J5he
Descent of the Negro
REPLY TO
Rev. Drs. J. H. VINCENT, J. M. FREEMAN and
J. L. HURLBUT
Editors of
Sunday School Journal for Teachers and Young People.
Methodist Episcopal Church,
By BISHOP B. T. TANNER. LL. D.
Introduction by Proi. II. T. Kealiug, Editor of the A. M. E.
Church Review.
- ' .
, V"
15he
Descent of the Negro
REPLY TO
Rev. Drs. J. H. VINCENT, J. M. FREEMAN and
J. L. HURLBUT
Editors of
Sunday School Journal for Teachers and Y.ouns* People.
Methodist Episcopal Church,
By BISHOP B. T. TANNER, LL. D.
Introduction by Prof. H. T. ICealing, Editor of the A. M. EC.
Church Review.
PUBLISHER'S NOTE.
For some time we have been thinking of publishing a series
jf pamphlets to give the people an opportunity of reading
some of the best thoughts of our best writers on subjects of
general and special interest. In keeping with that purpose,
we are permitted to present to our readers this very interest¬
ing, as well as highly instructive, booklet from the pen of one
of our ablest writers. This will be known as No. i, of
Series i.
Bishop Tanner is universally admitted to be a man of great
ability and an able writer. All, no doubt, will delight to read
whatever emanates from his pen. For twenty years, as editor
he was read after. Many almost regretted when he was
elected a Bishop, fearing he would lay down his pen and 110
longer give the world the benefit of his great fund of knowl¬
edge. Such has not been the case. He has continued to write
to the delight of all, and in his usual strong vein. We have
now ready for the press, what will, in all probability, be his
crowning work: "The Dispensations." This pamphlet is one
of the chapters of that work, and will be read with both in¬
terest and profit by thousands. We have almost ready No. 2,
by Dr. W. D. Johnson, of Georgia. Others will be published
from time to time, and we hope to induce a number of writers
to take part in giving 11s equally interesting pamphlets. We
are sure that they will find a ready sale, that tiie people will
gladly take hold of them, and that much benefit will be derived
from them. Our race is fast developing writers of no mean
ability and is thereby giving parturition to the great thoughts
(hat have so long struggled within us for expression.
T. W. Henderson,
General Manager A. M. E. Publishing House.
631 Pine St., Philada., Aug. 1, '98.
INTRODUCTION.
The subject matter of this pamphlet is a part of Bishop B.
T. Tanner's new work, "The Dispensations in History," and
was first given to the public through the A. M. E. Church
Review of July, 1898, at the request of its editor, whose duties
as book editor of the A. M. E. Publishing House brought it
thus early under his notice.
Its publication in this cheap and convenient form is the
result of the suggestion that thousands of thoughtful men who
may not see the Review would be distinctly benefitted, as well
as greatly pleased, by coining into possession of a piece of
controversial writing so keen and effective as this.
The Christian world is no longer unanimous in accepting
a whole Bible. To the Jew only, is the Old Testament, as a
whole, the sacred and indestructible word of God, clothed with
the authority of infallibility and dignified with the verity of
history. Too many Christian scholars count it their greatest
j oy to find a mistake of Moses; or, by the keenness of
casuistry, to read into, or out of, an apparently plain passage
of Scripture meanings that reverse language and unsettle
simple faith.
Of course, modern research, exploration and decipherment
have thrown much light upon obscure and difficult passages,
most of it, however, confirmatory and supplementary; but
there is a species of inquiry, born of bias and backed by un¬
christian desire, that projects gratuitous doubt into realms
where no modern discovery suggests that legitimate grounds
for doubt exist.
To this latter class of scriptural penumbrations belongs the
statement combated so forcibly and successfully by Bishop
Tanner in this pamphlet: "It is not certain zvhether or not the
Negro race descended 'from Ham."
As a piece of polemics, space being considered, Bishop
Tanner's contribution is as faultless in its strategy as it is
bold in sortie; for it accepts the gage of battle on the very
grounds where his opponents profess to stand—belief in Scrip¬
ture—and refuses to be led therefrom. Having done this, he
challenges them to frame statements plainer and less open to
ambiguity than those in which the Biblo proclaims the Noachic
descent of all mankind.
