Study VI (continued 2)

The laws of God are always predicated upon some sufficient cause: in such cases we may ever notice a tendency towards the prevention of deterioration.

“Whosoever lieth with a beast shall surely be put to death.” Ex. xxii. 19.

The terms Japhet, Laban, Hor, and their derivatives in significancy ever include the idea white, of a light colour. These terms are applied among the descendants of Japheth and Shem, as the appellatives of their races and individual names, and as adjectives in description of their personal appearance, too frequently to permit a doubt of these families belonging to the white race.

There is but a single case in all the holy books, where any of these terms is applied to a person of colour, and which we trust we have explained; and if our view be correct, how came the poet to require its use there, unless to elevate the character he celebrates! Do we use any term to signify that a person is white in a country where there are none but white people? Whatever evidence then there may be that the families of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were white people, is also just as positive testimony that the Canaanites were black. See Gen. xxvi. 34, 35.

But in Judges i. 16, we find that the family of the race of Ishmael out of which Moses took his wife are denominated Kenites. We think that we have abundantly proved that they were black. From this connection of Moses, the Israelites seem to have felt some regard for that race. Now it appears that some of that descent were afterwards residing in the cities of Amalek; for we find in 1 Samuel xv. 6, that “Saul said unto the Kenites, Go, depart, get ye down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them, for ye showed kindness to all the children of Israel when they came out of Egypt. So the Kenites departed.” How should it be a fact, since they were black, that he could not distinguish them from the Amalekites, unless the Amalekites were black also?

The Amalekites were Canaanites, notwithstanding they claimed Esau in their ancestry. “Esau took his wives of the daughters of Canaan. Adah the daughter of Ebon the Hittite; * * * and Adah bore to Esau, Eliphaz; * * * and Timna was concubine to Eliphaz, Esau’s son; and she bore to Eliphaz, Amalek.” Gen. xxxvi. 2, 4, 12.

The Amalekites were one of those tribes, that the Israelites were particularly commanded to destroy from off the earth; and in them, he who amalgamates with the daughters of Ham may see his own prospect as to posterity.

LESSON XIII.

There are circumstances in evidence that the descendants of Ham were black, more properly referable to the whole family than to either particular branch.

Among this class of circumstances, we might mention the tradition so universal through the world, that we know no age of time or portion of the globe that can be named in exception, that the descendants of Ham were black; and that the fact announced by that tradition is made exceedingly more probable by the corresponding tradition, that the descendants of Japheth and Shem were white.

The holy books provide proof that Abraham and Sarah, Isaac and Rebecca, Jacob, Leah, and Rachel, were white. Their descendants sojourned in Egypt in a state of bondage about four hundred years, in the course of which time there was a law that all the male Hebrew children should be put to death at their birth. When the mother of Moses put him in the ark of bulrushes, she would have disguised his birth as much as possible, for the safety of his life. Yet no sooner had the daughter of Pharaoh beheld the infant than she proclaimed it to be a Hebrew child. If there was no difference of colour, from whence this quick decision as to the nationality of an infant three months old?

But during the residence of the Israelites in Egypt, it is to be apprehended there was more or less commixture between the two races; and, if the two races were of different colour, that there would have been left us some allusion to such offspring; and so we find the fact.

“And the children of Israel journeyed from Rameses to Succoth, about six hundred thousand on foot, that were men, besides children. And a mixed multitude went up also with them.” Exod. xii. 37, 38. The word “mixed” is translated from עָרָבʿārāb ereb, arab. The word means of mixed-blood, that is, the mixture of the white man with the black; and in consequence thereof is often used to mean black itself, and is universally applied as the appellative, and has become the established name of the mixed-blooded people of Arabia, the Arabs; and because it became a common term to express the idea black, a dark colour, &c., it was applied to the raven; and even at this day, who can tell whether Elijah was fed by the ravens or the Arabs, because the one word was used to mean both or either. And a multitude of persons of colour, of Hebrew and black parentage, went up also with them.

This word is used to express the idea of a mulatto race, in Num. xi. 4, and the “mixed multitude;” also Neh. xiii. 3, “They separated from Israel all the mixed multitude;” also Jer. xxv. 20, 24, thus: “And all the mingled people,” mixed-blooded, “and all the kings of Arabia, and all the kings of the mingled people,” mixed-blooded people. By the expression mixed multitude, it is clear Moses included the offspring of the Hebrew with the race of Ham. But would there have been such distinction if there was no difference of colour? It will be recollected that the children of Ishmael were three-fourths of Misraimitish blood, consequently quite dark. It will also be recollected that when Esau perceived how extremely offensive to his father and mother was his connection with the Canaanitish women, that he took wives of the house of Ishmael. It should also be recollected that Ishmael named one of his sons Kedar. As we shall hereafter refer to this word, we propose to examine its meaning and formation. It is of Arabic derivation, Arab. درࣨdura, Hebrew דַּרdar dar, and in this form is used Esth. i. 6, and translated black marble. With the prefix of the Hebrew koph it becomes קֵדָרqēdār Kedar, and is equivalent to “the black.” It is used in Hebrew to mean black, in 1 Kings xviii. 45; Job vi. 16, 30, 28; Isa lx. 3; Jer. iv. 28; Ezek. xxxii. 7, 8, and many other places. The very name of the son of Ishmael was tantamount to “the black.”

In the poem called Solomon’s Song, the female whose praises are therein celebrated, says, “I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, as the tents of Kedar, as the curtains of Solomon. Look not upon me because I am black; because the sun hath looked upon me: my mother’s children were angry with me, they made me the keeper of the vineyards, but mine own vineyards have I not kept.” Cant. i. 5, 6.

The word black, which twice occurred in the text, is translated from שָחַרšāḥar shahar, with many variations. The words mean abstractly the idea black. Examples of its use will be found in Lev. xiii. 31, 37, thus: “And there is no black hair in it.” “And there is black hair grown up therein.” Job xxx. 30: “My skin is black upon me.” Zech. vi. 2, 6: “And in the second chariots black horses. The black horses that are therein.” Lam. iv. 8: “Their visage is blacker than a coal.” Cant. v. 11: “His locks are bushy and black as a raven.” There is no mistake about the meaning of this word; she was surely black, and she says that she is as black as the tents of Kedar.

The inquiry, then, now is, who was she? When we take into consideration the Asiatic mode of expression, from the term “because the sun hath looked upon me,” we are forced to understand that she was from a more southern region. That she was not a native of Palestine, or especially of Jerusalem. Figures of somewhat analogous import are occasionally found among the Roman poets. But we suppose, no one will undertake the argument that she was black, merely because she had been exposed to the sun!

In vii. 1 of the Hebrew text, she is called Shulamite. Some suppose this is a formation of the Gentile term שׁוּנֵםšûnēm Shunem, because they say the lamda was sometimes introduced. In that case it would be the synonyme of Shunamite, and would locate her in the tribe of Issacar. But we see no necessity of a forced construction, when a very easy and natural one is more obvious. We omit the dagesh. שׁוּלַמִיתšûlamît Shulammith is readily formed as the feminine of שְׁלֹמֹהšĕlōmō Shelomoh, Solomon, after the Arabic form شُليْمَنࣨshuleyman Suleiman, and, so used, would be quite analogous to what is now quite common—to apply the husband’s name as an appellative of the wife. Upon the occasion of her consecration into Solomon’s household, she well might, even at that age, be called by a term that would imply such consecration, especially in the poem celebrating her nuptials. And we may remark that the use of this word is in strict conformity to the usage of the Hebrew and Arabic poets, because it creates an implied paronomasia, derived from שׁוּלšûl, signifying that she was a captive by her love to Solomon, and if she stood in any such relation to him politically, the beauty of the figure would at that age have been considered very greatly increased. The poets, at that age of time, in compositions of the character of this poem, appear to have been ever on the search for an occasion to introduce figures of this class; and the more fanciful and extreme, the more highly relished. We fail therefore to derive any knowledge of her origin from this term. We have dwelt upon this particular thus long, merely because commentators have been so desirous to find out a clue to the history of the poem. Some commentators of elevated character, suppose this subject of their epithalamium to have been the daughter of Pharaoh, simply because she was black, and is addressed: “O prince’s daughter!” Undoubtedly she was the daughter of some prince or king. But the question now, is of what one? There is no probability that the kings of Egypt, nor even the nobility of that kingdom, had been of the race of Ham for many ages. Egypt had been conquered by the Shemites as early as the days of Abraham, and there is no proof that the descendants of Ham ever again ascended the throne; although, perhaps, their religion had been adopted by their successors from motives of policy, the great mass of the population being of the old stock.

In fact, the mixed-blooded races, and indeed the Shemites of pure blood, have, from time immemorial, shown a disposition to settle in Egypt. The Persians and the Greeks have also, for a very long time, aided in the amalgamation of the Egypt of the middle ages of the world.

