Chapter 5

But the Bible evidence to the truth of these views does not stop here. God appeared unto Abraham at another time, while sojourning in the land of Canaan, and told him that all _that_ land he would give to him and to his seed after him forever. But the land was already inhabited and owned by these _ites_. If they were the natural descendants of Adam and Eve, would they not have been as much entitled to hold, occupy and enjoy it as Abraham or any other? Most certainly. If these _ites_ were God's children by Adam and Eve, it is impossible to suppose that God would turn one child out of house and land and give them to another, without right and without justice; and which he would be doing, were he to act so. Nay! but the Lord of the whole earth will do right. But God did make such a promise to Abraham, and he made it in righteousness, truth and justice. When the time came for Abraham's seed to enter upon it and to possess it, God sent Moses and Aaron to bring them up out of Egypt, where they had long been in bondage, and they did so. But now mark what follows: God explicitly enjoins upon them, (1.) that they _shall not_ take, of the daughters of the land, wives for their sons; nor give their daughters in marriage to them. Strange conflict of God with himself, if indeed these Canaanites were _his_ children! To multiply and replenish the earth, is God's _command_ to Adam; but his command to Moses is, that Israel, known to be the children of Adam, shall not take wives of these Canaanites for their sons--nor shall they give their daughters to them. Why this conflict of the one great lawgiver, if these Canaanites were God's children through Adam? It could not be to identify the Messiah, for that required only the lineage of one family. But mark, (2.) "But of the _cities_ and _people_ of the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive _nothing that breathes_, but thou shalt _utterly destroy_ them, namely the Hittites, Canaanites," etc., naming all the _ites_--this is their end. Why this terrible order of extermination given? and given by God himself? Will not the Lord of the whole earth do right? Yes, verily. Then, we ask, what is that great and terrible reason for God ordering this entire extermination of these _ites_, if indeed they were his children and the pure descendants of Adam and Eve? What crimes had they committed, that had not been before committed by the pure descendants of Noah? What iniquity had the little children and nursing infants been guilty of, that such a terrible fate should overwhelm them? There must have been some good cause for such entire destruction; for the Lord of the whole earth does right, and only right. Let us see how God deals with _Adam's_ children, _how bad soever they may be, in a moral sense_, in contrast with this order to exterminate. The Bible tells us, that when the Hebrews approached the border of Sier (which is in Canaan), God told them not to touch _that_ land nor its people, for he had given it to Esau for a possession. Yet this Esau had sold his birthright for a mess of pottage, and he and his people were idolaters, and treated the children of Israel with acts of hostility which some of these _ites_ had not. Again, they were not to touch the land of Ammon, nor that of Moab, although _they_ were the offspring of incestuous intercourse, and were, with the people of Sier, as much given to idolatry and all other moral crimes, and as much so as any of these Canaanites whom God directed Moses to exterminate. Why except those, and doom these to extermination? Was not Canaan, the father of these _ites_, a grandson of Noah, and as much related to the Hebrews as were the children of Esau, Moab and Ammon? Certainly. Then, their destruction was not for want of kinship; nor was it because they were idolaters more than these, or were greater _moral_ criminals in the sight of Heaven; but _simply because they were the progeny of amalgamation or miscegenation between Canaan, a son of Adam and Eve_, and the negro; and were _neither_ man nor _beast_. For this crime God had destroyed the world, sown confusion broad-cast at Babel, burnt up the inhabitants of the vale of Siddim, and for it would now exterminate the Canaanite. It is a crime that God has never forgiven, _never will forgive_, nor can it be propitiated by all the sacrifices earth can make or give. God has shown himself, in regard to it, _long-suffering and of_ great forbearance. However much our minds may seek and desire to seek other reasons for this order of extermination of God, yet we look in vain, even to the Hebrews themselves, for reasons to be found, in their superior _moral_ conduct toward God; but we look in vain. The very people for whom they were exterminated were, in their moral conduct and obedience to God, no better, save in that sin of amalgamation. The exterminator and the exterminated were bad, equally alike in every moral or religious sense--save one _thing_, and _one_ thing only--one had not brutalized himself by amalgamating with negroes, the other had. This logic of facts, forces our minds, compels our judgment, and presses all our reasoning faculties back, in spite of ourselves or our wishes, to the conclusion that it was this one crime, and _one crime only_, that was the originating cause of this terrible and inexorable fate of the Canaanite; being, as they were, the _corrupt_ seed of Canaan, God destroyed them. For, if these Canaanites had been the full children of Adam and Eve, they would have been as much entitled to the land, under the grant by God, of the whole earth, to Adam and his posterity, with the right of dominion, and their right to it as perfect as that of Abraham could possibly be; but, being partly _beasts_ and partly _human_, God not only dispossessed them of it, but also ordered their _entire_ extermination, _for he had given no part of the earth to such beings_. This judgment of God on these people has been harped upon by every deistical and atheistical writer, from the days of Celsus down to Thomas Paine of the present age, but without understanding it. This crime must be unspeakably great, when we read, as we do in the Bible, that it caused God to repent and to be grieved at his heart that he had made _man_. For, the debasing idolatry of the world, the murder of the good and noble of earth, the forswearing of the apostle Peter in denying his Lord and Saviour--all, all the crimsoned crimes of earth, or within the power of man's infamy and turpitude to commit and blacken his soul--are as nothing on earth, as compared with this. Death by the flood, death by the scorching fire of God burning alive the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, death to man, woman and child, flocks and herds, remorseless, relentless and exterminating death--is the _just judgment_ of an _all-merciful God, for this offense_. The seed of Adam, which is the seed of God, must be kept pure; it _shall be kept pure, is the fiat of the Almighty_. Man perils his existence, nations peril their existence and destruction, if they support, countenance, or permit it. Such have been God's dealings with it heretofore, and such will be his dealings with it hereafter.

