But from the richness of the phraseology for sensual sins we can gather how wide-spread and multiform this evil was. We find uncleanness [aKadapffia), licentiousness {aaiXyeia) often side by side with -rropveia (2 Co 12^1, Gal 5^\ Eph 4'9). So often is vXeove^ia. found alongside vopveia that many are inclined to regard the former as itself a form of sensuality. But it is best to regard both as characteristic sins of heathendom. Others as- sociate them psychologically, saying that forget- fulness of God compels the creature to either one or other (Bengel and Trench). The NT seems to have a genetic account of this sin (fornication) in more than one place. Our Lord (Mk 7) deduces it from evil thoughts ; St. Paul from the desire of evil things (1 Co 10*), from the lusts of the flesh (Gal 5^8), and from adiKia. (1 Co 6^=^). The lists of vices, however, are not arranged in groups follow- ing a psychological order. They have their coun- terparts in pagan literatui-e (see Dobschiitz, Chris- tian Life in the Primitive Church, p. 406 ff. ; and Deissmann, Licht vom Osten^, Tiibingen, 1909, p. 238 f.). They vary in different jjlaces. The con- nexion between drunkenness and vice is also re- cognized (Eph 5^^ ; cf. Test. Jud. xvi. 1). Group- ings of vices and virtues early arose, arranged in connected lists for catechetical and homiletic pur- poses, but the order is variable (cf. Hermas, Vis. 3). There was no public opinion in paganism to suppress fornication. Hetairai moved about the streets freely, and often played a large role in public afiairs. One thinks of Phryne and others. Religious associations sanctioned vice. The temples
418
FOENICATIOX
FOUNDATION
had their courtesans {iep65ov\oi. ; see Ramsay, Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, i. [Oxford, 1895], 94 f.). The cult of Aphrodite Pandenios at Corinth may be mentioned, as well as smaller cults like that of the Cabiri at Thessalonica and the Chaldaean Sybil at Thyatira. Trade-gilds [ipyaalai), which were numerous, afforded means of corruption. Almost everywliere the air was tainted, so tliat to have no intercourse with fornicators was like going out of the world. Christianity never formed itself into a ghetto, and so the danger of moral pollution was always present. The very fact that the pagan gods were represented as prone to sen- suality had a degrading influence on ordinary morality, however much the stories of the gods may have been ridiculed or allegorized in en- lightened coteries. ' If a god does so, why should not I a man ? ' (Terence, Eunuch. III. v. 42). Ancient custom, the callosity of public feeling, the contamination of commerce and religion, the sanc- tions of libertine enlightenment — all these had to be combated and overcome in the interests of purity.
(3) iropveia is sometimes used also to indicate apostasy from God— so often in Revelation. This meaning lies very near the surface whenever the word occurs in conjunction with idol- worship or meats offered to idols. In the Apostolic Decree this thought is latent. To buy meat in the open market was dangerous— forbidden in Ac 15-", Rev 2'-'-2^', though by St. Paul it was allowed. He bases the right on the law of expediency, but he recommends regard for the weak brother's con- science (1 Co 8^-'2 10'8, Ro 14-""-). The Greek Church still regards this law of meats as binding, though the Western Church followed St. • Paul from early times. But everywhere fornication is prohibited. At Thyatira, as at Corinth, some de- fended fornication on Gnostic grounds, as Jezebel ; but not only fornication but idol-meats also are prohibited by the seer. The Christians had to break away from their trade-gilds to avoid con- tamination ; and this involved serious sacrifice. The example of Israel tempted by Moabitish women to apostasy and lust at Balaam's instiga- tion was a warning (Rev 2'^, 1 Co 10). See art. NiCOLAiTANS. It is probable that we can under- stand the conjunction of fornication and idol-meats in Rev 2''*--" and 1 Cor. only on the early Christian view of demonic influence acting through food and thus tempting to lust (see B. W. Bacon in Exposi- tor, 8th ser. vii. [1914] 40 tt'.).
2. Attitude of Christianity towards fornication. — Christianity opposed fornication in every form, not only overt acts but even lustful thoughts. There were things that should not even be named among Christians. It saw in marriage a preven- tive against fornication ; St. Paul, though desir- ing the unmarried to remain as they were, yet, rather than run the risk of incontinence or ' the fire of lust, allowed them to marry. So strong was tlie reaction against impurity that St. John regards the chaste unmarried {wapd^voi) as a select group (Rev 14^). Fornication is a sin against the body ; it is a defilement of God's temple ; it is a violation of the self in a special sense; for it the wrath of God comes on men, and God's judgment awaits it. The very beginning of sanctilicatioii is incompatible with fornication. St. Paul condenses into one sentence the Christian attitude : ' Flee from fornication ' (1 Co 6'"*). It is directly opjjosed to God's righteou.sness, and St. John brands forni- cators witli the opprobrious terms Kijues,* 'dogs,' 'lieliled' (Rev 17^ 18^ etc.). These cannot enter the city of God. St. I'aul's dealing with the Cor- intlii;in case indicates that fornication excludes from church fellowship.