Study VI
Sin is any want of a conformity to the law of God. Man was created free from sin. He was placed under the government of laws adapted to his condition. But a want of conformity to any item of such law necessarily disorganized and deranged some portion of his original condition. Let us cast a hasty view at the operation of these laws. It is contrary to the law of God that a man should put his hand in the fire; when he does so, his condition is somewhat physically changed, and he is in trouble.
It is contrary to the law of God that a man should bear false testimony; he having done so, his condition is changed mentally, and his troubles increase.
It is contrary to the law of God that a man should remain ignorant; he doing so, is not in the condition of him who has multiplied and replenished his mental and physical capabilities: he is less capable, he has less power.
The law of God is all powerful, and will be executed. The punishment of its breach is certain. It is effect following cause. The whole of God’s creation is planned by this principle.
A want of conformity to the law operates as a poison, that spreads through the moral and physical man, sinking, forcing him down to trouble, pain, misery, ruin, and death.
The boy, intending to appropriate to himself, takes a pin. If there is naught that checks him, petty thefts push him on to deeper crimes, that end in death. The young gentleman drinks the social glass, nor thinks harm to himself; he feels strong, he fears nothing: but habit becomes excess; his physical appearance becomes sickly; his mind obtuse, his pleasures gross; his condition is changed; he is evidently tending downwards to the grave. Andsuch are the course and progress of every other sin; for, whatever has a tendency to injure the character, health, mind, and body, is sin.
Speculators upon the holy writ may say what they will; yet it is certain, that act, called the eating the apple, was an act, whatever it may have been, that necessarily injured the character, health, mind, and body of man. It is certain, because it did so. It was the very birth of death itself. The wages of sin are death—the Lord God Almighty hath spoken it!! Another law of God, till then unknown to man, was brought instantly into operation. His wants were changed; the earth no longer produced spontaneously to them. In the emphatic language of that day, it was cursed, that he might have less leisure time and opportunity to continue in the downward course of sin to sudden destruction and death. He was in great mercy condemned to labour for the supply of his daily wants; he was made the slave to the necessities of animal life. Is it necessary to quote Scripture to show that it abounds with the doctrine that idleness is a wonderful promoter of sin? God in great mercy contrived that his hungry body and naked back should in some measure keep him from it.
“Therefore, the Lord sent him forth from the garden of Edento tillthe ground from which he was taken.”Gen.iii. 23, “To till” is translated fromלַֽעֲבֹד֙laʿăbōdla avod, to slave. It is the very word that means a slave; but is here used as a verb, and literally meansto slave the ground. In this early instance of its use in holy writ, in relation to man, it is used as a verb, to show us, not that he had become the property of any other person, but a slave to his own necessities, and that the labour required was the labour of a slave.
Until man had become poisoned by sin there was no want of a law, of an institution to interpose between him and his sudden destruction and death.
This is the first degree of slavery among poor, fallen men, and upon which now depend their health, happiness, and continuance of life.
LESSON II.
“But Cain was a tiller of the ground.” The wordtilleris translated from the same word used as a noun,a slave of the ground, having reference to its cultivation for his support and sustenance. And here we see the peculiar propriety of the language of the Psalmist: “He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for theserviceof man, that he may bring forth food out of the earth.”Ps.civ. 14. In this instance, “service” means slavery, and is translated from the same word,לַֽעֲבֹדַ֣תlaʿăbōdatla avodath. “He causeth the grass to grow for the cattle, and herb for the slavery of man, that he may bring forth food out of the earth.”
But we are directly informed that the Lord had no respect for the offering of Cain; that Cain was very wroth, and his countenance fell; and the Lord reasoned with him and said, “If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door;” also promising him, if he would do well, he should have rule over his younger brother! All this shows that Cain’s progress in sin had become very considerable, notwithstanding the mild yet unavoidable slavery already imposed. But, like many other sinners, he ran his race rapidly, until his hands were dyed in his brother’s blood.
“When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength: a fugitive and a vagabond shalt thou be in the earth.”Gen.iv. 12. Heretillestis also translated from the same word, and means “whenthou slavest the ground,” showing most clearly that the slavery imposed on Adam was attached to Cain, with the additions, that the earth should not yield unto him her strength,—that he should be a fugitive and a vagabond,—and a mark was placed upon him. The expression that the ground should not yield unto him its strength, may be understood to mean that it should not be as productive, or, that some other person should enjoy a portion of the benefit of his labour, or in fact both: his labours were to be in some measure fruitless. And let us notice how this portion of his sentence compares with other announcements of Jehovah:
“Treasures of wickedness profit nothing, but righteousness delivereth from death.”
“The Lord will not suffer the soul of the righteous to famish, but he casteth away the substance of the wicked.”
“The hand of the diligent shall bear rule, but the slothful shall be under tribute.”
“Poverty and shame shall be to him that refuses instruction, but he that regardeth reproof shall be honoured.”
“A good man leaveth an inheritance to his children’s children, but the wealth of the sinner is laid up for the just.”
“The righteous eateth to the satisfying of his soul, but the belly of the wicked shall want.”Proverbs.
“He should be a fugitive and a vagabond.”
“The wicked flee when no man pursueth; but the righteous are bold as a lion.”Prov.xxviii. 1.
“Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the Lord; and his law doth he meditate day and night. And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper. The ungodly are not so, but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away. Therefore the ungodly shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the congregation of the righteous. For the Lord knoweth the way of the righteous; but the way of the ungodly shall perish.”Ps.i.
And again: “Set thou a wicked man over him; and let Satan stand at his right hand. When he shall be judged, let him be condemned; and let his prayer become sin. Let his days be few, and let another take his office. Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. Let his children be continually vagabonds and beg; let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places. Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labour. Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favour his fatherless children. Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out. Let the iniquities of his fathers be remembered with the Lord, and let not the sin of his mother be blotted out.”Ps.cix. 6–14.
Such is the prospect of the desperately wicked: “The curse of the Lord is in the house of the wicked: but he blesseth the habitation of the just.”Prov.iii. 33.
LESSON III.
But Cain had a mark set upon him. The word translatedmarkisא֔וֹתʾôtoth: it means a mark of a miraculous nature, whereby some future thing is of a certainty known, and may be something done or only said. Whatever it may have been, the object was to prevent him from being slain by any one meeting him, by its proclamation of the burden of the curses under which he laboured. It was, therefore, absolutely the mark of sin, sealing upon him and his race this secondary degree of slavery. The mark distinguished them as low and servile as well as wicked, and hence its protective influence.
But what was the mark of sin? What is it now? and what has it ever been? If one is accused of some vile offence, a little presumptive evidence will make us say, It is a very dark crime; it makes him look very black. This figure, if it be one, now so often applied, is so strongly used in Scripture, and in fact by all in every age, that the idea seems well warranted that the downward, humiliating course of sin has a direct tendency, by the Divine law, to even physically degrade, perhaps blacken and disbeautify, the animal man.
A similar doctrine was well known to the Greeks. Demosthenes says to the Athenians, “It is impossible for him who commits low, dishonourable, and wicked acts, not to possess a low, dirty intellect; for, as the person of a man receives, as it were, a colouring from his conduct, so does the mind take upon itself a clothing from the same acts.” See Second Olynthiac. So the Arabians: “God invited unto the dwelling of peace, and directed whom he pleaseth into the right way. They who do right shall receive a most excellent reward, and a superabundant addition; neither blackness nor shame shall cover their faces.”Koran, chap. x.
“On the day of the resurrection, thou shalt see the faces of those who have uttered lies concerning God, become black.”Koran, chap. xxxix.
So, the Mohammedan belief is that a man who has some good qualities may die; but, on the account of his wickedness, he will be sent to hell, and there tormented until his skin is black; butthat if he shall ever be taken thence, by the mercy of God, he will be immersed in the river of life, and his skin become whiter than pearls; seePocock, notis in part. Moris, p. 289 and 292; but that the faces of the wicked will ever remain black. SeeYalkut Shemuni, part ii. fol. 86; alsoSale, Prelim. Disc.p. 104, 105.
So the Mohammedan tradition, that the bad spirits, Monker and Nakir, who, upon the death of a man, come to examine him, are awful and black. SeePrelim. Disc.p. 90. And hence the belief is that the wicked, even before judgment, will stand looking up to God with their faces obscured by blackness and disfigured by all the marks of sorrow and deformity.Idem, p. 99.
So also the fable, that a precious stone of paradise fell down to the earth to Adam, whiter than milk, but turned black by the touch of a wicked woman, or, as others say, by wickedness of mankind generally; but the story is that its blackness is only skin-deep, and hence the Arabians carefully preserved it in the Caaba at Mecca.Idem, p. 125. Also,Al Zamakh, &c.in Koran; andAhmed Ebĕn Yusef; andPocock, Spec.p. 117.
Similar traditions and quotations may be gathered from all quarters of the world, and from all portions of time; but let us turn to the book that never lies nor misleads. “Behold, I am against thee, saith the Lord of hosts; and I will discover thy skirts upon thy face, and I will show the nations thy nakedness, and the kingdoms thy shame.”Nahum, iii. 5.
The word here translated skirts, isשׁוּלַיִךְšûlayikshulaik. We believe that all scholars agree the Hebrew root of this word is borrowed from the Arabicشَيلࣨshaylun, of which the meaning ispostremum cujusque rei; and, hence the ideaskirt, the extreme of something hanging down, tending downward.
And from the same source we have the Hebrew wordשׁוֹלָלšôlālsholal, a captive, a thing captured, &c., because the captive is in an extreme condition; and thusשוּלšûlshūlis made to mean a hem or skirt, from its cognate and Arabic root, the extreme of something tending downwards. Thusشَلَلshalashaal,to be loose,to hang down. From these considerations, the word was often used to mean a prisoner, a captive. Thus,Jobxii. 19: “He leadeth princesaway spoiled,”שׁוֹלָ֑לšôlālsholal,captive,reduced to the lowest extremity, &c.
Therefore, although perhaps not as literal, the idea of the prophet would have been more exactly conveyed had it been translated, “And I will discover the low extremity of your condition upon your face;” and in this same sense the word is used inJer.xiii. 22: “If thou say in thine heart, Wherefore come these things upon me? For the greatness of thine iniquity are thy skirts (שׁוּלַ֖יִךְšûlayikshulaik) discovered, and thy heels made bare.” Evidently proclaiming the doctrine, that a course of sin, through the Divine providence, will leave its mark.
