{And the sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan. These three are the sons of Noah, and from these was all mankind spread over the earth.} — Commentaries and Disputations on Genesis, Volume II

LatineEnglish

{And the sons of Noah who came out of the ark were Shem, Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan. These three are the sons of Noah, and from these was all mankind spread over the earth.}¹

Erant ergo filii Noë qui egressi sunt de arca, Sem, Cham et Iaphet: porro Cham ipse est pater Chanaan. Tres isti filii sunt Noë, et ab his disseminatum est omne genus hominum super terram.

VERBA haec duas ferunt quaestiones. Primum quaeritur, an post diluvium Noë praeter supradictos tres filios quos ante diluvium genuerat, alios filios genuerit post diluvium. Berosus Annianus libro secundo affirmat Noë complures filios genuisse post diluvium, eosque gigantes, quos ex nomine matris quae Titaea dicebatur Titanas appellavit: numerat autem triginta filios Noë genitos post diluvium. Huic rei certissimam fidem astruere conatur in Commentario eius loci Annius. Sic autem ille argumentatur: Noë una cum filiis mandatum a Deo accepit vacandi generationi prolis, et simul cum mandato vim fecunditatis accepit; hoc enim significavit Moses narrans Deum benedixisse Noë et filiis eius et dixisse, Crescite et multiplicamini et replete terram. Nec fas est credere tale mandatum fuisse neglectum a Noë, viro scilicet iustissimo et divinae voluntatis obsequentissimo. Necessitas praeterea impellebat eum ad generandum, propter paucitatem hominum quae id temporis erat. Nec vero defuit aetas Noë ad generandum, quin immo abunde superfuit, quippe qui post diluvium trecentos quinquaginta annos vixit. Ex his concludi putat Annius Noë procreasse liberos post diluvium, et rationi divinae scripturae consentaneum esse.

These words bear two questions. First it is asked whether after the flood Noah, besides the aforesaid three sons whom he had begotten before the flood, begot other sons after the flood. Berosus Annianus, in the second book, affirms that Noah begot several sons after the flood, and those giants, whom from the name of their mother (who was called Titaea) he named Titans: and he numbers thirty sons of Noah begotten after the flood. Annius, in his Commentary on that place, tries to build the most certain credence for this. And he argues thus: Noah, together with his sons, received from God the command of being free for the generation of offspring, and together with the command received the power of fecundity; for this Moses signified, narrating that God blessed Noah and his sons and said, “Increase and multiply and fill the earth.” Nor is it lawful to believe that such a command was neglected by Noah, a man most just and most obedient to the divine will. Necessity besides impelled him to begetting, on account of the fewness of men which was at that time. Nor indeed was age wanting to Noah for begetting — nay rather, it abundantly remained, since he lived three hundred and fifty years after the flood. From these Annius thinks it is concluded that Noah procreated children after the flood, and that it is consonant with the reason of divine scripture.²

NEQUE vero haec opinio non etiam placuit Caietano: is enim ponderans illa verba, Qui egressi sunt de Arca, sic ait: Hinc apparet quod Noë post diluvium alios filios genuit: nisi enim habuisset filios, non dixisset Sem, Cham et Iaphet fuisse filios Noë qui egressi erant ex Arca; ad differentiam siquidem aliorum Noë meminit illorum trium qui cum patre de Arca egressi fuerant: et propter hoc quod isti soli cum Noë in Arca fuerunt et cum eo egressi sunt, adeo praestiterunt aliis Noë post diluvium generatis, ut eorum nomina fuerint penitus abolita, et illi tres tantum nominati et tanquam patres mundi habiti sint. Sic Caietanus. SED ego istam opinionem falsam esse minime dubito. Enimvero si Noë post diluvium tam multos filios suscepisset, cur illorum nomina fuissent omnino [tacita]…

Nor indeed did this opinion fail to please Cajetan also: for he, weighing those words, “Who came out of the Ark,” speaks thus: “Hence it appears that Noah after the flood begot other sons: for unless he had had [other] sons, he would not have said that Shem, Ham, and Japheth were the sons of Noah who had come out of the Ark; for it is to distinguish [them] from others that Noah mentions those three who had come out of the Ark with their father: and because these alone were with Noah in the Ark and came out with him, they so excelled the other [sons] generated by Noah after the flood that their names were utterly abolished, and only those three were named and held as the fathers of the world.” So Cajetan. But I do not at all doubt that that opinion is false. For if Noah had begotten so many sons after the flood, why were their names altogether [passed over in silence]…³

…tacita? Esto, illi tres fuerint principes generis et familiae Noë: id tamen aliorum memoriam penitus obruere et obliterare non debuit. Nonne Moses vigesimo quinto capite huius libri recenset omnes filios Abrahae, et ex ancilla et ex Cethura uxore susceptos, non contentus nominasse Isaac solum Abrahae heredem et posteritatis eius principem? Quod si aliorum filiorum Noë noluit Moses nomina distincte et expresse ponere, saltem in commune dixisset Noë genuisse alios filios.