But she is made to say that she is “the rose of Sharon;” as much as to say, the most excellent of her country. This district of country will be found to embrace the Ammonites, and perhaps some other of the ancient tribes of the family of Ham, at that time under the government of Solomon. And, iv. 8, we find Sharon called by its Ammonitish name, amid a cluster of figures having relation to the locality and productions of that country.

In short, the whole body of this extraordinary poem points to the region of the Ammonites for her native place of abode. Now, since Solomon had an Ammonitess by the name of Naamah for a wife, and since he selected her son to succeed him on the throne, it seems at least quite probable she was the person it commemorates; and that fact will make quite intelligible the allusion to her having been elevated from a servile condition. But, nevertheless, if it shall be thought not sufficiently proved that she was the mother of Rehoboam, yet she surely was of some one of the Canaanitish or Hamitic tribes, and was as surely black; and so far is in direct proof that the descendants of Ham generally were black also.

There are incidents of this poem which it would seem cannot be explained on other ground than that this marriage was one of state policy on the part of Solomon; and the queen upon this occasion selected was from some one of the heathen nations of the descendants of Ham, whom he had subjected to his government. It will be recollected that these nations, whom the Israelites had failed to destroy, had omitted no occasion to make war on the Hebrews, from the time of Joshua down to that of David; and that they occasionally had them in subjection.

Solomon had no guarantee how long his rule over them would prove quiet, or how far they would yield obedience to his successor. What could induce him to marry an Ammonite princess, and place her son upon his throne, if not to effect this purpose? Even at the time of the nuptials a reference to this political union might well find a place in the songs to which it gave birth. We introduce one of the incidents to which we allude: we select the close of the sixth strain. This poem is written in the form of a dialogue, mostly between the bride and groom.

Solomon. Return, return, O Shulamite; return, return, that we may look upon thee.

Naamah. What will ye see in the Shulamite?

Solomon. As it were the company of two armies.

This surely needs no comment. The poem had already recited every mental and personal quality; was it then unnatural delicately to allude to her political importance? The art of the poet, however, to cover the allusion, recommences a view of her personal charms, changes his order, and commences with her feet.

Much learning has come to many untenable conclusions concerning this poem, among which, that of the Targum may be placed in the lead.

LESSON XIV.

We have heretofore noticed how, in 2 Chron. xvi. 8, the name Phut is lost in that of Lubim, as accounted for by Josephus. But it should be recollected that the prophet Hanani most distinctly refers to one of the wars between the black tribes and the Jewish people, of which there had been a long series from the exodus down.

We propose to adduce an argument from the language used in the description of these wars.

In the time of King Asa, the invading army is described thus: “And there came out against them Zerah, the Ethiopian, with a host of a thousand thousand and three hundred chariots. And Asa cried unto the Lord his God; so the Lord smote the Ethiopians before Asa, and before Judah, and the Ethiopians fled: and Asa, and the people that were with him, pursued them unto Gerar, and the Ethiopians were overthrown.” These people the prophet calls Ethiopians and Lubims. This term proves that many of them were from Lybia. Now is it to be presumed that so vast an army, one million of men and three hundred chariots, was not composed of all the tribes between the remotest location of any named and the place of attack?

But this battle was commenced in the valley of Zephathah, in Philistia, and pursued to Gerar, a city of the same country. “And they smote all the cities round about Gerar. For the fear of the Lord came upon them, and they spoiled all the cities, for there was exceeding much spoil in them. They smote all the tents of cattle, and carried away sheep and camels in abundance, and returned to Jerusalem.” See 2 Chron. xiv. 14, 15.

These facts could not have existed had not the Philistines composed a part of the army.

Yet they are all Ethiopians. Is this no evidence that the tribes of Ham generally were black?

But again, with the view to arrive at a greater certainty as to what races did compose these armies, we propose to examine that which invaded Jerusalem during the reign of Rehoboam.

“And it came to pass when Rehoboam had established the kingdom, and had strengthened himself, he forsook the law of the Lord, and all Israel with him; and it came to pass in the fifth year of King Rehoboam, Shishak, king of Egypt, came up against Jerusalem, because they had transgressed against the Lord, with twelve hundred chariots and threescore thousand horsemen; and the people were without number that came with him out of Egypt, the Lubims, the Sukkims, and the Ethiopians; and he took the fenced cities, which pertain to Judah, and came to Jerusalem.” 2 Chron. xii. 1–10. “And the people were without number that came with him out of Egypt, the Lubims, the Sukkims, and the Ethiopians.” The Hebrew construction of the latter clause of this is thus: מִמִּצְרַיִם לוּבִ֥ים סֻכִּיִּ֖ים וְכוּשִַׁים׃mimmiṣrayim lûbîm sukkiyyîm wĕkûšiaym Mim-mits-raim, Lubim, Sukkiyyim ve Cushim. We suggest a slight error in the translation of these words. The prefix מm mem preceding Mitsraim, we read a preposition, out of, from, &c., influencing and governing the two following words also; as, from Egypt, from Lybia, from Succoth. It will be noticed that Cushim is preceded by the prefix וv vav. Grammarians have written much upon this particle: we cannot enter into an argument on Hebrew grammar, but, with all the learning that has been expended on this particle, the Hebrew scholar must find the fact to be, that it is sometimes used to designate a result; and we take occasion here to say that, in our opinion, Professor Gibbs has given a more definite and philosophical description of the Hebrew use of this particle, than any lexicographer of modern research.

Suppose an ancient Hebrew physician wished to teach that certain diseases were incurable, that they ended in death, might he not have said, מִשַׁחֶפֶת קַדַּחַת אָנוּשׁ וְמוּה׃mišaḥepet qaddaḥat ʾānûš wĕmû mish shahhepheth kaddahhath anish vemuth,—from consumption, burning fever, the mortal sickness, termination is death? Or, allow our Hebrew not to be so classical, could he not have expressed the idea after this form? “The army was without number, from Egypt, from Lybia, from the Nomads, all Ethiopians.” And we here suggest the query, whether this is not the true reading? We do not propose that this prefixed וְw vav has the power of an adjective or a verb, although it might require the one or the other to give the idea in English. What we say is, that it is the sign of the thing which is the result of the preceding nouns. If it had been used here as a connective particle, then the two preceding nouns would also have had it for a prefix. Such was the Hebrew idiom. It would then have read, “And the people were,” &c., from Egypt, and from Lybia, and from the Nomads, and from Ethiopia, as the translator seems to have supposed. But, as it is, it determines them all to have been Ethiopians. This will be in strict conformity with the description of the army at the time of Asa. The invading army, at that time, was denominated Ethiopian, although it is evident that many of the Hamitic tribes composed it.

The real cause of all these wars was the contest whether Palestine should be held by the Hamitic race, or by the Shemitic, who were bearing rule. Keeping this in mind, let us note how perfectly natural is this description of those who composed the army under Shishak. The troops first collected would be from among his own immediate people, the Egyptians. The next, those who lived beyond him from the point of attack, to wit, the Lubims, who lived to the west of Egypt. These being collected together, they would commence their march, and the Nomads be added to the list of the army after they joined it; but none other than those governed by the same impulses would attach themselves to it. Suffer us to illustrate this description of Shishak’s army by supposing a somewhat analogous case, in much more modern times:—That during the reign of Elizabeth, King Philip of Spain had made war on England, upon the issue of whether the Protestant or Catholic faith should prevail in that country. Philip would have first collected troops in Spain. He may be supposed to collect large numbers in Portugal. These Spanish and Portuguese troops may be supposed to march through France, and his army vastly increased there; and, when upon the coast of England, some Froissart would have said, that the people who came with Philip were without number, Spaniards, Portuguese, French, all Catholics. The manner of such description would be in exact similitude with this description of Shishak’s army. Any one who is acquainted with the history of the Crusades will readily see how a similar description would have in truth fitted the army of the Cross. We think it proof conclusive that the descendants of Ham were black. But we might add some proof from sketches of profane history. In the 22d section of Euterpe, Herodotus says that the natives on the Nile are universally black. In the 32d section, giving an account of a party of Neesamonians, who in Africa were out upon an excursion, he says—“While they were thus employed, seven men, of dwarfish stature, came where they were, seized their persons, and carried them away. They were mutually ignorant of each others’ language. But the Neesamonians were conducted over marshy grounds to a city, in which all the inhabitants were of diminutive appearance and of a black colour.”

In the 57th section, he gives an account of an Egyptian priestess who was brought among the Threspoti. He says that “the circumstance of her being black explains to us her Egyptian origin.”

In the 104th section, he says—“The Cholchians certainly appear to be of Egyptian origin, which indeed, before I had conversed with any one on the subject, I had always believed. But as I was desirous of being satisfied, I interrogated the people of both countries. The result was, that the Cholchians seemed to have a better remembrance of the Egyptians, than the Egyptians of the Cholchians. The Egyptians were of the opinion that the Cholchians were descended of a part of the troops of Sesostris: to this I myself was also inclined, because they are black, and have their hair short and curling.”

