Page images

uniforin teachings, and to the “analogy of faitlı.” Nor are we at liberty to accept any man's determination as to what are the due proportions between this or that forın of sinning, and the final doom incurred by it. To do that belongs to God alone; and we can learn nothing respecting the demerits of sin, or the relative punishableness of different forms and degrees of sin, except as we receive our instruction from the word of God. If there is one prerogative of the divine SOVEREIGN that is sacred above every other, it is that of judgment—the vindication of his righteonsness and his throne. It is for us to confess that “the Judge of the whole earth will do right;" and it is great presumption, not to say impiety, making fearful

approaches to blasphemy, for any creature to attempt to say what God may or may not do, or to mark out a proportion between the “ final doom” of the divine judgment and the “lapse” by which that doom is incurred. Who will measure “the exceeding sinfulness of sin," and determine with mathematical exactness the due proportions between any of its concrete forms and the divine judgment against it?

We end as we began, confessing the very great difficulty of reaching an altogether satisfactory understanding of some things in the passage that we have been considering, though much that it teaches is very evident. It presents the this-world side of the history of Christ's death as an indisputable reality ; and over against this is presented the spirit-world side as equally real. It assumes, and so virtually asserts, the continuous living of human souls after physical death—that to die fleshwise is to be made or found alive, spiritwise. It opens a scene in the world of spirits, and so opens to us a revelation in eschatology, perhaps the fullest and clearest in all the Scriptures. It enables us to follow Christ in his “descent into hades ; " his personal subjection to death for a little while, as a man with men, and his coming from under that subjection by the power of the Father, and according to the word of prophecy (Psa. xvi, 10), which was a Messianic act, perforined in our nature, and in behalf of all who shall be found in Christ, who is the resurrection and the life.” With so much clearly taught in the passage, it must always be esteemed invaluable, even though some of its parenthetical parts defy all our attempts to expound them.



ETHNOGRAPHERS, who describe the different races of men, with their characteristics, circumstances, manners, and habits; and ethnologists, who treat of the origin, relations, and marked differentiations of those races, find among the peoples who inhabit Northern and Central Africa an ample field for their researches, and abundant material for the exercise of their skill in classification. And as, according to Elisée Reclus, ethnology is related to ethnography as the juice is to the grape, so do the relations of language and the similitude of appearance aud habit help to trace the oneness of origin of all related types of man.

The Bible is the only volume that pretends to impart authentic information about the primitive settlement of Africa. The "Toldoth Beni-Noah,” remarks a writer in the “ Asiatic Society's Journal,” vol. iv, p. 230, “is the most authentic record we possess for the affiliation of races."

The biblical genealogies are of great historical importance, as marking strongly the vital truth, that the entire framework and narrative of Scripture is in every case real, not ideal ; plain and simple matter of fact, not fanciful allegory evolved out of the author's consciousness; and often these passages of Scripture, dry and forbidding as is their first aspect, will well repay a careful and scholarly study. They are like an arid range of bare and stony mountains, which, when minutely examined, reveals to the investigator mines of emerald or diamond.*

What is dark in them now may hereafter receive floods of light from the researches of judicious explorers. The histcry of antiquarian science fully justifies this expectation.

The earliest of the post-diluvian genealogies is that in the tenth chapter of the Book of Genesis. Under its surface is concealed “a very considerable amount of important historical and ethnological truth.” The majority of the names there given occur elsewhere in the Bible in an ethnic, or else in a geographical, sense. Cush, Lehabim, Naphtuhim, Mizraim, Caphtorim, Pathrusim, Ludim, Phut, Seba, etc., indicate either countries or nations—sometimes both. The object of the author is

Rawlinson's “ Origin of Nations,” p. 106.

[ocr errors]

evidently to give a sketch of the interconnection of races. All the names he mentions, with the exception of those of Noah and his three sons, are probably ethnic. This document is, in fact, the earliest ethnographic essay in existence. It relates chiefly to the nations with whom the Jews, at the time of its composition, had some acquaintance. It indicates the principle of ethnic subdivision. It exhibits the fact that races, as they increase, subdivide; and that “as mankind spread over the earth there was a constant breaking up into a larger, and still larger, number of nations,” distinct politically, also linguistically, and so ethnically. This fact, as G. Rawlinson observes, furnishes “the only theory of ethnology which at once harmonizes with, and accounts for, the facts of language as comparative philology reveals them to us.”

Four principal races are alleged to have descended from Ham, the second son of Noah. These are designated, respectively, Cush, Mizraim, Phut, and Canaan. (Gen. x, 6.) Cush is usually synonymous with Ethiopia, the inodern Habesh, or Abyssinia. But there was also an Asiatic Cush, which Ezekiel coupled with Persia (Ezek. xxxvii, 5), and Isaiah with Elam (Isa. xi, 11), and which included a portion of the Arabians, the primitive Babylonians, and the Cissians. Between Arabia and Abyssinia there has been much of intercourse that has modified the physical type of both nations, and especially of the latter. The Mizrim, or Egyptians, descended from the same source as the Ethiopian inhabitants of the

upper Nile valley, with whom they were frequently and intimately associated. Phut, or “the Phut,” are probably identical with the people called Pet by the Egyptians — a people whose emblem was the unstrung bow, and who dwelt in Nubia, the tract of country between Egypt and Ethiopia. Canaan was the district on the eastern shore of the Mediterranean. Some of its inhabitants, it is conjectured, migrated to Africa after their expulsion from their native seats by the Israelites under Joshua.

The Cushites of Ethiopia, settled in the south and southeast of Egypt, between the main stream of the Nile and the sea-coast, sent out colonies to new localities. Of these, Seba, situated between the Nile and the Atbara, was thus occupied. Meroe (Saba), its capital, became famous for its eminence, and for the physical superiority of its citizens. From

[ocr errors]

Seba emigrants appear to have crossed the Red Sea into the Havilah district, which the learned identify with Khâwlan, in the north-west of the modern Yemen. Thence they spread, under the name of Sabtah, into Hadramaut; and from thence, under the appellation of Raamah, and subsequently of Sheba and Dedan, to the shores of the Persian Gulf. There they seem to have amalgamated with the Semites. (Gen. x, 28, 29.) The enterprising and commercial character of this mixed race-the Sabæans—is celebrated alike by biblical and classical writers.

That this was the line of dissemination is very probable in view of the fact that “M. Antoine d'Abbadie, Dr. Beke, M. Fresnel, and others, have proved that there are to this day races in Southern Arabia, especially the Mahras, whose language is decidedly non-Semitic; and that between this language and that of the Abyssinian tribes of the Galla, Agau, and their congeners, there is very considerable affinity.” * The Mahra, moreover, is proven by analysis to be the modern representative of the ancient Himyaritic speech. These facts, and many others of similar character, establish our confidence in the wise and accurate guidance of the Mosaic genealogist while studying the ethnography of Africa.

The descendants of Mizraim, the second son of Ham, were the principal settlers of Africa to the west of the ancient Khem, or Egypt. The genealogist divides them into eight tribes or nations: “ The Ludim, and Anamim, and Lehabim, and Naphtuhim, and Pathrusim, and Casluhim (out of whom came Philistim), and Caphtoriin.” (Gen. x, 13, 14.) G. Rawlinson supposes the Ludim, who are commonly united with either Phut or Cush, or both, by the major prophets, and who were closely allied with Egypt, to have settled in the Nile valley, north of Phut; and that the Anamim, Naphtuhim, Pathrusim, and Casluhim were East African tribes, who were probably soon absorbed by the Egyptians. The Lehabim, identical with the Lubim, with the Rebu, or Lebu, of the Egyptian monuments, and with the Libyans (Ailves, Libye) of the Greeks and Romans, occupied the country west of Egypt, and on the southern shores of the Mediterranean. When the Greeks seized the Cyrenaica, they named the entire southern continent Libya, after the aboriginal inhabitants.

* Rawlinson's “ Origin of Nations,” p. 209.

Gliddon differs from Rawlinson with respect to the geographical distribution of most of the Mizraitic tribes. The Casluhim, he maintains, dwelt in Barbary, and became the progenitors of “the Shillouhs, one of the grand duplex divisions of Gætulian families." The “Ludim probably occupied Mauritania." “ We rejoice to learn from Gräberg de Hemso that the Ludaya tribe still furnishes the Sultan's body-guard in Morocco, and that their river Tagassa is yet called Luad and Thaluda." + The Anarnim are Nuinidians. The Lehabim were "a nomadic people of Gætulian race, and of Berberesque habitats." The Naphtuhim lived “around Mareotic provinces, on the confines of the MTs RIM, or Egyptians. They spoke Berber dialects, like the rest of their Berberesque brethren, and may be safely assumed as ranking among the easternmost representatives of the great Gætulian race.” | The Pathrusim were the Pharusii of ancient Barbary. [ Gliddon, as he himself with gleeful malignity conjectures, is doubtless as much or more in harmony with the Mosaic genealogy on this point than Rawlinson.

All ethnographers agree that the descendants of the Libyans, whose different Mizraitic tribes constituted what Bodichon termed the “one veritably indigenous race in Barbary, namely, the Gætulian," are to be found in the modern Tuariks and Berbers of Northern Africa, west of the Nile system. These not only inhabit the Sahara and the chain of the Atlas, but extend to the shores of the Mediterranean and Atlantic, and into the fertile regions contiguous to the Great Desert.

The Libyan tribe of the Marmaridæ is represented by the modern Berbers; and that of the Cabales by the Cabyles. Numerous customs recorded by the ancients as obtaining among the ancient Libyans are found still to exist among the Berbers and Tuariks. On these grounds the best modern ethnologists regard the identity of the two races as established; and speak of the Berbers, Tuariks, Shuluhs, and Cabyles, etc., as the aboriginal descendants of Northern Africa.**

Says De Slane:

The Berbers, autochthonous people of Northern Africa, are the same race that is now designated by the name of Kabiles. The

* Nott and Gliddon, " Types of Mankind," pp. 517, 521.
+Ibid., p. 514.
# Ibid., p. 514.

§ Ibid., p. 516. | Ibid., p. 518.

[Ibid., p. 520. ** Prichard, “ Physical History of Mankind,” vol. ii, p. 25, et seq.

« EelmineJätka »