“She is empty, and void, and waste, and the heart melteth, and the knees smite together, and much pain is in all loins, and the faces of them all gather blackness. Behold, I am against thee, saith the Lord.”Nah.ii. 10, 13.
“At Tehaphnehes also the day shall be darkened, when I shall break there the yokes of Egypt; and the pomp of her strength shall cease in her: as for her, a cloud shall cover her, and her daughters shall go into captivity. Thus will I execute judgments in Egypt: and they shall know that I am the Lord.”Ezek.xxx. 18, 19.
“Our necks are under persecution: we labour and have no rest. We have given the hand to the Egyptians, and to the Assyrians, to be satisfied with bread. Our fathers have sinned, and are not; and we have borne their iniquities.Servants(עֲבָדִים֙ʿăbādîmabadim,slaves) have ruled over us: there is none that doth deliver us out of their hand. We get our bread with the peril of our lives, because of the sword of the wilderness. Our skin is black like an oven, because of the terrible famine.”Lam.v. 5–10.
“For the hurt of the daughter of my people I am hurt; I am black; astonishment hath taken hold on me.”Jer.viii. 21.
“Judah mourneth, and the gates thereof languish; they are black unto the ground; and the cry of Jerusalem is gone up.”Jer.xiv. 2.
“Her Nazarites were purer than snow; they were whiter than milk; they were more ruddy in body than rubies; their polishing was of sapphire. Their visage is blacker than a coal; they are not known in the streets.”Lam.iv. 7, 8.
“For ye are not come unto the mount that might be touched,and that burned with fire; nor unto blackness, and darkness, and tempest.”Heb.xii. 18.
“Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever.”Jude13.
“For though thou wash thee with nitre, and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord God.”Jer.ii. 22.
“The show of their countenance doth witness against them.”Isa.iii. 9.
But experience proved that even this second degree of slavery was not a sufficient preventive of sin to preserve man upon the earth. “That the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man.”Gen.vi. 2, 3. The word translated “fair,” and applied to the daughters of men, isטֹבֹ֖תṭōbōtto voth; it is in the feminine plural, and comes fromטָבṭābtav, and cognate with the Syriac wordܛܒܳܗܳtovortob; it merely meansgood,excellent, as the quality may exist in the mind of the person taking cognisance.
It implies no quality of virtue or complexion, but in its use is reflective back to the nominative. It is one of those words which we find in all languages, of which rather a loose use is made. We find it inDan.ii. 32, (the 31st of the English text,) “excellent;” alsoEzrav. 17, “good.” When it is said of Sarah, inGen.xii. 11, that she was “fair,” meaning that she was of a light complexion, the wordיְפַהyĕpayĕphath, is used, and is the same with our Japheth, the son of Noah, and comes fromיָפַהyāpayapha, and means toshine,to give light, and, as an adjective, well means lightness of complexion, fairness, and brilliancy of beauty. So inEsth.ii. 7, “and the maid was fair and beautiful,”יָפַהyĕpayephath. 1Sam.xvi. 12, “Now he was ruddy and of a fair countenance,”יְפַהyĕpayepha. 1Kingsi. 4, “and the damsel was fair,”יָפָ֣הyāpâyaphah.
It is true that inSolomon’s Song, i. 16, “Behold, thou art fair,my beloved,”—ii. 10, “My beloved spake and said unto me, Rise up my love, my fair one, and come away,”—iv. 1, “Behold, thou art fair, my love; behold, thou art fair; thou hast doves’ eyes,”—iv. 7, “Thou art fair, my love; there is no spot in thee,” and also v. 9, “O thou fairest among women,” the wordיָפַהyāpayapha, in grammatical form, is used in the original, and that the term is applied to a black woman. But this whole song is written in hyperbole. In the description of Solomon’s person, it says, v. 11, “His head is as the most fine gold;” in the original, “His head is the most fine gold.” 14: “His hands are as gold rings set with the beryl: his belly as bright ivory overlaid with sapphires. 15: His legs are as pillars of marble, set upon sockets of gold: his countenance is as Lebanon, excellent as the cedars.”
Asiatic poetry always abounded in hyperbole. Thus an Arabian poet, speaking of his mistress, says—
“I behold in thine eyes, angels looking at me.Deformity in another, in thee is excellent beauty;The garments of the shepherd, upon thee, are the finest tissue,And brass ornaments become fine gold.Thy excellence, so great among men, the god beholds,And is astonished at thy beauty.”
“I behold in thine eyes, angels looking at me.Deformity in another, in thee is excellent beauty;The garments of the shepherd, upon thee, are the finest tissue,And brass ornaments become fine gold.Thy excellence, so great among men, the god beholds,And is astonished at thy beauty.”
“I behold in thine eyes, angels looking at me.Deformity in another, in thee is excellent beauty;The garments of the shepherd, upon thee, are the finest tissue,And brass ornaments become fine gold.Thy excellence, so great among men, the god beholds,And is astonished at thy beauty.”
“I behold in thine eyes, angels looking at me.
Deformity in another, in thee is excellent beauty;
The garments of the shepherd, upon thee, are the finest tissue,
And brass ornaments become fine gold.
Thy excellence, so great among men, the god beholds,
And is astonished at thy beauty.”
