Volume I Part 62 (2/2)

In Acts xvii. 26 the apostle says, ”And G.o.d hath made of one blood all nations of men to dwell on the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation.” In Mark xvi. 15, 16, is recorded that remarkable command of our Saviour, ”GO YE INTO ALL THE WORLD, and preach the gospel TO EVERY CREATURE. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be d.a.m.ned.” (See also Matt. xxviii. 18, 20.) Now there is a very close connection between the statement here made by the apostle, and the command here given by our Lord Jesus Christ; for it was in obedience to this command that the apostle was at that time at Athens.

There, amid the proud and conceited philosophers of Greece, in the centre of their resplendent capital, surrounded on every hand by their n.o.blest works of art and their proudest monuments of learning, the apostle proclaims the equality of ALL MEN, their common origin, guilt, and danger, and their universal obligations to receive and embrace the gospel. The Athenians, like other ancient nations, and like them, too, in opposition to their own mythology, regarded themselves as a peculiar and distinct race, created upon the very soil which they inhabited, and pre-eminently elevated above the barbarians of the earth,--as they regarded the other races of men. Paul, however, as an inspired and infallible teacher, authoritatively declares that ”G.o.d who made the world and all things therein,” ”hath made of one blood,”

and caused to descend from one original pair the whole species of men, who are now by His providential direction so propagated as to inhabit ”all the face of the earth,” having marked out in his eternal and unerring counsel the determinate periods for their inhabiting, and the boundaries of the regions they should inhabit.

The apostle in this pa.s.sage refers very evidently to the record of the early colonization and settling of the earth contained in the books of Moses. Some Greek copies preserve only the word [Greek: enos], leaving out [Greek: aimatos], a reading which the vulgar Latin follows. The Arabic version, to explain both, has _ex homine_, or as De Dieu renders it, _ex Adamo uno_, there being but the difference of one letter in the Eastern languages between _dam_ and _adam_, the one denoting blood, and the other man. But if we take this pa.s.sage as our more ordinary copies read it, [Greek: exenos aimatos], it is still equally plain that the meaning is not that all mankind were made of the same uniform matter, as the author of the work styled Pre-Adamites weakly imagined, for on that ground, not only mankind, but the whole world might be said to be _ex henos haimatos_, i.e., of the same blood, since all things in the world were at first formed out of the same matter. The word _[Greek: aima]_ therefore must be here rendered in the same sense as that in which it occurs in the best Greek authors--_the stock out of which men come_ Thus Homer says,--

”_[Greek: Ei eteon g emos esti kai aimtos emeteroio]_”.

In like manner those who are near relations, are called by Sophocles _[Greek: oi pros aimatos]_. And hence the term _consanguinity_, employed to denote nearness of relation. Virgil uses _sanguis_ in the same sense.

”_Trojano a sanguine duci_.”

So that the apostle's meaning is, that however men now are dispersed in their habitations, and however much they differ in language and customs from each other, yet they were all originally of the same stock, and derived their succession from the first man whom G.o.d created, that is, from Adam, from which name the Hebrew word for blood--i.e.--_dam_--is a derivative.

Neither can it be conceived on what account Adam in the Scripture is called ”the first man,” and said to be ”made a living soul,” and ”of the earth earthy,” unless it is to denote that he was absolutely the first of his kind, and was, therefore, designed to be the standard and measure of all the races of men. And thus when our Saviour would trace up all things to the beginning, he ill.u.s.trates his doctrine by quoting those words which were p.r.o.nounced after Eve was formed. ”But from the beginning of the creation, G.o.d made them male and female, for this cause shall a man leave father and mother and cleave unto his wife”

Now nothing can be more plain and incontrovertible than that those of whom these words were spoken, were the first male and female which were made in ”the beginning of the creation.” It is equally evident that these words were spoken of Adam and Eve for ”Adam said, This is now bone of my bone, and flesh of my flesh; therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife” If the Scriptures then of the New Testament be true, it is most plain and evident that all mankind are descended from Adam.[636]

THE CURSE OF CANAAN.

It is not necessary--nay, it is not admissible--to take the words of Noah, as to Shem and j.a.pheth, as _prophetic_ We shall presently see that, as prophetic, they have failed. Let us not, in expounding Scripture, introduce the _supernatural_ when the _natural_ is adequate. Noah had now known the peculiarities of his sons long enough, and well enough, to be able to make some probable conjecture as to their future course, and then success or failure in life. It is what parents do now a-days. They say of one son, He will succeed,--he is so dutiful, so economical, so industrious. They say of another, This one will make a good lawyer--he is so sharp in an argument. Of another, they say, We will educate him for the ministry, for he has suitable qualifications While of another they may be constrained to predict that he will not succeed, because he is indolent, and selfish, and sensual. Does it require special inspiration for a father, having ordinary common sense, to discover the peculiar talents and dispositions of his children, and to predict the probable future of each of them? Some times they hit it sometimes they miss it. Shall it not be conceded to Noah that he could make as probable a conjecture, as to his sons, as your father made as to you, or as you think yourselves competent to make for either of your sons? Noah made a good hit. What he said as to the future of his sons, and of their posterity, has turned out, in some respects, as he said it would, but _not exactly_,--not so exactly as to authorize our calling his words an inspired prophecy, as we shall presently show.

