erred: The curse was pronounced upon Canaan, not upon Ham. "And he said, Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren." Gen. ix. 25. This is the utterance of the Divine word, clear, plain, distinct. There may be differences of opinion as to the cause, the nature, the extent, the justice, and the influence of this judgment; but as it respects the person who is cursed, the word of God is specific and pointed: "Cursed be Canaan;" and in this we have the curse, direct.
No one, indeed, can deny that learned and distinguished divines have thought that Ham fell under the dire influence of this strong malediction. The suppositions of such most eminent divines as Poole, and Henry, and Newton, have already been presented. But what are they when contrasted with the distinct and emphatic word of God? They suppose that Ham was cursed; the word of God says, "Cursed be Canaan."
But, as though the Holy Spirit intended that there should be no error or mistake in the matter, we find the curse upon Canaan repeated, that is, by implication, again and again, in this same chapter, (chap, ix.,) both in the context and sub-text. In the 18th verse of this (ix.) chapter it is written: "And the sons of Noah, that went forth of the ark, were Shem, and Ham, and Japheth; and Ham is the father of Canaan." Why are Shem and Japheth spoken of individually, while Ham is mentioned in relation to his son Canaan?[1] Why, there can be no doubt that this
- ↑ Mr. Faber asks, "Why Ham should be specially distinguished as the father of Canaan, while, in the very same prophecy, his two brothers
