FIRST DISPUTATION. Whether the eating of flesh was lawful for man before the flood — Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume II

LatineEnglish

FIRST DISPUTATION. Whether the eating of flesh was lawful for man before the flood.

PRIMA DISPUTATIO. Utrum licitus homini fuerit ante diluvium esus carnium.

CETERUM ex hoc loco Scripturae, quo narratur primo concessisse homini Deum esum carnium post diluvium, celebris quaestio exsistit, utrum vesci carnibus ante diluvium fuerit homini aut licitum, aut certe in more et in u[su]…

But from this place of Scripture, in which it is narrated that God first granted to man the eating of flesh after the flood, a celebrated question arises: whether eating flesh before the flood was for man either lawful, or at least in custom and u[se]…¹

…in usu. Tres sunt hac de re auctorum sententiae. Prima est Lyrani, Tostati ferreque verba primi capitis in Genesim, et Carthusiani in Commentariis super extrema vbi Deus suis cibum assignavit homini ex omnibus herbis et oleribus terrae arborumque fructibus. Affirmant isti esum carnium nec fuisse in usu ante diluvium, nec fuisse licitum. Ad hoc probandum satis argumenti esse putant quod primo Deus post diluvium concessit Noë et filiis eius esum carnium, quasi ante id temporis inusitatus atque illicitus fuisset. Omne, inquit, quod movetur et vivit erit vobis in cibum, quasi olera virentia dedi vobis omnia: quorum Dei verborum haec est sententia: Quemadmodum in exordio mundi tradidi vobis in cibum omnia quae terra nascuntur, ita nunc, quia pleniore valentioreque cibatu indigetis, victui vestro destino et assigno omnia animalia.

…in use. There are on this matter three opinions of authors. The first is that of Lyra, of Tostatus (almost in the words of the first chapter on Genesis), and of the Carthusian in his Commentaries on the [verse] where God assigned food to man from all the herbs and vegetables of the earth and the fruits of the trees. These affirm that the eating of flesh neither was in use before the flood, nor was lawful. To prove this they think there is argument enough in this: that God first granted to Noah and his sons the eating of flesh after the flood, as if before that time it had been unwonted and unlawful. “Everything,” He says, “that moves and lives shall be food for you, even as the green herbs have I given you all”: of which words of God this is the sense: Just as at the beginning of the world I delivered to you for food all the things that are born of the earth, so now, because you need fuller and stronger feeding, I destine and assign to your sustenance all the animals.²

MERITO sane id fecit Deus: siquidem post diluvium terra deterior facta est, ob idque alimentum ex herbis et arboribus alendi hominis inefficax futurum erat: ipsum quoque temperamentum humani corporis multo infirmius et fragilius effectum est; id quod vel ex eo apparet, quod ante diluvium vixere homines ultra nongentesimum annum: post diluvium autem qui primus omnium generatus est Arphaxad paulo amplius quadringentos annos vixit, et trecentis illis annis qui a diluvio usque ad ortum Abrahae decurrerunt, plus septingentis annis vita hominis diminuta est: nullus enim post id temporis longaevior fuit quam Isaac, qui octogesimum tamen et centesimum annum minime excessit. Si igitur post diluvium primo concessus est homini carnium esus, ex eo liquet antea licitum et usitatum non fuisse: nam si fuisset, quid opus erat novo tunc mandato id sancire, et quasi novum quoddam et singulare beneficium homini concedere?

And rightly indeed did God do this: since after the flood the earth was made worse, and on that account the food from herbs and trees for nourishing man would have been ineffective; the temperament too of the human body was made much weaker and frailer — which appears even from this, that before the flood men lived beyond the nine-hundredth year, but after the flood Arphaxad, who was the first of all generated, lived a little more than four hundred years, and in those three hundred years which ran from the flood to the birth of Abraham man's life was diminished by more than seven hundred years: for no one after that time was longer-lived than Isaac, who nevertheless by no means exceeded the one hundred and eightieth year. If, therefore, the eating of flesh was first granted to man after the flood, from this it is clear that before it was not lawful and customary: for if it had been, what need was there then to sanction it by a new command, and to grant it to man as a kind of new and singular benefit?³

CAUSA porro cur ante diluvium non sit a Deo concessus homini esus carnium, non fuit paucitas animalium cuiusque speciei: non enim putandum est, ut in specie humana duos tantum homines creavit Deus, ita quoque in qualibet animalium specie bina esse a Deo procreata (licet scriptum id reliquerit Iustinus martyr in Responsione ad quaestionem 49 Orthodoxorum, et Theodoretus in libro Quaestionum in Genesim, quaestione 17 et 39). Quin credibilius est cuiusque animalium speciei plurima in exordio mundi esse generata. Non igitur propter animalium paucitatem negatus est homini usus carnium: nam, ut dixi, ea causa vera non est; et ut vera esset, nonnihil ea fortasse valuisset in exordio mundi, non autem toto eo tempore quod fuit usque ad diluvium, per annos scilicet mille sexcentos quinquaginta sex, quo tempore numerosissime multiplicata esse cuiusque speciei animalia nequaquam dubitandum est. Adice quod si ea ratio vim haberet ullam, simili utique ratione concluderetur non debuisse Deum statim post diluvium edendi carnes homini potestatem facere, cum id temporis similiter ut in mundi exortu magna [esset]…

