Mind of the Church

The mind of the Church, faithfully rendered into English

Library / Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume I

Book Four — the creation of the first human beings

A DISPUTATION. Whether, in the state of innocence, the eating of flesh-meats would have been in use among men

LatineEnglish

A DISPUTATION. Whether, in the state of innocence, the eating of flesh-meats would have been in use among men.1

DISPVTATIO. An in statu innocentiae fuisset in vsu hominibus carnium esus.

EX HAC Domini sententia, qua ipse victum homini ante peccatum assignauit ex herbis & arboribus, nullum de carnium esu verbum faciens, rectè Patres & Theologi intelligendum esse censuerunt victum hominis in statu innocentiae ex solis herbis & arborum [fructibus...]
From this sentence of the Lord, by which He Himself assigned man's food, before sin, from herbs and trees, making no word of the eating of flesh-meats, the Fathers and Theologians rightly judged that it must be understood that man's food in the state of innocence [would consist] of herbs and the [fruits] of trees alone [...] [continues]2
[...ex solis herbis & arborum] fructibus futurum, nec vllum fore vsum animalium homini in cibú. Id enim colligitur euidenter ex hoc loco: Deus enim designans ea vnde cibum capturus erat homo, herbas tantùm & arbores nominauit, de esu animalium nihil dixit: at si eo tempore vesci animalibus licuisset homini, cú is cibus futurus esset principalis humani victus pars, non eum Dominus tacuisset. Sed cur in eo statu non licuisset homini vesci carnibus? in promptu causa est. Cum victus ex herbis & fructibus arborum praesertim Paradisi sufficeret alendo homini, essétque saluberrimus & suauissimus, superuacaneus fuisset ei cibus [ex carnibus...]
[...of herbs and the] fruits of trees alone, nor would there be any use of animals as food for man. For this is evidently gathered from this place: for God, designating those things whence man was to take his food, named only herbs and trees, and said nothing of the eating of animals; but if at that time it had been lawful for man to feed on animals, since that food would be the principal part of human diet, the Lord would not have been silent about it. But why, in that state, would it not have been lawful for man to feed on flesh-meats? The cause is at hand. Since food from herbs and the fruits of trees — especially of Paradise — sufficed to nourish man, and was most healthful and sweet, food [from the flesh...] [continues]3
[...superuacaneus fuisset ei cibus ex carnibus] animalium, non erat autem conueniens, propter solam gulae delectationem, hominem in eo statu in quo nihil praeter rationem rectam agere debebat, carnibus animalium ad cibum vti velle. Adiice, quòd victus ex his quae terra gignebat magis erat naturalis, simplex, facilísque, ac sine vllo hominis labore & cura parabilis: cibus autem ex animalium carnibus non sine magno negocio comparari potuisset; multis enim opus est ad conficiendum homini cibum ex animalibus. Id autem valdè auocasset hominem à contemplatione rerum naturalium & coelestium, & à studio & exercitatione conquirendi scientiam, quae praecipua fuisset in eo statu hominis cura & occupatio, sicut Damascenus scribit in lib. 2. de Fide orthodoxa cap. vltimo:
[...food from the flesh] of animals would have been superfluous for him; nor was it fitting, for the sake of mere delight of the gullet, that man, in that state in which he ought to do nothing beyond right reason, should want to use animal flesh for food. Add that food from the things which the earth produced was more natural, simple, and easy, and procurable without any labor and care of man's; but food from the flesh of animals could not have been procured without great trouble — for many things are needed to prepare food for man from animals. And this would have greatly called man away from the contemplation of natural and heavenly things, and from the study and exercise of acquiring knowledge, which would have been man's chief care and occupation in that state — as Damascene writes in book 2 On the Orthodox Faith, the last chapter:4

“Man,” he says, “before sin, dwelling on the earth in body, conversed in mind with the Angels in the understanding of the divine works, and was nourished by such studies: rising up to the Creator alone through His creatures, and contemplating Him — in whose love and contemplation he enjoyed and rejoiced with incredible pleasure.”5

Homo, inquit, ante peccatum in terris corpore degens, animo cum Angelis diuersabatur in diuina operibus intelligentia, talibúsque studiis innutriebatur: ad solum conditoré per creaturas eius assurgens, eúmque contemplans, in cuius dilectione & contemplatione increbili voluptate perfungebatur atque laetabatur.

