CHAPTER V
CHAPTER V
SSS 33S) SS
ee eee eee ee eee
SECOND POINT OF THE SECOND ANSWER, IN
WHICH THE PERFECTION AND PRAISEWORTHINESS
OF ABSTINENCE ARE DECLARED, AND CALUMNIES
AGAINST IT ARE DISPROVED
a] N THE opinion of men well trained in the Christian combat, the rigor of holy abstinence is most necessary to those who seek and defend perfection. Yet, since the perverse teaching of a new doctrine has been introduced surrepGT gXkereG]| titiously with the intention of proving 7 ouietys this same truth needs to be confirmed through examples and writings of the saints.
The first witness is the forerunner of evangelical perfection who, because of his outstanding abstinence, was called great by an angelic voice. Luke tells us that an angel said to Zachary: "He shall be great before the Lord; he shall
Lk. 1:15 drink no wine or strong drink."' At this point the gloss says: "Strong drink is interpreted as inebriating drink, and this expression covers any drink, made of any components whatsoever, that has the property of making a man drunk.
For it is fitting that the cup selected for heavenly grace be free of any worldly stimulant.'" The Vessel of Election, the Apostle Paul, speaking of himself, recommends this same sobriety in his Epistle to the Corinthians: I chastise my body and I bring it into subjection, lest perhaps after preaching to others I myself should be rejected. And, in imitation of athletes, he calls all the soldiers of Christ to cf. Acts 9:15
1 Cor. 9:27
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
the practice of this self-control by saying: Everyone in a contest abstains from all things—and they indeed to receive a perishable crown, but we an imperishable. Ambrose, in his third book on the '"Hexaemeron," confirms this
1 Cor. 9:25 opinion when he writes: "In the beginning of time, God made simple and natural food before any other kind of food, for this is the food of sobriety and any other is that of pleasure. Thus, the example of frugality and the teaching of restraint are given to us in order that we may be content with herbs and with the nourishment of simple vegetables and fruits, the gifts of nature and the first to be provided by God's lavishness.'"
2. In the second book of "The History of the Church,"
Eusebius reports that "none of the Egyptian saints established by Mark ever tasted wine or any kind of meat. Water is their only drink and bread flavored with salt and hyssop their only food." Concerning the anchorites, whose life is recognized as an example of perfection, Jerome, in his praise of the cenobitic life, writes to Eustochius that among them
"sustenance is based on bread, legumes and vegetables, spiced with nothing but salt.'"* And a few lines below, he continues: 'I shall come to the third class, called anchorites, who left the monasteries and went to the wilderness with nothing but bread and salt. The originator of this manner of life was Paul; its glory was Anthony; and, to rise to the highest, its chief was John the Baptist.' This from Jerome, who writes in his biography of Paul, to whom he ascribes the origin of this custom: "He spent his whole time in prayer and solitude. The palm tree provided his food and clothing. Now, lest anyone believe this is impossible, I am a witness, before Jesus and His holy angels, that I knew a group of monks one of whom lived thirty years on wheat
CHAPTER V
bread and muddy water.' Blessed Basil also forbade the use of meat to the oriental monks striving toward the summit of perfection.? And Martin, as Sulpitius recalls, refused to concede the use of wine to the monks who lived with him in his monastery.® Finally, the holy man Benedict forbade the use of meat to monks in good health." From such examples, and those of countless other saints, we may con~ clude with certainty that practicing the rigor of abstinence is a work of perfect virtue.
3. Now, in order to make such certainty complete, there is need of proof, of quotations from saints who assert that abstinence from wine and meat is perfect. Jerome writes to Demetriades: "Although meat and wine are conceded in a marriage feast, abstinence from them should be encouraged as a counsel of greater perfection.'"*° The same Jerome also writes, in his work "Against Jovinian'': "If you wish to be perfect, it is good to drink no wine and eat no meat: for, if you wish to be perfect, it is better to fatten the soul than the body.'"** Augustine, also, writing "On Faith, to Peter," has this to say: ""The humble ministers of Christ who desire to serve the Lord without entanglement do not seek to be married, and abstain from wine and meat as much as the health of their bodies permits, and yet there is no sin either in having a wife or in partaking of wine and meat.""
Gregory's words in his third book of "Ethics" also confirm this point: "No one receives the palm of the spiritual battle who has not first overcome within himself the cravings of the flesh by curbing his natural desires. Nor does he rise to the challenge of the spiritual combat before having tamed the enemy in our midst: the voracious passions."
4. It may also be gathered that abstinence is a work that pertains supremely to the perfect man who is expected to
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
resist victoriously the assaults of Satan and to dwell peacefully upon the study of wisdom. Hence, Jerome writes in his work "Against Jovinian'': "If anyone believes he is free to enjoy an abundance of drink and food while serving wisdom—in other words, that he is free to plunge into pleasure without falling a slave to its vices—he is deceiving himself.'?4 And, later: "In the same manner as we prefer virginity to the married state, we prefer fasting and the spirit to satiety and the flesh."'' And so, if the service of wisdom is proper to the perfect, and if virginity is superior to the married state as the perfect is superior to the imperfect, it remains that, for anyone who considers abstinence in itself, to abstain from meat and other delicate food is consonant with perfection. On the contrary, their use implies a certain kind of imperfection which is of the very nature of this same act, unless it is restored to perfection by some additional circumstance: If, for instance, a man fully intended to abstain, and yet makes sober use of such food in regard to time and place, or because he needs it for his survival if he is sick or weak, or because he may in eating it edify a brother through charitable condescension.
