted, and we may well believe that the later Gnostic dualism and licentious libertinism may both have appealed to the authority of St. Paul. The Apostle, however, had a second principle of abstinence which helps us to correct this antagonism. He clearly distin- guished between those things that in their very nature were hostile to the Christian life and those things that were indifferent. The neglect or abuse of this principle is apt to confuse the whole ques- tion of abstinence. The difficulty is intensified by the fact that in this region of the indiflerent we are dealing with the application of a universal principle to changing conditions, so that, to use logical language, while the major premiss is the same, the minor premiss varies, ana thus the right con- clusion has to be discovered from the nature of the conditions with which we are for the moment deal- ing. Thus we find that the conditions at liome and Corinth were not the conditions present in Colossians or the Pastorals, and accordingly St. Paul deals with each according to its merits. His general principle in regard to indiff"erent things is, 'All things are lawful.' This is universally ap- plicable only inside this universe of discourse. It is not applicable to our relation to tliose things that by their very nature are inimical to tlie Christian life. To apply the principle to the latter sphere is to degenerate into libertinism such as St. John, St. Jude, and St. Peter had to face.
While St. Jude and St. Peter are content with combating this libertinism mainly by denunciation and exhortations to Christians, St. John applies St. Paul's i)ositive principle of abstinence to refute it. He points out the inadmissibility of sin (1 Jn 2^'-)- By this neither he nor St. Paul means i)er- fectionisni, nor yet are they speaking ideally of the Christian life. It is not true, as the Gnostics say, that the gold of Christianity is not injured by the mud of impurity (Irenreus, c. Hcbt. i. 6. 2). Some so explained the saying ascribed to Nicliolas (cf. Rev 2"- ^'), SeZv Trapaxpvcrdai ttj (rapKi (' the flesh must be abused '). According to Clem. Alex. {Strom.