It is not from such productions that we are to look for the simple, original, and radical meaning of terms; and probably even in the case of Canticles, the wordיָפַהyāpayaphawould not have been allowed by the rules of composition, had it not been first announced in a calm, initiatory manner, that she was a black woman, in order that no misconception might arise from such hyperbole.
Let us suppose ourselves in Arabia, and some poet announces that, for our evening entertainment and diversion, he will deliver a panegyric upon some black woman, and, among other things, says—
Thy neck is as a tower of ivory.Thy teeth are like a flock of sheep.Thy lips are like a thread of scarlet.Thy nose like the tower of Lebanon,That looketh towards Damascus;And the smell of thy nose like apples;And the smell of the roof of thy mouth like the best wineThy stature is like the palm-tree.Thy skin is fairer than snow,And thy breasts like two clusters of grapes.Thy head is as Mount Carmel,And the hair of thy head like purple,And the curls of thy hair like a flock of goats.Behold, thou art fair, my love; thou hast doves’ eyes.
Thy neck is as a tower of ivory.Thy teeth are like a flock of sheep.Thy lips are like a thread of scarlet.Thy nose like the tower of Lebanon,That looketh towards Damascus;And the smell of thy nose like apples;And the smell of the roof of thy mouth like the best wineThy stature is like the palm-tree.Thy skin is fairer than snow,And thy breasts like two clusters of grapes.Thy head is as Mount Carmel,And the hair of thy head like purple,And the curls of thy hair like a flock of goats.Behold, thou art fair, my love; thou hast doves’ eyes.
Thy neck is as a tower of ivory.Thy teeth are like a flock of sheep.Thy lips are like a thread of scarlet.Thy nose like the tower of Lebanon,That looketh towards Damascus;And the smell of thy nose like apples;And the smell of the roof of thy mouth like the best wineThy stature is like the palm-tree.Thy skin is fairer than snow,And thy breasts like two clusters of grapes.Thy head is as Mount Carmel,And the hair of thy head like purple,And the curls of thy hair like a flock of goats.Behold, thou art fair, my love; thou hast doves’ eyes.
Thy neck is as a tower of ivory.
Thy teeth are like a flock of sheep.
Thy lips are like a thread of scarlet.
Thy nose like the tower of Lebanon,
That looketh towards Damascus;
And the smell of thy nose like apples;
And the smell of the roof of thy mouth like the best wine
Thy stature is like the palm-tree.
Thy skin is fairer than snow,
And thy breasts like two clusters of grapes.
Thy head is as Mount Carmel,
And the hair of thy head like purple,
And the curls of thy hair like a flock of goats.
Behold, thou art fair, my love; thou hast doves’ eyes.
True, amid such hyperbole, we might have mistaken her colour, if he had not previously informed us on that subject. But, as it stands, there is no falsehood asserted; there is no liability to mistake. The poet merely means that, at least in his conception, she is as lovely, beautiful, and desirable as all those hyperboles would make her. And we think we have reason to contend, that the hyperbolic use of the wordיָפַהyāpayapha, in Canticles, does not alter in any sense its real meaning, or, in any ordinary use of language, make it a term applicable to people of colour, or in any sense whatever a synonyme of theטָבṭābtav, orטֹבֹתṭōbōtto voth, as used in Genesis.
This explanation is thought necessary, since it is seen that we shall hereafter contend that the descendants of Cain were black.
If we take the passage,Gen.vi. 2, 3, as it stands in connection, it seems to us an obvious deduction that the commingling of the races of Seth and Cain was obnoxious to the Lord.
It is placed in position as the cause why his Spirit should not always strive. He saw that such amalgamation would, did deteriorate and destroy the more holy race of Seth; and therefore determined, with grief in his heart, to destroy man from the earth. All were swept away, except Noah, his three sons, and their four wives. Yet sin found a residence among the sons of Noah, and Canaan was doomed to perpetual bondage, as it now exists upon the earth. “And he said, Cursed be Canaan: a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant.”Gen.ix. 25–27.
The expression “servant of servants” is translated from the wordsעֶ֥בֶד עֲבָדִ֖יםʿebed ʿăbādîmebed abadim, slave of slaves. The expression is idiomatic, and means the most abject slave.
In the passage quoted, the word servant, in all cases, is translatedfromebed, and means slave. There was no master placed over Adam,—it is not certain there was over Cain,—but here the master is named and blessed; and the slave is named, and his slavery pronounced to be of the most abject kind. If we mistake not, it is an article of the Christian creed of most churches, that Adam was the federal head and representative of his race; that the covenant was made, not only with Adam, but also with his posterity; that the guilt of his sin was imputed to them; that each and every one of his posterity are depraved through his sin; that this, their original sin, is properly sin, and deserves God’s wrath and curse. If so, can we say less in the case of Cain? or that a new relation did intervene in the case of Ham?
Having traced the institution of slavery down to its third and final degree, and finding it firmly lodged in the family of Ham, let us now inquire what proof there may be that his descendants are also the descendants and race of Cain. This evidence is to be found in the fact, 1st. That the descendants of Ham were black, inheriting the mark of Cain. 2d. That the traditions and memorials of the family of Ham are also traditions and memorials of the family of Cain. 3d. That Naamah, of the family of Cain, is found to be kept in memory by the earlier descendants of Ham. 4th. That the characteristics of these families are the same, and that no facts are found to exist discordant to the proposition of their being one and the same race; but on the contrary, every vestige of them is in unison with such proposition.
