29. Suppose, what is quite possible, that there is one so frugal and sparing in his diet, that, instead of gratifying his appetite or his palate, he refrains from eating twice in one day, and at supper takes a little cabbage moistened and seasoned with lard, just enough to keep down hunger; and quenches his thirst, from regard to his health, with two or three draughts of pure wine; and this is his regular diet: whereas another of different habits never takes flesh or wine, but makes an agreeable repast at two o'clock on rare and foreign vegetables, varied with a number of courses, and well sprinkled with pepper, and sups in the same style towards night; and drinks honey-vinegar, mead, raisin-wme, and the juices of various fruits, no bad imi- tation of wine, and even surpassing it in sweetness; and drinks not for thirst but for pleasure; and makes this provision for him- self daily, and feasts in this sumptuous style, not because he requires it, but only gratify- ing his taste; — which of these two do you re- gard as living most abstemiously in food and drink? You cannot surely be so blind as not to put the man of the little lard and wine above this glutton!
30. This is the true view; but your doc- trine sounds very differently. For one of your elect distinguished by the three symbols may live like the second person in this de- scription, and though he may be reproved by one or two of the more sedate, he cannot be condemned as abusing the symbols. But should he sup with the other person, and moisten his lips with a morsel of rancid bacon, or refresh them with a drink of spoilt wine, he is pronounced a transgressor of the sym- bol, and by the judgment of your founder is consigned to hell, while you, though wonder- ing, must assent. Will you not discard these errors? Will you not listen to reason? Will you not offer some little resistance to the force of habit? Is not such doctrine most unrea- sonable? Is it not insanity? Is it not the greatest absurdity that one, who stuffs and loads his stomach every day to gratify his ap- petite with mushrooms, rice, truffles, cake, mead, pepper, and assafoetida, and who fares thus every day, cannot be convicted of trans- gressing the three symbols, that is, the rule of sanctity; whereas another, who seasons his dish of the commonest herbs with some smoky morsel of meat, and takes only so much of this as is needed for the refreshment of his body, and drinks three cups of wine for the sake of keeping in health, should, for ex- changing the former diet for this, be doomed to certain punishment?
CHAP. 14. THREE GOOD REASONS FOR Ali- STAINING FROM CERTAIN KINDS OF FOOD.
31. But, you reply, the apostle says, "It is good, brethren, neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine."' No one denies that this is good, provided that it is for the end already mentioned, of which it is said, " Make not provision for the flesh to fulfill the lusts thereof;"^ or for the ends pointed out by the apostle, namely, either to check the appe- tite, which is apt to go to a more wild and uncontrollable excess in these things than in others, or lest a brother should be offended, or lest the weak should hold fellowship with an idol. For at the time when the apostle wrote, the flesh of sacrifices was often sold in the market. And because wine, too, was used in libations to the gods of the Gentiles, many weaker lirethren, accustomed to pur- chase such things, preferred to abstain en- tirely from flesh and wine rather than run the risk of having fellowship, as they considered it, with idols, even ignorantly. And, for their sakes, even those who were stronger, and had faith enough to see the insignificance of these things, knowing that nothing is un- clean except from an evil conscience, and holding by the saying of the Lord, " Not that which entereth into your mouth defiletii you, but that which cometh out of it," ^ still, lest these weaker brethren should stumble, were bound to al)stain from these things. And this is not a mere theory, but is clearly taught in the epistles of the apostle himself. For you jfre in the habit of quoting only the words, " It is good, brethren, neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine," without adding what fol- lows, " nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, oris offended or is made weak.'' These words show the intention of the apostle in giving the admonition.
32. This is evident from the preceding and succeeding context. The passage is a long one to quote, but, for the sake of those who are indolent in reading and searching the sacred Scriptures, we must give the whole of it. " Him that is weak in the faith," says the apostle, " receive ye, but not to doubtful dis- putations. For one believeth that he may eat ' Rom. xiv. 2t.
2 Rom. xiii. 14.
3 Matt. XV. 2.
78 THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Chap. XIV.
all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him that eat- eth not; and let not him that eateth not judge him that eateth, for God hath received him. Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth; yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every d'ay alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it 'to the Lord. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. For none of us liveth to him- self, and no man dieth to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live, therefore, or die, we are the Lord's. For to this end Christ both lived, and died, and rose again, that He might be Lord both of the dead and living. But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of God. For it is written, As 1 live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.' So then every one of us shall give account of himself to God. Let us not, therefore, judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumbling- block, or occasion to fall, in his brother's way. I know, and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing common of itself: but to him that esteemeth anything to be common, to him it is common. But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom Christ died. Let not then our good be evil spoken of. For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost. For he who in this serveth Christ is acceptable to God, and approved of men. Let us there- fore follow after the things which make for peace, and things whereby one may edify an- other. For meat destroys not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offense. It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak. Hast thou faith? have it to thyself before God. Happy is he who condemneth not himself in that thing which he allow«th. And he that dis- tinguishes is damned if he eats, because he eateth not of faith: for whatsoever is not of I Isa. xlv. 23, 24.