…passed over in silence? Granted, those three were the chiefs of Noah's race and family: yet that ought not to have utterly buried and obliterated the memory of the others. Does not Moses, in the twenty-fifth chapter of this book, recount all the sons of Abraham — both those received from the handmaid and from Keturah his wife — not content to have named Isaac alone as Abraham's heir and the chief of his posterity? But if Moses did not wish to set down distinctly and expressly the names of Noah's other sons, he would at least have said in general that Noah begot other sons.⁴

ILLUD enim licet animadvertere in omnibus priscis illis patribus qui fuerunt ante Noë, Mosen, cum describeret cuiusque eorum universum vitae tempus, adiicere solitum illa verba, Et genuit filios et filias. Ponam exemplum primi et ultimi. De Adam sic ait: Facti sunt dies Adae postquam genuit Seth octingenti anni, genuitque filios et filias. De Lamech autem qui fuit pater Noë, itidem ait: Vixit Lamech postquam genuit Noë quingentis nonaginta annis, et genuit filios et filias. Idemque dixit de aliis omnibus qui inter hos duos interiecti sunt. Similiter igitur, cum sub finem noni capitis definiat Moses universum vitae tempus Noë, si is praeter Sem, Cham et Iaphet genuisset alios filios, dicere de eo debuisset similiter ut de patribus eius dixerat: Vixit Noë post diluvium trecentis quinquaginta annis, et genuit filios et filias, et impleti sunt omnes dies eius nongentorum quinquaginta annorum, et mortuus est. Cur illud, Et genuit filios et filias, non dixit Moses? Certe quia verum non erat. Illud quoque vehementer istam opinionem redarguit, quod Moses tam in capite 9 quam decimo ait ab illis tribus filiis Noë omne genus hominum esse propagatum et disseminatum: at si praeter illos tres fuissent alii filii Noë, ex illis utique non minus quam ex illis tribus hominum genus multiplicatum esset. Nam dicere vel illos filios fuisse omnes steriles, vel eorum prolem in secunda aut tertia generatione in totum defecisse, simile figmento est.

For this may be observed in all those ancient fathers who were before Noah: that Moses, when he described the whole life-time of each of them, was wont to add those words, “And he begot sons and daughters.” I will give the example of the first and the last. Of Adam he says thus: “The days of Adam after he begot Seth were eight hundred years, and he begot sons and daughters.” And of Lamech, who was the father of Noah, he likewise says: “Lamech lived after he begot Noah five hundred and ninety years, and begot sons and daughters.” And he said the same of all the others who are interposed between these two. Similarly, therefore, since toward the end of the ninth chapter Moses defines the whole life-time of Noah, if he, besides Shem, Ham, and Japheth, had begotten other sons, he ought to have said of him as he had said of his fathers: “Noah lived after the flood three hundred and fifty years, and begot sons and daughters, and all his days were nine hundred and fifty years, and he died.” Why did Moses not say that, “And he begot sons and daughters”? Surely because it was not true. This too vehemently refutes that opinion: that Moses, both in chapter 9 and in chapter 10, says that from those three sons of Noah all mankind was propagated and disseminated; but if besides those three there had been other sons of Noah, from them too no less than from those three the race of men would have been multiplied. For to say either that those sons were all sterile, or that their offspring in the second or third generation wholly failed, is like a fiction.⁵

SED illud nos urgere videtur, quomodo Noë per trecentos quinquaginta annos quibus superstes diluvio fuit, vel unum aliquem filium generare aut noluerit aut non potuerit. Verum ad id respondemus, Noë diluvio fuisse sexcentorum annorum, quae aetas iam esset a generandi munere [seiuncta] nec potens generandi, praesertim tot tantisque aerum[nis]…

