Chapter 4

But we have this singular expression in the Bible, occurring about the flood: That it repented the Lord that he had made _man_ on the earth, and that it _grieved him at his heart_. Now, it is clear that God could not refer, in these expressions, to Adam as the man whom it repented and grieved him that he had made; for Adam was a part of himself, and became so when God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and he became a living soul, immortal, and must exist, _ex consequentia_, as long as God exists. God can not hate any part of himself, for that would be perfection hating perfection, and Adam did partake of the divine nature to some extent; and therefore the _man_ here referred to could not have been Adam's posterity; and must have been, from the same logic of facts, the _man_, negro, the beast, called by God, _man before he created Adam_. Now, it must have been some awful crime, some terrible corruption, that could and did cause God to repent, to be grieved at his heart, that he had made man. What was this crime? what this corruption? Was it moral crimes confined to Adam's race? Let us see. It was not the eating of the forbidden fruit; for that had been done long before. It was not murder; for Cain had murdered his brother. It was not drunkenness; for Noah, though a preacher of righteousness, did get drunk. It was not incest; for Lot, another preacher of righteousness, committed that. It was not that of one brother selling his own brother as a slave, to be taken to a strange land; for Joseph's brethren did that, and lied about it, too. It was not--, but we may go through the whole catalogue of moral sins and crimes of _human_ turpitude, and take them up separately, and then compound them together, until the whole catalogue of _human_ iniquity and infamy is exhausted, and then suppose them all to be perpetrated every day by _Adam's race_, and as they have been _before_ and _since_ the flood, still we would have but one answer, and that answer would be, It _is none of these, nor all of them combined_, that thus caused God to repent and be grieved at his heart, that he had made _man_; but add one more--nay not _add_, but take one crime alone and by itself--one _only_, and that crime Adam's children, the sons of God, amalgamating, miscegenating, with the _negro--man--beast, without soul--without the endowment of immortality_, and you have the reason, _why_ God repented and drowned the world, because of its commission. It is a crime, _in the sight of God_, that can not be _propitiated_ by any sacrifice, or by any oblation, and can not be forgiven by God--_never_ has been forgiven on earth, and never will be. Death--death inexorable, is declared by God's judgments on the _world_ and _on nations_; and he has declared death as its punishment by his law--death to both male and female, without pardon or reprieve, and beyond the power of _any_ sacrifice to expiate.

That Adam was especially endowed by his Creator, and by him commissioned with authority to rule and have dominion over everything created on earth, is unquestioned; that to mark the extent of his dominion, everything _named by him_ was included in his right to rule them. His wife was the _last thing_ named by him, and consequently under his rule, government and dominion. But a being called man existed before Adam was created, and was _named man_ by Adam, and was to be under his rule and dominion, as all other beasts and animals. But did God call Adam _man_, after he had created him? Most certainly he did not. This fact relieves us of all doubt as to _who_ was meant as the _men_ of whose daughters the sons of God took their wives, independent of the preceding irrefragable proofs, that it was the negro; and the crime of amalgamation thus committed, brought the flood upon the earth. There is no possibility of avoiding this conviction.

But this will be fully sustained as we advance. Cush was Ham's oldest son, and the father of Nimrod. It appears from the Bible, that this Nimrod was not entirely cured, by the flood, of this antediluvian love for and miscegenation with negroes. Nimrod was the first on earth who began to monopolize power and play the despot: its objects we will see presently. _Kingly power_ had its origin in love for and association with the negro. Beware! Nimrod's hunting was not only of wild animals, but also of _men_--the negro--to subdue them under his power and dominion; and for the purposes of rebellion against God, and in defiance of his power and judgment in destroying the world, and for the _same sin_. This view of Nimrod as a _mighty_ hunter, will be sustained, not only by the facts narrated in our Bible, of what he did, but to the mind of every Hebrew scholar, it will appear doubly strong by the sense of the original. We see that God, by his prophets, gives the name _hunter to all tyrants_, with manifest reference to Nimrod as its originator. In the Latin Vulgate, Ezekiel xxxii: 30, plainly shows it. It was Nimrod that directed and managed--ruled, if you please--the great multitude that assembled on the Plain of Shinar. This multitude, thus assembled by his arbitrary power, and other inducements, we shall see presently, were mostly _negroes_; and with them he undertook the building of the tower of Babel--a building vainly intended, by him and them, should reach heaven, and thereby they would escape such a flood as had so recently destroyed the earth; and for the _same sin_. Else why build such a tower? They knew the sin that had caused the flood, for Noah was yet living; and unless they were again committing the _same_ offense, there would be no necessity for such a tower. That the great multitude, gathered thus by Nimrod, were mostly negroes, appears from the facts stated in the Bible. God told Noah, after the flood, to subdue the earth "for all beasts, cattle," etc., "are delivered into thy hands." The negro, as already shown, was put into the ark with the beasts, and came out of it along with them, as one. If they went into the ark by sevens, as is probable they did, from being the head of the beasts, cattle, etc., then their populating power would be in proportion to the whites--as seven is to three, or as fourteen is to six; and Nimrod _must_ have resorted to them to get the multitude that he assembled on the Plain of Shinar; for the Bible plainly tells us where the other descendants of Noah's children went, including those of Nimrod's _immediate_ relations; and from the Bible account where they _did_ go to, it is evident _that they did not go with Nimrod_ to Shinar. This logic of facts, therefore, proves that they were negroes, and explains why Nimrod is called the _mighty_ hunter before, or _against_ the Lord, as it should have been translated in this place. David stood _before_ Goliah; but evidently _against him_. The whole tenor of the Bible account shows these views to be correct, whether the negro entered the ark by sevens or only a pair. For, when we read further, that they now were all of one speech and one language, they proposed, besides the tower, to build them a city, where their power could be _concentrated_; and if this were accomplished, and they kept together, and acting in _concert_, under such a man as the Bible shows Nimrod to have been, it would be impossible for Noah's descendants to _subdue_ the earth, as God had charged they should do. It was, therefore, to prevent this _concentration_ of power and numbers, that God confounded their language, broke them into bands, overthrew their tower, stopped the building of their city, and scattered or dispersed them over the earth.

Let us now ask: Was not their tower an _intended_ offense to, and defiance of, God? Most certainly. If not, why did God destroy it? Did God ever, _before_ or _after_, destroy any _other_ tower of the many built about this time, or in any subsequent age of the world, made by any _other_ people? No. Why did he not destroy the towers, obelisks and pyramids, built by Mizraim and his descendants, on the banks of the Nile? And why prevent _them_ from building a city, but for the purpose of destroying concentrated power, to the injury of Noah's children, and their _right_ from God to rule the earth? The Bible nowhere tells us where any of the beasts of earth went at any time: hence, the negro being one, it says not one word about where any of them went. But we are at no loss to find them, when we know their habits. The negro, we know from his habits, when unrestrained, never inhabits mountainous districts or countries; and, therefore, we readily find him in the level Plain of Shinar. The whole facts narrated in the Bible, of what was _said_ and _done_, go to show that the positions here assumed, warrant the correctness of the conclusion that the main body of these people were negroes, subdued by and under the rule and direction of Nimrod; that the language used by them, why they would build them a tower, shows they were daily practicing the _same sin_ that caused God to destroy the earth by a flood; and that, actuated by the fear of a similar fate, springing from a _like cause_, they hoped to avoid it by a tower, which should reach heaven; that their confusion and dispersion, and the stopping of the building of _their_ city by God--all, all go to show what sort of people they were, and what sin it was that caused God to deal with them so _totally_ different from his treatment of _any other_ people. The very language used by them, on the occasion, goes plainly to prove that those Babel-builders knew that they were _but beasts_, and knew what the effect of that sin would be, that was being committed daily. They knew it was the very _nature_ of beasts to be scattered over the earth, and that they had _no name_ (from God, as Adam had); therefore they said, "one to another, let us make brick, and let us build _us_ a _city_, and a _tower_ whose top may reach heaven; and let us make _us a name_ (as God gave us none), lest we be _scattered abroad_." _Name_, in the Hebrew scriptures, signified "power, authority, rule," as may be readily seen by consulting the Bible. And God said: "And _this_ they will begin to do, and nothing will _be restrained from them_ which they have _imagined to do_; let us, therefore, confound their language, that they might not understand one another." This language is _very peculiar_--used as it is by God--and there is more in it than appears on the surface, or to a superficial reader; but we will not pause to consider it now. The confusion of language _was confined to those there assembled_. Why should God object to _their_ building a city, if they were the descendants of Adam and Eve? But it is plain he did object to _their_ building one. Did God object to Cain's building a city?--although a fratricidal murderer. Did he object to Mizraim and his descendants building those immense cities which they built on the Nile? No. In short, did God ever object to any of the known descendants of Adam and Eve building a city, or as many as they might choose to build? Never. But, from some cause or other, God did object to those people building _that_ city and _that_ tower. The objection could not be in regard to its locality, nor to the ground on which it was proposed to build them; for the great City of Babylon and with higher towers, too, was afterward built on the same spot--_but by another people_--Shem's descendants. Then, what could be the reason that could cause God to come down from heaven to prevent _these_ people from building it? It must be some great cause that would bring God down to overthrow and prevent it. He allowed the people of Shem, afterward, to build the City of Babylon at the same place.

Reader, candid or uncandid, carefully read and reflect on the facts described in this whole affair. Then remember that, on one other occasion, God came down from heaven; that he talked with Noah; that he told him he was going to destroy the world; that he told him the reason why he intended to destroy it. Reader, do not the facts here detailed, of the objects and purposes of these people, and this _logic of facts_, force our minds, in spite of all opposing reasons to the contrary, to the conviction that _the sin_ of these people was the identical sin, and consequent _corruption_ of the race, as that which caused the destruction of the world by the flood; and that sin, the amalgamation or miscegenation of Nimrod and his kindred with beasts--the daughters of _men_--negroes. But, this view of who it was that attempted the building of the tower and city of Babel, and their reasons for doing so, will be confirmed by what is to follow.