Moreover, the cause why before the flood the eating of flesh was not granted by God to man was not the fewness of animals of each species: for it is not to be thought that, as in the human species God created only two men, so also in each species of animals two were procreated by God (although Justin Martyr left this written, in his Response to question 49 of the Orthodox, and Theodoret in the book of Questions on Genesis, questions 17 and 39). Nay, it is more credible that very many of each animal species were generated at the beginning of the world. Not, therefore, on account of the fewness of animals was the use of flesh denied to man: for, as I have said, that cause is not true; and even were it true, it would perhaps have had some force at the beginning of the world, but not throughout all that time which was up to the flood — namely, through one thousand six hundred and fifty-six years — during which time it is by no means to be doubted that the animals of each species were multiplied most numerously. Add that, if that reasoning had any force, by like reasoning it would be concluded that God ought not to have made for man the power of eating flesh immediately after the flood, since at that time, similarly as at the world's beginning, there was great [fewness]…⁴

…esset cuiusque speciei animalium paucitas.

…fewness of animals of each species.⁵

VERA igitur et germana eius rei causa fuit quod victus ex terra nascentibus in prima illa aetate quae praecessit diluvium, propter excellentem recentis terrae bonitatem et vigorem, optimus esset homini: terra namque alimentum homini nutriendo non sufficiens modo, sed abunde suppetens, maximeque solidum ac iucundum et salubre praebebat, idque magna facilitate, sine gravi scilicet labore hominis et cura. Itaque inter esum plantarum et temperamentum hominis naturalis erat eo tempore convenientia, propter excellentem eorum nutriendi vim firmissimamque corporis humani constitutionem: qualis nempe convenientia non erat inter carnes animalium et corpus hominis; namque eo tempore animalium carnes plenius et pinguius ac solidius alimentum dedissent homini quam eius temperamento conveniebat. Vel fortasse praeviderat Deus, si homines vescerentur carnibus, fore eos longioris vitae quam ipse eam praefinire volebat et quam spirituali eorum utilitati conducere sciebat: vel etiam quod eo alimento facti essent multo robustiores, confidentiores, ferociores, et ad quodlibet patrandum scelus audaciores et proiectiores; tales scilicet quales sub finem eius aetatis fuisse gigantes, capite sexto Geneseos narrat Moses.

The true and genuine cause of this matter, therefore, was that food from the things born of the earth, in that first age which preceded the flood, was best for man on account of the excellent goodness and vigor of the fresh earth: for the earth furnished nourishment for feeding man not only sufficient, but abundantly supplied, and most solid and pleasant and healthful — and that with great ease, namely without grave labor and care on man's part. And so there was at that time a natural agreement between the eating of plants and man's temperament, on account of the excellent nourishing power of [the plants] and the most firm constitution of the human body: such an agreement, namely, as did not exist between the flesh of animals and man's body; for at that time the flesh of animals would have given man a fuller and fatter and more solid nourishment than was suited to his temperament. Or perhaps God had foreseen that, if men fed on flesh, they would be of longer life than He willed to fix it, and than He knew to conduce to their spiritual utility; or even because by that food they would have been made much more robust, more confident, more ferocious, and bolder and more reckless for committing any crime whatever — such, namely, as the giants were toward the end of that age, as Moses narrates in the sixth chapter of Genesis.⁶