But this seems to press us: how, through the three hundred and fifty years in which Noah survived the flood, he either would not or could not beget even some one son. But to this we answer that Noah at the flood was six hundred years old, which age was now [removed] from the office of begetting and not capable of generating — especially [a nature worn] by so many and so great hard[ships]…⁶

…aerumnis ac calamitatibus exercita et contrita. Nam reliqui trecenti quinquaginta anni fuere senectutis, quae in vita prope mille annorum non est censenda nimis longa. Quam multos reperies qui post quinquagesimum annum generare desierunt, et nihilominus tamen usque ad octogesimum vel nonagesimum annum vitam produxerunt? Et hoc mihi verius dictu videtur. Nisi cui forte magis arriserint fabulae Hebraeorum, a quibus proditum est (ut memorat Rabbi Levi super nonum caput Geneseos) Cham abscidisse virilitatem patri suo Noë, ne deinceps filios procrearet: quemadmodum de Caelo et Saturno fabulantur poetae.

…and worn by hardships and calamities. For the remaining three hundred and fifty years were of old age, which in a life of nearly a thousand years is not to be reckoned too long. How many will you find who after the fiftieth year ceased to beget, and nevertheless prolonged their life up to the eightieth or ninetieth year? And this seems to me the truer thing to say. Unless perhaps the fables of the Hebrews please someone more — by whom it is handed down (as Rabbi Levi mentions on the ninth chapter of Genesis) that Ham cut off the virility of his father Noah, lest he beget sons thereafter: just as the poets fable about Caelus [Uranus] and Saturn.⁷

ALTERA quaestio est, cur Moses nominans Cham subiunxerit filium eius Chanaan, dicens, Porro Cham ipse est pater Chanaan. Cur, inquam, Moses potius nominaverit filium Cham quam filium Sem aut Iaphet? aut inter filios Cham (habuit enim ille filios Chus et Mesrain et Phut et Chanaan, ut est in capite decimo Geneseos) cur non potius nominavit alios filios quam Chanaan, cum iis omnium natu minimus fuisse videatur? B. Chrysostomus putat illum Chanaan fuisse genitum intra Arcam durante diluvio, et propterea nominari eum a Mose, ut significetur nimia libidinis intemperantia Cham, qui in tantis Arcae angustiis et incommodis atque in tanta orbis totius clade indulserit Veneri: praesertim cum pater atque alii fratres non solum a studio generandi vacaverint, verum etiam ab uxoribus toto eo tempore seiugati fuerint. Audi Chrysostomum: Cur dixit Cham fuisse patrem Chanaan? Nemo putet id esse dictum sine causa: nihil enim in divina scriptura est quod non ratione aliqua dictum sit, quodque non latentem aliquam in se habeat utilitatem. Cur igitur filium Cham nominavit Chanaan? Scilicet ut nimiam Cham intemperantiam libidinis insinuaret: quippe cum neque tanta calamitatis magnitudine, neque tantis Arcae angustiis, concupiscentia eius coerceri et refrenari potuerit quo minus Veneri serviret, iam ex eo tempore mentis suae malitiam demonstrans. Itaque non multo post, propter contumeliam in parentem, maledictionem suscepturus erat filius eius Chanaan: et idcirco scriptura nomen patris et filii simul posuit, docens patris intemperantiam: ut cum postea videris [eum] magna ingratitudine erga patrem uti, scire possis quod iam olim talis fuerit, ut rabiem atque insaniam libidinis eius generalis omnium luctus atque interitus reprimere non potuerit. Haec Chrysostomus.

The second question is, why Moses, naming Cham, subjoined his son Chanaan, saying, “And Cham is the father of Chanaan.” Why, I say, did Moses rather name the son of Cham than the son of Sem or Iaphet? or, among the sons of Cham (for he had sons Chus and Mesrain and Phut and Chanaan, as is in the tenth chapter of Genesis), why did he not rather name the other sons than Chanaan, since he seems to have been the youngest of them all in birth? St. Chrysostom thinks that that Chanaan was begotten within the Ark during the flood, and is therefore named by Moses, that the excessive intemperance of Cham's lust might be signified — who, in such straits and discomforts of the Ark and in so great a calamity of the whole world, indulged in Venus: especially since his father and other brothers not only abstained from the zeal of begetting, but were even separated from their wives during all that time. Hear Chrysostom: “Why did he say that Cham was the father of Chanaan? Let no one think that this was said without cause: for there is nothing in divine scripture that is not said for some reason, and that does not have in itself some hidden utility. Why, then, did he name the son of Cham Chanaan? Namely, to intimate the excessive intemperance of Cham's lust: since neither by so great a magnitude of calamity, nor by such straits of the Ark, could his concupiscence be restrained and bridled from serving Venus, from that very time showing the malice of his mind. And so not long after, on account of the insult to his parent, his son Chanaan was to receive a curse: and therefore scripture placed the name of the father and the son together, teaching the father's intemperance: that when afterward you see [him] use great ingratitude toward his father, you may know that he was already of old such, that the general mourning and destruction of all could not repress the rage and madness of his lust.” Thus Chrysostom.⁸