The Bible informs us that Canaan, the youngest son of Ham, settled Canaan; and that it was from him the land took its name, as did the land of Mizraim, Ham's second son take its name from him, of what is now called Egypt. It was against this Canaan (not Ham) that the curse of Noah was directed, that a servant of servants should he be to his brethren. There is something of marked curiosity in the Bible account of this Canaan and his family. The language is singular, and differs from the Bible account of every other family in the Bible, where it proposes to give and does give the genealogy of any particular family. Why is this, there must be some reason, and some valid reason too, or there would be no variation in the particulars we refer to from that of any other family? The account in the Bible reads thus--"And Canaan begat Sidon his first born, and Heth." So far so good. And why not continue on giving the names of his other sons as in all other genealogies? But it does not read so. It reads, "And Canaan begat Sidon his first born, and Heth, _and the Jebusite_, and the _Amorite_, and the _Girgasite_, and the _Hivite_, and the _Arkite_, and the _Sinite_, and the _Arvadite_, and the _Zemarite_ and the _Hamathite_, and who afterward were the _families_ of the _Canaanite_ spread abroad." With all _other_ families the Divine Record goes on as this commenced, giving the names of all the sons. But in this family of Canaan, after naming the two sons Sidon and Heth (who settled Sidon, Tyre and Carthage, and were _white_ as is plainly shown) it breaks off abruptly to these _ites_. Why this suffix of _ite_ to _their_ names? It is extraordinary and unusual; there must be some reason, a _peculiar_ reason for this departure from the usual mode or rule, of which _this_ is the only exception. What does _it mean_? The reason is plain. The progeny of the horse and ass species is never _classed_ with either its father or mother, but is called a _mule_ and represents neither. So the progeny of a son of God, a descendant of Adam and Eve with the negro a beast, is not classed with or called by the name of either its father or mother, but is an _ite_, a "_class_"--"_bonded class_," _not race_, God intending by _this distinguishment_ to show to all future ages what will become of _all such ites_, by placing in bold relief before our eyes the _terrible end of these_ as we shall see presently. Reader, bear in mind the end of these _ites_ when we come to narrate them. These _ites_, the progeny of Canaan and the negro, inhabited the land of Canaan; with other places, they occupied what was then the beautiful plain and vale of Siddim, where they built the notorious cities of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim. Like all _counterfeits_, they were ambitious of appearing as the genuine descendants of Adam, whose name they knew or had heard meant "red and fair" in Hebrew; they, therefore, called one of their cities _Admah_, to represent this "red and fair" man, and at the same time it should mean in negro "Ethiopic" "beautiful"--that kind of beauty that once seduced the sons of God, and brought the flood upon the earth. About the time we are now referring to, Abraham, a descendant of Shem was sojourning in Canaan. He had a nephew named Lot who had located himself in the vale of Siddim, and at this time was living in Sodom. One day three men were seen by Abraham passing his tent; it was summer time. Abraham ran to them and entreated that they should abide under the tree, while he would have refreshment prepared for them; they did so, and when about to depart one of them said, "shall we keep from Abraham that thing which I do (God come down again), seeing he shall surely become a great and mighty nation, _for I know he will command his children and household_ after him, _and they shall keep the way of the Lord_;" that is, keeping Adam's race pure--a mission the Jews are to this day fulfilling. And they told Abraham of the impending fate of these cities. Abraham interceded for them, and pleaded that the righteous should not be destroyed with the wicked. God ultimately promised him, that if there were ten righteous in all these cities that he would not destroy them. What strong foundation have we people of the United States in God's mercy and _forbearance_ in this incident? Will we prove worthy? The angels went to Sodom and brought out _all_ the righteous, being only Lot and his two daughters (and their righteousness was not in their morality), his wife being turned into a pillar of salt. This done, God rained fire upon these cities and literally burnt up their inhabitants alive, and everything they had, and then sunk the very ground upon which their cities stood more than a thousand feet beneath, not the pure waters of the deluge, but beneath the bitter, salt, and slimy waters of Asphaltites, wherein no living thing can exist. An awful judgment! But it was for the most awful crime that man can commit in the sight of God, of which the punishment _is on earth_. Exhaust the catalogue of human depravity--name every crime human turpitude can possibly perpetrate, and which has been perpetrated on earth since the fall of Adam, and no such judgment of God on any people has ever before fallen, on their commission. But one crime, one _other_ crime, and that crime the same for which he had destroyed every living thing on earth, save what was in the ark. But now he destroys by fire, not by water, but by fire, men, women and children, old and young, for the crime of miscegenating of _Adam's race with the negroes_. Noah was a preacher of righteousness to the antediluvians, yet he got drunk after the flood. Lot too was a preacher of righteousness to the cities of the plain, and he too not only got drunk but did so repeatedly, and committed a double crime of incest besides. Then we ask, what _righteousness_, what _kind_ of righteousness was it that was thus preached by such men? We speak with entire reverence when we say that the logic of facts shows but little of morality--but it does show, as it _was intended to be shown by God_, that, though frail and sinful in a _moral sense_ as they were, yet, being _perfect_ in their genealogies from Adam and Eve, _they_ could still be _his_ preachers of righteousness, they themselves being _right_ in keeping from beastly alliances.