ALTERA est opinio huic plane contraria: esum carnium fuisse hominibus licitum et usitatum ante diluvium. Hanc sententiam quidam assignant B. Iustino: is enim memorat hanc quaestionem sibi oblatam ab Orthodoxis, quae in aliarum quaestionum numero est 119: Si nec arborum fructibus nec animalium carnibus vescebantur qui fuerunt ante diluvium (ut nonnulli Patrum dixerunt), qui fit ut Abel ex adipibus ovium quas pascebat, itemque Cain ex fructibus terrae quam colebat, libaverit? Nec vero dubium est quin uterque, cibo suo praeferens Deum, tali sacrificio sit usus. Nam si inutilia sibi offerebant Deo, nonne tali libatione illudebant Deum? quippe cum munus offerrent ridiculum, quod scilicet offerenti nihil detraheret. Qui fit igitur ut Caini sacrificium reiectum fuerit, Abelis vero approbatum? Ad hanc quaestionem ita respondet Iustinus: B. Paulus, Patrum Pater et religionis magister, ait: Quis vitem conserit, quin de fructu eius comedat? quis gregem pascit, quin de lacte eius edat? nimirum nullus. Non igitur Abel gregem pascens gregis lacte non vescebatur: neque Cain terram colens fructus eius non comedebat. Praeterea si inutiles erant Cain fructus terrae, qua de causa deterioribus honorabat Deum, melioribus seipsum ante Deum honorans? Quod si anteposuit Abel utilitati suae Deum, non dubium est quin solitus sit utilitatem ex labore suo percipere. Haec Iustinus. DEMIROR equidem fuisse nonnullos Patrum (ut refert Iustinus) qui negaverint homines ante diluvium vesci solitos fructibus arborum, cum eum cibum assignaverit Deus primis hominibus statim ut eos creavit. Verum ex supradictis Iustini verbis non potest colligi eum sensisse esum carnium fuisse hominibus ante diluvium licitum et [usitatum]…

The second opinion is plainly contrary to this: that the eating of flesh was lawful and customary for men before the flood. This opinion some assign to St. Justin: for he records this question put to him by the Orthodox, which among the other questions is number 119: If those who lived before the flood ate neither the fruits of trees nor the flesh of animals (as some of the Fathers said), how is it that Abel offered of the fat of the sheep which he pastured, and likewise Cain of the fruits of the earth which he tilled? And there is no doubt that each, preferring God to his own food, used such a sacrifice. For if they offered to God things useless to themselves, did they not mock God by such an oblation? — since they would be offering a ridiculous gift, namely one that took nothing from the offerer. How is it, then, that Cain's sacrifice was rejected, but Abel's approved? To this question Justin answers thus: St. Paul, the Father of Fathers and master of religion, says: “Who plants a vine, and does not eat of its fruit? who feeds a flock, and does not eat of its milk?” — surely no one. Not, therefore, did Abel, feeding the flock, not feed on the flock's milk; nor did Cain, tilling the earth, not eat its fruits. Besides, if the fruits of the earth were useless to Cain, for what cause did he honor God with the worse, honoring himself before God with the better? But if Abel preferred God to his own advantage, there is no doubt that he was wont to take advantage from his own labor. Thus Justin. I marvel indeed that there were some of the Fathers (as Justin reports) who denied that men before the flood were wont to eat the fruits of trees, since God assigned that food to the first men as soon as He created them. But from the aforesaid words of Justin it cannot be gathered that he thought the eating of flesh was for men before the flood lawful and [customary]…⁷

…usitatum: tantum enim ille loquitur de esu lactis, quo vult Abel esse usum, quod nemo abnuit.

…customary: for he speaks only of the eating of milk, which he wishes Abel to have used — which no one denies.⁸

AT enim Caietanus, super quartum caput libri Geneseos explanans illa verba, Fuit Abel pastor ovium, Cain autem agricola, aperte hanc sententiam approbat, hunc admodum scribens: Coniectura est adeo fuisse tum multiplicatos homines ut opus esset grege ovium; nulla enim scriptura testatur homines ante diluvium, postquam eiecti sunt de Paradiso, solis terrae fructibus vixisse. Berosus namque refert homines ante diluvium etiam humanas carnes comedisse. Et pastorale officium Abelis testatur gregem ovium humanis usibus servisse, non solum praebendo lanas et agnos, sed lac et caseum. Nec obstat divinam scripturam differre indulgentiam vescendi carnibus post diluvium; quoniam non indulgentia, sed necessitatis explicatio fuit illa. Ante peccatum enim explicata est materia necessaria humani cibi in vegetabilibus; post peccatum autem in animalibus. Unde ibi dicitur animalia data esse homini post diluvium, sicut ante data fuerant ei olera virentia. Cum quibus stat quod medio tempore, scilicet post peccatum et ante diluvium, homines naturali iure usi fuerint vescendi carnibus animalium, et ob id Abel fuit pastor ovium. Et confirmatur, quia nisi agni tunc fuissent hominibus ad esum, nulla fuisset laus Abel ex eo quod primogenitos pingues elegisset ad divinum sacrificium; perinde enim fuisset Abeli pingues atque macilentos sacrificare, si non propter usum carnium, sed propter solum pellium usum gregem pascebat.