VERUM non esse intra Arcam tempore diluvii genitum Chanaan, ut significat Chrysostomus, quatuor argumentis probari potest. Ac primo quidem, tam homines quam animalia, dum in Arca fuerunt, non dedisse operam generationi, communis est Christianorum iuxta Hebraeorumque sententia. Deinde, cum Moses capite undecimo significet Chanaan fuisse postremum filiorum Cham, si Chanaan esset natus in Arca, ergo alii fratres eius geniti essent ante diluvium; plures igitur quam octo ingressi essent in Arcam, quod est contra sacram Scripturam capite septimo Geneseos. Ad haec, capite octavo octo tantum numerantur egressi ex Arca; fuissent autem novem, si Chanaan fuisset in Arca natus. Adiice quod Moses capite decimo tradit non nisi post diluvium tribus filiis Noë natos esse liberos; et Ambrosius affirmat, etiam cum Noë maledixit Chanaan propter scelus Cham, non fuisse tunc genitum ipsum Chanaan.

But that Chanaan was not begotten within the Ark at the time of the flood, as Chrysostom signifies, can be proved by four arguments. And first, that both men and animals, while they were in the Ark, gave no attention to generation, is the common opinion of Christians and likewise of the Hebrews. Next, since Moses in the eleventh chapter signifies that Chanaan was the last of Cham's sons: if Chanaan had been born in the Ark, then his other brothers would have been begotten before the flood; therefore more than eight would have entered the Ark, which is against sacred Scripture in the seventh chapter of Genesis. Besides, in the eighth chapter only eight are numbered as having gone out of the Ark; but there would have been nine, if Chanaan had been born in the Ark. Add that Moses in the tenth chapter relates that only after the flood were children born to the three sons of Noah; and Ambrose affirms that even when Noah cursed Chanaan on account of Cham's crime, Chanaan himself had not then been begotten.⁹

BEATUS Ambrosius cur Moses hoc loco Cham nominaverit patrem Chanaan, hanc reddit rationem: Ad coacervandum, inquit, delictum ipsius Cham, addita est eius generatio, qui cum haberet filium et pater esset, solus ipse patrem non cognovit, qui magis cognoscere debuisset: et ideo improbum habere meruit filium, quia improbus ipse fuerat patri. Simul et illud significatur, ex illo Chanaan fuisse Chananaeos, qui post multas generationes a populo iusto oppressi cesserunt in eius possessionem. Auctorem ergo Chananaeorum fuisse Chanaan manifestum est, qui fuit filius huius Cham qui impius in patrem exstitit.

St. Ambrose renders this reason why Moses in this place named Cham the father of Chanaan: “To heap up,” he says, “the offense of Cham himself, his offspring is added — who, although he had a son and was a father, alone himself did not acknowledge his father, who ought the more to have acknowledged [him]: and therefore he deserved to have a wicked son, because he himself had been wicked toward his father. And at the same time this is signified: that from that Chanaan came the Canaanites, who after many generations, oppressed by the just people, gave way into their possession. That the author of the Canaanites, therefore, was Chanaan is manifest, who was the son of this Cham who was impious toward his father.”¹⁰

IUXTA dictum hoc Ambrosii est quod subiiciam. Propositum Mosi erat in scriptione huius historiae, originem, incrementa et res Hebraeorum potissimum exponere: quippe ex omnibus mundi gentibus hunc sibi Deus populum delegerat, cui etiam erudiendo omnis haec scriptura Mosis destinabatur. Hebraeis porro assignaturus erat Deus inhabitationem ac possessionem terram Chananaeorum, iure ademptam illis propter intoleranda eorum scelera, ut traditur et hoc libro capite 15 et Levitici capite 18. Quamobrem hic describitur initium peccati Chananaeorum, quod fuit irrisio et contumelia adversus patrem Noë filii eius Cham, unde originem traxerunt Chananaei: propter quam contumeliam posteritas Cham per filium eius Chanaan propagata, Dei maledictione percussa et poena servitutis punita est.