In presenting the evidence touching the several facts of the inquiry, we cannot claim the most lucid or logical arrangement, nor that our remarks will be classed in the best methodical order for the subjects of consideration. But we present the proposition that aboriginal names are always significant terms: thus, Abram, the high father; Abraham, the father of a multitude; Jacob, holding by the heel, supplanting; Israel, one who wrestles with God; and Cain, one that has been purchased or bought: “And she bare Cain, and said, I havegottena man from the Lord.”Gen.iv. 1. The word Cain is fromקָנָחqānāḥCana, and means to buy, to purchase,and, as a noun, a thing bought; and the word “gotten,”קַנִ֥יתִיqanîtîcanithi, terminating with its verbal formation, means,I have boughtorpurchased—his name signifiedone purchased.
There is an allusion to Cain in the Koran; and, although we do not present it as or for authority, yet it may not be out of place to notice what the ancient Arabians have said on the subject: “Verily, I (the prophet) am no other than a denouncer of threats, and a messenger of good tidings unto the people who believed. It is he who hath created you from one person and out of him produced his wife, that he might dwell with her; and when he had known her, she carried a light burden for a time, wherefore she walked easily therewith: but when it became more heavy, they called upon God their Lord, saying, If thou give us a child rightly shaped, we will surely be thankful. Yet when he had given them a child rightly shaped, they attributed companions unto him, for that which he had given them. But far be that from God, which they associated with him! Will they associate with him false gods, which create nothing, but are themselves created, and can neither give them assistance nor help themselves?”Koran, chap. vii.
The Arabian commentators, in explanation of this passage, relate a tradition among them. They say, when Eve was big with her first child, the devil came to frighten and fill her mind with apprehension. But he pretended to her that by his prayers to God he could persuade him to cause her to have a well-shaped child, a son, the likeness of Adam, and that she should be safely delivered of it, upon the condition that she should dedicate or name the childabed al hareth, the slave of the devil, instead of the name that Adam would give it,abed Allah, the slave of God; that Eve accepted the terms, and the child was born, &c. The legend is varied by the commentators, some saying the child died as soon as born, or that the devil applied to Adam instead of Eve, &c.; but they all agree thatal harethwas the name the devil went by among the angels.
It is a little remarkable that the passage inGen.iv. 2, “But Cain was a tiller of the ground,” Heb.obed adamah, the slave of the ground, would be, in Arabic, this phrase,abed al hareth, the cognate of the Hebrew wordארצʾrṣerets, the earth. And therefore the Arabic,abed al hareth, will be a translation of the Hebrew in Genesis. This legend will be found inAl Beidawi, Jallado' ddin, Zamakhshari, et al.SeeSale’s Koran, vol. i. p. 360.
The discovery of the western continent by Columbus was the great and absorbing event of the age in which it happened. It was an event which, in consideration of the characteristics of men, would be held in commemoration: in all parts of the world it would be a matter of such record as literature made convenient, or the relative influence of the event rendered constant to the mind. And hence we find it referred to not only in books, but in the continent discovered; it is commemorated by the application of the name of the discoverer to its seas, lakes, rivers, mountains, districts of country, cities, towns, &c. Now, if at the time of the event, the world had not advanced to the achievement of literary records, it is evident that the latter mode of commemoration could have been the only one practicable; and history shows us that this mode of commemoration was adopted at the earliest ages, nor laid aside even at this day. This disposition to commemorate is one of the characteristics of the whole human family. Thus Eve commemorated some event, described as the purchase of her first-born of the Lord, by giving said first-born the name of “one purchased.”
“And the sons of Noah that went forth of the ark were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth: and Ham is the father of Canaan.” “And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without.” “And Noah awoke from his wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him. And he said, Cursed be Canaan.”Gen.ix. 18, 22, 24, 25. The things here recorded took place in quick succession from the removal of Noah’s family from the ark. Ham ultimately had four sons, the youngest of whom he named Canaan. Is there any evidence, at the time of these records, that any of the children of Ham were born, and especially his youngest?
It does appear to us that the word Canaan, as here used, does not mean any particular son of Ham. It is evidently used at a time before he had any sons. From the manner of the relation it seems probable the planting of the vineyard was among the first things Noah did after the flood. Two or three years was all the time required for the consummation of this event. In case Ham had married a female of the race of Cain, he had also identified himself with that race, and might well be called by his father, especially at a moment of displeasure, by a term emphatically showing, yea announcing prophetically, his degradation through all future time,—the degradation to which that connection had reduced him.
The ill-manners of Ham towards his father were not the great cause of the curse. The cause must have previously existed. The ill-manners only influence the time of its announcement. Even had it never been announced, the consequences would have been the same. The sentence of the law is only declaratory of the relation in which one has placed himself. The cause of the curse or degradation here pronounced must have been something adequate, to have produced it. The ill-manners could have no so great effect. And let us inquire, where are we to find an adequate cause for the immediate degradation of an unborn race, unless we find it in intermarriage. His intermarriage, then, could have been with no other than the race of Cain? When Noah spoke to Ham, and said, “Cursed be Canaan,” he had no reference to any particular descendant of Ham, but included them all, as the race of Cain, and, in reproof and disparagement to his son, reproaching the connection. Suppose, even at this day, a descendant of Japheth should choose to amalgamate with the Negro, could not his father readily foretell the future destiny of the offspring,—their standing among the rest of his family? The termCanaan, thus spoken and applied to Ham, was significant of the character his conduct had created, by identifying himself with the race of Cain. It was a new name, deeply and degradingly distinguishing him from the rest of his father’s family. Jacob was called Israel, after having wrestled with God; but an honourable cognomen would be made known and used, whereas one of reverse character might or might not.