But Cajetan, explaining on the fourth chapter of the book of Genesis those words, “Abel was a shepherd of sheep, but Cain a husbandman,” openly approves this opinion, writing in this manner: “It is a conjecture that men were then so multiplied that there was need of a flock of sheep; for no scripture testifies that men before the flood, after they were cast out of Paradise, lived on the fruits of the earth alone. For Berosus relates that men before the flood even ate human flesh. And Abel's pastoral office testifies that the flock of sheep served human uses, not only by providing wools and lambs, but milk and cheese. Nor does it stand in the way that divine scripture defers the indulgence of eating flesh until after the flood; for that was not an indulgence, but an explication of necessity. For before sin the necessary matter of human food was set forth in vegetables; but after sin, in animals. Whence there it is said that animals were given to man after the flood, just as before the green herbs had been given to him. With which it stands that in the middle time — namely, after sin and before the flood — men used by natural right the eating of the flesh of animals, and on that account Abel was a shepherd of sheep. And it is confirmed, because, unless lambs had then been for food to men, there would have been no praise to Abel from his having chosen the fat firstlings for the divine sacrifice; for it would have been all the same to Abel to sacrifice fat or lean ones, if he pastured the flock not for the use of the flesh, but for the use of the skins alone.”⁹

Sic eo loco Caietanus, idemque ab eo repetitur et confirmatur in exordio noni capitis, ubi et illud addit, post diluvium promulgasse Deum esum carnium, non quantum ad usum quasi prius non fuisset in usu, sed quantum ad necessitatem, quia post diluvium coepit esus carnium esse homini necessarius; et quia tunc primum necessitas vescendi carnibus promulgabatur, propterea tunc etiam declaratus est naturalis modus vescendi carnibus, non cum sanguine, id est, non vescendi crudis carnibus. Sic ex Caietano. Placuit haec opinio etiam Francisco de Victoria, ut apparet ex Relectione eius de Temperantia.

So Cajetan in that place, and the same is repeated and confirmed by him at the beginning of the ninth chapter, where he also adds this: that after the flood God promulgated the eating of flesh — not as to use, as if before it had not been in use, but as to necessity, because after the flood the eating of flesh began to be necessary for man; and because then for the first time the necessity of eating flesh was promulgated, therefore then too the natural manner of eating flesh was declared — not with the blood, that is, not eating raw flesh. So [much] from Cajetan. This opinion pleased also Francisco de Vitoria, as appears from his Relection On Temperance.¹⁰

HUIC sententiae Dominicus de Soto, libro quinto de Iustitia et Iure, quaestione prima articulo primo, suum quoque adiecit calculum: arbitratur enim statim post peccatum Adami vitiatamque naturam hominis, esum carnis fuisse naturaliter convenientem cibum homini, ob idque fuisse licitum atque usitatum. Hoc ille argumentatur ad hunc modum: si esus carnium non erat in usu apud homines, id accidisse necesse est aut quia erat prohibitus, aut quia esus carnium id temporis non erat utilis homini, aut quia vis carnium nutricandi hominem non fuit eo tempore cognita, aut quia propter abundantiam et praestantiam alimenti quod plantae suppeditabant homini, esus carnium supervacuus esset minimeque necessarius: sed nihil horum valet ad fidem astruendam ei opinioni. Namque nulla lege prohibitum legimus esum carnium: non quidem naturali, ut patet; nec positiva, talis enim nusquam reperitur in sacris litteris; nec probabilis causa esse potuit cur eo tempore cibus ex carnibus non esset conveniens et u[tilis]…

To this opinion Dominic de Soto, in the fifth book On Justice and Law, question one, article one, added his vote also: for he judges that immediately after Adam's sin and the vitiated nature of man, the eating of flesh was a naturally suitable food for man, and on that account was lawful and customary. He argues this in this manner: if the eating of flesh was not in use among men, that must have happened either because it was forbidden, or because the eating of flesh at that time was not useful to man, or because the power of flesh to nourish man was not at that time known, or because, on account of the abundance and excellence of the food that plants supplied to man, the eating of flesh was superfluous and by no means necessary: but none of these avails to establish belief in that opinion. For we read of flesh-eating forbidden by no law: not by the natural [law], as is plain; nor by a positive [law], for no such [law] is anywhere found in the sacred letters; nor could there be a probable cause why at that time food from flesh should not be suitable and u[seful]…¹¹

…et utilis homini, cum Philosophorum et Medicorum concessu, et (quod caput est) experientiae documento, meliorem esse constet ad alendum et roborandum hominem cibum ex carnibus quam ex plantis. Illud porro minime sit credibile, toto eo tempore quod praecessit diluvium (id est, per annos mille sexcentos quinquaginta sex) vim carnium ad alendum hominem accommodatissimam nec speculando fuisse homini cognitam, nec experiendo compertam. Quod autem id temporis plantae sufficiens homini praeberent alimentum nec opus esset carnibus, id non probat non fuisse eis usos homines. Quam multis enim nunc vescimur non tanquam necessariis, sed quia melius delicatius et iucundius alimentum habeant! Neque enim homines contenti sunt necessariis vel ad vitam vel ad vestitum, sed alia multa curiose cupideque consectantur, si meliora et suaviora esse putent. His accedit omnia animalia esse facta propter usum hominis: sunt autem multa quae praeter esum nescias qui possint esse usui hominibus, ut pisces, perdices et complures avium.