But we have said before, that we intentionally selected Canaan, the youngest son of Ham, and for a purpose. This we will now explain. Had Noah named Ham instead of Canaan, when he declared that he should be a servant of servants to his brethren, the learned world are of the opinion that it would have forever, and _satisfactorily_ settled the question, in conjunction with the meaning of his name in Hebrew, _that Ham was the father_ of the present negro race--that if _this curse_ had been _specifically_ and personally directed against Ham, instead of his youngest son Canaan, then, no doubt could exist on earth, but that Ham was, and is the father of the negro. This is the opinion of the learned. But, why so? Could not the curse affect Canaan as readily? If it could affect Ham in changing his color, kinking his hair, crushing his forehead down and flattening his nose, why would it not be equally potent in producing those effects on Canaan? Surely its effects would be as great on one person as another? It was to relieve our learned men from this dilemma, among others, that we took up Canaan, to show, that although this _curse_ was hurled specifically and personally at Canaan, by Noah, that a servant of servants should he be, yet it carried _no such effects_ with it on Canaan or his posterity. Then, if it did not make the black negro of Canaan, how could it have produced _that effect_ on Ham, Canaan's father? Canaan had two _white_ sons, with long, straight hair, etc., peculiar alone to the white race, and not belonging to the negro race at all, which is proof that the curse did not affect his hair or the color of his skin, nor that of his posterity. Canaan had two white sons by his first wife, Sidon and Heth. They settled Phoenicia, Sidon, Tyre, Carthage, etc. The city of Sidon took its name from the elder. That they were white, and belong to the white race _alone_, we have before proven, unquestionably. But we will do so again, for the purpose of showing what that curse was, and what it did effect, and why this order of extermination. Canaan was the father of all these _ites_. Nine are first specifically named, and then it is added, "and who afterward, were the families of the Canaanite spread abroad." Was not Canaan as much and no more the father of these _ites_, than he was of Sidon and Heth? Certainly. Then why doom them and their flocks and herds to extermination, and except the families of Sidon and Heth, his two other sons? Were they morally any better, except as to their not being the progeny of amalgamation with negroes? They were not. Then why save one and doom the other? If these _ites_ were no worse _morally_ than the children of Sidon and Heth, then it is plain, that we must seek the reason for their destruction, in something _besides moral delinquency_? Let us see if we can find _that_ something? The Bible tells us, that God in one of his interviews with Abraham, informed him that all that land (including all those _ites_) should be his and his seed's after him--"that his seed shall be strangers in a land not theirs, and be afflicted four hundred years, and thou shalt go to thy fathers in peace; _but in the fourth generation_ they shall come hither again, _for the iniquity of the Amorites_" (these representing all the ites), "is _not yet full_."