faith is sin. We then that are strong ought to bear the infirmities of the weak, and not to please ourselves. Let every one of us please his neighbor for his good to edification. For even Christ pleased not Himself." "^ 33. Is it not clear that what the apostle re- quired was, that the stronger should not eat flesh nor drink wine, because they gave offense to the weak by not going along with them, and made them think that those who in faith judged all things to be pure, did homage to idols in not abstaining from that kind of food and drink? This is also set forth in the fol- lowing passage of the Epistle to the Corinthi- ans: "As concerning, therefore, the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in Him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him. Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for som^e, with conscience of the idol unto this hour, eat it as a thing offered to an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, shall we abound; neither, if we eat not, shall we suffer want. But take heed, lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling-block to them that are weak. For if any man see one who has knowledge sit at meat in the idol's tem- ple, shall not his conscience being weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; and through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh forever, lest I make my brother to offend." ^ 34. Again, in another place: "What say I then? that the idol is anything? or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is anything? But the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table and of the table of devils. Do we provoke the Lord to jeal- ousy? are we stronger than He? All things are lawful for me, but all things are not ex- pedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not. Let no man seek his own, but every man what is another's. Whatso- 2 Rom. xiv. and x- 3 1 Cor. viii. 4, etc.
Chap. XVI.]
ON THE MORALS OF THE MANICHy^.ANS.
79 ever is sold in the shambles, that oat, asking no question for conscience sake. But if any man say unto you, This is offered in sacrifice unto idols, eat not for his sake that shows it, and for conscience sake: conscience, I say, not thine own, but another's: for wiiy is my liberty judged of another man's conscience? For if I be a partaker with thanksgiving, why am I evil spoken of for that for which I give thanks? Whether, therefore, ye eat or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God. Give none offence, neither to the Jews, nor to the Greeks, nor to the Chuich of God: even as I please all men in all things not seek- ing mine own profit, but the profit of many that they may be saved. Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ." ' 35. It is clear, then, 1 think, for what end we should abstain from flesh and wine. The end is threefold: to check indulgence, which is mostly practised in this sort of food, and in this kind of drink goes the length of in- toxication; to protect weakness, on account of the things which are sacrificed and offered m libation; and, what is most praiseworthy of ;!ll, from love, not to offend the weakness of those more feeble than ourselves, who abstain rom these things. You, again, consider a lorsel of meat unclean; whereas the apostle ays that all things are clean, but that it is Lvil to him that eateth with offence. And no loubt you are defiled by such food, simply •icause you think it unclean. For the apos- le says, " I know, and am persuaded by the ord Jesus, that there is nothing common of /Lself: but to him that esteemeth anything common, to him it is common." And every one can see that by common he means un- '^lean and defiled. But it is folly to discuss assages of Scripture with you; for you both mislead people by promising to prove your doctrines, and those books which possess au- thority to demand our homage you affirm to 1)6 corrupted by spurious interpolations. Prove then to me your doctrine that flesh de- nies the eater, when it is taken without of- fending any one, without any weak notions, and without any excess. - HAP. 15. WHY THE MANICH^ANS PROHIBIT THE USE OF FLESH.
36. It is worth while to take note of the 'hole reason for their superstitious absti- nence, which is given as follows: —Since, we are told, the member of God has been mixed with the substance of evil, to repress it and to keep it from excessive ferocity, — for that is 2 [Augustin s comparison of Manichasan with Christian ascet- icism IS thoroughly just and admirable.—.A. H. N."| what you say,— the world is made up of botn natures, of good and evil, mixed together. But this part of God is daily being set free in all parts of the world, and restored to its own domain. But in its passage upwards as vapor from earth to heaven, it enters plants, because their roots are fixed in the earth, and so gives fertility and strength to all herbs and shrubs. From these animals get their food, and, where there is sexual intercourse, fetter in the flesh tiie member of God, and, turning it from its proper course, they come in the way and entangle it in errors and troubles. So then, if food consisting of vegetables and fruits comes to the saints, that is, to the Manichaeans by means of their chastity, and prayers, and psalms, whatever in it is excel- lent and divine is purified, and so is entirely perfected, in order to restoration, free from all hindrance, to its own domain. Hence you forbid people to give bread or vegetables, or even water, which would cost nobody any- thing, to a beggar, if he is not a Manich^ean, lest he should defile the member of God by his sins, and obstruct its return.
37. Flesh, you say, is made up of pollu- tion itself. For, according to you, some por- tion of that divine part escapes in the eating of vegetables and fruits: it escapes while they undergo the infliction of rubbing, grinding, or cooking, as also of biting or chewing. It escapes, too, in all motions of animals, in the carriage of burdens, in exercise, in toil, or in any sort of action. It escapes, too, in our rest, when digestion is going on in the body by means of internal heat. And as the di- vine nature escapes in all these ways, some very unclean dregs remain, from which, in sexual intercourse, flesh is formed. These dregs, however, fly off, in the motions above mentioned, along with what is good in the soul; for though it is mostly, it is not entirely good. So, when the soul has left the flesh, the dregs are utterly filthy, and the soul of those who eat flesh is defiled.
CHAP. 1 6. ^DISCLOSURE OF THE MONSTROUS TENETS OF THE MANICH/EANS.
38. O the obscurity of the nature of things! How hard to expose falsehood! Who that hears these things, if he is one who has not learned the causes of things, and who, not yet illuminated by any ray of truth, is de- ceived by material images, would not think them true, precisely because the things spoken of are invisible, and are presented to the mind under the form of visible things, and can lie eloquently expressed? Men of this descrip- tion exist in numbers and in droves, who are kept from being led away into these errors So THE WORKS OF ST. AUGUSTIN.
[Chap. XVI.
more by a fear grounded on religious feeling than by reason, I will therefore endeavor, as God may please to enable me, so to refute these errors, as that their falsehood and ab- surdity will be manifest not only in the judg- ment of the wise, who reject them on hearing them, but also to the intelligence of the mul- titude.
39. Tell me then, first, where you get the doctrine that part of God, as you call it, exists in corn, beans, cabbage, and flowers and fruits. From the beauty of the color, say they, and the sweetness of the taste; this is evident; and as these are not found in rotten substances, we learn that their good has been taken from them. Are they not ashamed to attribute the finding of God to the nose and the palate? But I pass from this. For I will speak, using words in their proper sense; and, as the saying is, this is not so easy in speak- ing to you. Let us see rather what sort of mind is required to understand this; how, if the presence of good in bodies is shown by their color, the dung of animals, the refuse of flesh itself, has all kinds of bright colors, sometimes white, often golden, and so on, though these are what you take in fruits and flowers as proofs of the presence and indwell- ing of God. Why is it that in a rose 3^ou hold the red color to be an indication of an abun- dance of good, while the same color in blood you condemn? Why do you regard with pleasure in a violet the same color which you turn away from in cases of cholera, or of people with jaundice, or in the excrement of infants? Why do you believe the light, shin- ing appearance of oil to be a sign of a plenti- ful admixture of good, which you readily set about purifying by taking the oil into your throats and stomachs, while you are afraid to touch your lips with a drop of fat, though it has the same shining appearance as oil? Why do you look upon a yellow melon as part of the treasures of God, and not rancid bacon fat or the yolk of an egg? Why do you think that whiteness in a lettuce proclaims God, and not in milk? So much for colors, as re- gards which (to mention nothing else) you cannot compare any flower-clad meadow with the wings and feathers of a single peacock, though these are of flesh and of fleshly origin. 40. Again, if this good is discovered also by smell, perfumes of excellent smell are made from the flesh of some animals. And the smell of food, when cooked along with flesh of delicate flavor, is better than if cooked without it. Once more, if you think that the things that have a better smell than others are therefore cleaner, there is a kind of mud which you ought to take to your meals instead of water from the cistern; for dry earth moistened with rain has an odor most agree- able to the sense, and this sort of mud has a better smell than rain-water taken by itself. But if we must have the authority of taste to prove the presence in any object of part of God, he must dwell in dates and honey more than in pork, but more in pork than in beans. I grant that He dwells more in a fig than in a liver; but then you must allow that He is more in liver than in beet. And, on this principle, must you not confess that some plants, which none of you can doubt to be cleaner than flesh, receive God from t-iis very flesh, if we are to think of God as mixed with the flavor? For both cabbages taste better when cooked along with flesh; and, while we cannot relish the plants on which cattle feed, when these are turned into milk we think them improved in color, and find them very agreeable to the taste.
41. Or must we think that good is to be found in greater quantity where the three good qualities — a good color, and smell, and taste — are found together? Then you must not admire and praise flowers so much, as you cannot admit them to be tried at the tribunal of the palate. At least you must not prefer purslain to flesh, since flesh when cooked is superior in color, smell, and taste. A young pig roasted (for your ideas on thisi subject force us to discuss good and evil with, you as if you were cooks and confectioners, instead of men of reading or literary taste) is' bright in color, and agreeable in smell, and': pleasant in taste. Here is a perfect evidence ■ of the presence of the divine substance. You are invited by this threefold testimony, and called on to purify this substance by your sanctity. Make the attack. Why do you hold back? What objection have you to make. In color alone the excrement of an infant surpasses lentils; in smell alone a roast morsel surpasses a soft green fig; in taste alone a kid when slaughtered surpasses the plant which it fed on when alive: and we have found a kind of flesh in flavor of which all three give evidence. What more do you re- quire? What reply will you make? Why should eating meat make you unclean, if using such monstrosities in discussion does not? And, above all, the rays of the sun, which you surely think more of than all animal or vegetable food, have no smell or taste, and are remarkable among other substances only by their eminently bright color; which is a loud call to you, and an obligation, in spite of yourselves, to place nothing higher than a ' bright color among the evidences of an ad-, mixture of good.
Chap. XVI.]
ON THE MORALS OF THE MANICH.-EANS.
8r 42. Thus you are forced into this dififi- culty, that you must acknowledge the part of God as dwelling more in blood, and in the filthy but bright-colored animal refuse which is thrown out in the streets, than in the pale leaves of the olive. If you reply, as you actually do, that olive leaves when burnt give out a flame, which proves the presence of light, while flesh when burnt does not, what will you say of oil, which lights nearly all the lamps in Italy? What of cow dung (which surely is more unclean than the flesh), which peasants use when dry as fuel, so that the fire is always at hand, and the liberation of the smoke is always going on? And if brightness and lustre prove a greater presence of the divine part, why do you yourselves not purify it, why not appropriate it, why not liberate it? For it is found chiefly in flowers, not to speak of blood and countless things almost the same as blood in flesh or coming from it, and yet you cannot feed on flowers. And even if you were to eat flesh, you would certainly not take with your gruel the scales of fish, or some worms and flies, though these all shine with a light of their own in the dark.
43. What then remains, but that you should cease saying that you have in your eyes, nose, and palate sufficient means of testing the presence of the divine part in material objects? And, without these means, iiow can you tell not only that there is a greater part of God in plants than in flesh, but that there is any part in plants at all? Are you led to think this by their beauty — not the beauty of agreeable color, but that of agreement of parts? An excellent reason, in my opinion. For you will never be so bold as to compare twisted pieces of wood with the bodies of animals, which are formed of members answering to one another. But if you choose the testimony of the senses, as those must do who cannot see with their mind 'iie full force of exi'>tence, how do you prove iiat the substance of good escapes from bodies in course of time, and by some kind of attrition, but because God has gone out of it, according to your view, and has left one place for another? The whole is absurd. But, as far as I can judge, there are no marks or appearances to give rise to this opinion. For many things plucked from trees, or pulled out of the ground, are the better of some in- terval of time before we use them for food, as leeks and endive, lettuce, grapes, apples, tigs, and some pears; and there are many other things which get a better color when they are not used immediately after being plucked, besides being more wholesome for the body, and having a finer flavor to the 6 palate. But these things should not possess all these excellent and agreeable qualities, if, as you say, they become more destitute of good the longer they are kept after separa- tion from their mother earth. Animal food itself is better and more fit for use the day after the animal is killed; but this should not be, if, as you hold, it possessed more good immediately after the slaughter than next day, when more of the divine substance had escaped.
44. Who does not know that wine becomes purer and better by age? Nor is it, as you think, more tempting to the destruction of the senses, but more useful for invigorating the body, — only let there be moderation, which ought to control everything. The senses are sooner destroyed by new wine. When the must has been only a short time in the vat, and has begun to ferment, it makes those who look down into it fall headlong, affecting their brain, so that without assist- ance they would perish. And as regards health, every one knows that bodies are swollen up and injuriously distended by new wine? Has it these bad properties because there is more good in it? Are they not found in wine when old because a good deal of the divine substance has gone? An absurd thing to say, especially for you, who prove the divine presence by the pleasing effect pro- duced on your eyes, nose, and palate! And what a contradiction it is to make wine the poison of the princes of darkness, and yet to eat grapes! Has it more of the poison when in the cup than when in the cluster? Or if the evil remains unmixed after the good is gone, and that by the process of time, how is it that the same grapes, when hung up for awhile, become milder, sweeter, and mpre wholesome? or how does the wine itself, as already mentioned, become purer and brighter when the light has gone, and more whole- some by the loss of the beneficial sub- stance?