That they fed not on flesh, at least the faithful party before the flood, may become more probable, because they refrained the same for some time after. For so was it generally delivered of the golden age and reign of _Saturn_; which is conceived the time of _Noah_, before the building of _Babel_. And he that considereth how agreeable this is unto the traditions of the _Gentiles_; that that age was of one tongue: that _Saturn_ devoured all his sons but three; that he was the son of _Oceanus_ and _Thetis_; that a Ship was his Symbole; that he taught the culture of vineyards, and the art of husbandry, and was therefore described with a sickle, may well conceive, these traditions had their original in _Noah_. Nor did this practice terminate in him, but was continued at least in many after: as (beside the _Pythagoreans_ of old, _Bannyans_ now in _India_, who upon single opinions refrain the food of flesh) ancient records do hint or plainly deliver. Although we descend not so low, as that of _Ãsclepiades_ delivered by _Porphyrius_ [SN: ÏεÏὶ á¼ÏοÏá¿Ï.], that men began to feed on flesh in the raign of _Pygmaleon_ brother of _Dido_, who invented several torments, to punish the eaters of flesh.
Nor did men only refrain from the flesh of beasts at first, but as some will have it, beasts from one another. And if we should believe very grave conjecturers, carnivorous animals now, were not flesh devourers then, according to the expression of the divine provision for them. [SN: Gen. 1. 36.] To every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, I have given every green herb for meat, and it was so. As is also collected from the store laid up in the Ark; wherein there seems to have been no fleshly provision for carnivorous Animals. For of every kind of unclean beast there went but two into the Ark: and therefore no stock of flesh to sustain them many days, much less almost a year.
But when ever it be acknowledged that men began to feed on flesh, yet how they betook themselves after to particular kinds thereof, with rejection of many others, is a point not clearly determined. As for the distinction of clean and unclean beasts, the original is obscure, and salveth not our practice. For no Animal is naturally unclean, or hath this character in nature; and therefore whether in this distinction there were not some mystical intention: [SN: _How_ Moses _might distinguish beasts into clean and unclean before the flood_.] whether _Moses_ after the distinction made of unclean beasts, did not name these so before the flood by anticipation: whether this distinction before the flood, were not only in regard of sacrifices, as that delivered after was in regard of food: (for many were clean for food, which were unclean for sacrifice) or whether the denomination were but comparative, and of beasts less commodious for food, although not simply bad, is not yet resolved.