5. An example of the first case appears in the lives of the perfect cenobites, of whom those in good health are described by Jerome to Eustochius in the following words:
"Their sustenance is based on bread, legumes, and vegetables, spiced with nothing but salt.''® Later, speaking of the weak, he continues: "Wine is given only to the elderly who often receive an additional meal, as do children, so that the weakness of the former may be overcome in like manner as the development of the latter is assured.'"!" Finally, he
+ Cf. Foreword, pp. VIII, IX.
CHAPTER V
says of the sick: "But if anyone falls ill, he is moved to a larger room, and so well attended by the elders that he has no need for the city's pleasures or a mother's attentions.'
An example of the second case appears clearly in Christ, of whom Chrysostom, writing in his Twenty-seventh Homily on Matthew, has this to say: "Behold how much tenderness there is in Christ's condescension, in His manner of eating and drinking: for He is seen to eat and drink in a way that appears quite different from that of John [the Baptist].
If He acts in this way, it is for the sake of the salvation of the Jews, and, even more, for the sake of the salvation of the whole world. At the same time, He is closing the mouths of heretics.'"? Indeed, the Master of every manner of perfection and the Bearer of our imperfection displayed in His life both abstinence and condescension, while John spent all of his time under the strictest law of abstinence.
6. Although the act of abstaining is the more perfect by nature, Christ acted with greater perfection than John, for He abstained interiorly in a manner more pure, and con~ descended to others out of a more perfect love.t Likewise, the Apostle, the foremost advocate of Christ's perfection, shows himself as an example, not only by the austerity of his life, but truly also by his loving condescension toward the neighbor, for he writes to the Corinthians: To the weak
I became weak, that I might gain the weak. I became all things to all men, that I might save all. The Lord proposed
1 Cor. 9:22 this same form of edifying condescension to the disciples sent out to preach when He said: "Remain in the same house, eating and drinking what they have." And an ex~ planation of this is given in Matthew: The laborer deserves
Lk. 10:7
Mt. 10:10
+ CE. ch. 1, 44 10f.
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
his living. Indeed, since the disciples were poor and ex~posed throughout their traveling to the hard work of preaching, there was danger that they might personally fail because of their state of need, because of the difficulty of their work, or because their request for unusual food would have made them a burden to those who took them in.
This manner of sustenance, therefore, was kindly and providently imposed upon them, so that they might both condescend to others and have the strength to carry out their own task.
7. Hence, it seems that both to abstain from meat and wine and to make use of them may be done perfectly and imperfectly. The former, meaning to abstain, is done perfectly by reason of the very nature of abstention, whereas the latter is done perfectly by reason of an additional circumstance, while retaining its natural bent toward imperfection.
Now, we do not mean to say that food implies sin, for the Apostle writes to the Corinthians: Food does not commend us to God; and the gloss adds: '""Whether eaten or 1 Cor. 8:8 not.'""° And Augustine writes in the third book of his work
"On Christian Doctrine": '"The requirements of the place, time and person must be considered carefully so that no deed may be judged evil inconsiderately. For it may occur that the rarest delicacies are consumed wisely without the slightest taint of avidity or voracity, while the cheapest food, eaten by the unwise, may make them burn with the most disgusting flame of gluttony. Any sane man shall cf. Lk. 24:42f. rather eat fish, as did the Lord, than lentils, as did Esau, cf. Gn. 25:34 or oats, as would a horse.'"** As a further contribution to the same thesis, Gregory says in his third book of "Ethics":
"It is not the food but the appetite that may be vicious.
CHAPTER V
Hence, we may generally eat the most exquisite food without sin, but we cannot eat the lowest without a sense of guilt. Thus, Esau lost his birthright through a plate of lentils, while Elias preserved the strength of his body in the wilderness by eating meat. Thus, also, the ancient enemy reduced the first man to servitude, not with meat, but with an apple, and he tempted the Second Man, not with meat, but with bread.'??} 8. It is clear, then, that we are free to use delicate food in the proper circumstances of time and place without incurring any sin. Yet, because they give occasion to sin by arousing concupiscence, it is salutary to abstain from them.
Since by its very nature abstinence is difficult and hard and beyond what is absolutely required, we may gather that it is perfect because preparing for perfection, and promoting and preserving it. Wherefore Jerome writes in his work '"'Against Jovinian': "Granted that all nations eat meat and that what is practiced in many places is also permissible in many places: what is this to us whose citizenship is in heaven, who, surpassing Pythagoras and Empedocles and all the pillars of wisdom, are not bound to Phil. 3:20 the one of whom we are born, but to the One of whom we are reborn, in that, through abstinence, we subjugate the revolt of the flesh which would have led us to the temptations of lust?'"? By these words, he shows that + It is hard to see on what basis Gregory distinguishes exquisite food (meat, fish) from the lowly (lentils, oats, apple, bread).