It cannot be expected, at this late day, to account for the anomalies of the ancient Hebrew. Terms applied as proper names, whether significant or not, are in all languages, and in all ages, subject sometimes to strange and even oblique alterations. Thus, in the family of Benjamin, “Ard,” of Genesis and Numbers, is changed intoAddarin Chronicles; and thusColonof Genoa was converted intoColumbusin the western continent.
Thus,MuppimandHuppim, in Genesis, are changed intoShuphamandHuphamin Numbers, and intoShephuphamandHuramin Chronicles. SeeGen.xlvi. 21,Num.xxvi. 39, and 1Chron.viii. 5. The Kenites, Kennizites, and Canaanites ofGen.xv. 19; the Kenaz, xxxvi. 11 and 42; the Kenite and Kenites ofNum.xxiv. 21; theKenitesof 1Sam.xxvii. 10, xv. 5, 6;Judgesiv. 11–17; and the city called “Cain,”הַקּ֭יִןhaqqyinha Kain,Josh.xv. 57, alsoKinah,קִינָ֥הqînâidem22,—are all legitimately derived and descendedfrom the name given to the first-born of mankind. Doubtless a critical search would find many more; but in all these instances the derivative is used for and by the descendants of Ham. But no instance is found where any such derivative is in use by the unmixed posterity of Shem or Japheth. We surely need not point in the direction of the cause of these facts.
InJudgesiv. 11, we have, “Now, Heber the Kenite,הַקֵּינִי֨haqqêniyha Keni,) which was of the children of Hobab, (the Jethro of Genesis,) the father-in-law of Moses.” We shall hereafter have occasion to show that the father-in-law of Moses was a descendant of Misraim, the second son of Ham; that he dwelt in the mountains of Midian, and, when spoken of in regard to his country, was called a Midianite; but his daughter, when spoken of in regard to her colour, was called an Ethiopian; but now, when he is spoken of in regard to his race, he is called a Cainite,Kenite.
InJosh.xv. 17, we have a derivative in common origin of the foregoing, in “Kenaz,” the brother of Caleb; but upon examining 1Chron.ii., we shall find a sufficient reason in the blood of that family; and in all instances where such derivative is found, we shall find the same cause to warrant its use.
Such evidence as there may be that Ham did take to wife some particular female of the race of Cain, will also be the most positive evidence that their descendants are one and the same.
Let it be noticed that, immediately preceding the account of the flood, and the causes which led to that judgment upon the earth, we are presented with the genealogical tables of the families of Cain and Seth, down to that period; and that these tables terminate with Ham, in that of Seth, and in the female Naamah, the daughter of Lamech, in the genealogy of Cain. Ham and Naamah are thus placed upon a parallel, so far as it regards these tables.
It surely is not difficult to perceive the cause why, in the table of Seth, the genealogical line ending in the family of Noah was selected; but, if the entire race of Cain were to be destroyed by the flood, why was the particular line ending in Naamah chosen?Why was any such table of his race required? Beside Eve, the two wives of Lamech and this Naamah are the only females whose names are given before the flood? If the entire race of Cain was destroyed, how was the name of Naamah of more importance for us to know than that of thousands of the same race? Why has God sent these facts down to us? Has he ever revealed to us any thing unnecessary for us to know? Is it consistent with his character to do so? There have been, through all time since the deluge, traditions and legends among the Arabians, and many other Asiatic tribes, that this Naamah and her posterity continued upon the earth subsequent to that period. We give in substance a tale of traditionary lore among the Eastern nations, found in the Book Zohar, and referred to by Sale, page 87. They believe that at an extremely ancient time, there was an inferior race of beings, whom they call “jin,” (query, a cognate ofינהynhyanaorjana, to cast down, destroyed, used in a bad sense, to cast away;) that this race was created from, by, or someway connected with fire, heat, &c., either in their original state or in an acquired condition; that they eat, drink, propagate, and die, and are subjects of salvation or reprobation, like men; that they inhabited the world for ages before Adam was created; that they fell at length into general corruption; that, therefore, Eblis (one of the names of the devil) drove them into a remote part of the earth, and confined them there; but, however, some of their race remained; and that Tahmunah, (the Noah of the Hebrew Scriptures,) one of the ancient kings of Persia, drove them into the mountains ofKâf.