In accordance with this saying of Ambrose is what I shall subjoin. Moses's purpose in the writing of this history was chiefly to set forth the origin, the increase, and the affairs of the Hebrews: since out of all the nations of the world God had chosen this people for Himself, for whose instruction also all this writing of Moses was destined. And to the Hebrews God was about to assign the habitation and possession of the land of the Canaanites, justly taken from them on account of their intolerable crimes, as is handed down both in this book, chapter 15, and in Leviticus, chapter 18. Wherefore here is described the beginning of the sin of the Canaanites — which was the mockery and insult against his father Noah by his son Cham — whence the Canaanites took their origin: on account of which insult the posterity of Cham, propagated through his son Chanaan, was struck by God's curse and punished with the penalty of servitude.¹¹

CHRYSOSTOMUS perpendens verba illa Mosis de tribus illis filiis Noë, Ab his disseminatum est omne genus hominum super universam terram, vehementer admiratur et magnificat Dei providentiam atque omnipotentiam, per quam factum est ut ex solis tribus hominibus propagatio generis humani et innumerabilium hominum multiplicatio usque ad hunc diem, et usque in finem mundi, perpetuanda sit. Etenim considerare oportet eo tempore tantum tres fuisse homines, terramque penitus desolatam efferatamque, bestiis passim nullo metu vagantibus, vacuamque iis rebus omnibus quae ad vitae humanae cultum et praesidium faciunt, iis quoque remediis quae praecavendis corporum morbis aut sanandis auxiliari possunt. Denique multa quotidie in tali orbis statu intervenire poterant, quae vitam eorum hominum ante generationem prolis exstinguerent, vel generatam prolem abolerent. At nihil horum impedire potuit id quod Deus promiserat et constituerat: usque adeo fuit efficax benedictio quam Deus hominibus illis impertivit, potensque verbum illud quod dixit eis, Crescite et multiplicamini et replete terram: cuius verbi efficacitas in occasum usque mundi mansura est.

Chrysostom, weighing those words of Moses about those three sons of Noah, “From these was all mankind spread over the whole earth,” vehemently admires and magnifies the providence and omnipotence of God, by which it came about that from only three men the propagation of the human race and the multiplication of innumerable men, up to this day and up to the end of the world, is to be perpetuated. For one must consider that at that time there were only three men, and the earth utterly desolate and wild, with beasts roaming everywhere with no fear, and empty of all those things which make for the cultivation and protection of human life, and also of those remedies which can help to prevent or heal the diseases of bodies. Finally, many things daily in such a state of the world could intervene which might extinguish the life of those men before the generation of offspring, or destroy the offspring once generated. But none of these could impede what God had promised and established: so efficacious was the blessing which God imparted to those men, and powerful that word which He said to them, “Increase and multiply and fill the earth”: the efficacy of which word will remain unto the setting [end] of the world.¹²

SIMILE quiddam, ait Chrysostomus, animadvertere et admirari licet in fide Christiana. Cum enim eam nascentem reges, tyranni, populi, sapientes opprimere quoquo modo conati sint, tanta pietatis tamen flamma erupit ut totum orbem habitatum, denique ad fines orbis inhabitatum, pervaserit. Etiamsi ad Indos abeas, ad Scythas, ad Oceanum usque, denique ad fines orbis terra, ubique reperies Christi Fide illustrari hominum animos. Hoc admirabile est ac stuporis plenum, quod effera barbarorum corda demulsit, didiceruntque philosophari, et abiecta pristina consuetudine ad pietatem traducti sunt. Et sicut per tres Noë filios genus hominum multiplicavit Deus, ita per undecim piscatores illiteratos atque idiotas, qui neque os aperire audebant, omnem sibi orbem conciliavit ac subiuga[vit]…

Something similar, says Chrysostom, may be observed and admired in the Christian faith. For although kings, tyrants, peoples, and the wise tried in every way to oppress it as it was being born, yet so great a flame of piety burst forth that it pervaded the whole inhabited world, even to the [uninhabited] ends of the earth. Even if you go to the Indians, to the Scythians, to the very Ocean, finally to the ends of the earth, everywhere you will find the minds of men illumined by the Faith of Christ. This is admirable and full of astonishment: that it soothed the savage hearts of barbarians, and they learned to philosophize, and, casting off their former custom, were led over to piety. And just as through the three sons of Noah God multiplied the race of men, so through eleven unlettered and ignorant fishermen, who dared not even open their mouths, He conciliated and subj[ugated] the whole world to Himself…¹³