"The Descent of the Negro" is given the weight which
Bishop Tanner's forty years of special study in comparative
philology, ethnology and collateral social science supply, added
to his close, critical and systematic study of the Bible; so that
probably no living man of his race is as well able as he to
measure arms in this difficult arena with the scholarship of the
proud race that seems determined to elbow all but alabaster
peoples into the sea of sub-humanity.
And his words will be heard, for his standing among those
granted to have authority when they speak, is accorded.
In the earnest hope that this brochure may have a cordial
reception and a thoughtful reading at the hands of those who
are able, first, and willing, afterwards, to consider truth for
its own beautiful sake, we usher you, without further delay,
to the feast. H. T. Kealing.
Philadelphia, Pa., August i, '98.
Note.—This pamphlet is from advance sheets of Bishop
Tanner's new book, "Dispensations in the History of the
Chu rch."— (Editor.)
The Descent of the Negro
"It is not certain whether or not the Negro race
descended from Ham." So say the scholarly trium¬
virs who edit the Sunday School Journal for Teach¬
ers and Young People, the Rev. Drs. John H. Vin¬
cent, J. M. Freeman, J. L. Hurlbut; and through
and by these, so says the great Methodist Episcopal
Church, for they are her mouthpiece to the millions
of young people who attend her Sunday Schools,
and the greater number who attend her church ser¬
vices.
Let us not be misunderstood. The Methodist
Episcopal Church, in a publication the most doc¬
trinal of any issued from her press, says authorita¬
tively, "It is not certain whether or not the Negro
race descended from Ham." And she expects,
nay, in a sense demands, her millions of young peo¬
ple to accept this doubt; for if this be not the ca ;e;
why her Berean comments 011 the International
Bible readings? Is it not common understanding
that each denomination will take these readings,
and give the interpretation thought to be consistent
with its standard of belief? Precisely so. The
Sunday School Journal, wherein these triumvirs
are heard to speak, is but the Methodist Episcopal
Church speaking through her own chosen channels.
The Descent of the Negro 7
Therefore does she say to her children, black and
white, and to the world at large, "It is not certain
whether or not the Negro descended from Ham."
Xor does it seem to have occurred to these masters
in this Christian Israel that there are two hundred
thousand or more of these same Negroes in organic
union with themselves, any one of whom, the votes
requisite being had, in the nigh future might be
elevated to the lofty rank of a Bishop in the same
Church. And what a sight! A Bishop in whose
veins no Noachic, if indeed Adamic, blood flows?
But to our proposed answer. It is in place to say
that no study is more legitimate, profitable or inter¬
esting than the origin of the races. Whence came
they? is a question at which the greatest dullard
starts up. Whence came the white man with his
long goat-like hair? The yellow man with his
'black jetty locks? The black man with his hair of
wool-like texture? Themes, these, so entrancing in
interest as ever to have commanded the attention
of the minds of the most magnanimous. Whence,
then, the origin or descent of the Negro? We con¬
cede the pertinency of this question in common
with the rest, and only demand that the discussion
attending it .-hall be conducted in a spirit alto¬
gether in keeping with the general loftiness of the
theme: for, of the Negro we have to say, that in all
the possibilities of human greatness he is not a whit
behind any. Scattered and peeled now, we confess,
yet has he in him al! those elements of character
that everywhere rank high in the scale of human de-
8
The Descent of the Negro
velopment. Physically, the most enduring'; mor¬
ally, the most susceptible; and spiritually, of the
keenest vision, he is destined yet to share, largely
in the future government of the world; and if the
visions of Swedenborg be true, to reach the highest
exaltation in the world to come.*
Fairness of discussion is all, then, that we de¬
mand of these Methodist triumvirs—these, who
seem to be treading so hard in the footsteps of him
who wrote "The Pre-Adamite." But is fairness
evinced in the work from which we quote— the
fairness, we mean, that is shown in hunting up the
origin of the white man of Europe and the yellow
man of Asia? We do not hesitate to say that such
is not the case ; but 011 the contrary, a bias that ut¬
terly unfits them for the impartial performance of
the work in hand. But let us make g'ood this grave
charge. We quote from Lesson iv, Sunday School
Journal, January 23d : "Noah begat three sons"
How do these Doctors know that such was the case?
