Canaan, it is evident, was the youngest of these sons, and Cush the eldest.
Now, the common rule among men is that "the greater includes the less." If, therefore, Cush, the eldest of the sons of Ham, had been the person cursed, then there would have been some strength and plausibility in the plea, that, according to this principle, a curse upon him, that is, Cush, as the head and representative of the family, involved a curse upon his three younger brothers. But the curse was upon the youngest, Canaan. And there is no received rule among men, the reverse of that here quoted, that is, that "the less includes the greater."
So, also, if Ham himself had been the person designated by Noah, then all disputation upon this matter would be, at once, at an end; for then the inference would be natural, legitimate, and indisputable, that all his posterity were implicated in the curse which fell upon himself. But this fact is nowhere stated in Scripture. It does, indeed, record God's blessing upon Ham and his posterity;[1] although
- ↑ It is objected to the view taken, in this paper, of Gen. is. 25, that Ham is left neither blessed nor cursed; and hence divines include him in the curse on Canaan. But it is a singular fact, that all the commentators neglect to notice the fact that Ham had just received a blessing from God.
In Genesis ix. 1, we read: "And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said unto them, Be fruitful," &c., &c. And in verses 8 and 12 it reads "And spake unto Noah, and to his sons with him, saying, And I, behold, I establish my covenant with you, and with your seed after you. . . . . . And God said, This is the token of the covenant which I make between me and you, and every living creature that is with you, for perpetual generations."
The question here arises, "Does Noah's curse (incidental to Ham's