In the fourth generation their cup of iniquity would _then_ be full--in the fourth generation God gave this order to exterminate these ites, and to leave nothing alive that breathes. If this filling of their cup, referred to _moral_ crimes to be committed, or to moral obliquity as such, then it is _very strange_. If this be its reference, then these people were, at _that_ time (four generations previous to this order for their extermination), _worse_ than the very devil himself, as it was not long before they did fill _their cup_, and the devil's cup is not full yet. If this filling up of iniquity, referred to their _moral conduct_ in the sight of God, how was Moses or Joshua to _see_ that it was full, or _when_ it was full? Yet, they must _know_ it, or they would not know when to commence exterminating, as God intended. How were they to know it? As in the case of Sodom they had a few Lots among them, and the _color_ would soon tell when their iniquity was full, and neither Moses nor Joshua would be at any loss when to begin, or who to exterminate. Consummated amalgamation would tell _when_ their cup of iniquity was full. The iniquity of the Amorites (these representing all) is not _yet_ full, is the language of God--in the fourth generation it will be full, and _then_ Abraham's seed should possess the land, and these _ites_ be exterminated. Let us inquire? Does not each generation, morally stand before God, on their own responsibility in regard to sin? Certainly they do. How then, could the cumulative sins of one generation be passed to the next succeeding one, to their _moral_ injury or detriment? Impossible! But _the iniquity_ here spoken of, _could be so transmitted_; and at the time when God said it, he tells us that it required _four generations_ to make the iniquity full. What crime but the amalgamation of Adam's sons, the children of God, with the negro--beasts--called by Adam _men_, could require four generations to fill up their iniquity, but this crime of amalgamation? None. Then we _know the iniquity_, and what God then thought and yet thinks of it.

Nor is this all the evidence the Bible furnishes, of God's utter abhorrence of this crime, and his decided _disapprobation of the negro_, in those various attempts to _elevate_ him to _social_, _political_ and _religious equality_ with the white race. In the laws delivered by God, to Moses, for the children of Israel, he expressly enacts and charges, "that no _man_ having a _flat nose_, shall approach unto his altar." This includes the _whole negro race_; and expressly _excludes_ them from coming to his altar, for _any act of worship_. God would not have their worship then, nor accept their sacrifices or oblations--_they_ should not approach his altar; but all of Adam's race could. For Adam's children God set up his altar, and for their benefit ordained the sacrifices; but not for the race of _flat-nosed men_, and such the _negro race is_. And who shall gainsay, or _who dare_ gainsay, that what God does is not right? The first attempt at the social equality of the negro, with Adam's race, brought the flood upon the world--the second, brought confusion and dispersion--the third, the fire of God's wrath, upon the cities of the plain--the fourth, the order from God, to exterminate the _nations_ of the Canaanites--the fifth, the inhibition and exclusion, by _express law of_ God, of the _flat-nosed_ negro from his altar. Will the people of the United States, now furnish the sixth? _Nous verrons_.

There remains now but one other point to prove, and that is--That the negro has no soul. This can only be done by the express word of God. Any authority short of this, will not do. But if God says so, then all the men, and all the reasonings of men on earth, can not change it; for it is not in man's power to _give_ a soul to any being on earth, where God has given none.

