ANNOTATIONS.
CHAP. IX.
Ad q. 119. Ho. 27. in Gen.Voluntarie abstinence without commandment.3. Al that moueth.) S. Iustinus Martyr, S. Chrysostom, and other ancient Doctours proue, that flesh was lawful to be eaten before the floud: but being not necessarie, because men were stronger, and other things also of more force, the better sort which were of Seths race abstained from it. But after the floud flesh being more necessarie, God altereth that custome of abstinence, with this limitation and commandment, that they shal not eate bloud.
Abstinence from bloud sometimes commanded, not alwayes.4. Flesh with bloud.) Though this positiue precept, of not eating bloud, serued wel to make men more abhorre man-slaughter (which is forbid by the law of nature, and the reuenge therof here and in other places seuerely threatned) yet it was specially giuen both immediately after the floud, and in the law of Moyses (with manie the like) to exercise men in obedience. Leuit 17.And the same was renewed, for a time, by the Apostles, to appease a controuersie in the primitiue Church. Act. 15.For that the Iewes conuerted to Christ, hauing benne long accustomed to this obseruation, could not indure to see it broken by themselues or other Christians, and being no great burden for the Gentiles, it was decreed that al should keep it. And so peace was made. Neuertheles it was abolished when the cause ceassed, as S. Augustin declareth against Faustus the Manichee. li. 32. c. 13.Such is the authoritie of the Church to decree, and againe to disanul an obseruation of a thing of it-selfe indifferent.
S. Chrisost. ho. 29.
S. Theo. q. 65.
S. Am. c. 30 de Noe & Arca.
Li.12. c. 24. contr. Faust.Noe sinned not in drunkennes.21. Drunke.) Noe sinned not, by the common iudgement of ancient Fathers, in that he was ouercome with wine, because he knew not the force thereof, hauing drunke only water al his life before. But this external rebuke and worldlie disgrace happened to Noe, Noe a figure of Christ.in figure of Christ naked on the Crosse, as S. Cyprian Epist. 63. ad Cœcilium, S. Augustin li. 16. de ciuit. c. 2. & li. 12. contra Faustum Manicheum c. 23. & 24, Eucherius, Rupertus, and others vpon this place do teach. Sem & Iapheth a figure of the Church, Cham of Infidels.And likwise that Sem and Iapheth were a figure of the Church consisting of Iewes and Gentiles, and Cham of Heretikes, and other Infidels, that deride the infirmities, which our Sauiour sustayned. Goe to now (yee Manichees, saith S. Austustin) obiect calumnies to the ancient holie Scriptures, doe so, yee children of Cham, to whom naked flesh seemeth vile, by which your selues were begotten. For neither could yee by anie meanes haue been called Christians, except Christ, as he was foretold by the Prophets, had come into the world, had drunke that cup of his vineyard, which could not passe from him, had slept in his passion as in drunkennes of folie (which is wiser then men) and so the infirmitie of mortal flesh (which is stronger then men) had become naked, by the secret counsel of God, which infirmitie vnles the WORD OF GOD had taken vpon him, the very name Christian, whereof yee also glorie, had not benne at al in the earth.
q. 57. in Gen.Why Chanaan is cursed rather then Cham.25. Cursed be Chanaan.) Why Chanaan the sonne is cursed, and not his father Cham, diuers yeald diuers reasons. S. Theodoretus reporteth out of the Hebrew Doctours, that Chanaan a boy first saw his grand-fathers nakednes, and told the same to his father, and so they both derided that they should haue couered, Chams other sonnes not offending: and therfore not his whole progenie but only Chanaan & his posteritie were here cursed by Noe. ho. 29.S. Chrisostome supposeth that for so much as God had blessed Noe & his three sonnes comming forth of the Arke, he could not presume to curse anie of those, whom God had blessed, therfore cursed Chanaan who in wickednes was like to his father. S. Gregorie bringeth this for example of wicked men, escaping punish-