Manifestly they were not there to see, for accord¬
ing to accepted chronology Noah lived more than
four thousand years ago. How do they know the
number of his sons with their names? The answer
is, as we all know, the Bible declares it. It is the
Bible that says Noah had three sons and that their
names were Shem, Ham and Japheth. And these
'"Speaking of Israel, George Rawlinson says:—we using the
term Negro, instead of Israel,—"Ihe Negro's warfare, his
long term of hard service, will assuredly come to an end; he
will thoroughly turn to God; and then his iniquity will be
pardoned, he will be considered to have suffered enough,"—
even double. '
The Descent of the NTegro 9
gentlemen believe what the Bible says; at least, what
it says in full of Shem and Japheth, but only in part
what it says of Ham. But we continue to quote
from the same Journal: "Shem r He was the son of
Noah, through whom the covenant succession was
maintained to Christ, and was a hundred years old
at the time of the flood. He was the ancestor of
most of the Oriental nations, as the Israelites,
Syrians, Arabians, and many others. His descend¬
ants are known as Semitic races, and their most
powerful branches have been the ancient Assyrians
and the modern Saracens and Turks." A deal of
information is here given, it must be confessed.
Whence did they get it? From whom learn it?
As in the case of the information above, they are
obliged to fall back on the Bible as the source of
all information. We continue to quote: "Ham:
His name means 'heat,' and perhaps refers to the
climate of the land of his posterity. The earliest
empires- of history, those of Babylonia and Egvpt,
were both Hamitic, as were the Canaanites,
Phoenicians and Carthaginians. The descendants
of Ham built the pyramids and the Tower of Babel,
and were the earliest navigators and traders. It is
not certain whether or not the Negro race descended
from Ham." Again we ask: Whence did they
learn all that is here affirmed? From the Bible—
save the last gratuitous statement.
Lastly, we quote from this same lesson : "Japheth :
The oldest of Noah's sons (Gen. x. 21), vet later
than the other families in his history. While the
10 The Descent of the Negro
."Hamites and Shemites were founding empires,
Japheth's descendants were wandering" tribes of
shepherds. Yet they became the conquerors of all
the other races, through the Brahmins in India, the
Medes and Persians in Western Asia, the Greeks,
the Romans and the Anglo-Saxons in Europe and
America." We are indeed astonied, to use an old
English word, at the wealth of the information
here given; so full, indeed, that we are compelled
to say they think they get it from the Bible, and
so thinking, credit it with the same.* But every un¬
biased reader knows that it is nothing more nor less
than Japheth interpreting in his own interest. In
deferring-, however, to- the extent they have, to the
Bible, they deserve praise; for no better authority
can be given than this same Bible, upon the matter
about which we write. Nor is it exactly correct to
say, "No better authority than the Bible can be
given," and for the reason that other authorities
than it are implied in such a statement. The fact
is, the Bible is the best authority, not because it is
the best attested of any, but the best because it is
the only authority the race possesses upon the ques¬
tions under discussion. It alone throws light upon
*In the powerful quaintness of his utterances, Bishop Henry
McNeal Turner says, "We are reaching the place where we
are almost becoming to despise the white man's history and
two-thirds of his philosophy. Everything is colored, tinctured,
doctored and painted to suit his whims, wishes and would-
be's." [Letter from Grand Canary Island, March i, 1898.]
In this, Bishop Turner but gives expression to the thoughts
of all fairly educated Afro-Americans. Not even the sanctity
of the Bible escapes the determination of the white man to
make his race the representative race of all ages, as it un¬
doubtedly is of the present age.
The Descent of the Negro ) i
man's creation and the early dawn of the races.
Herein the literature of the Hebrews transcends
in value the literature of all others. It is in vain
that we seek for light upon this matter in the old
Egyptian "Book of the Dead," with what Manetho,
their great historian, has written. Berosus, best rep¬
resentative of the old Assyrian literature, has noth¬
ing to say upon the subject of the rise of the races.
Equally silent is the Vedic and Sanskrit literature
of India. China, speaking through Confucius and
the writers of the school of Taou, is dumb; while
the Kojiki and Nibouji of Japan are equally so.
As with these, even so is it with early Greek lore.
All is fable. It is, then, to the Hebrew Bible that
we are doomed to turn for aught that is authentic
and credible pertaining to the origin of the race.-.
More is told us in the single ioth chapter of Genesis
than either Egypt or Assyria, Greece or India,
China or Japan ever dreamed of, or ever knew. It
is, then, to the Bible that these gentlemen must turn
for information in regard to the rise of the races.
And, as we have said, it is well they do. What the
Scriptures say of the white, or Japhetic, race they
accept—with a large per cent, of the imaginary;
also what they say of the yellow, or Shemitic, race.