Cambyses fought the black tribes of Egypt and Africa under Amasis, in the western parts of Arabia. Herodotus says, (Thalia, section 12th,) “The bones of those who fell in the engagement were soon afterwards collected, and separated into two distinct heaps. It was observed of the Persians, that their heads were so extremely soft as to yield to the slight impression even of a pebble. Those of the Egyptians, on the contrary, were so firm that the blow of a large stone could hardly break them. * * * I saw the very same fact at Papremis, after examining the bones of those who, under the conduct of Achæmenes, son of Darius, were defeated by Inaius the African.”

Herodotus notices the distinction between the Arabs and the Negroes, but calls them all Ethiopians. In the 70th section of Polymnia, he says—“Those Ethiopians who came from the most eastern part of their country, served with the Indians. These differed from the former in nothing but their language and their hair. The Oriental Ethiopians have their hair straight: those of Africa have their hair more crisp and curling than other men.”

Herodotus lived and wrote about five hundred years before our era. We have quoted him through a translation, but not without examining the original.

We shall close our evidence on this point with a single quotation from Judg. iii. 8 and 10. The children of Israel intermarried with the Canaanites: the writer says, “Therefore the anger of the Lord was hot against Israel, and he sold them into the hand of Chusan rishathaim,” the wicked Ethiopians. Whereas it is as well known as any other fact of biblical history, that these “wicked Ethiopians” were none other than the Philistines and other aboriginal tribes of the land of Canaan.

Upon the conquest of Palestine by the Israelites, portions of the Canaanites overspread the approachable parts of Africa, where numerous hordes of their race were already in possession. For ages, there is said to have stood near Tangier, a monument with inscriptions signifying that it was built in commemoration of the people who fled from the face of Joshua the robber. From the presumption of this being a fact, and from a collection of other facts connected with early commerce, Moore, in the first volume of his History of Ireland, has strongly suggested that the ancient Irish are partially indebted to the ancient Canaanites for their origin; whereas we think we have sufficiently proved that they were black. We hope the impulsive sons of the Emerald Isle will repel the insult. But, if what Moore says be true, it only proves another portion of our theory; for, as sin sinks to all moral and physical degradation and slavery, so virtue and holiness elevate to freedom and all animal and mental perfections; and since Iern was for ages regarded as an island of saints, Moore may have the benefit of the argument, if he chooses, whereby to account for the high-toned feeling and personal perfections of the modern Irish.

In conclusion, from the history of the family of man, we may all know that the descendants of Japheth and Shem, when free from amalgamation with the black tribes, are white people. Unless then the descendants of Ham were black, how are we to account for the phenomena of the existence of that colour among men? Philosophy has been in search, and history has been on the watch; facts upon facts have been recorded touching every matter; but have you ever heard of the uncontaminated descendants of Japheth, living in the extreme, or in the central zone, exhibiting the woolly crown of the sons of Ham?

LESSON XV.

We suggest some origin, some complexion of thought, from whence may have emanated the word “Ham,” and its derivatives, as found to have existed in the days of the prophets; and we may here state that the Shemitic languages seem to exist all in a cluster, like so many grapes; nor are we able to say which stands nearest the vine. Doubts may be raised as to the priority of any one named; yet we might adduce some proof that the Coptic is younger, as we could that the Greek is younger still.

The Arabic word مَاma ma corresponds with the Syriac ܡܳܐma ma, and the Hebrew מָהmâ mah, and has been translated into the Latin quid, as an interrogatory, used in all languages very elliptically. Thus, Gen. iv. 10: מֶ֣ה עָשִׂ֑יתָme ʿāśîtā “What have you done?” If the עָשִׂ֑יתָāśîtā had been omitted, the מֶ֣הme would have expressed the whole idea.

It was an interrogatory expression of exclamation and astonishment, to one who had committed a heinous offence. So when Laban pursued, Jacob said, מָהmâ mah, What is my trespass? &c., as if in derision,—What is my horrid crime? Ever since the days of Cain some have manifested wicked acts, as though they were operated on by some strong desire, some coveting overwhelming to reason,—as if the action was in total disregard of the consequences that must follow it. This state of mind seems to have been expressed, in some measure, by the particular use of this particle. Let us conceive that such a state of mind must be a heated, a disturbed state of mind, as was that of Cain, and as must have been that of Jacob, had he stolen the goods of Laban. The word thus incidentally expressive of such an idea, by being preceded or influenced by a particle implying particularity, giving it definiteness and boundary, must necessarily be converted into an action or actor, implying some portion of the primitive idea; and hence we find הֵֽמָּהhēmmâ and همُّhamm and هَمَيhammi ham and hami in Arabic, ܚܳܡ ham in Syriac, to mean a cognate idea, i. e. to grow hot, &c., to boil, rage, &c., sometimes tumult, &c., &c. And we now ask, these being facts, is it difficult to point in the direction of the origin of the word Ham? Nor is it a matter of any importance, if the relationship exists, whether the noun and verb have descended from such exclamatory particle, or the reverse; yet we can easily imagine, in the early condition of things, that the mind, taking cognisance of some horrid act, would impel some such exclamation, and that it would become the progenitor of the name of the act or actor.

However this may be, each Hebrew scholar will inform us that the word הָםhām is an irregular Hebrew word. Grammarians have usually arranged words of this peculiar class among the Heemanti and augmented words, and they have accurately noticed that the punctuatists have always preceded the םm mem by a (ָ_Ｔ) Kamets, or a (וֹô) Kholem. This circumstance has induced Hiller to suppose that the םm mem, as a Heemanti, was a particle, while the adjunct was either הֵםhēm or אוֹםʾôm; but all agree that the form of these nouns shows that they are intensive in their signification.

If then הָםhām ham is a particle of הָמָהhāmâ hamah, which carries with it the ideas before named, it may be less difficult to conceive how the particle, when added to other nouns, will make them intensive also, while the particle itself would be used alone to express some intensity in an emphatic manner, more particularly of its root.

But we find the word חָ֞םḥām ham, as applied to the son of Noah, from the root הָמָהhāmâ hammah, or חֵמַהḥēma and used in Hebrew thus: In Josh. ix. 12, “This our bread we took hot חָ֞םḥām for our provision,” &c. Job xxxvii. 17, and vi. 17: “How thy garments warm (חַמִּ֑יםḥammîm hammin, hot) when he quieteth the earth by the south wind.” “What time they wax warm, they vanish when it is hot,” בְּ֝חֻמּ֗וֹbĕḥummô behummo, in the heat. So Gen. viii. 22: “While the earth remaineth, seed-time and harvest, cold and heat וָחֹ֜םwāḥōm, and summer and winter, and day and night, shall not cease.” Gen. xviii. 1: “And he sat in the tent door in the heat בְּחֹ֥םbĕḥōm of the day.” 1 Sam. xi. 9–11: “To-morrow, by the time the sun is hot, (בְּחֹ֣םbĕḥōm be hom, in heat.) And slew the Ammonites until the heat of the day,” עַדחֹםʿadḥōm ad hom, until the hot. xxi. 7 (the 6th of the English text): “To put hot, חֹ֔םḥōm hot in the day,” &c. 2 Sam. iv. 5: “And came about the heat of the day,” כְּחֹ֣םkĕḥōm ke hom, at the hot. Isa. xxiii. 4: “Like a clear heat כְּחֹםkĕḥōm upon herbs, and like a cloud of dew in the heat בְּחֹ֥םbĕḥōm of harvest.” Hag. i. 6: “Ye clothe you, but there is none warm,” לְחֹ֥םlĕḥōm be hom, not hot. Jer. li. 39: “In their heats,” בְּחֻמָּםbĕḥummām be hummon, in their heats, &c.

But in Hebrew, as in some other languages, the phonetic power expressing the idea hot, heat, &c. was cognate with rage, stubbornness, anger, wickedness, &c. &c., and hence we say hell is hot, and hence, in Dan. iii. 13, 19: “Then Nebuchadnezzar in his rage,” חֱמָֹאḥĕmāōʾ hama, heat, hot. “Therefore shall he go forth with great fury,” בְּחִמָּ֣א֥bĕḥimmāʾ be hama, heat, rage, fury, &c.

Should it be said, the words in their declination, or rather the affixed and suffixed particles, differ, and are marked with different vowel points, we answer by quoting Lee’s Heb. Lex. p. 205: “This variety in the vowels may be ascribed either to the punctuatists or the copyists, and is of no moment. But as the word חָםḥām ham was thus applied in Hebrew to the original idea of active caloric, as emanating from the sun, so it will agree with its homophone in Arabic and Syriac; for let it be noticed, that the Arabic word حَمٌّham ham or haman, means to be hot, as of the sun. So the Syriac ܗܡܳܐ hama means œstus, calor, &c. But in Deut. xxxii. 24, 33, it is translated poison; thus, poison of serpents, and ‘the poison of dragons,’ from the notion that great heat, rage, anger, &c. are cognate with poison.”