Furthermore, this neatly contradicts what Bonaventure had quoted above: "Thus, the example of frugality and the teaching of restraint are given to us in order that we may be content with herbs and with the nourishment of simple vegetables and fruits, the gifts of nature and the first to be provided by God's lavishness,'' where Ambrose sees such natural food as the best, not the lowest.
See also { 9, where lowly food is praised.
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
abstinence is well suited to perfect and heavenly men for the sake of perfect avoidance of lust and perfect submission of the flesh.
9. It is also true that abstinence promotes perfect virtue.
It is valuable, first, as a preservative of the splendor of holy modesty. Thus, Jerome writes to Eustochius: "Great care should be taken that those whom satiety expels from paradise be led back to it by hunger; not that God, the Creator and Lord of the Universe, is delighted with groaning bowels and empty stomach or fire on the breath, but that if we eat too much, modesty could not possibly be safeguarded.''4
Abstinence is valuable, secondly, as a preservative of the highest poverty, of which the same Jerome writes to Salvina: ""Wherever lowly herbs and bread are used as food, and eating and drinking are done in moderation, wea!th is completely superfluous.''"? And the same, writing "Against Jovinian,": "If thou wilt be perfect, it is good not to drink wine and not to eat meat.'"° And later: "It is a great joy
Mt. 19:21 to the soul to be content with little, to have at your feet the world and its power, banquets and delights for the obtaining of which great wealth is sought —and to exchange all this against lowly food."?'
Abstinence is valuable, in the third place, for the gaining of spiritual fortitude, according to this passage from Bernard: 'In the same manner as our body is either growing or shrinking every day, so also our spirit must always go either backward or forward: and yet, there is, in between, a state of order. For in a vigorous and lusty body the soul is always softer and more lukewarm, while in a weak and failing body, the wakeful spirit remains stronger and more alert. The Apostle asserts that this corresponds
CHAPTER V
to his own experience when he writes: When I am weak, then I am strong.'"*+ As vigor wanes in the body through abstinence, so does virtue wax in the soul, as may be seen most clearly in the case of a perfect man.
2 Cor. 12:10
Abstinence is valuable, finally, as a means of obtaining peace of mind, as demonstrated by this passage from one of Seneca's letters: "'Such things as water or barley or a morsel of bread are no joy: but it is supreme delight to be able to take pleasure in them and to have attained a state which no ill fortune can impair.""? If, indeed, such happy peace of mind, unperturbed by changes in the course of events, is properly said to pertain to perfection, clearly, then, abstinence pertains to the perfect.
10. As soon as such arguments as these have been adduced in defense of truth, it is an easy thing both to defend the lofty perfection of abstinence and to counter the plots that its adversary has devised against it. Since he begins by implying a fault that actually does not exist, he is building on a foundation of error from the very start. He claims, indeed, that his opponent had said that to eat fish was contrary to perfection—a statement the friar never made.
Furthermore, he declares that his opponent must be counted among those of whom the Apostle says that { This statement, which is characteristic of St. Bernard's nega~ tive view of nature, directly opposes the prevalent opinion: mens sana in corpore sano. A distinction must be made between physical weakness which may be corrected with proper food and medical care, and unavoidable weakness resulting either from incurable ill health or from persecution. The former should be remedied, for it procures no moral perfection, in spite of the fact that St. Bernard seems to believe it does. The latter should be borne with patience, for it procures merit. When accepted, such weakness may indeed be transformed into strength through reliance on God's power, as explained by St. Paul.
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
in after times some will depart from the faith, giving heed to deceitful spirits. He attributes guilt to the friar for hav~ ing preferred abstinence to satiety. The reader will readily perceive the depth of malice and fraud there is in accusing of Manichean error such a faithful man, under the pretext that he had recommended abstinence.
This amounts to implying that no recommendation of abstinence is possible without prejudice to faith and sound doctrine. If this were true the most illustrious men adorned with the practice of great and wonderful abstinence would have been mistaken; and even now the Church would be in error when, at certain times she determines, she gives the order to abstain from meat or anything made of it. A man, then, would be in error both when following the custom of the Church,
1 Tm. 4:1 for then in the author's words he would be a Manichean, and when attacking this holy custom, for then he would be a disciple of Jovinian.
11. Let our opponent listen, then, not to us, but to Augustine in his work "Against the Manichean Adimantus," where he refers to the followers of this sect: "These men," he comments, "'were seen by the Apostle as due to come in after times....They will forbid marriage, and 1 Tm. 4:1, 3 will enjoin abstinence from foods, which God has created.
Paul is pointing here to those whose abstinence from such things is not founded on the desire to control their natural appetites or to spare their neighbors' weakness.''*°
Let this man listen to Jerome speaking ''Against Jovinian": "The Apostle," he says, "reproves those who forbade marriage and commanded abstinence from certain foods; but he is pointing to Marcion and other heretics who advocf. ibid. cate perpetual abstinence with the intention of destroying, despising and debasing the Creator's works. As for us,
CHAPTER V
we praise every creature, but prefer leanness to fat, abstinence to extravagance, and fast to a full belly. And, from Mt. 11:12 the days of John the Baptist, abstainer and virgin .
