ii. 20), ' abandoning themselves like goats to pleasure, as if insulting the body, they lead a life of self-indulgence.' It is this that St. John is con- futing in these perfectionist passages, just as St. Paul confutes ascetic severity towards the body in Colossians, by pointing to the nature of the new life the Christian has in Christ.
This Christian principle of abstinence, then, •All things are laAvful,' does not apply to sin. It has further limitations. These are unfolded in 1 Cor. and Romans. The abstainers in both these cases were in the minority. They did not base their views on a material dualism. They were under the influence of an atmosphere rather than a system, and they were apt to be treated in a high-handed fashion. They were not endangering the very basis of Christianity as a free service of God, as the Galatians were. Hence they had to be defended rather than condemned. St. Paul says all he can in their favour, although he ranges himself in principle on the other side. He tells the advocates of liberty that love is superior to the Christian's freedom towards things indiflerent, that it makes liberty look as much on the weakness of others as on its own strength. The interests of brotherly love and Christian unity make liberty impose restraints on itself. This restraint is a noble asceticism. 'The liberty of faith is found in the bondage of love ' (Sabatier, Paul, p. 163). He warns the advocates of liberty also that they may apply this principle to matters that are essential and not indiflerent. This warning was necessary, because idolatry was so identified with all social functions that it was difficult to escape it. Why not — to advert to the coming conditions — adore the image of the Emperor ? Why not throw incense into the fire ? Just because by so doing the fii'st and major principle of Christian abstin- ence was destroyed, viz. that it was a holy life in fellowship with the risen Christ ; and its second principle of freedom in things indiflerent did not consequently apply.
Yet this second principle was distinctly valuable. It was a great step in advance to have it clearly enunciated. For the weak brother, as in Galatia, might become intolerant ; he might become the victim of false views, which would look on the ob- servance of indiflerent rites as a necessary quali- fication of full salvation and Christian privilege. Then Christian liberty in its fullness must be maintained (Gal 5^). This liberty — rightly under- stood— contains in itself the real principle of ab- stinence from what is sinful. Nowhere have we fuller lists of the works of the flesh given than in the Galatian Epistle.
Or, again, as in Colossians and the Pastorals, a false asceticism might be present which re- garded matter and body as evil, in which case both principles would be used to destroy such a view.
(a) In regard to indifferent matters like food and drink God has given freedom. The argument is the same as that used by Jesus when He purified all meats (Mk 7'"). These minutiae of fasting are human inventions, not Divine commands ; and to respect them casuistically is to blur the distinction between the essential and the indifferent. We get what God meant us to get from perishable meats when we joyfully use them with a thankful spirit towards God. They, like the bodily appetites which they satisfy, do not belong to the eternal world, but to the natural. Yet the natural world and its relations to us, our bodies and their re- quirements, are of God and can all be used to His glory. Our bodies, souls, and spirits are His. It is not ]>y using severity towards the body or by abstaining from marriage or leaving our earthly callings that we can gain further sanctific-atiou. In
ABUSE, ABUSEES
ABYSS
11
fact, St. Paul says that this d<pei5ia criii/xaTos — severity towards the body — is of little practical value (Col 2-*). Its aim is to destroy the body, not to fit it for God's service. Logically carried to its issue, this false asceticism would not only enfeeble the soul by debasing the body, but would destroy the body and matter altogether. But God's ideal for the body is different (cf. Ph 3^^), so that what is to be aimed at by the Christian is the destruc- tion of the flesh (a-dp^), not of the body as such ((TtD/xa).
But (6) the Apostle uses the primary principle of Christian abstinence to refute this dualistic asceti- cism. He shows that Christianity is not a matter of prohibitions, but of a renewed life — a walking in the Spirit. Asceticism at its best leaves the house empty. It is doubtful from history and physiology if it can even do that, but the new life in Christ has an expulsive power against sin and a construc- tive power of holiness.
These, then, are the principles that govern Chris- tian abstinence: (1) The Christian life as a 'holy calling ' demands abstinence from all sin. This pro- hibits not only sinful actions but sinful thoughts. This is what may be called essential abstinence. (2) Besides this, there may be abstinence in in- different matters, but it rests with the individual conscience to determine when this is necessary for the furtherance of the new life in Christ. This sphere by its very nature is not subject to obligatory ecclesiastical rules, nor must sucii ab- stinence be made the basis of salvation or of a higher moral platform, nor must it be based on a false view of matter or of the human body or of human relationships.