This word occurs in Zeph. ii. 12. The received version is, “Ye Ethiopians also, ye shall be slain by my sword.” The original is, גַּם־אַתֶּ֣ם כּוּשִׁ֔ים חַלְלֵ֥י חַרְבִּ֖י הֵֽמָּהgam-ʾattem kûšîm ḥallê ḥarbî hēmmâ, and has been subject to much investigation. Gesenius considers the word הֵֽמָהhēmâ a pronoun in the second person, and Lee seems to side with him, but says, “the truth is, the place is inverted and abrupt, and should read thus: גַּם־אַתֶּ֣ם חַלְלֵ֥י חַרְבִּ֖י כּוּשִׁ֔ים הֵֽמָּהgam-ʾattem ḥallê ḥarbî kûšîm hēmmâ,” and which he translates thus—“Even ye (are) (the) wounded of my sword,—they are Cushites.” We do not perceive how he has made the passage more plain. Let us, for a moment, examine how the Hebrews used this form חֵמָהḥēmâ or חֵםḥēm, that we may the better comprehend its sense in the present instance. Jer. v. 22: “Though they roar,” וְהָמ֥וּwĕhāmû ve hamu, rage, &c., “yet can they not pass over it!” vi. 23: “Their voice roareth like the sea,” יֶֽהֱמֶהyehĕme rageth, &c. xxxi. 35; “Which divideth the sea, when the waves thereof roar,” וַיֶֽהֱמ֖וּwayehĕmû say ye, hemen, rage, &c. li. 15: “When her waves do roar (וְהָמ֤וּwĕhāmû ve hamu se, rage, &c.) like great waters.” Isa. li. 13: “But I am the Lord thy God that divided the sea, whose waves roared,” raged. li. 13: “Because of the fury (חֲמַ֣תḥămat rage, &c.) of the oppressor,” “and where is the fury (חֲמַ֥תḥămat hamath, rage, &c.) of the oppressor?” li. 15: “whose waves roared,” וַיֶֽהֱמ֖וּwayehĕmû raged, &c. Ps. xlvi. 4 (the 3d of the English text): “Though the waters thereof roar (יֶֽהֱמ֣וּyehĕmû rage, &c.) and be troubled,” יֶחְמְ֣רוּyeḥmĕrû great agitation, rage, &c.

But let us take a more particular view of this word, as used in the passage from Zephaniah. The Septuagint has translated this passage in Καὶ ὑμεῖς Αἰθίοπες τραυματίαι ῥομφαίας μοῦ ἐστέ, which is very much like our received version.

But it should be noticed that it has translated the Hebrew word חַלְלִ֥יḥallî into τραυματίαι; τραῦμα would imply the injury, wounds, carnage, or slaughter of a whole nation, army, or body of people; but τραυματίαι implies individuality, and reaches no farther than the person or persons named. The prophet had been uttering denunciations against many nations, but in this passage emphatically selects the Ethiopians as individuals; and the Greek translator evidently discovered there was in this denunciation something peculiarly personal as applied to the Ethiopians.

The Hebrew conveys the idea of reducing, subjecting, or bringing low, as by force, to cause to sink in character as in Ps. lxxxix. 40 (39th of the English text): “Thou hast made void the covenant of thy servant: thou hast חִלַּֽלְתָּḥillaltā wounded, subjected, or reduced his crown to the earth.” Ezek. xxii. 26: “Her priests have violated my law, and have חַלְּל֣וּḥallĕlû (wounded, subjected, lowered the character of) my holy things.”

But the word חַלְּלֵיḥallĕlê is here used in the construct state, showing that the idea imposed by this word was brought about by the following term, חַדְבִי֖ḥadbiy, which the Septuagint translates rhomphaias, which properly means the Thracian spear; but חַרְבּיḥarby means any weapon, a goad harpoon as well as a sword. The fact is, neither of these words were the usual Hebrew or Greek term to mean a sword. The Greeks would have called a sword μάχαιρα, and the Hebrews חֲנִיתḥănît or דֹחַמdōḥam or כִּדוֹןkidôn, or perhaps שׂכהśkh; and Dr. Lee has given Ἅρπη as the Greek translation of חַרְבִ֖יḥarbî, which means a sickle, a goad for driving elephants, &c. It was a thing to inflict wounds by which to enforce subjection, and the idea is that the Ethiopians are covered by wounds by their being reduced by it, or that they shall be. When Jeremiah announced captivity and slavery to the Egyptians and the adjacent tribes, he used this word as the instrument of its execution. Thus Jer. xlvi. 14: “Declare ye in Egypt, and publish in Migdol, and publish in Noph, and in Taphanhes; say ye, Stand fast, and prepare thee, for the sword חֶ֖רֶבḥereb shall devour round about thee.” 16: “Arise and let us go again to our own people, and to the land of our nativity, from the oppressing sword,” חֶ֖רֶבḥereb. Many such instances might be cited, showing the fact that, in poetic strain, this was the instrument usually named, as in the hand of him subjecting others to bondage; and much in the same manner, even at this day, we use the term “whip,” in the hand of the master, in reference to the enforcement of his authority over his slave.

In a further view of the word חֵמָּהḥēmmâ, as used in this passage, we deem it proper to state that Gibbs considers it a pronoun of the third person plural, masculine, they, and adds, “sometimes” (probably an incorrectness drawn from the language of common life) “used in reference to women,” and quotes Zech. v. 10; Cant. vi. 8; Ruth i. 22. And he further adds, “It is used for the substantive verb in the third person plural, 1 Kings viii. 40, ix. 20; Gen. xxv. 16; also for the substantive verb in the second person, Zeph. ii. 12: ‘Also, ye Cushites חַלְלֵ֥י חַרְבִּ֖י הֵֽמָּהḥallê ḥarbî hēmmâ shall be slain by my sword.’” Gibbs’s Lex. p. 175. In Stuart’s Grammar, p. 193, he says, “Personal pronouns of the third person sometimes stand simply in the place of the verb of existence;” e. g. he cites Gen. ix. 3, Zech. i. 9, and says, “Plainer still is the principle in such cases, as follows: Zeph. ii. 12, ‘Ye Cushites, victims of my sword אַתֶּ֣ם הֵֽמָּהʾattem hēmmâ are ye.’”

The fact is, the verb of existence, called the verb “to be,” and the verb substantive, in Hebrew, as in all other languages, is often not expressed, but understood. This circumstance is well explained in Gessenius’ Hebrew Grammar, revised by Rodiger, and translated by Conant, p. 225, thus, “When a personal pronoun is the subject of a sentence, like a noun in the same position, it does not require for its union with the predicate a distinct word for the copula, when this consists simply in the verb ‘to be,’ אָֽנֹכִ֣י הָֽרֹאֶ֔הʾānōkî hārōʾe ‘I (am) the seer,’ 1 Sam. ix. 19.” And again: “The pronoun of the third person frequently serves to convert the subject and predicate, and is then a sort of substitute for the copula of the verb to be, e. g. Gen. xli. 26: ‘The seven good cows, שֶׁ֤בַע שָׁנִים֙ הֵ֔נָּהšebaʿ šānîm hēnnâ seven years (are) they.’” To say in English, “The seven good cows, seven years they,” would be thought too elliptical; but we do not perceive how the expression converts “they” into the verb “to be.”

But again, the same author says, p. 261: “The union of the substantive or pronoun, which forms the subject of the sentence, with another substantive or adjective, as its predicate, is most commonly expressed by simply writing them together without any copula. 1 Kings xxiii. 21: יְהוָ֤ה הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙yhwh hāʾĕlōhîm ‘Jehovah (is) the true God.’” The idiom of the language then does not necessarily convert הֵמָּהhēmmâ in the passage before us into the verb “to be.” And here let us repeat the sentence, גַּם־אַתֶּ֣ם כּוּשִׁ֔ים חַֽלְלֵ֥י חַרְבִּ֖י הֵֽמָּהgam-ʾattem kûšîm ḥallê ḥarbî hēmmâ Zeph. ii. 12. It will be perceived that גַּם־אַתֶּ֣םgam-ʾattem are connected by Makkaph. Hebrew scholars do not agree as to how far this character is effective as an accent. But the rules for its use are—“Makkaph is inserted in the following cases: 1. Particles, which, from their nature, can never have any distinctive accent, are mostly connected with other words by the mark Makkaph: גַּם־לְאִישַׁהּgam-lĕʾîšah even to her husband; בְּתָם־לְבָבִ֛יbĕtom-lĕbābî in the integrity of my heart. Gen. xx. 5, &c. 2. When words are to be construed together, &c., as זַרְעוֹ־ב֖וֹzarʿô-bô its seed (is) within itself. Gen. i. 11,” &c.—Lee’s Lectures, p. 61.

But Stuart, seeing no way to translate the sentence without making הִ֖מָּהhimmâ the verb “to be,” 3d person plural, “are,” takes אַתֶּ֣םʾattem the personal pronoun, 2d person plural, equivalent to ye or you, away from גַּםgam, to which it is attached by Makkaph, and carries it down to precede הֵמָּהhēmmâ in the sentence, and thus reads “are ye,” while he supplies another אַתֶּם֣ʾattem as understood to precede כּוּשִיםkûšîm, and reads, “ye Cushites, victims of my sword are ye.” We consider this as quite as objectionable as Dr. Lee’s—“Even ye (are) (the) wounded of my sword,—they are Cushites.”

