form of expression was designed to point out Canaan as a marked individual.
In verses 26 and 27 we find the same form of expression twice, "and Canaan shall be his servant." We now have the curse indirect. In both cases, however, it is manifest that Canaan was the person subjected to this curse. Neither directly nor indirectly is Ham, the father, denounced by Jsoah; and therefore we have the authority of the word of God, for the affirmation that the curse was not pronounced upon Ham."[1]
Now, in order to involve the Negro race in this malediction, one of two things must be proved: either,
1st. That Noah, in mentioning Canaan, intended to include all the children of Ham; or,
2d. That the Negro race, in Africa, are the descendants of Canaan.
4. THE WHOLE FAMILY OF HAM NOT ACCURSED.
It cannot be proved that all the sons of Ham were included in the curse pronounced upon Canaan. Ham had four sons: "And the sons of Ham, Cash, and Mizraim, and Phut, and Canaan." Gen. x. 6.
- ↑ In an old work entitled "The General History of the World," I find the following sentence: "Some have believed that Noah cursed Canaan because he could not well have cursed Ham himself, whom God had not long before blessed." And he refers to Sermon 29, Chrysostom. in Genesis.
are simply mentioned as Shem and Japheth, without any parallel genealogical adjunct to their names." See "Prophetical Dissertations:" Dis. ii. p. 102, note