Shall not the same fealty be shown to what these
same Scriptures say of the Hamitic, or black, race?
If not, why not? Where is the scholar who pro¬
fesses to accept the doctrine of Biblical inspiration
that is prepared to take so temerous a step as ac¬
cepting a part of the Holy Writ and rejecting; a
The Descent of the Negro
part? Is the Bible in error in what it says of
Ham, why should we believe it right in what it
says of Shem and Japheth? If wrong in regard to
Shem and Japheth, why should we believe it right
in regard to Noah? And if in error in regard to
Noah, why should we believe it right in regard to
the Deluge and antediluvian events generally?
And if in error in regard to these, why should we
believe it right in regard to Adam and the Crea¬
tion? And if in error in regard Adam, why should
we believe it right in regard to God and Christ and
the great matters of faith in general ? And, finally,
if the Bible is in error in regard to these, why
should we deem it right in the claims it makes upon
us for unconditional acceptance regardless of the
fact that here, as elsewhere, the saying of the old
Latin holds good: ''Ab uno disce omnes?" for if
manifest error be admitted in statements here and
there made, henceforth must the Bible lose its place
in the affections of man. But is this so? Does this
much vaunted Word of God prevaricate? We are
unwilling" to believe it. The Bible is still the book
of God, and, therefore, the Book of books,—it is
still the "Rock of Ages'' for the faith of the world.
Therefore do we stand ready to resist to the utter¬
most of our power the infidel remark which con¬
cludes the statement in regard to us and those for
whom we stand: "It is not certain whether or
not the Negro race descended from Ham." Why
is it not certain? Have Moses and the writers of
the Bible spoken any less truly of this class than
13
of their white and yellow cousins? No unbiased
Bible reader will or can truthfully say so.
And now having appealed to this literary Caesar,
let us approach his august throne. That the Negro
is of African patrimony the world knows. The
dullest blockhead of the most out-of-the-way coun¬
try school knows that the father of the black fellow
whom he is all the time meeting, came from Africa.
Nor could the most persistent pedagogue get him
to believe otherwise. The Negro, then, is of Africa.
But who settled Africa—which of the sons of
Noah, we mean? The one authoritative voice in
the settlement of this question is the Bible, for it
alone, as we have said .throws light upon ages de¬
clared to be prehistoric by the secular analysts. Is
Europe Japhetic? Is Asia Shemitic? Then Africa
is Hamitic by one and the same testimony; re¬
inforced, however, we may be allowed to say, by
the facts of philology; for, while Europe and Asia
depend altogether upon the statements of history.
Africa can call to her help philology. Why should
Holy Writ be thought to speak infallibly of two and
fallibly of one? Was the writer biased, or were
the acts more difficult to remember? Neither sup¬
position is to be entertained. These triumvirs be¬
lieve what is written of two, even to excess. Why
incredulous of what is said of one? They believe
that Europe, substantially, is of Japheth; and Asia,
substantially, of Sliem. Why disbelieve that Af¬
rica is substantially of Ham? The response made
is ; They do, save as to the Negro. But if we sub-
14 The Descent of the Negro
tract the Negro from the population of Africa,—
subtract the Hebrew, Cushim, the Greek, Ethiopian,
but little of moment remains. Our argument is
that Ham is the father of all Africa, and the Negro
being of Africa, is necessarily of Ham. The Scrip¬
tural proof we offer divides itself into two heads:
first, that which relates to Ham; secondly, that
which relates to his sons. That Africa is Hamitic
we read:
Also :
"And smote all the first born in Egypt;
The chief of their strength in the tents of Ham."
(Psl. lxxviii: 51).
And:
"Israel also came unto Egypt;
And Jacob sojourned in the land of Ham."
(Psl. cv: 23.)
Also:
"They set among them his signs,
And wonders in the land of Ham." (Psl. cv: 27).
"They forgat God their Saviour,
Which had done great things in Egypt;
Wondrous works in the land of Ham."
(Psl. cvi: 21-22).