…vit. Et illi quidem idiotae philosophorum obturaverunt ora, et percurrerunt orbem, quasi alati seminantes veritatis sermonem, et spinas veterum affectionum revellentes, Christique leges ubique ferentes. Et neque quod pauci essent, neque quod privati et illiterati, neque quod austera et insolita docerent, neque quod veteri consuetudine sentiendi et agendi homines praeventi essent, impedimento illis esse potuit: sed praevia Dei gratia removente obstacula, magna facilitate operati sunt omnia, per ipsa obstacula maiorem accipientes alacritatem.

…[subjugated it]. And those ignorant men stopped the mouths of the philosophers, and ran through the world, as if winged, sowing the word of truth, and tearing out the thorns of old affections, and bearing the laws of Christ everywhere. And neither that they were few, nor that they were private and unlettered, nor that they taught austere and unusual things, nor that men were forestalled by an old custom of thinking and acting, could be an impediment to them: but, the grace of God going before and removing obstacles, with great ease they accomplished all things, receiving through the obstacles themselves the greater alacrity.¹⁴

Translator’s notes

Gen 9:18–19 (lemma). Margin: vv. 18, 19. ↩
§112. Q1: did Noah beget more sons after the flood? Berosus (via Annius): 30 ‘Titan’ sons by mother Titaea — argued from the ‘increase and multiply’ command, necessity, and Noah's 350 remaining years. Margins: “Whether Noah begot other sons after the flood”; Berosus; Giovanni Annius. ↩
§113–114. Cajetan agrees (‘who came out of the Ark’ implies others existed); but Pererius begins to refute: why then are their names wholly silent? Margin: Cajetan. Continues on p. 358. ↩
§114 (cont.). Moses names even Abraham's lesser sons (ch. 25) — he would at least have said ‘Noah begot other sons.’ Margin: “Annius and Cajetan are refuted.” ↩
§115. The clinching argument: Moses always adds ‘and he begot sons and daughters’ (Adam, Lamech) but not for Noah; and he twice says all mankind came from the three. Margins: Gen. 5; ibid. ↩
§116. Objection: why no son at all in 350 years? Answer: at 600 Noah was past begetting. Margin: “Why Noah begot no son in the 350 years he survived the flood.” Continues on p. 359. ↩
§116 (cont.). Noah's last 350 years were old age (men often stop begetting at 50); or — the Hebrew fable (Rabbi Levi) that Ham castrated Noah, like Uranus and Saturn in the poets. ↩
§117. Q2: why name Cham's son Chanaan? Chrysostom: Chanaan was begotten in the Ark — a mark of Cham's lust, indulged even amid the flood. Margins: Chrysostom, hom. 28 on Genesis; “Whether Chanaan was begotten in the Ark during the flood, as Chrysostom signifies.” ↩
§118. Four arguments that Chanaan was NOT born in the Ark (no begetting in the Ark; he was Cham's last son; only eight entered/left; children came only after the flood; Ambrose). Margins: Gen. 7–8; Ambrose, On Noah and the Ark, ch. 30. ↩
§119. Ambrose: Cham is named ‘father of Chanaan’ to heap up his guilt (the unfilial father got an unfilial son) and to mark the origin of the Canaanites. Margin: the same [Ambrose], ch. 28 of the same book. ↩
§120. Pererius's addition: Moses's aim is the Hebrews' story, including their God-given title to Canaan's land — hence he marks here the first sin of the Canaanites (Cham's insult). ↩
§121. Chrysostom marvels at the providence by which all mankind sprang from only three men, in a wild and dangerous post-flood world. Margins: “That the propagation of mankind from the three sons of Noah was admirable”; Chrysostom, hom. 29 on Genesis. Continues on p. 361. ↩
§122. Chrysostom's parallel: as mankind spread from three sons, so the faith spread worldwide through eleven unlettered fishermen. Margin: “A vast miracle: the spread of the Faith over the whole world.” Continues on p. 361. ↩
§122 (cont.). The apostles silenced the philosophers and converted the world, the grace of God removing every obstacle. ↩