22 ADAMITES AND PREADAMITES.
in the compatriots of Nimrod, the son of Cush, the founder of Babel and the other Accadian cities ; and in the compatriots of Asshur "who builded Nineveh ;" and the compatriots of the Sidians who were descended from Canaan, the son of Ham. This is the plain teaching of Genesis, and there is no space for the assumption that the Negroes represent Ham's posterity. The consequences
of Noah's curse Upon Canaan must be traced out in some other. direction. (See M'Causland, Adam and the Adamites and The Builders of Babel.) 3. The best ethnological authorities oppose the view. (See especially Rawlinson, Herodotus and Historical Evidences. Also M'Causland, as above. Dr. Whedon has ex-pressed an inclination to agree with M'Causland. See Methodist Quarterly Review, Jan., 1871, p. 153 and July, 1872, p. 526.) 4. The view is opposed by the facts of archaeology. The monuments of Egypt display the Negro in a state of complete differentiation at a period little. later than the Deluge (2348 B. C.) The absurdity of supposing that this had been accomplished in 1,500 or 2,000 years is glaring. 5. The view opposes the universal law of progression as I have already explained. 6. It does not account for the other Black races—Australians and Papuans. Whose sons are they?
II. The ethnological list given in Genesis is not complete. Well, if this is granted, it must tend to help the Negro to an Adamic ancestor in one of two ways: 1. It may mean that the several patriarchs named had other posterity than that mentioned ; but this would not help the theory, for time is what the case needs, not more brothers and cousins. 2. It may mean that some of the generations are omitted, and hence those mentioned do not cover all the time. Whether such omissions exist, Biblical scholars must decide. Extended time would provide for the whole amount of the race divergences existing a thousand years before Christ. But yet two difficulties would remain. These are the color of Adam's skin and the degeneracy of the Negro. This leads me, then, to the third objection.
III. The Negro is not inferior to the white man. To this I have to reply : i. If, when the sun is shining brightly, a man tells me it is dark, I can only pronounce him blind. The inferiority of the Negro is a fact everywhere patent. I imply here