What is the testimony here given by the poet
king? and in perfect agreement, too, with what
Holy Scripture everywhere says ? It is, that, in the
popular mind, the fact that Africa was the home
of Ham was so well fixed, in keeping with the
spirit of true poesy, he makes use of it in writing
his inimitable verses. And the editors of the Jour¬
nal can safely be challenged to produce anything
like as conclusive testimony to the fact, so readily
assumed by them, that Europe, with a large portion
of Asia, is the land of Japheth, They might, in-
The Descent of the Negro
15
deed, produce such testimony in regard to Asia as
the land of Shem; but they will utterly fail in re¬
gard to Japheth. Before leaving this Scriptural
evidence in regard to Ham, were we allowed to re¬
fer to secular history, we might mention the fact
that just as the going of Ham into Africa, either in
person or by proxy, was in the Jewish mind; even
so was it in the mind of the great outside world,
as is attested by Plutarch and Herodotus and
Josephus. But fighting this battle within purely
Scriptural grounds, we refrain.
And now, as to the fact of Ham's sons going into
Africa. He had four sons : Cush, Mizraim, Phut,
and Canaan. It is the testimony of Scripture that
all these migrated to Africa, save him upon whom
the curse rested, Canaan. Concerning this last well-
attested fact, we are led to quote from our pamphlet
of twenty years ago, "Is the Negro Cursed?" We
there say: "The question is, Why did not Canaan
and his posterity accompany the tribes of Ham into
Africa ? Why this younger one remain ? In after
years the twelve tribes of Jacob marched up from
Egypt, nor was one left behind. Why should not
the four tribes of Ham march down? The young¬
est child is most generally the pet, the best beloved.
Jacob loved Joseph the best of all his boys, be¬
cause 'he was the son of his old age.' Human na¬
ture is one. Wherefore, then, should Ham leave
this son of his old age behind? The whole affair
is inexplicable without the assumption that some
sad transaction made it necessary for him thus to
16 The Descent of the Negro ^
act. This we find in the curse pronounced. With
this understanding, how natural does the course of
the;e sons become? How justifiable, in forsaking a
brother, aye, in compelling him to remain behind.
These brethren had just experienced the wrath of
the curse of God, had seen the floods descend, had
heard the fountains of the deep break up, had felt
the mighty throes of the earth beneath the feet of
their angered God, and from the great depths of
their souls they sighed to be spared another such
visitation. They could not doubt the prophetic dig¬
nity of their father. They knew his voice made
known the mind and will of God, and when in
prophetic ecstacy they saw the roll of his eye and
heard the muttering words, 'Cursed be Canaan,'
they felt the breaking asunder of every tie of
brotherhood and destiny. With one voice the
brothers said, 'Arise, let us go hence.' " Where did
they go? Straight into Africa. So says Holy
Scripture. Let us refer to these sons in the order of
their mentioning. And first: Cash. Whenever, in
the original Hebrew, Cush is mentioned—with but
a single exception (and where it refers to a person),
the translation is, Ethiopia. That this may be ac¬
cepted as a correct translation appears from the fol¬
lowing- considerations :
i. (a) The Cushim descended from Ham, as
is well known, and inhabited a hot south country.
Ham was in Africa, and his seed, doubtless, spread
into the hot country of Ethiopia.
(b) The Cushim were black. "Can the Ethio-
The Descent of the Negro
i7
pian (or Cushite) change his skin?" Jer. xiii: 23.
(c) The C'ushim were in close proximity to the
Mizraimites or Egyptians, for the two are uni-'
formerly coupled together. See Isaiah xx: 3, 4, 5;
xliii: 3; Nahum iii: 9; Psalm lxviii: 31, etc.
(d) Isaiah (xviii: 2) describes the Cushim as
sending ambassadors in "vessels of bulrushes/'
Bulrushes are purely an African or Nilotic produc¬
tion.
With such an array of testimony as this, who can
doubt the going of Cush into Africa?
2. In regard to the advent of the Son Mizraim
into Africa, the Scriptures speak most definitely.
It is enough to say that Egypt as a country, is only
known in the Bible by the name of Mizraim, Egypt
itself being a Greek word, and, consequently, no¬
where found in the original Scriptures. Against
such a fact as this it is useless to protest and argue.
3. As to the posterity of Phut settling in Af¬
rica, the evidence in Scripture is that he is invar¬
iably joined with his brethren, the Cushites. Jere¬
miah xlvi: 9, says, "Cush and Phut that handled
the shield." Ezekiel (xxxviii: 5) says, "Phut and
Cush with them." So also speaks the prophet
Nahum (iii: 9).
