Aunt Philliss Cabin | Page 2

openly dishonor and expose
an erring parent, borne down with the weight of years, and honored by
God as Noah had been! The very act of disrespect to Noah, the chosen

of God, implies wilful contempt of God himself. Ham was not a young
man either: he had not the excuse of the impetuosity of youth, nor its
thoughtlessness--he was himself an old man; and there is every reason
to believe he had led a life at variance with God's laws. When he
committed so gross and violent a sin, it may be, that the curse of God,
which had lain tranquil long, was roused and uttered against him: a
curse not conditional, not implied--now, as then, a mandate of the
Eternal.
Among the curses threatened by the Levites upon Mount Ebal, was the
one found in the 16th verse of the 27th chapter of Deuteronomy:
"Cursed be he that setteth light by his father or his mother." By the law
of Moses, this sin was punished with death: "Of the son which will not
obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother," "all the men of
his city shall stone him with stones that he die." (Deut. xxi. 21.) God in
his wisdom instituted this severe law in early times; and it must
convince us that there were reasons in the Divine mind for insisting on
the ordinance exacting the most perfect submission and reverence to an
earthly parent.
"When, after the deluge," says Josephus, "the earth was settled in its
former condition, Noah set about its cultivation; and when he had
planted it with vines, and when the fruit was ripe, and he had gathered
the grapes in the season, and the wine was ready for use, he offered a
sacrifice and feasted, and, being inebriated, fell asleep, and lay in an
unseemly manner. When Ham saw this, he came laughing, and showed
him to his brothers." Does not this exhibit the impression of the Jews as
regards the character of Ham? Could a man capable of such an act
deserve the blessing of a just and holy God?
"The fact of Noah's transgression is recorded by the inspired historian
with that perfect impartiality which is peculiar to the Scriptures, as an
instance and evidence of human frailty and imperfection. Ham appears
to have been a bad man, and probably he rejoiced to find his father in
so unbecoming a situation, that, by exposing him, he might retaliate for
the reproofs which he had received from his parental authority. And
perhaps Canaan first discovered his situation, and told it to Ham. The

conduct of Ham in exposing his father to his brethren, and their
behaviour in turning away from the sight of his disgrace, form a
striking contrast."--_Scott's Com._
We are told in Gen. ix. 22, "And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the
nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without;" and in the
24th, 25th, 26th, and 27th verses we read, "And Noah awoke from his
wine, and knew what his younger son had done unto him; and he said,
Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.
And he said, Blessed be the Lord God of Shem, and Canaan shall be his
servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of
Shem, and Canaan shall be his servant." Is it not preposterous that any
man, any Christian, should read these verses and say slavery was not
instituted by God as a curse on Ham and Canaan and their posterity?
And who can read the history of the world and say this curse has not
existed ever since it was uttered?
"The whole continent of Africa," says Bishop Newton, "was peopled
principally by the descendants of Ham; and for how many ages have
the better parts of that country lain under the dominion of the Romans,
then of the Saracens, and now of the Turks! In what wickedness,
ignorance, barbarity, slavery, misery, live most of the inhabitants! And
of the poor negroes, how many hundreds every year are sold and
bought like beasts in the market, and conveyed from one quarter of the
world to do the work of beasts in another!"
But does this curse authorize the slave-trade? God forbid. He
commanded the Jews to enslave the heathen around them, saying, "they
should be their bondmen forever;" but he has given no such command
to other nations. The threatenings and reproofs uttered against Israel,
throughout the old Testament, on the subject of slavery, refer to their
oppressing and keeping in slavery their own countrymen. Never is there
the slightest imputation of sin, as far as I can see, conveyed against
them for holding in bondage the children of heathen nations.
Yet do