…and useful to man, since by the concession of the Philosophers and Physicians, and (what is the chief thing) by the evidence of experience, it is established that food from flesh is better for nourishing and strengthening man than food from plants. Moreover, this is by no means credible: that throughout all that time which preceded the flood (that is, through one thousand six hundred and fifty-six years) the power of flesh, most fitted for nourishing man, was neither known to man by reasoning nor discovered by experience. And that at that time plants furnished sufficient food to man, and there was no need of flesh, does not prove that men did not use it. For with how many things do we now feed, not as necessary, but because they have better, more delicate, and more pleasant nourishment! For men are not content with what is necessary either for life or for clothing, but eagerly and curiously pursue many other things, if they think them better and sweeter. To this is added that all animals were made for the use of man: and there are many which, apart from eating, you would not know how they could be of use to men — such as fishes, partridges, and very many birds.¹²

TERTIA sententia est, esum carnium fuisse quidem licitum homini ante diluvium, non fuisse tamen in usu apud probos praesertim et pios viros ex laudata illa stirpe Seth generatos, quosque Moses filios Dei appellavit. In hac sententia fuisse videtur Chrysostomus, scribens in vigesima septima homilia in Genesim post diluvium homines edendi carnes initium fecisse. Theodoretus item, quaestione 55 in Genesim, cum posuisset hanc quaestionem (Cur Deus post diluvium de carnibus edendis legem tulerit?) ad eam sic ipse respondet: Mox ubi creavit hominem Deus, dedit ei terrae fructus: post diluvium autem pretiosiorem cibum ei concessit, iubens Noë occidere et comedere animalia cuiusque generis; et cetera quae sequuntur, et a nobis paulo superius commemorata sunt, cum causas exponeremus cur Deus non ante sed post diluvium esum carnium indulserit homini.

The third opinion is that the eating of flesh was indeed lawful for man before the flood, yet was not in use, especially among the upright and pious men generated from that praised stock of Seth, whom Moses called the sons of God. In this opinion Chrysostom seems to have been, writing in the twenty-seventh homily on Genesis that men made the beginning of eating flesh after the flood. Theodoret likewise, in question 55 on Genesis, when he had posed this question (Why did God after the flood enact a law about eating flesh?), answers it thus himself: “As soon as God created man, He gave him the fruits of the earth; but after the flood He granted him a more precious food, commanding Noah to kill and eat animals of every kind”; and the rest which follows, and which were recalled by us a little above, when we set forth the causes why God indulged man the eating of flesh not before but after the flood.¹³

ETIAM B. Thomas in hanc sententiam videtur fuisse propensior, ut significat in Commentariis suis in Epistolam ad Romanos super illa verba capitis 14, Qui autem infirmus est, olus manducet, affirmans usum carnium coepisse post diluvium: sed explicatius idipsum tradit in Prima Secundae, quaestione 102 articulo 6 in responsione ad secundum: Esus, inquit, plantarum aliorumque terrae nascentium fuit apud homines etiam ante diluvium; at esus animalium videtur post diluvium esse introductus. Dicitur enim Genesis 9, Quasi olera virentia dedi vobis omnem carnem. Et hoc ideo, quia esus terrae nascentium magis pertinet ad quandam simplicitatem vitae; esus vero carnium ad delicias et curiositatem vivendi. Etenim sponte herbam terra germinat, et cum modico studio quae generantur ex terra etiam in magna copia parari possunt: animalia vero necesse est magno cum studio nutrire et ad esum comparare. Quocirca volens Deus populum suum reducere ad simplicitatem, multa Hebraeis in genere animalium prohibuit, non autem in genere plantarum. Hactenus ex B. Thoma.

St. Thomas too seems to have been more inclined to this opinion, as he signifies in his Commentaries on the Epistle to the Romans, upon those words of chapter 14, “But he that is weak, let him eat herbs,” affirming that the use of flesh began after the flood: but he hands down the same thing more explicitly in the First of the Second [part], question 102, article 6, in the answer to the second [objection]: “The eating,” he says, “of plants and other things born of the earth was among men even before the flood; but the eating of animals seems to have been introduced after the flood. For it is said in Genesis 9, ‘Even as the green herbs have I given you all flesh.’ And this is so because the eating of things born of the earth pertains more to a certain simplicity of life; but the eating of flesh, to the delights and curiosity of living. For the earth germinates the herb of its own accord, and with little effort the things that are generated from the earth can be prepared even in great abundance; but animals must be nourished with great effort and made ready for eating. Wherefore God, willing to lead back His people to simplicity, forbade the Hebrews many things in the kind of animals, but not in the kind of plants.” Thus far from St. Thomas.¹⁴

MIHI quoque prae ceteris haec placet opinio: etenim cum ante [diluvium]…

To me also, beyond the rest, this opinion is pleasing: for since before [the flood]…¹⁵

…diluvium, propter excellentem terrae bonitatem praestantemque vim alimenti quod fructus terrae suppeditabant homini, simul et propter firmissimum robustissimumque humani corporis temperamentum, victus ex plantis alendo homini satis superque sufficiens esset, saluberrimus item ac iucundissimus, necnon et simplicissimus nulloque labore parabilis, denique similis victui quem Deus homini assignaverat ante peccatum; simillimum vero sit libentissime eo tantum cibo viros bonos Deique cultores uti voluisse.