What is the burden of this accumulated testi¬
mony? It is that Africa is unknown to the writers
of the Bible, only as it appears under Hamitic
names. Refuse to recognize and accept these
Hamitic names, and you have no allusion to it. It
is the land of Ham, To the writers of the Bible,
i8
Egypt is Mizraim. To them, Ethiopia is Gush.
And to them, the land of Phut is always allied to
the land of Cush. But cannot Ham be the father of
Africa and yet not be the father of the Negro?
Not if the Japhetic fatherhood of Europe takes in
all the races of Europe. Not if the Shemitic father¬
hood of Asia takes in all the tribes of Asia. Not if
the great doctrine of Scripture be true that God
made of one blood all nations of men. Not if
Adam be the first father and Noah the second father
of the race. Not, in short, if the Bible itself be
true; that is, be what it is represented to be, the
word of God. And lastly, not if harmony of in¬
terpretation be insisted upon. To attempt assign¬
ing the Negro another than Hamitic origin, is
nothing less than an attempt to read the Bible with
other than the old-time Christian eyes. In the light
of those eyes the Bible is an inspired book; if not
verbally inspired, certainly plenarily inspired. Ac¬
cording to this light, the race is a unit, with Noah
for its head as one, and Shem, Ham and Japheth
as its heads in parts. But in the light of these new-
eyes all this is seen to be erroneous. Adam and
Noah are simply the father of the white race.
Negroes are somebody else.* They are possibly
*In_ a letter received from one of the first Christian schol¬
ars of the age ; he says:
"Those who question whether the Negro race is Hamitic,
I suppose do not feel bound to go to the Bible for their eth¬
nology. They do not regard the Biblical genealogies as his¬
torical, but rather as ethnological and, in part, mythical. I do
not suppose they believe that the Flood, if there was any, de¬
stroyed the human race entirely; and they use the word Ham¬
itic just as we use the word Shemitic, not to denote a line-
The Descent of the Negro 19
Pre-Adamites. Crowned with age, if not with
honor, they were before the white man was! And
all this the Sunday School authorities of the great
Methodist Episcopal Church wink at, if they do not
boldly teach. In this, we are sure they do not truth¬
fully represent their time-honored body.
As we have shown, however, Ham is of Africa,
and because this is so, the Negro being of Africa,
is necessarily of Ham. Three continents, Asia,
Africa, Europe; three patriarchs, Shem, Ham, and
Japheth. Each continent for a patriarch; each
patriarch for a continent.
Nor were there any squatters in those primeval
days. To say the Negro is not of Ham is to make
him a squatter. But even then the pertinent ques¬
tion remains: Whence came he? Found in Africa
when the Hamitic hordes first crossed from Shinar,
what was his genesis?
There is but one door of escape for these gentle-
age which comes from a historical character, named Ham or
Shem, but to indicate a family of race or language. That is,
they would hold that the Biblical account makes no mention of
Negroes any more than it does of Chinese, and that they are
outside of the account given in the Bible. If they believe in a
local flood they would believe that Negroes and Chinese repre¬
sent people that were not affected by the flood, and if they
regarded the story of the creation of Adam as historical, and
that Adam was the father of the human race, they would hold
that they were descended equally from Adam, but not from
any historical Noah. It is not in their mind at all to deny
the equal humanity of all the races, but to discuss simply the
ethnological relations. They seem to have reason to believe
that certain Hamitic races were white, settled in North Africa,
and they would believe that the compilers of the ethnology of
Genesis x. did not know the Negro races south of North
Africa any more than they knew the races of India or China
east of Elam."
The Descent of the Negro
men, and it is to them what Scylla is to Charybdis.
Do they mean to intimate, if not to say, that while
the Negro is Adamic he is not Noahic? This is tan¬
tamount to saying that the Negro escaped the
waters of the flood. Do they mean this ? If so, why
not have the courage of their conviction? But if
the Negro escaped the flood, why may not other
races have escaped also? and if so, what became of
the words of Peter (iii: 20)— * * * '"when
the longsuffering of God waited in the days of
Noah, when the ark was a preparing, wherein few,
that is, eight souls, were saved through water."