. . the kingdom of heaven has been enduring violent assault."
With these words, Jerome properly closes the mouth of Jovinian, and of his present follower, lest, with the carnality of his discourses comparable to the fetid exhalations ef. Ps13:3 from a tomb, this man destroy some minds as yet sober and modest, and corrupt their manner of life. For, as the Apostle says, evil companionships corrupt good morals.
1 Cor. 15:33
12. Those in error often attack a truth by means of perversely twisted arguments they draw from it. Thus, our adversary attempts to obtain the support of Scriptural authority by quoting this passage from the Apostle: Every creature of God is good; and this other: For the clean, all things are clean; and a few lines down, this saying from the Gospel: What goes into the mouth does not defile a man. In between, he had quoted "The City of God" where
Augustine writes: "'A habit related to the manner of eating 1 Tm. 4:4
TRE IHS Mt. 15:11 is no impediment to the religious state."*"
From such texts as these, this man attempts to prove that abstinence from food has nothing to do with perfection, and the use of it, nothing to do with imperfection. He even goes so far as to write: "It is not God's creature that gives rise to imperfection, but the weak mind unable to make proper use of this same creature. Hence, abstinence pertains to the imperfect mind rather than to the perfect."
Now, if this were true and if such an argument had had any weight, since temporal goods are God's creatures and woman was formed by God—and, which is more, since marriage is a sacrament of the Lord, and freedom of the cf. Eph. 5:32 will a divine gift—none of these things would lead to
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
imperfection: they would instead pertain to the perfect rather than to the imperfect, since the perfect would be able to use them better. Thus, according to this unwise teaching, it behooves the perfect rather to possess wealth than to despise it, to marry} than to preserve chastity, to act as they please rather than obey another's will.
13. The same reasoning would also lead to the conclusion that the teachings of Christ are opposed to perfection.
This man would not have committed the indecency of proposing a theory so horrifying to pious ears had he only understood in a catholic sense the several passages he is quoting. The text of the Apostle which he brings forth reproves in fact the impiety of heretics; the Gospel saying denounces the superstitious teachings of the Pharisees; and the passage from Augustine is opposed to both heresy and superstition.
The truth of the statement that Christ accused the Pharisees of superstition is clearly proved by the text itself and developed in the gloss on this precise passage from cf. Mt. 15:1-20 Matthew: What goes into the mouth does not defile a man, which reads: "This one single pronouncement was enough
Mt. 15:11 to do away with any superstitious practice founded on the belief that religion consisted in the proper choice of food."** It concerns the distinctions applied by the Pharisees to determine which foods were unclean. In contrast, distinguishing between foods that are coarse or delicate, precious or vile, as done by those who practice abstinence, t Bonaventure's attitude is not always so severe, for he writes later in this same work: "Although virginity is truly superior to any degree of modesty, it does not necessarily follow that the state of holy virgins should be considered any higher than that of prelates, or of any men who are not held in the least to virginity.'"
(Ch. XI, { 3). See also ch. VI, { 6.
CHAPTER V
is not opposed to the Christian religious life, but well conformed to it.
Again, when Augustine says that "a habit related to the manner of eating is no impediment to the religious state,''*4 it must be understood as referring to the religion of the Christian faith that is common to both perfect and imperfect, and of which Augustine says in the same passage:
"It forces those philosophers who become Christian to change, not their habits and eating customs, but their false teachings.'*' It cannot, indeed, be understood of religion in the sense of a religious life under the discipline of a rule, in which case a new manner of living is assumed and the pattern is changed also as regards distinctions in the use of food. Wherefore Jerome writes "Against Jovinian'"': "Know that the swine and the boar and the deer and other such animals were created in order that athletes, soldiers, sailors, miners and others occupied in similar trades may have the right kind of food to sustain the bodily strength they need.
But our manner of life in the religious discipline consists in training, not the athlete, the miner or the oarsman, but the pursuer of wisdom who dedicates himself to God's service."
Finally the Apostle's saying with which our author begins,t is an attack against the impiety of the Manicheans and has nothing to do with the abstinence of the perfect.
Indeed, Jerome writes to Salvina: ""We know the Apostle said that every one of God's creatures is good and that cf. 1 Tm. 4:4 nothing should be rejected which is received with thanks~ cf. Rom. 14:21 givings; but it is also said that it is not good to eat meat or drink wine. Women who cater to the flesh partake of it: t CE { 12.
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
their passion overflows in the sexual act. Bound to their husbands, they dedicate themselves to procreation and to their children. Those whose womb carries progeny, their belly also is filled with meat. But as for you who have buried all such delights in your husband's tomb, you have no other need than to persevere in your fast."*"
14. It may be clearly gathered from this that every creature is good and clean, and that to abstain from some of them is holy, because, although they are not unclean in a causal or formal sense, yet, through the occasion of their use, it often occurs that some uncleanness is contracted because concupiscence is aroused.