…the flood, on account of the excellent goodness of the earth and the excellent power of the nourishment which the fruits of the earth supplied to man, and at the same time on account of the most firm and most robust temperament of the human body, the food from plants was for nourishing man sufficient and more than sufficient, likewise most healthful and most pleasant, and also most simple and obtainable with no labor, and finally similar to the food which God had assigned to man before sin; it is most likely that good men and worshippers of God most willingly wished to use that food alone.¹⁶

VERUM dicet aliquis, si primum concessus est homini victus ex carnibus animalium post diluvium, quomodo is ante id temporis licitus erat? Respondendum est Deum, indulgendo esum carnium post diluvium, non fecisse eum ex illicito licitum, sed significasse tunc incepisse indigentiam eius propter fragilitatem vitae et infirmitatem valetudinis humanae, et propter malignitatem terrae et invalidam ad bene alendum hominem vim eorum quae terra nascuntur; quamobrem concessu carnium Deus bonos et pios viros quasi religione quadam solvit, ne (ut ante diluvium) herbis et fructibus arborum, ut sufficienti alimento contenti, ab esu carnium quasi supervacuo refugerent. Voluit praeterea Deus post diluvium potestatem edendi carnes expressius tradere, ut ei adiungeret exceptionem edendi carnes cum sanguine, quod cibi genus invisum et abominatum homini esse volebat, et futuris saeculis lata lege Hebraeis erat interdicturus.

But someone will say: if the food from the flesh of animals was first granted to man after the flood, how was it lawful before that time? It must be answered that God, by indulging the eating of flesh after the flood, did not make it from unlawful lawful, but signified that the need of it then began — on account of the frailty of life and the weakness of human health, and on account of the malignity of the earth and the feeble power, for nourishing man well, of the things that are born of the earth; wherefore by the grant of flesh God released good and pious men, as it were, from a certain scruple, lest (as before the flood) — content with herbs and the fruits of trees as sufficient food — they should shrink from the eating of flesh as something superfluous. God willed besides, after the flood, to hand down the power of eating flesh more expressly, so that He might join to it the exception of eating flesh with the blood — which kind of food He willed to be hateful and abominable to man, and was about, in future ages, by a law enacted, to forbid to the Hebrews.¹⁷

SED quia de esu carnium disputavimus, nolo ignorare Lectorem fuisse nonnullos qui sunt opinati plantas melioris et utilioris homini esse alimenti quam carnes animalium; quod si esset, haud magnum profecto fuisset beneficium esus carnium Dei concessu indultus homini. Pythagoreos, quo magis abstinentiam animalium commendarent, ita sensisse ferunt. Sed istam opinationem esse falsam pervincit ratio, experientia et exempla. Ratio docet unumquodque rebus maxime similibus ali; siquidem alimentum in id quod alitur commutari debet: inter similia vero facilior est transmutatio; concoctione etiam alimenti id agitur ut tandem efficiatur alimentum ei quod ali debet quam simillimum. Carnes autem animalium similiores sunt humani corporis quam natura plantarum, quemadmodum animalia similiora sunt hominibus quam plantae. Deinde optimum est alimentum quod temperate calidum et humidum est, quale scilicet est humanum corpus: ad hanc autem temperationem calidi et humidi qua constat corpus humanum propius accedit caro animalium quam plantarum natura; constat enim fere plantas vel calore vel frigore, vel humore vel siccitate insigniter ac praeter modum excellere.