But permit us now to inquire into the probability of הֵמָּהhēmmâ being even a pronoun. אָנכִיʾānkî a-no-khi is not believed to be a Hebrew word. It is a homophone of the Coptic word Ⲁⲛⲟⲕ, and used by the Egyptians, who spoke Coptic, as the personal pronoun I. This word is believed to have been borrowed by the Hebrews at the time they were in bondage in Egypt, and the habit of it so strongly established during their four hundred years of servitude, that neither the literature of the age of Moses nor the genius of the people could ever eradicate it. Their original personal pronoun was probably totally lost; nothing analogous to this Coptic term can be found in any other of the Shemitic tongues. But Lee says that Gessenius has found it in Punic, and quotes Lehrege-baude, note, p. 200. In Chaldaic, the personal pronoun, first person singular, is אֲנָהʾănâ a-nah, and its phonetic cognates are found in all the other sister dialects. We may then well suggest that the lost Hebrew term was אֲנָאʾănāʾ a-na, or quite analogous thereto.

Such then being the facts, let us inquire into the origin, composition, and signification of this Coptic pronoun. It will be agreed that some language must have had precedence in the world, and it is usually yielded to the Hebrew. That such precedence was the property of some one of the Asiatic dialects all agree; and the nearer the subsequent language exists to its precedent, the more plainly will its descent be manifest. If the Hebrew was such precedent, or any other of its immediate sisters, the Coptic, existing in their immediate neighbourhood, must have been originally very analogous to them.

It is immaterial whether our suggestion be right or wrong as to what particularly was the lost Hebrew pronoun; let us take the Chaldaic, which, of all these dialects, was the most nearly like the Hebrew—the personal pronoun אֲנָהʾănâ I, I am, and the word כִּיkî ki, which means a mark as a stigma, indelibly fixed, as burned in, a mark intended pointedly to indicate something; and hence it became a particle attached to a word often by Makkaph, whence the attention was to be particularly called, as, mark me, mark ye, are just, &c. &c. Isa. iii. 24: pm tr1 he 'כִּי תַחַת יוׄפִי' 'kî taḥat ywpî' a burned mark of stigma, instead of beauty. Some have doubted the accuracy of the Hebrew in this instance, and the fact is, no doubt, that it is rather an Arabicism; but that in no way affects our deduction; it matters not whether the Coptic borrowed from Chaldean, Hebrew, or Arabic. These two words are beyond question the origin, the compound of the Coptic pronoun, meaning and including the individuality of the first person singular, and originally expressing also the fact, that such person was marked as a stigma indelibly, as burned in, &c. Anoki, I, a marked one; I, one deformed as if branded, &c.; I, one that carry the mark of, &c. &c., was the original idea expressed by this Coptic term of individuality. Thus it expressed the fact that the person was a successor in the curses of Ham and Cain, and in no other manner can the extraordinary appearance of הֵםhēm and sometimes הֵמָּהhēmmâ in the third person of the pronoun be accounted for. It is evidently from a new and other source, the same or cognate with the term applied to the son of Noah.

These adjective associations of the pronoun, through the lapse of ages, would naturally be forgotten by the Copts themselves, and were probably unknown to the Hebrews; just as we ourselves have forgotten that our word obedient still expresses some of the qualities of the Hebrew word עֶבֶדʿebed ebed and abed, from which it has been derived through the Latin.

This pronoun אָנׄכִ֖יʾonkî I, &c. was often contracted by the Hebrews into אֲנִ֖יʾănî ani, and in its declination stood thus:

1st person singular, common gender:

אָנכִיʾānkî sometimes אֲנִיʾănî I.

Plural:

אֲנַֽחְנוּʾănaḥnû We.

2d person singular masculine:

אַתָּ֖הʾattâ Thou.

Plural:

אַתֶּ֖םʾattem You.

Singular feminine:

אַתְּʾat Thou, fem.

Plural:

אֲתֶּןʾăten You, fem.

3d person singular, masculine:

הֽוּאhûʾ He.

Plural:

הֵ֥םhēm hem—occasionally הֵ֖מָהhēmâ They.

Here we find the word in question, if a pronoun. The feminine of the third person is הִי֖אhiyʾ, and plural נָהnâ, and yet הֵֽפָּהhēppâ is used in Canticles in a condition evidently feminine; and yet in Zeph. ii. 12, it is said it must be in the second person plural. But can any one believe that these words, thus arranged in the declination of this pronoun, could ever have had a common origin? The fact is, no original language was ever formed from rules; the rules are merely its description after it is formed. Language, in the infancy of its formation, resents restraint and all laws, except such as apply to its incipient state. Suppose a soldier for life should persist in calling his infant son soldier, either playfully or mournfully; the child would associate the term “soldier” with his individuality, and say soldier am sleepy, &c. In case the soldier’s family was isolated from the rest of the world, in the land of Nod, or elsewhere, then the family of languages would be quite apt to have a new term as a personal pronoun.

More pertinent examples would explain our idea perhaps more fully. There never was a language upon this earth, of which any thing is known, that does not show an extraordinary irregularity in the formation of its personal pronouns,—often giving proof that the different cases and persons have been formed from different roots. Webster says—“I, the pronoun of the first person, the word which expresses one’s self, or that by which a speaker or writer denotes himself.” “In the plural, we use we and us, which appear to be words radically distinct from I.” Under we, he says, “From plural of I, or rather a different word, denoting,” &c. Does any one imagine that I, you, me, and us are from the same root? Webster noticed the discrepancy; we could have hoped that he would have given the world a history of the personal pronoun of all languages: we know of no intellect more capable. Such a history would develop many curious things in the history of man, but would be attended with great labour; and human life has too few days for such a man.

Thus we may, hypothetically at least, point out the class of operating causes whereby the Copts introduced הֵםēm or occasionally הֵמָּהhēmmâ as a person of the pronoun, with the signification that the person to whom it was applied was a descendant of the son of Noah; and the pronoun so introduced derived from the noun חָםḥām Ham. For, can we suppose the first person singular אָנֹכִ֖הʾānōki a-no-ki, and its third person plural הֵ֖םhēm hem, occasionally הֵֽמָּהhēmmâ hemmah, have the same root, or are of the same origin? This הֵםhēm and the word חָםḥām the son of Noah, are identical, except the son of Noah is generally written with a heth, instead of a he; but all know, who have studied the matter, these characters very often interchange, and that copyists have often inadvertently placed the one for the other. That which would seem the pronoun is used in Gen. xiv. 5, and the Septuagint has translated it as a pronoun; but our received version has no doubt restored the true reading. The passage בְּהָ֑םbĕhām is translated “in Ham,” i. e. the land occupied by the descendants of Ham, the son of Noah. The change of Kamets into Tsere, is really of no moment. These characters were never invented until after the language ceased to be spoken, and was long since dead. The points, in reality, are no part of the language. The word in Genesis is indisputably a noun, preceded and governed by the preposition בְּb.

Perhaps no one has ever yet succeeded to satisfy himself and others in the translation of this passage of Zephaniah; all, or others for them, find it full of difficulty: but let us consider הֵמָּהhēmmâ a noun of the same order as the הָםhām of xiv. 5 of Genesis,—in some respect in apposition to כּוּשִיםkûšîm, but more emphatic, as the affix of הh would seem to indicate, by its increase of the intensity, as well as its accounting for the dagesh of the מm mem, or its duplication. Let us consider it to mean the descendants of Ham,—to express the idea, with great intensity, that the Cushites were Hamites. True, it is not in the usual form of a patronymic. But we know not who will account, by grammatical rules, for all the anomalies found in Hebrew, a language so full of ellipses that some have thought it a mere skeleton language. With this view of the subject it will read elliptically, thus: So ye Ethiopians wounded of the sword, Hamites—with the meaning, that the Ethiopians were subject to bondage, and at the same time putting them in mind that the curse of slavery, as to the posterity of Ham, was unalterable.

The meaning of the prophet is—So ye Ethiopians, reduced to a condition of bondage, remember ye are the inheritors of the curse of Ham!

