38 
passions, and tliat will even give you the element of disease, but not in the 
accidental way in which Mr. Titcomb seems to think it came about. Then 
in considering the curse it is not to be supposed that it was so universal 
its application as that any exception would be sufficient to refute it. On t 
contrary, exception is necessary ; for we hare this principle on he au^ority 
of another part of Scripture, that “the curse, causeless, shall not come. 
Therefore, we may be sure with regard to a whole race, that a curse is never 
pronounced of so rigidly universal a character, without allowing °PP<* 
tunitv of reversing it. Remember that particular curse m the second Corn- 
mandment, though it declares that all, unto the third and fourth generation 
of those who hate God, are under the curse, adds that He will show mercy 
unto thousands of them that love Him. I do not see anything more miracu- 
lous in this particular Scriptural curse of Canaan than is contained in the 
curse of the fifth Commandment Honour thy father and mo her, that 
thy days may he long in the land.” It is true that, as some maintain, that 
mly have tad a special application to the Jews inhabi mg a particula 
territory, but I believe it has also a higher sense; and I oelieve that 
things in the Scriptures have not only a particular bearing m the instances 
where they occur, but that there is a general truth also at the bottom of them. 
And so these curses are only fulfilled because they do not come by accident 
or through arbitrariness, but are founded upon eternal principles of justice 
The curse of Ham came upon him in consequence of his self-debased nature 
and moral deterioration, and I cannot attribute that to accident, he being a 
free-willed creature. Mr. Titcomb has made an unfortunate mistake m 
alluding to the curse as he has done. I quite, agree with him as to the 
absurdity of what he has now put forward, as this curse 
Mr. Titcomb— You are aware that it has before been put forward by some 
^The Chairman.— I never heard it before from any author of credit, and 
it never entered my own head as the meaning of Scripture. I have heard 
many discussions and read many bocks on Anthropology and Ethnology and 
I never met with it in one of them. Professor Macdonald did state it in a 
weak paper read in this Institute. But because some one puts forward a 
particularly foolish thing with regard to the Scriptures are we therefore 
bound to accept it ? In the Scriptures the words are, “Cursed be Canaan 
a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. Blessed be the Lord 
God of Shem ; and Canaan shall be his servant” ; and God shad enlarge 
Japheth and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem ; and Canaan shall be h.s 
servant.” It is, in fact, the history of the world in epitome ! But stdl re- 
member that that is not the curse of God Almighty. After the Flood God 
blessed Noah and his sons, and you know that the Hebrew is so indefinite 
with regard to the verbs, that the passage containing the curse of Ham may 
be merely a declaration of what Noah foresaw, and may be -airly mterpreted 
as meaning , “ This is the character you have displayed towards me and this 
will be the result, that you will not rise, but sink morally and become 
inferior.” Mr. Titcomb winds up his paper with an allusion to the case ot 