Another version of the same legend is, that this race of beings was begotten by Aza with Naamah, the daughter of Lamech. (Let us here note,אזאʾzʾazais a Chaldaic word, meaningheat, to grow hot, &c., and as such is used inDan.iii. 22,—therefore a synonyme with Ham, as applied to the son of Noah.) But some have it that the race is the joint offspring, or from the double paternity, of Aza and Azael. (Let us also notice, that this monstrosity of paternity is reduced to a single personage by the fact, that the Hebrew suffixelmerely gives quality, even by repetition, as thus,—Aza the mighty Aza.) But this version of the legend denominates the race “Shedim,” the plural ofshed, a word sometimes used to express idols, but more often used to mean desolation, destruction, &c.; and because the nursing breast is often exhausted, or from the notion that such exhaustion is akin to a thing destroyed, this word is applied to the female breast; andhence a posterity strongly marked by natural peculiarities would very readily take some name expressive of such fact. Even at this day, in reference to such peculiarities, we say, they took it from the “breast.”
We deem it unnecessary to enter into a critical history of the wordshedorshedim, as used by the Arabians, the “sed” of the Hebrews; but we may be permitted to remark that, from its conveying the idea of destruction, desolation, so strongly, the Hebrews applied it also to mean a “field,” or country, in a destroyed or desolate or uncultivated condition; and it is thus used in many places. SeeGenesisiii. 1.; and is thus the word we callSodom. It always carries with it the idea opposite to improvement; and, governed by the same leading idea, writers have applied it, perhaps rather figuratively, to any living existence found wandering over waste and solitary districts. We might pursue the subject of this tradition, and from the analogy of language, as well as from ancient associations, at least find some evidence thatZahmurahwas no other than Noah; that the affix “el” withAzaarose from the acknowledged superiority of the race of Seth to that of Cain, in consequence of which they were sometimes described as “the sons of God,”Gen.vi. 4; and that the tradition points to the race of Ham, and their humble condition in the world.
Traces of this legend will not only be found as above, but also in Gemara, in Hagiga, and Igrat Baale Hayyin, c. 15.
If it be a fact that the Negro race are the descendants of Ham and Naamah, the daughter of Lamech, of the race of Cain, it might be thought there would still be existing some traditions of such an extraordinary fact. As such we present the legend: not that we attach to it any undue importance, and especially not to be received as evidence at all, in contradiction of one word found in the holy books. But if a legend of ancient time shall be found, when sifted from the ignorance of fable or the fraud of design, to coincide with facts as related in the holy books, we may be permitted to consider the same as a circumstance not altogether unworthy of consideration.
But, we repeat, unless Naamah was to survive the destruction of the deluge, why was her name, why was her genealogy recorded and sent down to future time?
We think it certain that if she did survive the flood, she must have done so as the wife of one of Noah’s sons. Now, as it is evident that the intermixture of the two races was regarded by Jehovahas a sin, it is not probable that either Shem or Japheth took her to wife, since they were both most honourably distinguished by a public blessing immediately after the flood.
But again: Noah had been preaching the then impending ruin near a hundred years. Lamech might well have had some glimpses of the subdiluvian world, and certainly saw the consequential ruin to young Ham, of the holy family of Noah, from such a connection with his daughter, Naamah. It could not otherwise than operate as a moral death to all the high hopes of him and his posterity. In case such connection was formed, and Lamech was forward in aiding or influencing it, then well might his troubled soul exclaim to his two wives as related.
But in case Ham did take to wife this daughter of Lamech, we might expect her name also to be held in remembrance by her posterity, as we have seen to some extent was that of Cain; and if we find such fact to exist in regard to her, it will be to our mind strong additional proof, that the descendants of Ham were in common the descendants of Cain. We notice here the fact, which we may hereafter deem necessary to prove, that, of the children of Ham, Cush originally settled in Arabia and the southwestern parts of Asia generally, Misraim in Egypt, Phut in the northern parts of Africa and southward indefinitely, and Canaan in Palestine.
When this latter country came to be conquered by Joshua, he found a city by the name of “Naamah,” situated in that portion which was given to the tribe of Judah. SeeJosh.xv. 41. But we shall directly see that there must have also been another city by the name of “Naamah,” situated probably in the region originally occupied by Cush. The book of Job is supposed to have been written as early as the days of Abraham. One of the men named in it is Zophar the “Naamathite.” SeeJobii. 11; also xi. 1.; also xlii. 9. He was an inhabitant of “Naamah,” at a much more ancient period than the time of Joshua. Job is represented as of the land of “Uz,” far distant from the land of Canaan, in the eastern parts of Arabia. His intimate friends and acquaintances cannot be expected to have been of so distant a country as was the land of Judea. The evidence is then that there must have been a city in the land of Cush by the same name. But inGen.x. 7, one of the sons of Cush is calledRaamah: we think those who will examine the subject will find this term a mere alteration or adulteration ofNaamah, as there are many others, a tedious explanation of which might not be excused at our hand. Suffice it thento say that among the Cushites at a very early period one whole tribe were called “Naamathites,” distinct from theNaamathitesthat lived in the city ofNaamahconquered by Joshua. Another variation of this word will be found in the word “Hamathites,”Gen.xvi. 18. This word is used, differently varied, inNum.xiii. 21, xxvi. 40;Judgesiii. 3; 1Kingsx. 65, xiv. 21–31; 2Kingsv. 1–27; 2Sam.viii. 9; 1Chron.viii. 4, 7; 2Chron.viii. 3, xii. 13;Isa.x. 9, also xi. 11, also xvii. 10;Ezek.xlvii. 16, 20, also xlviii. 1, and perhaps many other places; and in all cases in reference to individuals, the people and country of the Canaanites, and no doubt in memory of their great female progenitor, Naamah, the daughter of Lamech, of the race of Cain.
