By these words, as Ambrose says, an evident affection of piety is expressed, in that the good sons took care not to see their father uncovered of his garment, lest paternal reverence should be diminished even by the very sight: since even by the silent countenance piety is frequently offended. Whence also at Rome it is said to have been an ancient custom that sons should not enter the bath with their parents, and especially [not] the grown-up [sons]. Thus Ambrose. And what he indicates about the modesty of the ancient Romans, Cicero teaches in express words in the first book of the Offices: “The custom of stage-players has so much modesty from ancient discipline, that no one comes onto the stage without a loincloth: lest, if perchance certain parts of the body be exposed, they be looked upon indecorously. And by our custom, grown-up sons do not bathe with their parents, nor sons-in-law with their fathers-in-law.” Thus Cicero.²

Altogether that deed of Sem and Iaphet was, both by the notable duty of paternal reverence and piety, and by the illustrious signification of a most chaste mind and most praiseworthy modesty, to be remembered in all ages, and worthy of no less proclamation and imitation by men than the deed of Cham [is worthy] of blame and execration. For, when their father's nakedness was announced to them by Cham, they not only did not approve his levity, but even (as it is fair to believe) vehemently rebuked him. Next, they not only would not look at their naked father, but, lest the foulness of his nakedness should be exposed to the eyes of many and thence the father's ignominy (which they reckoned their own) should grow, they hastened as quickly as possible to cover him — yet with backward step, lest perchance they should see their father's nakedness even by imprudence. And so those excellent counsels and lessons about honoring parents which are handed down in the book of Ecclesiasticus, they so many ages before most diligently kept and most perfectly performed. And thus it is in that place: “He that honors his father shall have joy in his children, and in the day of his prayer he shall be heard, and shall live a longer life. He that fears God honors his parents, and will serve them as masters who begot him. In work and word and all patience honor thy father, that a blessing may come upon thee from God, and his blessing may remain in the latter end. The blessing of the father establishes the houses of the children, but the curse [of the mother] roots up the foundations. Glory not in the dishonor of thy father, for his shame is no glory to thee but confusion: for the glory of a man is from the honor of his father, and a father without honor is the disgrace of the son. Son, support the old age of thy father, and grieve him not in his life; and if he fail in sense, bear with him, and despise him not in thy strength.” The truth and utility of these precepts the example of those three sons of Noah abundantly approved.³

I, for my part, do not know whether of equal or even greater reverence and piety toward parents — not indeed carnal, but spiritual, such as are priests and Bishops — is to be judged that which it is recorded in the Ecclesiastical histories that Constantine the Great did. When he was present at the Council of Nicaea, to which, for the establishing of the Faith, three hundred and eighteen Bishops had assembled, several little books, filled with episcopal contentions, complaints, quarrels, and accusations, were delivered to him; which he not only did not bring himself to read or open, but publicly ordered to be burned — affirming that it was a wicked and impious thing that any mortal should publish, much less judge or condemn, the vices of those whom God appointed masters and judges and as it were parents of other men…⁴

…I will here set down the words of Theodoret, by which he briefly set forth the history of that matter, for they are most worthy to be read with admiration of so great an Emperor's reverence and piety. “Moreover,” he says, “I think that by no means is this to be passed over in silence. There were certain men burning with zeal for calumny, who accused some Bishops and brought books of accusation to the Emperor. But he, having received books of this kind, first, when he had bound them with a cord and sealed them with his ring, ordered them to be kept. Then, when he had reconciled concord among them, he ordered the books, brought into the midst, to be burned with fire, they themselves looking on, an oath being added that he had not read even a word written in them. For the vices of priests,” he said, “are not to be exposed to the people, lest, taking from it occasion of offense, they more freely set about to sin. Nay, they relate that he also said this: that if with his own eyes he should see a Bishop committing adultery with another's wife, he would cover that nefarious deed with his own cloak, lest the sight of his crime should in any part harm those who beheld it.” So Theodoret. This same history the reader will find more fully expounded in Rufinus, in the tenth book of the Ecclesiastical History, where also is set down the memorable Oration of Constantine, by which that pious Emperor exalts the authority and dignity of the Prelates of the Church of Christ above every height of secular power and dignity. But to us what we have recorded above from Theodoret seemed to make more for the present matter.⁵

St. Gregory, diligently weighing this example of the most prudent piety of Sem and Iaphet toward their father, according to the Tropological interpretation (in which he always excels), beautifully accommodates it to the instruction of those who are ruled by another's command, [showing] how subjects ought to behave toward the vices of their Prelates; lest perchance they either foolishly study to imitate their Prelates' vices, or impudently deride [them], or even dare contumeliously to publish [them]. And he writes thus: “If the life of teachers is justly reprehended, the subjects ought neither to wish to imitate them, nor to despise to venerate those whom they decline to imitate: but let them venerate even what displeases. This is to be shrewdly considered: for a middle way of rectitude and humility is to be held, that the vices of masters so displease, that yet the subjects' mind does not depart from preserving the reverence of the magistracy. Which is well expressed in Noah made drunk, whose uncovered nakedness the good sons, turned away, covered. For we say ‘to turn away’ [aversari] that which we disapprove. To good subjects, therefore, let the evils of their superiors so displease, that yet they conceal them from others. They bring the covering turned away, because, disapproving the deed and venerating the magistracy, they will not see what they cover.” So he.⁶