SED quispiam fortasse nobis obiiciat, Deum homini dedisse absolutum imperium in animalia, ergo potuisset eis arbitrio suo etiam in cibum vti. Verùm huic respondendum est, datum esse homini imperium in animalia, absolutum quidem quantùm ad ius & potestatem, quantùm verò ad vsum, cùm hac vna exceptione, scilicet non vtendi eis ad cibum: id enim & recta ratio conueniens ei statui esse demonstrabat, & Deus ita fieri volebat. Sicut etiam nos tempore Quadragesimae nihilo minus quàm antea ius & imperium habemus in gallinas, anseres, palumbes, aliáque animalia quae possidemus, quorum tamen esu id temporis interdictum nobis est.
But someone may perhaps object to us that God gave man absolute dominion over the animals, therefore he could, at his own discretion, use them even for food. But to this it must be answered that dominion over the animals was given to man — absolute, indeed, as to right and power, but as to use, with this one exception, namely, that of not using them for food: for this both right reason demonstrated to be suitable to that state, and God willed it so to be. Just as we too, in the time of Lent, have no less than before the right and dominion over hens, geese, doves, and the other animals which we possess, of which, nevertheless, the eating is at that time forbidden us.6
Non eo inficias quin homo in statu innocentiae plerúmque occisurus fuerit animalia, non tamen ad esum, sed vel in venatione honestae oblectationis causa (licèt Basilius in Homilia 11. in Genesim contrà sensisse videatur), vel ad pernoscendas interiores & obstrusas eorum corporis partes, quarum aspectum & notitiam scientia Anatomiae nobis nunc exhibet: vel ad capienda varia experimenta earum rerum quae ad sciendam vim & naturam animalium cognoscere necesse est. Quin ego arbitror fore vt in statu innocentiae omnes artes liberales colerentur & exercerentur: illas dico artes quae declarant solertiam humani ingenij, & ingenuam habent delectationem; praebendísque variis experimentis ad comparandas rerum naturalium doctrinas plu-[rimum...]
I do not thereby deny that man, in the state of innocence, would often have killed animals — not, however, for eating, but either in hunting for the sake of honest recreation (although Basil, in Homily 11 on Genesis, seems to have thought the contrary), or for thoroughly examining the inner and hidden parts of their body, the sight and knowledge of which the science of Anatomy now exhibits to us; or for taking various experiments of those things which it is necessary to know in order to understand the force and nature of animals. Indeed, I think it would come to pass that in the state of innocence all the liberal arts would be cultivated and exercised — I mean those arts which declare the skill of human talent, and have a genuine delight — and, by furnishing various experiments, would contribute very [much] to the acquiring of the doctrines of natural things [...] [continues]7
[...doctrinas plu]rimùm conferunt adiumenti: denique quas artes etiá Reges colere & tractare decorum & honestú ducitur. In hoc genere in primis posuerim agriculturá, tú musicam, arté item nauigádi, pingédi, architectádi, & variis rerú naturis artificiosè miscédis téperandisque, nouas & egregias hominíque ad varios vsus cómodissimas rerú species producendi.
[...to the doctrines they] contribute very much help: in short, those arts which even Kings deem it becoming and honorable to cultivate and practice. In this class I would place first agriculture, then music, the art likewise of navigating, of painting, of building, and of artfully mixing and tempering the various natures of things, and of producing new and excellent kinds of things most convenient for men's various uses.8
SED cur, vt certum homini cibum praescripsit, Deus non itidem certum eidem potum praestituit? An quia in cibo magna erat varietas, & eorum quae terra nascuntur & animalium? vtrumque enim, nisi vetuisset Deus, ad victum hominis adscisci potuisset: quoniam autem Deus in eo statu carnibus animalium hominem vesci noluit, assignandus ab eo fuit homini certus ex herbis & fructibus arborum quo vteretur cibus. In potu autem nulla erat varietas: solius enim aquae potus id temporis homini suppetebat, qui propter excellentem aquarum bonitaté, maximamque humani corporis sanitatem atque firmitaté, iucundissimus simul & saluberrimus fuisset. Vinum autem tunc nullum erat: nam licèt fuissent vites, non tamen ad potum vini, sed ad esum vuarum, & quia tunc vino non erat opus, abundè sufficientibus aquis humano potui, propterea nulla homines bibendi vini incessisset cupido.
But why, just as God prescribed a certain food for man, did He not likewise appoint a certain drink for the same? Was it because in food there was great variety — both of the things that are born from the earth and of animals? For both, unless God had forbidden it, could have been admitted to man's diet; but since God, in that state, did not will man to feed on the flesh of animals, a certain food, from herbs and the fruits of trees, had to be assigned him by God which he should use. But in drink there was no variety: for the drink of water alone was available to man at that time — which, on account of the excellent goodness of the waters, and the greatest health and firmness of the human body, would have been at once most pleasant and most healthful. But there was then no wine: for although there were vines, yet [they were] not for the drinking of wine, but for the eating of grapes; and because there was then no need of wine, the waters abundantly sufficing for human drink, therefore no desire of drinking wine would have come upon men.9
Ante diluuium autem non fuisse in vsu vinum, saltem apud bonos & pios viros, valdè probabilis fit coniectura ex ebrietate quae contigit Noë. Is enim post diluuium & deterioribus factis aquis, & admodum infirmato humani corporis temperamento, diuino istinctu intelligens vtiliorem fore homini potum vini, coepit serere vites, vinúmque conficere: cuius potu turpissima correptus est ebrietate, in quam ille non ex intemperantia lapsus est, sed ex ignorantia virtutis & potentiae vini: cuius eum vis minimè latuisset, si potus eius ante diluuium fuisset in vsu, quippe qui sexcentos annos ante diluuium vixisset.
That before the flood wine was not in use, at least among good and pious men, becomes a very probable conjecture from the drunkenness which befell Noah. For he, after the flood — both the waters having been made worse, and the temperament of the human body much weakened — understanding by a divine instinct that the drink of wine would be more useful for man, began to sow vines and to make wine: by the drinking of which he was seized by a most base drunkenness, into which he fell not from intemperance, but from ignorance of the virtue and power of wine — whose force would by no means have been hidden from him, if its drinking had been in use before the flood, since he had lived six hundred years before the flood.10