As the same Jerome writes to Eustochius: "'If I am able to give any good advice, if my experience is worthy of trust, this is my first counsel, this is what I declare as a witness: the virgin of Christ should avoid wine as if it were poison. Why throw oil on a flame? Why excite glowing embers with the fuel of major conflagrations?''** 15. Were anyone to say that such downfall threatens the young and imperfect, but not the perfect, Jerome answers the objection in the same letter: "So long as we are attached to this weak body, so long as we carry this treas2 Cor. 4:7 ure in vessels of clay, and so long as the flesh lusts against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh, there is no such thing as an assured victory."*" And, a little later: "The Apostle, a chosen vessel, set apart for the Gospel of God chastised his body and brought it into subjection on Gal. 5:17
Acts 9:15
Rom. 1:1 account of the thorns of the flesh and of the provocations of vice, lest perhaps after preaching to others he himself would be rejected. After suffering exposure, fast, hunger, cf. 1 Cor. 9:27 ejae Gor, 12:9 flagellation and torments, he still looked back on himself and exclaimed: Unhappy man that I am! Who will deliver
Rom. 7:24
CHAPTER V
me from the body of this death! How could you believe yourself to be safe? Beware, therefore, lest some day God say to you: The virgin of Israel is cast down upon her
Am. 5:2* land: there is none to raise her up.'
Now, if these words of Jerome are true, or rather, be~ cause they are true, it is a grievously dangerous thing to detract the perfection of abstinence, leading away from it the souls of those who strive toward perfect virtue.
16. Now, in order to induce men to do this very thing, our adversary arms himself with examples from the saints,
Noah, Elias and John the Baptist, "'the first of whom," he claims, "received permission to use any kind of meat, while cf. Gn. 9:3; 3 Kgs. 17:6; Mt. 3:4 the second was actually sustained by eating meat, and the third was not defiled when he ate locusts." From such examples as these he goes on to argue that "since every imperfection is a defilement of the soul, the eating of meat does not bring about imperfection, but rather perfection, since the Apostle says: I know how... to have abundance and to suffer want. Nor was he more perfect in his want than in his abundance, since it is through the power of God that he could live in both these states."
Phil. 4:12
If our adversary, by introducing the example of perfect men, were attempting to prove that eating meat was per~mitted, he would have been proceeding according to reason and following Augustine who, in his "Confessions," dem~ onstrates by the example of the same saints that sin is brought about, not by food, but by uncontrolled appetite.*1 If this man were attempting so to prove that, in some circumstances of time and place, the use of rich food might not have been contrary to perfection, but compatible with it, he would still have been telling the truth, but uselessly, since no Catholic denies it.
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
17. But if he is attempting to prove that to feed on such things and to abstain from them is equally perfect, he is making no'small mistake.
He is mistaken, first, because the absurdity and falsity of such a doctrine is proved by the example of the saints, as indicated above.
Second, because his reasoning is sophistic and invalid when he asserts as a premise that whatever perfect men do is perfect as such. In fact, as we have seen in an earlier discussion, similarly false conclusions could be drawn from Noah's marriage feast, from the possession of wealth, and from the planting of a vineyard—not to mention the drinking of wine.
Third, because after proposing such arguments, he con~ tinues by making a false assumption, declaring that "'imperfection consists in a certain pollution of the soul," a statement disproved earlier for many good reasons, and shown to be the source of contradictions.t{ If it were true, the newly baptized either would not be imperfect or would be defiled by the stain of sin, both of which propositions are absurd. Furthermore, if imperfection were a defilement, either it would be a mortal stain, and then every imperfect man would be completely lacking in charity; or it would be a venial one, and then any man committing a venial sin would lose the state of perfection; no one living in venial sin would ever attain it; and the perfect would be the same as the undefiled —which is true either of all the just in the state of wayfaring, or of none at all besides the God-Man and the glorious Virgin. t Ch 4] Lf. tCh 7. ff Cf ch. Il, 4q 148.
CHAPTER V
Fourth, the examples he gives militate rather against his thesis than in favor of it when they are considered in the sense intended by the holy Doctors. Jerome, for instance, writes to Eustochius: "Noah drank wine and became incf. Gn. 9:21 ebriated and his loins were uncovered while he was drunk.
Elias, fleeing from Jezabel, lay beneath an oak-tree and arose when an angel came to him, and behold, there was at 3 Kgs. 19:6* his head a hearthcake and a vessel of water. Now, why could not spiced wine have been sent to him, and choice food, and tender meat?
Eliseus invited the sons of the prophets to a meal, and since he was offering them herbs from the field, he heard the clamor of his guests: Death is
4 Kgs. 4:40* in the pot! Nor did this man of God become angry against the cook since he was not accustomed to eating anything better. Likewise, richer fare could have been brought to cf. Dn. 14:32 ff.
Daniel from the royal table, but as far as I know, Habacuc brought him the rustic food of harvesters, hence Daniel is called the man of desires for not having eaten the bread ibid. 9:23* of his longing nor drunk the wine of concupiscence.'""
18. Consider how often our adversary has recourse to examples taken from the Fathers of the Old Testament who were actually praising abstinence, and how, as a man endowed with the wisdom of the flesh, he attempts to turn them into arguments in the praise of meat! Yet, sensing that because of his earlier statements he himself might be pierced with the darts of the same Jerome as a disciple of Jovinian, he craftily throws up a shield in his own defense:
"And call me not a follower of Jovinian, for I do not assert as he does that there is no difference whatsoever between complete abstinence and the gluttonous abuse of meat and wine: My opinion is that abstinence is most necessary for the weak who are unable of making proper use of such
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
things, while the perfect incur no stain from consuming them."
These are his very words by which he amplifies the error of another in order to excuse his own.
For Jovinian, although thoroughly detestable a man, never fell into the folly our author attributes to him of putting gluttony on a par with abstinence. Nor did he equate lust and continence: he merely believed that conjugal chastity and virginity, the use of some foods and abstinence from them were of equal value in God's eyes. This the same Jerome condemns as perverse teaching." Now this man goes even further in his ravings, exceeding even Jovinian, the teaching of the disciple progressing through an accumulation of errors. He claims indeed that sobriety in the use of food pertains to the perfect and abstinence to the imperfect under the pretext that ''the perfect incur no stain from it, while the imperfect lack the remedy they need for the taming of concupiscence."' To be sure, the perfect are better than the imperfect, and those acts that are proper to the former and to the latter have a relative value of the same order. And so in this man's opinion the moderate use of certain foods should be preferred to abstinence from them!
19. Lest we be accused of imputing upon him a nonexisting crime, we will let him speak for himself. Either he prefers abstinence to moderate eating, or he considers it equally good, or sees it as being less good. If he prefers abstinence, why bring forth so many empty words against his own opinion? If he grants that abstinence is the more perfect, no quarrel remains. Now if he considers abstinence equally good, he shamefully falls into the error of Jovinian. But if he believes that abstinence is less good, he is worsening an already condemned and reproved heresy.
CHAPTER V
What he is now about to write demonstrates clearly that the latter opinion is the one he held. Supposing someone disagreed with his opinion that abstinence pertained to the imperfect, he continues in the words of his alleged opponent: "But you say: "What about the Lord forbidding the use of wine to the priests of the Old Testament while they were exercising their function? What about His forbidding cf. Lv. 10:9 cf. Nm. 6:3 it to the Nazirites? What about the sons of Rechab being praised on account of this very abstention? Finally, what about John the Baptist who drank no wine or strong drink?' "' cf. Jer. 35:6
Lk. 1:15
And he then asks: "How is it, therefore, that to abstain from wine and meat is not more perfect than to make use of them?" And he considers these arguments to be false, and answers them by saying that ''the priests of the Old
Testament were forbidden wine because they were not yet able to make proper use of it; the abstinence of the Nazirites was figurative and unrelated to ethics; the sons of Rechab were praised rather for their obedience than for their abstinence; and abstinence was fitting for John the Baptist because he was still young." And he goes on to say: "And as he ate meat without loss of perfection, he could also have drunk wine, since there was no law to hold him against it."
20. All this clearly reveals that this man adds to the errors of Jovinian.
For since he has proved above that the consuming of wine and meat is fitting for the perfect by adducing the examples of Noah, Elias and John the Baptist,t and since he now considers it unfitting to attribute abstinence to the perfect, he is clearly convicted of believing that the use of such food and drink is not less
+ Cf. { 16.
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
good, but better than abstinence from them. And he pro~ poses many absurd perfidies in defense of this error.
For when he asserts that wine was forbidden to the priests of the Old Testament because they were not yet able to make proper use of it, he is indeed opposing the truth, for in a commentary on this passage from Leviticus: You
Lv. 10:9* shall not drink wine nor anything that may make drunk, the gloss says: "This command is given to the sons of Aaron as to men dedicated to higher things.'** Furthermore, he is convicted of detraction against pious men, many of whom shone with the privilege of priestly holiness and the spirit of prophecy. How amazing, or rather, how monstrous this teaching! After he had proved earlier that, under the Old Law, marriage had been fitting for perfect men and that Aaron had fled because he was perfect, on what authority can he now declare that when Aaron practiced abstinence, he did so as an imperfect man, as if the bond of matrimony and the safety of flight had given priests the glory of perfection, while the holiness of abstinence had taken it away?
21. He is also absurd in his assertions that the Forerunner practiced abstinence because of his tender age, for the sake of chastising his youth, as if it were not also for the elderly and the perfect. What of the aged and perfect saints, Paul the Hermit,** Anthony, Hilarion," and the most illustrious cenobitic fathers who practiced abstinence until the most advanced age? What of the worthy cenobites of whom Jerome says to Eustochius: "I will say nothing about food and drink, since even when they are sick these monks use nothing but cold water and consider it an extravagance to accept any cooked food.'*" What of the most holy matron Paula of whom the same Jerome writes: "Never
CHAPTER V
has a healthy and strong young girl addicted herself to such abstinence as this woman with her broken, aged, and weakened body.'** What of the venerable Tharsilla, of whom Jerome writes in the fourth book of his "Dialogues":
"Tharsilla, my paternal aunt, in the company of two other sisters, rose to the summit of perfection through the virtue of continual prayer, the seriousness of her way of life, and the remarkable extent of her abstinence. ''*?
What, finally, of the Apostle, of whom Jerome writes in his work "Against Jovinian'': '"Paul the Apostle, after recounting his cae Gorekie hunger, thirst and other hardships, and the perils brought
26f. about by bandits and solitude, goes on to recall his many fasts, and he then advises his disciple Timothy, who was cf. 1 Tm. 5:23 suffering stomach pains and frequent spells of dizziness, that he should drink a little wine— which he would never have permitted had not the frequent weakness and pain made it necessary.''*° 22. Countless examples may be taken also from the lives of illustrious men —not only believers in Christ, but
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
also pagan philosophers —as may be gathered from different historical sources, and principally from Jerome's work
"Against Jovinian,"*' and Ambrose's book "On the Life of the Brahmins.""*? Such examples should not be despised, for, as Jerome writes to Laeta, "what Jewish superstition realized in part through the rejection of certain animals and foods, what the Brahmins of India and the Gymnosophists of Egypt practiced by eating nothing but barley, rice and fruits, why could not the virginal Christ accomplish in full? If a mere glass bead has such value, should not the Pearl be worth much more?''"
23. Now, we say this, not in praise of excessive abstinence, nor to accuse the men of our time of being imperfect: for it may occur that some are excused on account of their bodily weakness, and in this sense it is said in the Thirty-fourth Distinction: "The weakness of men of our time, lacking both merits and bodily strength, is no sufficient reason to condemn austerity.'**
Again, some men may be dedicating themselves to a pious work which may partly or completely make up for austerity. Yet, those who are unable—or unwilling—to practice a life of hardships should be most careful not to decry it presumptuously: on the contrary, they should respect it deeply so that if there be anything lacking in them on account of the weakness of their flesh, it may be supplemented through the humility of their mind.
24. Now, if the author we are answering had only wished to be so reverend, he would not have encouraged weakness of the flesh through his presumptuous temerity by speaking of meat and asserting that the Forerunner had eaten of it. For the Gospel text clearly contradicts him, and so does Augustine in his work "Against Faustus," where cf. Mt. 3:4; 11:18
CHAPTER V
he speaks in these words: "Why is it said that John neither ate nor drank, if it does not mean that he abstained from the foods that were used by the Jews?'®> Jerome, in his work ''Against Jovinian,'"' concurs entirely: '"'The Foreruncf. Mt. 3:4 ner and Herald of the Lord fed on locusts and wild honey, not on meat.'"** And Rabanus, commenting on this passage from Matthew: His food was locusts, etc., has this to say: ibid.
"Tt was fitting for a man who lived in solitude not to seek refined food, but only such things as are needed for the sustenance of human flesh."*'? And Bishop Arculfus of the Gauls explains: "The kind of locusts found in the desert of Judea and on which John the Baptist fed, are very small, and they may still be found there to this very day.
They are slender in body, about the size of a finger. They are easily caught in the grass and, when cooked in oil, provide a meager food.'** When statements such as these are properly examined, who could be so impudent as to defend his own carnality or that of another on the basis of the poor and austere life of John 25. Anyway, since it is no use dwelling at length upon this matter, we should come to our adversary's further development of the definition of the question. He claims that "perfect men allowed themselves the use of wine and meat because of the weakness of the flesh in order to follow the customs of common life and to avoid scandal."
While this is true and accepted by the saints, this man intersperses his explanation of it with many fallacies, as he usually does. Developing the first point, he says that "imperfection is damageable to virtue," which has been shown to be completely wrong. He continues: "Elias ate
+ CE. | 17.
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
meat because of the weakness of the flesh, a weakness Christ assumed." Now if this refers to a specific weakness of the flesh, it cannot be said without great temerity, both because Scriptures teach no such thing but the oppoCfeaKkgsalail site, and because it is wrong to say that Christ assumed any weakness besides those common to the human condition.*® But if he is speaking of the weakness that is common to all, every perfect man should eat meat because of the example of Christ and Elias.
26. In his explanation of the second point, he quotes Augustine "On Evangelical Questions': "The nature or quantity of the food a man takes is of no import if he is taking it in order to conform with the customs of those with whom he is living." If this statement is to be understood unqualifiedly, as this man assumes in his perverse state of mind, the nerve is taken out of every effort towards abstinence, and this from both viewpoints of quality and quantity. The true meaning is clearly this: such matters are of little import as regards morality or immorality — which contradicts the Manichean doctrine; yet they are quite important as regards the taming of the flesh, the exercise of virtue and atonement for sins. Thus, Gregory writes in the "Register": "There are two ways in which holy men are in the habit of abstaining from permissible goods: at times, to increase their merit before God
Almighty; at other times, to wipe out the sins of their earlier life."
27. There is no lack of a similar perversity in the fact that our author continues in the same passage: "If anyone chooses to live a stricter life than that of his companions, t Cf. (§ 11, and 13.
CHAPTER V
he is either intemperate and thus imperfect, or superstitious and thus impious." Such are the words of this man who alleges that he is quoting Augustine "On Christian Doctrine,"*' and also insists that this—meaning this stricter life—'"'is not proposed by Christ, who forbids it instead, nor was it ever practiced by any saint." By saying so, he casts not only a note of imperfection but a stain of prevarication upon almost every founder of a Religious Order and upon those leaders of the Church who lived more austerely than their companions.
Hence, he is liable to being accused of detraction against the saints of Christ — although he may be excused, perhaps, on account of his ignorance for having neglected to read the lives of those whose example he abhors. Again, the inaccuracy of the manuscript from which he is quoting Augustine may have misled him, since the text does not read "either he is intemperant," but "either he is temperant or superstitious."
By these words, Augustine wishes to show that a departure from the common way of life may be occasioned either by the height of virtue, as is the case with men of great austerity, or by the error of superstition, as is the case with Manicheans.
Again, it may be caused by presumptuous singularity in behavior, as is the case with hypocritical and vain men who despise the common way of life. Let our adversary, then, correct the inaccuracy of the manuscript, or let him rather make amends for the malignity of such a mistake.
28. In his treatment of the third point, he again distorts an argument, this time related to the Apostle Paul, while he also impiously blasphemes Christ. He claims, indeed, that Paul disapproved Peter because his abstinence scandalized the weak. In fact, as may be seen in the Apostle's text, the cf. Gal. 2:11ff.
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
contention against Peter was not that he imposed abstinence upon the flesh in the form of restrictions as regards the use of delicate food, but that, in the Jewish manner, he maintained a distinction between foods, and thus, by his example, led the gentiles to observe the customs of the Jews." But our author's next proposition
— that if Christ ate of the Paschal lamb, which He was not bound to do, this was only in order to avoid giving the Jews an occasion of scandal—clearly contains a blasphemy. Christ, indeed, being the Master of All, including the Law, was free to disregard the legal observances, even at the risk of scandalizing the Jews who lived under the Law. It is not under compulsion, but out of condescension that He obeyed the figurative law.
29. Finally, because truth always conquers and grows in strength, since its light radiates even through the dense obscurities of error, the adversary of abstinence, as if compelled by the power of this truth, turns to the praise of the very thing he had opposed when he goes on to write:
"There are three reasons why holy men practice abstinence: first as a mortification of the flesh for the sake of taming concupiscence; second, as a precaution against the scandal of the weak; third, as a manner of avoiding the worship of idols." These are actually words of truth borrowed from Augustine's work "On the Customs of the Manicheans.''®
But an attempt is then made to obscure this triple ray of truth with the darkness of a triple error.
30. Our author begins by saying that "since the holy Fathers belonged to the Old Testament, they were not bound to abstain from the foods prohibited by law— except in the case of possible scandal."
This is untrue.
Indeed, Augustine, writing "Against Faustus," says in his
CHAPTER V
nineteenth book: ""We place the Machabees very high in our esteem because they refused to touch some foods which in our days are licitly used by Christians. Because of the prohibition existing at the time, their use was not permitted."
In the second place, this man goes on to say that "Christ practiced this threefold manner of abstinence." By speaking in this way, not only is he in error, but he is blaspheming as he usually does. Since in his own words the first manner of abstinence is based on the intention of controlling the concupiscence of the flesh, assigning it to Christ is sheer blasphemy— unless perhaps he is excused by arguing, as he did before, that Christ abstained, not to alleviate His own concupiscence since He had none, but in order to show others through His abstinence how to control their passions. Verily, if this is what he means, he should have said so and changed his deceitful words.®
But then we may ask: "To whom did Christ show this example? To the perfect, of whom this man says that they have already tamed their concupiscence, or to the imperfect who are still troubled by it?" In fact, the example was applied to the imperfect. And so, if Christ as the Healer of the weak gave an example through His condescension, and if He Himself tasted this kind of medical potion without impairing His perfection, why does our author vainly propose and write so many words against this truth— while the very power of this same truth springs forth from his very mouth while he is opposing it?
31. In the third place, our adversary goes on to say:
"Christ ordered the perfect to practice abstinence in these three ways. He did not command that the imperfect do the opposite, but mercifully permitted such abstinence to anyone who wished to practice it." These are his very
DEFENSE OF THE MENDICANTS
words — by which he contradicts both the truth and his own opinion. He contradicts the truth, because it is the imperfect who are the most strictly bound to avoid the worship of idols, for they are not permitted to give scandal to others nor to neglect the control of their concupiscence. He also contradicts his own opinion, for he had said earliert that abstinence pertained rather to the imperfect than to the perfect—and he claimed this to be the reason why abstinence from wine had been imposed upon the priests of the Old Testament and not upon those of the New. Now, arguing against himself, he says that abstinence is commanded to the perfect and permitted to the imperfect! By these words by which he destroys in a short sentence all that he had attempted to establish before, he clearly proves that a man who harbors a desire of contention and who bends his harmful bow, is so absorbed in his intention of wounding another by shooting
Cp Os57:16 the arrow of his words that, through a just judgment of God, the first thing he does is pierce his own body.
+ CE GE 188.