But since we have disputed about the eating of flesh, I do not want the Reader to be ignorant that there were some who opined that plants are a better and more useful nourishment for man than the flesh of animals; which, if it were so, the eating of flesh granted to man by God's concession would assuredly have been no great benefit. The Pythagoreans, the more to commend abstinence from animals, are said to have thought thus. But that that opinion is false, reason, experience, and examples prove conclusively. Reason teaches that each thing is nourished by things most similar to it, since the nourishment must be changed into that which is nourished, and among similar things the transmutation is easier; by the concoction of the nourishment too this is brought about, that at last the nourishment is made as similar as possible to that which is to be nourished. But the flesh of animals is more similar to the human body than the nature of plants — just as animals are more similar to men than plants. Next, the best nourishment is that which is temperately hot and moist, such, namely, as the human body is: but to this temperament of hot and moist, of which the human body consists, the flesh of animals approaches more nearly than the nature of plants; for it is established that plants generally excel notably and beyond measure either in heat or in cold, or in moisture or in dryness.¹⁸

AD haec, ut pervulgatum, ita verum est illud quod sermone omnium iactatur, Quod sapit, nutrit; carnes autem animalium melioris esse saporis et ad edendum suaviores quis neget? sicut nec illud negari potest…

Besides, as it is commonly spread abroad, so it is true — that which is bandied about in everyone's speech: “What tastes good, nourishes”; and that the flesh of animals is of better savor and sweeter to eat, who would deny? just as neither can that be denied…¹⁹

…potest, ex carnibus plenius ac solidius salubriusque capi alimentum quam ex plantis, vel exemplo aegrotorum, quibus frequenter ut conceduntur carnes, ita fructus et olera vetantur. Et illud Philosophi censent haberi debere secundum naturam, quod omnes vel plerique expetunt et sectantur: talis est carnium esus, quo pauci non utuntur, iique vel propter inopiam, vel morbum, vel ex vitae instituto. Nec illud non palam est, eos qui bonis carnibus vescuntur valentiores, pinguiores, speciosiores, et ad omnia vitae munia habiliores esse quam qui solis plantis utuntur. His accedit quod abstinentia carnium consulto suscipitur ad macerandum et afflictandum corpus et carnis vires debilitandas: nec in ieiuniis Ecclesiasticis, quae ad agendam poenitentiam et affligendam carnem instituta sunt, interdicitur usus herbarum aut fructuum, cum plane vetetur usus carnium. Haec ideo disputavimus, ut istam opinionem, quemadmodum a doctrina sacrae Scripturae discrepantem, ita rationi et experientiae contrariam esse ostenderemus.

…that from flesh a fuller and more solid and more healthful nourishment is taken than from plants — as by the example of the sick, to whom, just as flesh is often allowed, so fruits and vegetables are forbidden. And the Philosophers judge that to be held according to nature which all or most seek and pursue: such is the eating of flesh, which few do not use, and they either on account of poverty, or disease, or from a rule of life. Nor is it not plain that those who feed on good flesh are stronger, plumper, more handsome, and fitter for all the duties of life than those who use plants alone. To this is added that abstinence from flesh is deliberately undertaken for macerating and afflicting the body and weakening the strength of the flesh: nor in the Ecclesiastical fasts, which are instituted for doing penance and afflicting the flesh, is the use of herbs or fruits forbidden, while the use of flesh is plainly prohibited. We have disputed these things for this reason: to show that that opinion, as it disagrees from the doctrine of sacred Scripture, so is contrary to reason and experience.²⁰

VELIM etiam illud hoc loco animadverti, quod dictum est a Deo Noë et filiis eius de carnibus edendis non fuisse praeceptum quo necessitas eis imponeretur edendi carnes, sed fuisse indulgentiam Dei paterno affectu consulentis infirmitati hominis: et propter malignitatem terrae atque imbecilliorem ad nutricandum hominem plantarum virtutem, benefice largientis homini cibum quem ei post diluvium meliorem, iucundiorem et salubriorem esse noverat. Non igitur contra Dei voluntatem et sententiam faciunt qui carnibus abstinent: vel quo vivant castius, vel quo intentiori animo et ardentiori studio ad divinarum precationum et meditationum exercitationem incumbant; vel quo pro peccatis suis digne satisfaciant Deo; vel denique ut susceptam religiosae vitae rationem et disciplinam, votoque ab ipsis quasi obsignatam firmatamque, sancte colant et usque ad extremum spiritum conservent. Neque vero, quia hic dicitur Deus omnes terrae marisque animantes in cibum tradidisse homini, existimare convenit licitum esse homini et honestum silvas omnes saltusque pererrare, subire montes, peragrare campos, lacus et flumina scrutari, etiam longinqua, nec sine periculo vitae penetrabilia maria pernavigare — non ut consulatur valetudini, nec ut honestae serviatur voluptati, sed ad ostentationem luxus et prodigiosam ventris atque gulae saturitatem. Sic profecto res est: cibus ex animalibus affatim nutriendo homini sufficiens, idemque iucundus ac salubris, haud tanto pretio et periculo comparandus est; non est is operosus neque sumptuosus, sed modico et impendio et labore parabilis.

I would also have this observed in this place: that what was said by God to Noah and his sons about eating flesh was not a precept whereby a necessity was imposed on them of eating flesh, but was an indulgence of God, with paternal affection consulting man's weakness; and, on account of the malignity of the earth and the feebler power of plants for nourishing man, bountifully bestowing on man a food which He knew to be, after the flood, better, more pleasant, and more healthful for him. Not, therefore, do those act against God's will and judgment who abstain from flesh — whether to live more chastely, or to apply themselves with more intent mind and more ardent zeal to the exercise of divine prayers and meditations; or to satisfy God worthily for their sins; or finally to keep holily the rule and discipline of the religious life they have undertaken, as it were sealed and confirmed by their vow, and to preserve it to the last breath. Nor indeed, because God is here said to have delivered all the living creatures of land and sea to man for food, is it fitting to think it lawful and honorable for man to roam through all the woods and glades, to climb mountains, to traverse plains, to search lakes and rivers — even far-off ones — and to sail across the penetrable seas not without peril of life: not to consult health, nor to serve honorable pleasure, but for the display of luxury and the prodigious satiety of the belly and gullet. So indeed the matter is: food from animals, abundantly sufficient for nourishing man, and likewise pleasant and healthful, is not to be procured at so great a price and peril; it is not laborious nor costly, but obtainable with modest expense and labor.²¹

Translator’s notes

§11 (printed §12). The Disp. 1 question stated. Continues on p. 320. ↩
§11 (cont.). First opinion (Lyra, Tostatus, the Carthusian): flesh was neither used nor lawful before the flood. Margin: “First opinion of Lyra, Tostatus, the Carthusian.” ↩
§12 (printed §13). Supporting the first opinion: the post-flood decline (lifespans falling from 900+ to under 180) made flesh newly needful — so it was a new grant. ↩
§13 (printed §14). The denial of flesh before the flood was NOT scarcity of animals (against Justin Martyr & Theodoret, who said only two of each were made). Margins: Justin Martyr; Theodoret. Continues on p. 321. ↩
§13 (cont.). (If scarcity were the reason, it would equally have barred flesh right after the flood.) ↩
§14 (printed §15). The TRUE reason: the rich young earth's plant-food suited man's robust frame; flesh would have made men too long-lived, or too fierce (like the giants of Gen 6). ↩
§15 (printed §16). Second opinion (assigned to Justin Martyr): flesh was lawful and used before the flood — argued from Cain's and Abel's offerings and Paul (1 Cor 9). Margins: Justin Martyr; Gen. 4; 1 Cor. 9. Continues on p. 322. ↩
§15 (cont.). Justin in fact only proves Abel used milk, not that flesh was eaten. ↩
§16 (printed §17). Cajetan defends the second opinion (Abel's flock implies flesh-eating; Berosus on antediluvian cannibalism). Margins: Cajetan; Berosus. ↩
§16 (cont.). Cajetan: the post-flood grant declared not new use but new necessity (and forbade raw/bloody flesh); Vitoria agreed. Margin: Francisco de Vitoria. ↩
§17 (printed §18). Soto joins the second opinion: flesh was naturally suitable food after the Fall, forbidden by no law. Margin: Dominic de Soto. Continues on p. 323. ↩
§17 (cont.). Soto's argument: flesh is better nourishment (Philosophers, Physicians, experience); men eat for pleasure not just need; many animals (fish, fowl) serve no use but food. ↩
§18 (printed §19). Third (Pererius's preferred) opinion: flesh was lawful but not used by the pious line of Seth before the flood (Chrysostom hom. 27; Theodoret q. 55). Margins: Gen. 6; St. Chrysostom; Theodoret. ↩
§19 (printed §20). Aquinas leans the same way (flesh-eating introduced after the flood; the dietary laws lead Israel back to ‘simplicity’). Margins: St. Thomas; Lev. 11; Deut. 14. ↩
§20 (printed §21). Pererius adopts the third opinion. Continues on p. 324. ↩
§20 (cont.). The pious pre-flood men gladly kept to plant-food (so like the pre-Fall diet). ↩
§21 (printed §22). How flesh could be ‘lawful before’ yet ‘granted after’: the grant declared the new necessity and freed the scruple — and set up the coming prohibition of eating flesh with blood. ↩
§22 (printed §23). Against the Pythagoreans: flesh is the better nourishment (it is more like man's body and temperament). Margins: “Whether flesh-eating is a better food than plants”; “See Porphyry, On Abstinence from Animal Food, bk. 4, and the two Orations of Plutarch On the Eating of Flesh.” ↩
§23 (printed §24). A further proof: ‘what tastes good nourishes,’ and flesh tastes better. Continues on p. 325. ↩
§24 (printed; cont.). Final proofs that flesh is the better food (the sick, the Philosophers' rule, bodily vigor, the logic of fasting). End of the anti-Pythagorean argument. ↩
§25. The grant of flesh was an indulgence, not a command — so abstinence is licit; and it is no warrant for gluttonous, perilous luxury-hunting. Margin: “The power of eating flesh was permitted as an indulgence, not imposed by a divine precept.” ↩