The arrangement of the language to us clearly indicates that sense. Besides, we must take into consideration the peculiar meaning of the words חַלְלֵיḥallê and חַרְבִּ֖יḥarbî— that the prophet is writing in a highly figurative and poetic strain; and we would also compare what this prophet says to the Ethiopians with what the other prophets have said of the same people. כּוּשִׁיםkûšîm is here applicable to all the tribes of Ham, as in Amos ix. 7: “Are ye not as children of the Ethiopians unto me? O children of Israel, saith the Lord.” It may be well here to notice also that the word “Ethiopian” is of Greek origin, and associates with the idea blackness, like that of Ham. Thus, Αιθιοπς, Aithiops, sun-burnt, swarthy as Ethiopians; αιθος, warmth, heat, fire, ardent, blazing like fire, blackened by fire, black, dark; αιθοπς, burning fiery, blazing, burned, darkened by fire, dark-coloured, consuming, destroying. Donnegan p. 34. But Isaiah speaks of the descendants of Ham perhaps in a more figurative language, and in a more elevated and poetical strain:

1. Wo to the land shadowing with wings,

Which is beyond the rivers of Ethiopia:

2. That sendeth ambassadors by the sea,

Even in vessels of bulrushes upon the waters,

Saying, Go, ye swift messengers, to a nation scattered and peeled;

To a people terrible from the beginning hitherto;

A nation meted out and trodden down,

3. Whose land the rivers have spoiled!

All ye inhabitants of the world, and dwellers on the earth,

See ye, when he lifteth up an ensign on the mountains,

And when he bloweth a trumpet, hear ye!

4. For so the Lord said unto me, I will take my rest,

And I will consider in my dwelling-place,

Like a clear heat upon herbs,

And like a cloud of dew in the heat of harvest.

5. For afore the harvest, when the bud is perfect,

And the sour grape is ripening in the flower,

He shall both cut off the sprigs with pruning-hooks,

And take away and cut down the branches.

6. They shall be left together unto the fowls of the mountains,

And to the beasts of the earth;

And the fowls shall summer upon them,

And the beasts of the earth shall winter upon them.

7. In that time shall a present be brought unto the Lord of hosts,

Of a people scattered and peeled,

And from a people terrible from the beginning hitherto;

A nation meted out and trodden under foot,

Whose land the rivers have spoiled,

To the place of the name of the Lord of hosts, the Mount Zion.

Isa. 18.

The denouncements of Jehovah against the children of Ham are more plainly expressed in the promises of God to these of the true worship, his peculiar people:

Thus saith the Lord,

The labour of Egypt, and merchandise of Ethiopia,

And of the Sabeans, men of stature,

Shall come over unto thee, and they shall be thine:

They shall come after thee;

In chains they shall come over;

And they shall fall down unto thee.

They shall make supplication unto thee,

Saying, Surely God is in thee;

And there is none else,

There is no God (beside),—(or, there is no other God.)

Isa. xlv. 14.

So Jeremiah: “Declare ye in Egypt, and publish it in Migdol, and publish in Noph and in Taphanhes; say ye, Stand fast, and prepare thee; for the sword shall devour round about thee.

“O thou daughter dwelling in Egypt, furnish thyself to go into captivity: for Noph shall be waste and desolate, without an inhabitant.

“The daughter of Egypt shall be confounded; she shall be delivered into the hands of the people of the north.” Jer. xlvi. 1, 19, 24.

“And the sword shall come upon Egypt, and great pain shall be in Ethiopia, when the slain shall fall in Egypt, and they shall take away her multitudes, and her foundations shall be broken down.

“Ethiopia, and Lybia, and Lydia, and all the mingled (mixed-blooded) people, Chub and the men of the land that is in league, shall fall with them by the sword.

“In that day shall messengers go forth from me in ships to make the careless Ethiopians afraid, and great pain shall come upon them, as in the day of Egypt: for, lo, it cometh.

“The young men of Aven and of Pibeseth shall fall by the sword: and these cities shall go into captivity.

“At Taphanhes also the day shall be darkened, when I shall break there the yokes of Egypt: and the pomp of her strength shall cease in her: as for her, a cloud shall cover her; and her daughters shall go into captivity.

“And I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations and disperse them among the countries, and they shall know that I am the Lord.” Ezek. xxx. 4, 5, 9, 17, 18, 26.

“And I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hands of the children of Judah, and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, to a people afar off: for the Lord hath spoken it.” Joel iii. 8.

It may be we have occupied too much time, in remarks too obscure and indistinct for biblical criticism, upon this passage of Zephaniah; and it may be that, in the judgment of some, we have thus made ourselves obnoxious to the satire of the reverend and witty commentator upon the words:

“Strange such difference there should be

'Twist tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee.”

But we were sure the passage had been greatly misunderstood, and were, perhaps, too much emboldened by the hope, that the providence of the All-wise might yet again issue forth the truth from the tongue of the feeble.

LESSON XVI.

From the root המּהhmh has also been derived the Arabic word حَمَّانٌhaman haman, and the Syriac ܚܳܡܳܢ' haman, and adopted by the Hebrews in the word חַמָןḥamān haman, which Castell translates “images,” dedicated to the worship of the sun, the worship of fire, heat, &c.

The Hebrew use of this word will be found in a plural form in Lev. xxvi. 30, thus: “And I will destroy your high places, and cut down your images,” hammanekem. 2 Chron. xiv. 3 (the fourth of the Hebrew text:) “And brake down the images,” חַמָנִ֑יםḥamānîm hammanim; also xxxiv. 4, 7: “And the images, (חַמָּנִיםḥammānîm hammanim) that were on high above them, he cut down,” “and had beaten the graven images (חַמָנִ֖יםḥamānîm hammanim) into powder.” Isa. xvii. 8: “Either the groves or the images,” חַמָנִֽיםḥamānîm hammanim; also xxvii. 9: “The groves and images (חַמָנִֽיםḥamānîm hammanim) shall not stand up.” Ezek. vi. 4, 6: “Your altars shall be desolate, and your images (חַמָּ֣נֵיכֶ֔םḥammānêkem hammanekem) shall be broken,” “and your images (חַמָּ֣נֵיכֶ֔םḥammānêkem hammanekem) may be cut down.” We have no possible word to express literally this term, but the hammanekens, or little HAMS, or fire-houses, the objects of religious adoration, were conical towers, from fifty to one hundred feet high, and fifteen to twenty feet in diameter at the base, and gradually decreasing upward, with a small door or opening fifteen or twenty feet above the base, and four smaller ones near the apex, looking towards the cardinal points.

The moderns have no certain knowledge of their particular use, yet all believe that in them was attempted to be kept the perpetual or holy fire, and perhaps into them was thrust the infant sacrificed to the god. May we not suppose that Daniel and his brethren would have informed us, had it been necessary for us to know more? Spencer, Heb. Laws, lib. ii. cap. 25, § 3, says of these edifices: “They were of a conical form and of a black colour.” It seems to us this identifies these edifices with the round towers of Persia and elsewhere, remains of many of which were anciently found in Ireland. The curious about this matter are referred to Gesenius’s Thesaurus, p. 489; also Lee’s Lex. p. 297, where he quotes Henrici Arentii Hamaker Miscellanea Phœnicia, pp. 49, 54; also Diatribe Philologico-Critica aliquot monumentorum Punicorum; Selden, de Diis Syris, ii. cap. 8, and the authors severally cited by them. Upon a full consideration of the subject, Dr. Lee says—“Upon the whole, I am disposed to believe that the term הָםhām (haman) is rather derived from הָםhām Ham, the father of Canaan, of Mitsraim, &c., Gen. x. 6–20; and hence by the latter worshipped as presiding angel of the sun, under the title of Ἄμουν, Greek Ἄμμων (Ammon), which is probably our very word.” If so, then his very name became significant of the worship of fire, and even expressive of the fire-temples themselves.

By some fanciful relation, not relevant to our subject, between the fire or sun worshippers and astronomy, when the sun was in aries (the ram), the god Ham, Ammon, Hammon, or Jupiter Hammon, was represented with a ram’s head for his crest; with this crest became associated the idea of the god, and hence chonchologists, even to this day, call certain shells, that are fancied to resemble the ram’s horn, Ammonites, giving further evidence, even now, of how deeply seated was the association between the earlier descendants of Ham and the fire worship of their day.

The long and fanciful story of Io, changed by Jupiter into a white cow; of her flight from the fifty sons of Egyptus; of her becoming the progenitor of the Ionians; the Egyptians claiming her under the name of Isis; of her marriage with Osiris, who became at length Apis and Serapis, worshipped in the image of a black bull with a white spot in his forehead, and many such tales, are all legitimately descended from his family peculiarities, their relative condition in the world, and the fact that Ham became the imaginary deity of his descendants.