It is well enough to know that when we once deny
the universality of the destruction wrought by the
Flood, there is no possible way of telling where to
s'op. Did the Negro escape, why may not other
of the African tribes—the "white" Hamites, for in¬
stance? And if these, why not some of the tribes
of Asia, the Chinese, for instance? We confess
here to intricacy; but why should the Negro be
selected to settle it; why experiment upon him—
an experiment that may well be said to bring in
such an understanding of the Bible as to make it
essentially a new book? Of the Flood, Moses says:
"And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the
earth, and all the high mountains that were under
the whole heavens were covered. Fifteen cubits up¬
ward did the waters prevail; and the mountains
were covered. And all flesh died that moved upon
the earth, both fowl, and cattle and beast, and every
creeping- thing that creepeth upon the earth, and
The Descent of the Negro
every man: all in whose nostrils was the breath of
the spirit of life, of all that was in the dry land,
died. And every living thing was destroyed which
was upon the face of the ground, both man, and cat¬
tle, and creeping thing, and fowl of the heaven;
and they were destroyed from the earth; and Noah
only was left, and they that were with him in the
ark." (Gen. vii: 19-23.)
in the face of such a record as this, it seems to
us to be all folly to question the universality of the
flood, both in extent and in consequences.51' We
have no quarrel with science. We care little about
its teachings as they may be thought to bear upon
the discussion in hand. Our to do is with Moses.
To us the one important question is: Does he or
does he not teach that the Food was universal? and
by universal, we mean wherever man or beast or
bird or creeping thing had gone. That he does, or,
at least, intends so to do, is self-evident. Referring
to Victor Hugo, De Pressense affirmed that France
could never produce a poet to equal him, to say
nothing of surpassing him. The reason he as¬
signed was, that on the score of poetry, Hugo had
"played the French language for all that it was
worth." Even so Moses and the Flood. To say
that he does not declare for the universality of the
Flood, is to make it impossible for any to declare it,
and for the reason that he plays human language
for all it is worth. Whether he tells the truth or
*Sec the Prelude: The Flood, in "The Dispensations in His¬
tory."
22 The Descent of the Negro
not, is another question. Our present task is to find
out what he says, and, for one, we believe he is
abundantly able to make answer for himself. If
the words we have quoted above do not tell us that
the Flood was of world-wide extent, then our lan¬
guage—aye, or any other—is inadequate to the task
of telling it ; and if any doubt this, let him try to
form a paragraph in which universality shall be
told. As intimated, we do not presume to settle
this question, especially after what the scientists
have said, and after what the "conquered stand¬
points" of science seem to teach. That Moses, how¬
ever, intended to say that the Flood was universal,
is beyond question. But to say that the Negro did
not spring from Ham is to settle the question in
the interest of science, so-called, and against Moses
—is to say, that the Flood was not universal; that
all fle;h did not die; that every man save Noah and
those with him in the Ark did not perish. Nay,
more, to say that the Negro is not of Hamitic birth
is to impugn the word of Him in whom dwells all
the fullness of the Godhead bodily. Did not Christ
accept the popular idea that the Flood was univer¬
sal ? Did He not teach as much ? Says He:
"And as were the days of Noah so shall be the com¬
ing of the Son of Man. For as in those days which
were before the flood they were eating and drink¬
ing, marrying- and giving in marriage, until the
day that Noah entered into the ark, and they knew
not until the flood came, and took them all away;
so shall be the coming of the Son of man." (Matt!
xxiv: 37-39.)
The Descent of the Negro
23
The one teaching of this is that if the Flood was
not universal, the coming of the Son of Man will
not be; and that if some escaped the Flood why
may not some escape the judgment?
But let us conclude this reply: As was Asia when
the second peopling of the earth by the sons of Noah
began, desolate, but hospitable, for primeval nature
is always thus: as was Europe when the sons of
Japheth and their descendants, Gomer and Magog,
and Madai and javan, and Tubal and Meshech and
Tiras entered it, even so was Africa when Cush and
Mizraim and Phut crossed at Suez, or waded at
Babelmandeb. And from these, the mighty millions
of the great peninsula have sprung, be they brown
or black; be they of the regions bordering the Red
Sea and the Nile, or the regions close to the set¬
ting sun.
These triumvirs to the contrary, the statement
Paul made 011 Mars Hill to the men at Athens is
yet true: * * * "and he made of one every
nation of men for to dwell 011 all the face of the
earth, having determined their appointed seasons,
and the bounds of their habitation." (Acts xvii;
26.)
The Negro is a man. He is of Adam. He is of
Noah. The Negro is a brother, and will be until
science can demonstrate the Bible to be no more
than a fable—that Moses made mistakes, and the
divine Son of God, with men hitherto supposed to
be inspired, endorsed them.