It will be borne in mind that we have shown, beyond the power of contradiction, that the descendants of Shem and Japheth, from the present day back to the days of our Saviour, and from our Saviour's time back to Noah, their father, that they were all long, straight-haired, high foreheads, high noses, and belong to the white race of Adam. In the case of Ham, the other brother, there is, or has been, a dispute. It is contended, generally, by the learned world, that Ham is the progenitor of the negro race of this our day, and that, such being the case, the negro is our social, political and religious equal--_brother_; and which he would be, certainly, if this were true. The learned world, however, sees the difficulty of how Ham could be the progenitor of a race so distinct from that of Ham's family; and proceed upon their own assumptions, but without one particle of Bible authority for doing so, to account why Ham's descendants should now have kinky heads, low foreheads, flat noses, thick lips, and black skin (not to mention the exceptions to his leg and foot), which they charge to the _curse_ denounced by Noah, not against Ham, but against Ham's youngest son--Canaan. But, to sustain their theory, they further assume that this curse was _intended_ for Ham, and not Canaan; and they do this right in the teeth of the Bible and its express assertions to the contrary. Forgetting or overlooking the fact that, confining its application to Canaan, as the Bible expressly says, yet they ignore the fact that Canaan had two white sons--Sidon and Heth--and that it was impossible for the _curse_ to have made a negro such as we now have, or to have exerted any influence upon either color, hair, etc.; as these two sons of Canaan, and their posterity, are shown, unequivocally, to have been, and yet are, in their descendants, white. The learned world, seeing the difficulties of the position, and the weakness of their foundation for such a tremendous superstructure as they were rearing on this supposed curse of Ham, by his father, undertake to prop it up by saying that Ham's name means black in Hebrew; and, as the negro is _black_, therefore it is that the _name_ and the _curse_ together made the negro, such as we now have on earth. And, although the Bible nowhere _says_, and nowhere charges, or even intimates, that Ham is or was the progenitor of the negro; and in defiance of the fact that _no such_ curse was ever denounced against Ham, as they allege--nor can it be found in the Bible; yet they boldly, on these _assumptions_ and contradictions, go on to say that Ham _is_ the father of the negro of the present day. Contradicting the Bible; contradicting the _whole order of nature_ as ordained by God himself--that like will produce its like; contradicting the effect of every curse narrated in the Bible, whether pronounced by God, or by patriarch, or by prophet; and assuming that it did that, in this case of Noah, which it had never done before nor since--that it did change Ham from a white man to a black negro. Forgetting or setting aside the declaration of the Bible, that Ham and his brothers were the children of one father and one mother, who were perfect in their genealogies from Adam, and that they were white, they assume again, that the Bible forgot to tell us that Ham was turned into a negro for accidentally seeing his father naked in his tent. Tremendous judgment, for so slight an offense! We do not ask if this is probable; but we do ask, if it is within the bounds _of possibility_ to believe it? Did not the daughters of Lot see the nakedness of their father in a much more unseemly manner? Ham seeing his father so, seems altogether accidental; theirs deliberately sought. And on this flimsy, self-stultifying theory, the learned of the world build their faith--that Ham _is_ the progenitor of the negro! While, on the other hand, by simply taking Ham's descendants--those _known to be his descendants now_, and known as much so and as _positively_ as that we know the descendants, at the present day, of Shem and Japheth--that by thus taking up Ham's descendants of this day, we find them like his brothers' children--with long, straight hair, high foreheads, high noses, thin lips, and, indeed, every lineament that marks the white race of his brothers, Shem and Japheth; that we can trace him, with history in hand, from this day back, step by step, to the Bible record, with as much positive certainty as we can the descendants of his brothers; that, with the Bible record after, we can trace him back to his father, Noah, with equal absolute certainty, no one will deny, nor _dare_ deny, who regards outside concurrent history, of admitted authenticity and the Bible, as competent witnesses in the case; that the testimony in regard to Ham and his descendants being of the white race, is more overwhelming and convincing than that of Japheth--and none doubt Japheth's being of the white race; that God himself, foreseeing the slander that after ages would attempt to throw on Ham, as being the father of the kinky-headed, flat-nosed and black-skinned negro, caused a whole nation to do one thing, and that _one_ thing had never been done before, nor by any other nation since, and that he caused them to continue doing that one thing for centuries, and for no other purpose in God's providence, that we can see, but for the _alone_ purpose of proving the identity of Ham's children, from the flood downward, for more than twenty-three centuries, and that they, thus identified, were of the white race; and that this embalmment of Ham's children was so intended, as evidence by God; that like, as the Jewish genealogical tables served to identify Jesus of Nazareth as the Messiah, so this embalming of the children of Mizraim, the second son of Ham, serves to identify his descendants as belonging to the white race; and that, like the Jewish tables of genealogy, when they had accomplished the end designed by God, they both ceased, and at one and the same time.

Mizraim settled what is now called Egypt. He embalmed his dead. Where did he get the idea from? No nation or people had ever done it before; none have done it since. It was a very difficult thing to accomplish, to preserve human bodies after death; and to preserve them to last for thousands of years, was still more difficult. How did Mizraim come to a knowledge of the ingredients to be used, and how to use them? Yet he did it, and did it at once. The only satisfactory answer to these questions, is, that God _inspired him_. Then, it is God's testimony, vindicating _his son Ham_ from the aspersions of men--that he was a negro, or the father of negroes.

Ye learned men of this age--you who have contributed, by your learned efforts, and by your noble but mistaken philanthropy, innocently, honestly and sincerely as they were made, but wrongfully done--to fix and fasten on Ham this gross slander, that he is the father of the present race of negroes, must reexamine your grounds for so believing heretofore, and now set yourselves right. God's Bible is against your views; concurrent history is against them: the existing race of Ham is against them: _God's living testimony_ is against them, in the _dead_ children of Mizraim, embalmed ever since the flood, but now brought forth into the light of day, and testifying for Ham, that he and his descendants were and yet are of the white race. You must now come forth and abandon your fortress of _assumptions_, for _here that citadel falls; for, if Ham is not the father of the negro_ (which is shown _to be an impossibility_) then the negro came out of the ark, _and as we now find him_; and if he came out of the ark, _then he must have been in the ark_; and if he was in the ark, which, by the logic of facts, _we know_ he was--now let us read the Bible, the divine record and see whether or not the negro has a soul. It reads thus: "When the long-suffering of God waited, in the days of Noah, while the ark was preparing, wherein few, that is _eight souls_, were saved;" the negro being in the ark, was not one of those eight souls, and consequently he has _no soul to be saved_--the Bible and God's inspiration being judge. Carping is vain, against God. His order _will stand_, whether pleasing or displeasing to any on earth. But God only promised to _save eight_--Noah and his wife, and his three sons and their wives. These _had souls_, as the apostle (Peter) testifies, and _all that were in the ark that did have souls. The negro was in the ark; and God thus testifies that he has no soul_.