Much evidence may be had proving that Ham became inseparably associated with, and in fact the very father of, idolatry, and of all those enormities growing out of it; enormities with which idolatry has ever been attended, and which time and the history of man for ever give proof to be a total preventive of all physical and moral elevation and improvement; and which, like other breaches against the laws of God, have, at all times, among all men, for ever been accompanied by both physical and moral degradation. But the descendants of Ham gave his name to their country. Ⲭⲏⲙⲓ Chemi was the Coptic name for Egypt, which the Septuagint translates into Χαμ Cham. Plutarch styles Egypt Χημία Chemia, from the Coptic Ⲭⲏⲙⲓ Chemi, and, as if he wished to give some account of its origin, adds, θερμή γὰρ ἐστὶν καὶ ὕγρα, “for it is hot and humid;” showing that the Ⲭⲏⲙⲓ Chemi of the Copts signified the same as the Ham of the Hebrews. But the Coptic word Ⲭⲏⲙⲓ Chemi, Χημι and Χημε of Plutarch, also signified the adjective black. See Gibbs’s Hebrew Lexicon, under the word חָםḥām Ham; and with this signification the word Ham is used in Ps. lxxviii. 51: “The chief of their strength in the tabernacles of Ham:” Septuagint, Χαμ, Cham, from the Coptic Ⲭⲏⲙⲓ chemi, black. cv. 23: “And Jacob sojourned in the land of Ham,” חָםḥām Ham: Septuagint, Χαμ, Cham, from the Coptic Ⲭⲏⲙⲓ chemi, black. 27: “And wonders in the land of Ham:” Septuagint, Χαμ Cham, from the Coptic Ⲭⲏⲙⲓ chemi, black. cvi. 22: “Wondrous works in the land of Ham:” Septuagint, Χαμ Cham, from the Coptic Ⲭⲏⲙⲓ chemi, black. The idea is, the land of the black people.

In this sense also the word is used in Gen. xiv. 5: “And smote the Rephaims in Ashteroth Karnaim, and the Zuzims in Ham.” The Septuagint translates this passage into Καὶ ἔθνη ἰσχυρά ἅμα αὐτοῖς, as though the בְּהָ֑םbĕhām be Ham was a pronoun, and which seems to have been the view of several ancient translators. But such certainly was not the view of the translators of the received version; nor of Martindale, and others from whom he compiled. He says of this passage—“2. Ham, crafty, or heat; the country of the Zuzims, the situation of which is not known:” p. 326. We certainly agree with the Septuagint that זוּזִיםzûzîm Zuzim was a significant term, and perhaps well enough explained by ἔθνη ἰσχυρὰ, for which a suitable translation would seem to be wicked, perverse, strong, numerous, or stubborn heathen. They were probably the זַמְזֻמֲיםzamzumăym Zamzummims of Deut. ii. 20.

The word בְּהָ֑םbĕhām be Ham, unless a pronoun as above, against which much can be said, is evidently used as in the Psalms quoted. In all these cases Ham is used somewhat as a synonyme of כּוּשׁkûš Cush; and when applied to a country generally, meant whatever country was occupied by the descendants of Ham. The sense of the sentence, and Zuzims in Ham, will then be, and the stubborn heathen in Ethiopia, or, the perverse tribes of Cush, or the wicked nations of Ham; all meaning the black tribes, descendants of Ham, or some one of them, when particularity is intended, as probably in this case; and let it be noticed, that Martindale, p. 241, gives “blackness” as his first definition of Cush. The descendants of Ham applying his name to themselves and country, they being black, it necessarily became significant of that colour. We have Germans, Swedes, English; but if we say “Negroes,” or if we say Africans, we mean black men, because those words, as now used, mean men of colour; and in a sense analogous, the word Ham seems to have been used in the passages quoted.

This view of the word Ham we think elucidates the history of Esther and that of Haman הָמָ֥ןhāmān the son of Hamadatha—Agagite, ha Agagi. The word is a patronymic of אַגָגʾagāg Agag,—hence he was an Amalekite: “Agag, the king of Amalek”—“Agag, the king of the Amalekites.” 1 Sam. xv. 20, 32. “Now there was one Haman, the son of Amadatha, by birth an Amalekite.” Josephus, book ii. cap. vi. 5. This shows the cause of the extraordinary hatred that existed between her people and his. His very name shows that he was a descendant of Ham, and we think also proves that the Amalekites were black; and which fact is confirmed by 1 Sam. xv. 6: “And Saul said unto the Kenites, Go, depart; get ye down from among the Amalekites, lest I destroy you with them,”—evincing the fact that by mere inspection he could not distinguish the one from the other. We have before shown that the Kenites were black. The argument follows, that the Amalekites were also.

The word Ham is also used in 1 Chron.iv. 40, in the same manner as it is in Psalms and Genesis, thus: “For they of Ham חָ֔םḥām had dwelt there of old.” This is said of Gedar, “even unto the east side of the valley.” Now Gedar was in the mountains of Judea, (see Josh. xv. 48–60,) or in the valley, (see Josh. xv. 36;) and as that account of the country of Judea closes (see idem, 63) by informing us whom the inhabitants of Judah could not drive out, and as the inhabitants of Gedar are not included in such list, it is to be presumed that the inhabitants of Gedar were so driven out at the time of Joshua; and leaves us nothing else to conclude than that, whoever they were, they who are spoken of in this passage, as having dwelt there of old, were the people driven out by him. But Josh. xii. 7, 8 informs us who the people were on the west side of Jordan, both in the mountains and valleys, and names them as Hittites, Amorites, Canaanites, Perizzites, and Hivites, and Jebusites; and from the 9th to the 24th gives us an account of their kings, among whom is named the king of Gedar, who was smitten and driven out. It is immaterial which of the tribes they were. They were inhabitants of Palestine, (see 2 Chron. xxviii. 18 and 1 Chron. xxvii. 28,) of the land of Canaan, not of south, east, nor of northern Arabia, nor of Egypt or any part of Africa; yet they are emphatically spoken of as of Ham, clearly having reference to their descent and colour. Here we have an additional key whereby to unlock the meaning of this word as used in Psalms and Genesis. There can be no doubt these primitive inhabitants of Gedar were the descendants of Canaan. Yet they are described by the same term which in other places is used to describe the descendants of Cush and Mitsraim; a term which most unquestionably determines them to have been black.

But the Coptic word chemi, which we have seen had the same significancy as חָםḥām ham in Hebrew, opens to the view the real meaning of a few Hebrio-Coptic words that grew into common use among the Hebrews subsequent to their bondage in Egypt. We allude solely to the derivatives of Ⲭⲏⲙⲓ Chemi. כֹּמֶרkōmer Chemar is thus derived, and occasionally used by the holy writers to signify black; thus, Lam. v. 10: “Our skin was black” נִכְמָ֔רוּnikmārû ni chemaru. True, some have disputed the accuracy of this translation. They take a cognate meaning, and say our skin was hot, &c. We hope to be excused for adopting the received version. But either meaning proves the origin of the word from the Coptic Ⲭⲏⲙⲓ chemi, the same as the ham of the Hebrews. The fact is, the cognate meaning, sometimes, necessarily forces itself into an English translation, as in Gen. xliii. 30: “For his bowels did yearn,” נִכְמְרוּnikmĕrû grew hot, warmed, became agitated, &c. 1 Kings iii. 26: “Her bowels yearned,” נִכְמְרוּnikmĕrû grew hot, troubled, &c.; and also Hosea xi. 8: “My repentings are kindled,” נְכְמְרוּnĕkmĕrû became hot, &c.

But in all these instances the figure of speech is more particularly Asiatic, and more obscure than is well suited to our modern dialect, as we think will be seen by comparing them with Job iii. 5, “Let the blackness of the day terrify it.”

From this Coptic name of Ham has also been derived the appellative term of the Moabitish and Ammonitish god כְּמֹוּשׁkĕmōûš Chemosh. The Syrians applied this term to the fancied being who oppresses mankind during the dark hours of their sleeping, and hence distressing dreams, incubus, &c. Chemosh is ranked with the god of destruction among the Hindoos, Muha Dēvā. The worshippers of this god are in Scripture called עַם־כְּמוֹשׁʿam-kĕmôš am Chemosh, the people of Chemosh, particularly the Moabites and Ammonites. The image of this god was a black stone.

The term applied to the priesthood in this worship among the black tribes is also derivative from the same Coptic word to which we have often added in translation the word “idolatrous.” Thus, 2 Kings xxiii. 5, “and he put down the idolatrous priests הַכְּמָרִיםhakkĕmārîm ha chemarim.” Hosea x. 5, “And the priests thereof” כְּמָרָיוkĕmārāyw. Zeph. i. 4, “And the name of the Chemarims,” הַכְּמָרִיםhakkĕmārîm ha Chemarim, i. e. the priests of the Hamitic fire-worshippers, &c. Some commentators, not connecting these words with the Coptic, and the priest, as the term applies, with the black families of Ham, have conceived that the idea blackness, as associated with these idolatrous priests, had reference to their apparel. Hence they conceive that these priests always wore black apparel; whereas the fact is they were black men, and, as such, are described by a term indicating that fact, as well as that of their idolatry and descent; and here we find the foundation of that modern and common prejudice, that the appropriate dress of the clergy is black.

But we find another derivative from the word Ham, Gen. xxxviii. 13: “And it was told Tamar, saying, Behold thy father-in-law חָמִיךְḥāmîk goeth up.” 25: “She sent to her father-in-law,” heחָמִיהָḥāmîhā So also 1 Sam. iv. 19: “And that her father-in-law was dead.” 21. “And because of her father-in-law,” חָמִֽיהָḥāmîhā. This word is used in the feminine in Micah, vii. 6, thus: “Against her mother-in-law,” בַּֽחֲמֲֹתָ֑הּbaḥămōătāh la hamtha. We notice the word is preceded by the word כַּלָּהkallâ, which word, in Gen. xxxviii. 11, is applied to Tamar, and in Jer. ii. 32, evidently to a “bride” taken from the heathen, which was forbid; and is also used in Cant. iv. 8, for the “spouse,” who is made to declare herself a black woman, giving evidence that the word in Micah is used in character.

