But this is not, in this place, beyond controversy: what food did the animals that are only carnivorous use while they were in the Ark? For they seem to have been able to be fed and nourished by no other food than the flesh of other animals, and yet no other animals beyond the number defined by God seem to have been brought into the Ark. This very question St. Augustine poses and most briefly solves, in the first book of Questions on Genesis, question six: “It is asked,” he says, “how in the Ark the lions and eagles, which are accustomed to live on flesh, could be fed. Whether animals beyond that number were also brought in for the food of others; or whether something (besides flesh — which is rather to be believed) was provided by Noah, a wise man, or by God's showing, which would suit the food of such living creatures.” So there.¹

But the same [Augustine] unravels this very question a little more distinctly and clearly in book 15 of The City of God, the last chapter: “It is wont,” he says, “to trouble some, the kinds of food which the animals that are thought to feed only on flesh could have had there — whether [animals] beyond that number were there, without transgression of the command, which the necessity of nourishing the others had compelled to be shut in there; or whether (which is rather to be believed) there could have been, besides flesh, some foods that would suit them all. For we know how many animals, to which flesh is food, feed indiscriminately on crops, and especially on figs and chestnuts. What wonder, then, if that wise and just man, even divinely admonished what would suit each one without flesh, prepared and stored up for each kind a suitable nourishment? And what is there which hunger would not compel [them] to eat? Or what could God not make pleasant and wholesome — who could even grant by his divine facility that [they] should live without food — except that [the fact] that they were fed was also fitting for the fulfilling of the figure of so great a mystery?” This [says] Augustine.²

By which words he touches on four solutions of the proposed question: One, that even the animals which are called carnivorous sometimes also feed on crops, but especially on figs and chestnuts — for these both fill and nourish much. A second, that Noah, through the knowledge of natural things which he excellently understood…³

…understood, or by a singular revelation of God, knew some kinds of food by no means known to us, on which even carnivorous animals would gladly feed and be wholesomely nourished. The third, that although carnivores feed more gladly on flesh, yet when these [flesh-foods] fail, they are wont, hunger compelling, to feed even on crops and fruits. The fourth, that by the omnipotence of God it came about that the carnivores, without the eating of flesh and the food of other things, could sustain life as long as they were in the Ark. Therefore, just as the assembling of all the animals to the Ark, and their peaceful sojourn in the Ark, and their obedience toward Noah [are held to be miracles], so this too ought to be held in the place of a miracle.⁴

This opinion of Augustine is nearly common to all the Doctors, even of those who think that the animals which are now carnivorous were carnivorous also before the flood and at the beginning of the world. Yet these deny that they ate flesh while they were in the Ark, but [say] that, either by compelling hunger or by a special providence of God, they used the food of other provisions. Cajetan certainly, thinking that carnivorous animals were accustomed to feed on flesh even before the flood, explaining the words of Moses which we expounded a little above [says]: “Either the time of necessity, or the efficacy of the special divine governance then [in force], brought it about that even carnivorous animals fed on vegetable things.”⁵

But Origen thought the contrary, affirmatively writing in homily 2 on the sixth chapter of Genesis that Noah procured for the carnivorous animals suitable food (that is, the flesh of other animals), by bringing into the Ark a great number of animals pertaining to the feeding and sustenance of the carnivores. Buteo assented to and subscribed to Origen. The one support of this opinion is this: that it is natural to certain animals to be only carnivorous; for no one has seen a lion, an eagle, or a hawk use any other food than flesh; and what is natural to some kind of animals is always suitable to it; those, therefore, that are now only carnivorous were everywhere and at all times carnivorous.⁶

But to this argument a threefold answer is given. Some answer that, although it is natural for carnivores to feed on flesh, yet by the omnipotence of God it came about that, as long as they were in the Ark, they lived without flesh and were fed on other foods. For if we believe that certain other miracles were done by God concerning those animals and the Ark itself, why should we not think that this too is to be believed to have then been done by God? Others answer that the food of flesh is called natural to carnivores because it is of all [foods] the most suitable to their nature, and is therefore eagerly and wholesomely taken by them; not, however, that it is called natural because it is simply and entirely necessary to them — just as to breathing animals respiration is called natural, not only because it is most suitable and useful to them, but also because it is plainly necessary, so that without it they cannot lead life. Therefore carnivores, when they can have flesh, feed only on this, other foods being set aside; but if they cannot have it, they feed also on certain other foods to satisfy hunger.⁷

But to me, beyond the rest, that third answer pleases: that ‘natural’ [is said of] some[thing]…⁸

…something is called ‘natural’ in two ways: either [that] which follows of itself from the specific nature and flows from its essential principles — and this is always suitable to the thing, nor can it be changed at any time (as it is natural to man to be capable of laughter); or [that] is called natural which follows the individual nature and the temperament of the body. And because the temperament of the body is varied, both by change of age and for other causes, hence it happens that what at one age is natural to man is not natural to him at another age. For it is natural to man in infancy not to feed on flesh, but to be nourished with mother's milk; the contrary, however, happens at adult age. Since, therefore, the force and excellence of plants, and the ratio of the temperament of animals, was quite different before and after the flood, it ought to seem strange to no one that, for the animals which are now naturally carnivorous, before the flood the natural food was from crops, herbs, and the fruits of trees.⁹

I, therefore, am carried with full assent into the opinion of Augustine (and the same was also that of Basil, homily 11 on Genesis). And I think I can argue in three ways that there was no carnivorous animal in the Ark of Noah. First, because there was no carnivorous animal before the flood, and the eating of flesh, both for men and for animals, began to be in use only after the flood. But because this has been disputed and treated by us not carelessly in the former volume of these Commentaries on Genesis, toward the end of the fourth book, it would be superfluous to repeat what has been once said.¹⁰

Next, we have the number of all the animals that entered the Ark expressly — and more than once — prescribed and defined by God: two, I say, of each species of the unclean, but seven of the clean, namely both for the preservation of each species and for the use of sacrifices. But of animals pertaining to the food of carnivores, no mention is anywhere made. For as to what Buteo, meeting this argument, says — that animals of this kind were comprehended in that general command of God about all foods to be brought into the Ark (when he said to Noah: “Thou shalt take of all foods that can be eaten, and thou shalt lay it up with thee, and it shall be food both for thee and for them”) — this, I say, neither produces conviction nor weakens our argument. For it would have been more fitting for Moses to make mention of animals to be procured for the food of carnivores when the number of all the animals that were to be brought into the Ark was being predefined; especially since in the following chapter 7 mention is more often made, and the number of all the animals that were in the Ark is repeated, and yet nowhere is there any word about those animals [for carnivore food].¹¹

To these is added that so great a number of animals as would suffice to feed all the carnivores for one year would have filled and burdened the Ark more than enough, and it would have been a huge — and likewise most troublesome, and especially foul and squalid — labor for those few men, like butchers daily slaughtering so many animals for the food of the carnivores, and carrying and dispensing [them] into the dwellings of the individual [beasts]: especially in an Ark closed on all sides for one year.¹²