Translator’s notes

  1. New disputation heading — on whether man would have eaten meat in the state of innocence. ↩
  2. Decorated initial 'E.' The Fathers and Theologians infer from God's silence about meat (Gen 1:29) that innocent man's diet was wholly vegetarian. Page breaks at catchword 'fructibus.' ↩
  3. Man's innocent diet was wholly plant-based: God named only herbs and trees, and would not have omitted meat had it been a principal food. The reason follows: paradise's fruit sufficed, so meat was superfluous... ↩
  4. Reasons against innocent meat-eating: it would be superfluous and mere gluttony; plant-food is more natural and effortless, whereas preparing meat takes great labor, distracting man from his chief occupation — contemplation and knowledge. Introduces Damascene. ↩
  5. Damascene block-quote (de Fide orth. 2, last ch.): before sin man lived bodily on earth but conversed in mind with the angels, rising through creatures to the Creator, delighting in His contemplation. ↩
  6. Objection (dominion over animals → freedom to eat them) answered: the dominion was absolute in right but limited in use (no eating) by right reason and God's will — as in Lent we own animals we may not then eat. ↩
  7. Innocent man would still kill animals — not to eat, but for honest hunting (against Basil, Hom. 11), for anatomical study, or for natural-science experiments. Pererius adds that all the liberal arts would have been cultivated in innocence. Marginal gloss: 'In statu innocentiae futurus erat vsus artium liberalium.' Page breaks at catchword 'rimum' (plurimum, signature SS 3). RESUME PDF 551 with '...doctrinas plu[rimum]...'. ↩
  8. Concluding the liberal arts of innocence: agriculture, music, navigation, painting, architecture, and the productive/chemical arts — pursuits worthy even of kings. ↩
  9. Why God prescribed a food but no drink: food had variety (and meat had to be excluded), but drink had none — only water, which alone was wholesome. No wine then: vines bore grapes to eat, not wine, water being enough. Marginal gloss: 'Cur Deus primis hominibus nó praescripsit potum, sicut cibum ... assignauit.' ↩
  10. That wine was unknown before the Flood is argued from Noah's drunkenness (Gen 9): he, who had lived 600 years pre-Flood, fell not from intemperance but from ignorance of wine's power — which he could not have lacked had wine been in use. Marginal glosses: 'Potus vini nec fuisset in statu innocentiae, nec fuit in vsu ante diluuium.'; 'De ebrietate Noë Genes. 9.' ↩