This word is also used in the feminine in Ruth i. 14: “And Orpah kissed her mother-in-law,” לַּֽחֲמוֹתָ֔הּlaḥămôtāh la hamotha. ii. 11: “All that thou hast done unto thy mother-in-law,” חֲמוֹתֵךְḥămôtēk hamothek. 18: “And her mother-in-law saw what she had done,” hamotha. 19: “And her mother in-law (hamotha) said unto her;” “and she showed her mother-in-law,” la hamotha. 23: “And dwelt with her mother-in-law,” hamotha. iii. 1: “Then Naomi her mother-in-law,” hamotha. 6: “All her mother-in-law bade her,” hamotha. 16: “And when she came to her mother-in-law,” hamotha. This is certainly not the most usual word in Hebrew to express the idea of parent-in-law.

But these instances of its use are too frequent, its declination too varied, and in both genders, to admit the idea that they are the result of error or casualty, although some lexicographers seem to reject it. It may be noticed that the individual holding the junior position was a female—that in each case the parent-in-law was most unquestionably of pure Shemitic race.

But suspicion may at least be allowed to such purity in these young females. Tamar’s husbands were half of Canaanitish blood. It would be expected that she was of that race, but if not, her intermarriage with those sons of Judah placed her in that rank. The sons of Eli were notoriously wicked and licentious, and although the widow of Phinehas appears to have been of a devout cast, yet God had determined to destroy the house of Eli on their account, and to wrest the priesthood from the family. The suspicion as to her race grows out of these facts and the character of her husband. Ruth was declaredly a Moabitess, and Orpah was of that country.

Much might be said in favour of the position that in these cases the parents-in-law on the husband’s side were of pure Shemitic blood, and the reverse as to the daughters-in-law. Now as this peculiar term is nowhere else used in the holy books, are we not to suppose that this peculiar state of facts is nowhere else thus described? In Gen. xviii., when the father-in-law of Moses is named, this term is not used, but the more usual one; and the reason is because the position of the parties is changed. Had the father or mother of Moses been spoken of as the parent-in-law of Zippora, then we may presume this peculiar term would have been used and expressed the fact as to the distinction of races; that he would have been called חֲמִ֖יהָḥămîhā, and she her חֲמוֹתָהḥămôtâ. And we now present the inquiry, how came the name of Ham to be thus compounded and used to express this particular position of relationship and distinction of race, unless from the fact that he had placed his parents in a similar position, liable to have been called by these peculiar terms?

LESSON XVII.

Having thus, at some length, passed these subjects in review, we present our reflections to the impartial mind.

But there are grown up upon this earth some men who would seem to be so holy and pure that even the providences of God are defective in their sight, and by their conduct seem to evince their opinion to be that Jehovah could not well manage the government of the world without their especial counsel and aid. And do such really mean to condemn God, unless his government shall comport with their views? In kindness of heart, and for the benefit of such poor fallen ones, we propose to close this our present Study by reading to them the thirty-third chapter of Ecclesiasticus, omitting the five verses irrelevant to the subject.

“There shall no evil happen unto him that feareth the Lord, but in temptation even again he will deliver him. A wise man hateth not the law; but he that is a hypocrite therein is as a ship in the storm. A man of understanding trusteth in the law; and the law is faithful unto him as an oracle. Prepare what to say, and so thou shalt be heard; and bind up instruction, and then make answer.” “Why doth one day excel another, where as all the light of every day in the year is of the sun? By the knowledge of the Lord they were distinguished: and he altered seasons and feasts. Some of them hath he made high days, and hallowed them, and some of them hath he made ordinary days. And all men are from the ground, and Adam was created of earth. In much knowledge the Lord hath divided them, and made their ways diverse. Some of them hath he blessed and exalted, and some of them hath he sanctified, and set near himself: but some of them hath he cursed and brought low, and turned them out of their places. As the clay is in the potter’s hand, to fashion it at his pleasure, so is man in the hand of him that made him, to render to them as liketh him best. Good is set against evil, and life against death: so is the godly against the sinner, and the sinner against the godly. So look upon all the works of the Most High; and there are two and two, one against another. I awaked up last of all, as one that gathereth after the grape-gatherers; by the blessing of God I profited, and filled my wine-press, like a gatherer of grapes. Consider that I laboured not for myself only, but for all them that seek learning. Hear me, O ye great men of the people, and hearken with your ears, ye rulers of the congregation.” “In all thy works keep to thyself the pre-eminence; leave not a stain on thy honour. At the time when thou shalt end thy days, and finish thy life, distribute thine inheritance. Fodder, a wand and burdens, are for the ass; and bread, correction, and work, for a servant. If thou set thy servant to labour, thou shalt find rest, but if thou let him go idle, he shall seek liberty. A yoke and a collar to bow the neck, so are tortures and torments for an evil servant. Send him to labour, that he be not idle; for idleness teacheth much evil. Set him to work, as is fit for him; if he be not obedient, put on more fetters. But be not excessive toward any, and without discretion do nothing. If thou have a servant, let him be unto thee as thyself, because thou hast bought him with a price. If thou have a servant, entreat him as a brother: for thou hast need of him as thine own soul: if thou entreat him evil, and he run from thee, which way wilt thou go to seek him.”

The doctrine is, that man is not exempt from the general law, that governs the animal world; that among all the animated races upon this earth, certain causes produce deterioration; and that it may take a longer course of time for the restoration of a degenerate race, under the controlling influences of opposite causes, than even that occupied in a downward direction. “Quickly is the descent made to hell; but to recover from the fall, and regain our former standing, is a labour, a task indeed.” Virgil. In short, that sin has a tendency forcing downward to moral and physical ruin; to deteriorate the mental powers, to rot, to blast, as with a mildew, all animal perfections; to fill life with disease and pain, and its hours with misery and wo, and that it never willingly ceases its iron hold until it can shake hands with death. That God, in mercy, by the wisdom of his providence, has contrived as it were a shield, sheltering poor fallen man from the action of such portion of this deadly poison as would have destroyed every hope of intercession, and for ever excluded from our view, perhaps, even the advent of a Saviour. When the patient is dead, the physician is not called. The law which produced the deluge and destruction of the antediluvian world was a law established from all eternity, meet for just such a case as the moral and physical condition of man then was. For the sake of ten, Sodom would not have been destroyed; but it was less than ten for whom the Ark was provided; and we are to remember that quick upon the promise that all flesh were not again to be cast off, the lowest grade of slavery was promulgated, and its subjects ordered into the protection of the master; and may we not hence infer that slavery is intended, to some extent, as a preventive, as a shield against sin? And do we not notice that this shield is more or less weighty, more or less heavy to be borne, as the safety of the individual bearing it may require; and that it is so cunningly contrived, that its weight and burden are diminished in proportion as the danger abates?

“He poureth contempt upon princes, and causeth them to wander in the wilderness where there is no way; yet setteth he the poor on high from affliction, and maketh him families like a flock. The righteous shall see it and rejoice, and all iniquity shall stop her mouth. Whoso is wise, and will observe these things, even they shall understand the loving-kindness of the Lord.” Ps. cvii. 40–43.

In close, we may everywhere notice that some among the family of man have become so poisoned with sin, so destroyed, that they are no longer safe guardians to themselves, even under the general interdict, that animal wants enslave us all. That for such God provides, as the general safety may seem to require. That, in the history of man, some races have become so deteriorated by a continued action in opposition to the laws of God, that he has seen fit to care for them, by placing them under the control of others; or by placing them, in mercy, under the guidance of a less deteriorated race, whom, no doubt, he holds responsible for the good he intends them. And may we be permitted of the humble Christian to inquire, if this position presents any thing contrary to the general law of benevolence of the Deity,—contrary to the welfare of man on earth, or his hopes of heaven? Will you reject the doctrine, saying the biblical proofs are too scattered, too deeply buried under the dust of time? or, because a prophet has not appeared, or one arisen from the dead? The geologist, from a few fragments of bone, now dug from the deep bowels of the earth, is able to set up the osseous frame, to clothe with muscle and sinew, and give character to the animals of ancient time. And shall it not be recollected by you, who are striving to make your descendants the very princes of intellect and talent, that similar researches may be made in the moral history of man?

We submit the foregoing, confident, although there may be obscurity and darkness yet surrounding the subject, which we have not the ability to dispel, that the time will come, when it will be made plain to the understanding of all. We therefore resign the subject, touching the colour of the descendants of Ham, of their relationship with the family of Cain, and the ordinances of God influencing their condition in the world, to those more learned, more critical, and of more mental power, and into the hands of those whose lips have been touched by a more living coal from the altar of the prophet.