But, if we set out to establish or to justify slavery upon these words of Noah, on the a.s.sumption G.o.d _spake_ by Noah as to the curse and blessings here recorded, we have a right to expect to find the facts of history to correspond. If the facts of history do not correspond with these words of Noah, then G.o.d did not speak them by Noah as his own. Let us face this matter. It is said, by those who interpret the curse of Canaan as divine authority for slavery, that G.o.d _has hereby ordained that the descendants of Ham shall be slaves_. The descendants of Shem are not, of course, doomed to that curse. Now, upon the supposition that these are the words of G.o.d, and not the denunciations of an irritated father just awaking from his drunkenness, we ought not to find any of _Canaan's descendants out of a condition of slavery, nor any of the descendants of Shem in it_. If we do, then either these are not G.o.d's words, or G.o.d's words have not come true.

But it is a fact that not all of Ham's entire descendants, nor even of Canaan's descendants (on whom _alone_, and not _at all on Ham_, nor on his three other sons, Noah's curse fell), are now, _nor ever have been_, as a whole, in a state of bondage. The Canaanites were not slaves, but free and powerful tribes, when the Hebrews entered their territory. The Carthaginians, it is generally admitted, were descended from Canaan. They certainly were free and powerful when, in frequent wars, they contended, often with success, against the formidable Romans. If the curse of Noah was intended for all the descendants of Ham, it signally failed in the case of the first military hero mentioned in the Bible, who was the founder of a world-renowned city and empire. I refer to Nimrod, who was a son of Cush, the oldest son of Ham. Of this Nimrod the record is, ”He began to be a mighty one in the earth: he was a mighty hunter before the Lord: and the beginning of his Kingdom was Babel, and Erech, and Accad, and Calneh, in the land of s.h.i.+nar. Out of that land went forth a.s.shur and builded Nineveh, and the city Rehoboth, and Calah, and Resen, between Nineveh and Calah; the same is a great city.” This is Bible authority, informing us that the grandson of Ham (Nimrod, the son of Cush) was a mighty man--_the great man_ of the world, in his day--the founder of the Babylonian empire, and the ancestor of the founder of the city of Nineveh, one of the grandest cities of the ancient world. We are not led to conclude, from these wonderful achievements by the posterity of Cush (who was the progenitor of the Negroes), that this line of Ham's descendants was so _weak in intellect_ as to be unable to set up and maintain a government.[637]

FOOTNOTES

[636] The Unity of the Human Races, pp. 14-17.

[637] Curse of Canaan, pp. 5-7. By Rev. C.H. Edgar.

CHAPTER III.

NEGRO CIVILIZATION.

DR. WISEMAN has also shown that both Aristotle and Herodotus describe the Egyptians--to whom Homer, Lycurgus, Solon, Pythagoras, and Plato resorted for wisdom--as having the black skin, the crooked legs, the distorted feet and the woolly hair of the Negro, from which we do not wish, or feel it necessary to infer that the Egyptians were Negroes, but _first_ that the ideas of degradation and _not-human_, a.s.sociated with the dark-colored African races of people _now_, were not attached to them at an early period of their history; and _secondly_, that while depicted as Negroes, the Egyptians were regarded by these profound ancients--the one a naturalist and the other a historian--as one of the branches of the human family, and as identified with a nation of whose descent from Ham there is no question.[638] Egyptian antiquity, not claiming priority of social existence for itself, often pointed to the regions of Habesh, or high African Ethiopia, and sometimes to the North, for the seat of the G.o.ds and demiG.o.ds, because both were the intermediate stations of the progenitor tribes.[639]

There is, therefore, every reason to believe that the primitive Egyptians were conformed much more to the African than to the European form and physiognomy, and therefore that there was a time when learning, commerce, arts, manufactures, etc., were all a.s.sociated with a form and character of the human race now regarded as the evidence only of degradation and barbarous ignorance.

But why question this fact when we can refer to the ancient and once glorious kingdoms of Meroe, Nubia, and Ethiopia, and to the prowess and skill of other ancient and interior African Nations? And among the existing nations of interior Africa, there is seen a manifold diversity as regards the blackest races. The characteristics of the most truly Negro race are not found in _all_, nor to the same degree in _many_.

<script>