Before we close this branch of our inquiry, let us examine into the significancy and composition of the name “Naamah,” as applied to the daughter of Lamech: and we take occasion here to say how deeply we are indebted to the labours of the Rev. Dr. Lee, the regius professor of Hebrew in the University of Cambridge, England, and whom we have no question in believing to be among the most penetrating oriental scholars of the age. By an intimate knowledge of the Asiatic languages, he discovered that in many instances where, in a cognate case, the Heemanti would be used in Hebrew, in them the word was supplied with a particle, changing or influencing the sense. Upon full research, he determined that the Heemanti, in Hebrew, were the fragments of ancient or obsolete particles, still influencing the significance as would have done the particles themselves. Let us take an example in our own language:ableimplies fulness of power; add to it the prefixun, and you reverse the sense wholly. Yet we do not perceive, without reflection, that the prefix really is a contraction of something similar to “I am not,” &c.
With this door open to a constitutional knowledge of the language, let us take the wordצםʿmam. The terminating aspirate of the word Naamah will be readily formed from this by the usual feminine, as a fragment of theבּוּתbûtlaterבַּתbatbath. And forthe prefixnun, we beg leave to quote from Lee’s Lectures, pages 123 and 124:
“We come now to propose a conjecture on the prefixnun, and on the modification of sense which primitive words undergo in consequence of its influence. If then we take this (נn) as the defective form of some primitive word, appearing sometimes in the form ofהנhn, at other times asנnonly, we may suppose it to have been derived from the (Arabic) root, which, had it been preserved in Hebrew, might have been writtenהָנָֽהhānâhanah,אָנָהʾānâanah, orאָנָאʾānāʾana. The senses attributed to it by Castell (in his Arabic Lexicon) are, among others,‘ad extremum perfectionis terminum pervenit—assecutus fuit, seu percepit—retinuit, detinuit, coercuit,—lenitate, modestia et patientia usus fuit,’&c. Supposing this word, or some defective form of it, to be construed with any other, the sense of both taken together would, in general, give the force of the forms thus compounded. And as this form of compound is often in the leading word of one of the conjugations, it becomes the more important to ascertain its properties. Primitive words receiving this particle will have a sort of passive sense, or will exhibit subjection to the action implied by the primitive accidentally, but not habitually. Words receiving this augment, subjecting them to the action implied by the primitive word, may, when the context requires it, also be construed as having a reciprocal sense, or as implying possibility,” &c.
Now then, let us present examples of the influence of this particular Heemanti: —שָׂכּוּרśākkûrsakur,a hireling, one whose habit is to be hired, one whose occupation is that of being hired by others. Addנnnun, and we haveנִשְׂכָּ֔רוּniśkārûniskkaru, as in 1Sam.ii. 5, and translated thus: “They that were full have hired out themselves for bread.” The idea in Hebrew is: They who were habitually full, from the force of the circumstances influencing the case, have been compelled to hire themselves to others for bread. Thesakuris a hireling from habit, from constitution, from custom, &c., and which idea enters into the meaning of the word. But the prefix of the proposed Heemanti at once destroys all idea of habit, fitness, constitution, or custom; but yet the individual is a “hireling,” but only as the force of circumstances influencing the case compelled him to be so. Thus this Heemanti gives a reflective quality, reflecting back upon the agent or actor, as thus:שָׁמַרšāmarshamar,he guards,נִשְׁמַרnišmarnishmar,he guards himself; that is, under the force of circumstances affecting the case, he was compelled toguard himself. Thusכּמרkmrchemaris sometimes used to express the ideablack, as a constant, habitual quality. InLam.v. 10, we find it with this Heemanti, thus,נִכְמָ֔רוּnikmārûnichemaru, “our skin was black;” not that their skin was naturally and habitually black, but made so by the facts of the case: and this same word, with this Heemanti, is used inGen.xliii. 30, and translated, by attempting to express a Hebrew cognate idea, into “yearn.” The idea is, his bowels did not habitually “yearn,” but the action was forced upon him by the facts of the case; and the same again in 1Kingsiii. 26. InHoseaxi. 8, we find it again translated “my repentings are kindled:” because his people were bent on backsliding, which would cause the Assyrian to be their king, and war to be in their cities continually, and their bad counsels themselves to be destroyed, his repentings were forced to be “kindled.” See the passage.
This particle then prefixed to the wordעםʿmam, with its feminine termination, makes the wordנעמהnʿmhNaamah, with the meaning, under the condition of things, she was to become a people distinct to herself; not that she would be a people absolutely, by the habitual action of constituent ability, but she would be a people distinct to herself, only as the peculiar influencing causes made her so,—showing also that these causes gave distinction and character to her posterity. Thus her very name shadowed forth the condition of her race. A Frenchman goes to England, orvice versa: a generation passes and nationality is lost. Not so with the Ethiopian. For “though thou wash thee with nitre and take thee much soap, yet thine iniquity is marked before me, saith the Lord God.”Jer.ii. 22.
A form of the word “Naamah” is used in character of a masculine plural, inIsa.xvii. 10, and translated “pleasant,” as if fromנעםnʿmnam. Forced to differ from this translation, we beg leave to place the whole passage before the scholars of the day: