Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, Vol. IV:
Writings in Connection with the Manichæan Controversy.: Chapter 13

Chapter 13.—Actions to Be Judged of from Their Motive, Not from Externals.  Manichæan Abstinence to Be Tried by This Principle.

27.  Having every day in your mouth these blasphemies which come from your heart, you ought not to continue holding up the symbol of the mouth as something wonderful, to ensnare the ignorant.  But perhaps you think the symbol of the mouth excellent and admirable because you do not eat flesh or drink wine.  But what is your end in this?  For according as the end we have in view in our actions, on account of which we do whatever we do, is not only not culpable but also praiseworthy, so only can our actions merit any praise.  If the end we have regard to in any performance is unlawful and blameworthy, the performance itself will be unhesitatingly condemned as improper.

28.  We are told of Catiline that he could bear cold, thirst, and hunger. 171   This the vile miscreant had in common with our apostles.  What then distinguishes the parricide from our apostles but the precisely opposite end which he followed?  He bore these things in order to gratify his fierce and ungoverned passions; they, on the other hand, in order to restrain these passions and subdue them to reason.  You often say, when you are told of the great number of Catholic virgins, a she-mule is a virgin.  This, indeed, is said in ignorance of the Catholic system, and is not applicable.  Still, what you mean is that this continence is worthless unless it leads, on right principles, to an end of high excellence.  Catholic Christians might also compare your abstinence from wine and flesh to that of cattle and many small birds, as likewise of countless sorts of worms.  But, not p. 77 to be impertinent like you, I will not make this comparison prematurely, but will first examine your end in what you do.  For I suppose I may safely take it as agreed on, that in such customs the end is the thing to look to.  Therefore, if your end is to be frugal and to restrain the appetite which finds gratification in eating and drinking, I assent and approve.  But this is not the case.

29.  Suppose, what is quite possible, that there is one so frugal and sparing in his diet, that, instead of gratifying his appetite or his palate, he refrains from eating twice in one day, and at supper takes a little cabbage moistened and seasoned with lard, just enough to keep down hunger; and quenches his thirst, from regard to his health, with two or three draughts of pure wine; and this is his regular diet:  whereas another of different habits never takes flesh or wine, but makes an agreeable repast at two o’clock on rare and foreign vegetables, varied with a number of courses, and well sprinkled with pepper, and sups in the same style towards night; and drinks honey-vinegar, mead, raisin-wine, and the juices of various fruits, no bad imitation of wine, and even surpassing it in sweetness; and drinks not for thirst but for pleasure; and makes this provision for himself daily, and feasts in this sumptuous style, not because he requires it, but only gratifying his taste;—which of these two do you regard as living most abstemiously in food and drink?  You cannot surely be so blind as not to put the man of the little lard and wine above this glutton!

30.  This is the true view; but your doctrine sounds very differently.  For one of your elect distinguished by the three symbols may live like the second person in this description, and though he may be reproved by one or two of the more sedate, he cannot be condemned as abusing the symbols.  But should he sup with the other person, and moisten his lips with a morsel of rancid bacon, or refresh them with a drink of spoilt wine, he is pronounced a transgressor of the symbol, and by the judgment of your founder is consigned to hell, while you, though wondering, must assent.  Will you not discard these errors?  Will you not listen to reason?  Will you not offer some little resistance to the force of habit?  Is not such doctrine most unreasonable?  Is it not insanity?  Is it not the greatest absurdity that one, who stuffs and loads his stomach every day to gratify his appetite with mushrooms, rice, truffles, cake, mead, pepper, and assafœtida, and who fares thus every day, cannot be convicted of transgressing the three symbols, that is, the rule of sanctity; whereas another, who seasons his dish of the commonest herbs with some smoky morsel of meat, and takes only so much of this as is needed for the refreshment of his body, and drinks three cups of wine for the sake of keeping in health, should, for exchanging the former diet for this, be doomed to certain punishment?

Footnotes

Sallust, in prolog. Catilin. § 3.