Studies on Slavery, in Easy Lessons

by John Fletcher

LESSON XV.

We suggest some origin, some complexion of thought, from whence may have emanated the word “Ham,” and its derivatives, as found to have existed in the days of the prophets; and we may here state that the Shemitic languages seem to exist all in a cluster, like so many grapes; nor are we able to say which stands nearest the vine. Doubts may be raised as to the priority of any one named; yet we might adduce some proof that the Coptic is younger, as we could that the Greek is younger still.

The Arabic word مَاma ma corresponds with the Syriac [ܡܳܐma] ma, and the Hebrew מָהmâ mah, and has been translated into the Latin quid, as an interrogatory, used in all languages very elliptically. Thus, Gen. iv. 10: מֶ֣ה עָשִׂ֑יתָme ʿāśîtā “What have you done?” If the עָשִׂ֑יתָāśîtā had been omitted, the מֶ֣הme would have expressed the whole idea.

It was an interrogatory expression of exclamation and astonishment, to one who had committed a heinous offence. So when Laban pursued, Jacob said, מָהmâ mah, What is my trespass? &c., as if in derision,—What is my horrid crime? Ever since the days of Cain some have manifested wicked acts, as though they were operated on by some strong desire, some coveting overwhelming to reason,—as if the action was in total disregard of the consequences that must follow it. This state of mind seems to have been expressed, in some measure, by the particular use of this particle. Let us conceive that such a state of mind must be a heated, a disturbed state of mind, as was that of Cain, and as must have been that of Jacob, had he stolen the goods of Laban. The word thus incidentally expressive of such an idea, by being preceded or influenced by a particle implying particularity, giving it definiteness and boundary, must necessarily be converted into an action or actor, implying some portion of the primitive idea; and hence we find הֵֽמָּהhēmmâ and همُّhamm and هَمَيhammi ham and hami in Arabic, ܚܳܡ ham in Syriac, to mean a cognate idea, i. e. to grow hot, &c., to boil, rage, &c., sometimes tumult, &c., &c. And we now ask, these being facts, is it difficult to point in the direction of the origin of the word Ham? Nor is it a matter of any importance, if the relationship exists, whether the noun and verb have descended from such exclamatory particle, or the reverse; yet we can easily imagine, in the early condition of things, that the mind, taking cognisance of some horrid act, would impel some such exclamation, and that it would become the progenitor of the name of the act or actor.

However this may be, each Hebrew scholar will inform us that the word הָםhām is an irregular Hebrew word. Grammarians have usually arranged words of this peculiar class among the Heemanti and augmented words, and they have accurately noticed that the punctuatists have always preceded the םm mem by a (ָ_Ｔ) Kamets, or a (וֹô) Kholem. This circumstance has induced Hiller to suppose that the םm mem, as a Heemanti, was a particle, while the adjunct was either הֵםhēm or אוֹםʾôm; but all agree that the form of these nouns shows that they are intensive in their signification.

If then הָםhām ham is a particle of הָמָהhāmâ hamah, which carries with it the ideas before named, it may be less difficult to conceive how the particle, when added to other nouns, will make them intensive also, while the particle itself would be used alone to express some intensity in an emphatic manner, more particularly of its root.

But we find the word חָ֞םḥām ham, as applied to the son of Noah, from the root הָמָהhāmâ hammah, or חֵמַהḥēma and used in Hebrew thus: In Josh. ix. 12, “This our bread we took hot [חָ֞םḥām] for our provision,” &c. Job xxxvii. 17, and vi. 17: “How thy garments warm (חַמִּ֑יםḥammîm hammin, hot) when he quieteth the earth by the south wind.” “What time they wax warm, they vanish when it is hot,” בְּ֝חֻמּ֗וֹbĕḥummô behummo, in the heat. So Gen. viii. 22: “While the earth remaineth, seed-time and harvest, cold and heat וָחֹ֜םwāḥōm, and summer and winter, and day and night, shall not cease.” Gen. xviii. 1: “And he sat in the tent door in the heat בְּחֹ֥םbĕḥōm of the day.” 1 Sam. xi. 9–11: “To-morrow, by the time the sun is hot, (בְּחֹ֣םbĕḥōm be hom, in heat.) And slew the Ammonites until the heat of the day,” עַדחֹםʿadḥōm ad hom, until the hot. xxi. 7 (the 6th of the English text): “To put hot, חֹ֔םḥōm hot in the day,” &c. 2 Sam. iv. 5: “And came about the heat of the day,” כְּחֹ֣םkĕḥōm ke hom, at the hot. Isa. xxiii. 4: “Like a clear heat כְּחֹםkĕḥōm upon herbs, and like a cloud of dew in the heat בְּחֹ֥םbĕḥōm of harvest.” Hag. i. 6: “Ye clothe you, but there is none warm,” לְחֹ֥םlĕḥōm be hom, not hot. Jer. li. 39: “In their heats,” בְּחֻמָּםbĕḥummām be hummon, in their heats, &c.

But in Hebrew, as in some other languages, the phonetic power expressing the idea hot, heat, &c. was cognate with rage, stubbornness, anger, wickedness, &c. &c., and hence we say hell is hot, and hence, in Dan. iii. 13, 19: “Then Nebuchadnezzar in his rage,” חֱמָֹאḥĕmāōʾ hama, heat, hot. “Therefore shall he go forth with great fury,” בְּחִמָּ֣א֥bĕḥimmāʾ be hama, heat, rage, fury, &c.

Should it be said, the words in their declination, or rather the affixed and suffixed particles, differ, and are marked with different vowel points, we answer by quoting Lee’s Heb. Lex. p. 205: “This variety in the vowels may be ascribed either to the punctuatists or the copyists, and is of no moment. But as the word חָםḥām ham was thus applied in Hebrew to the original idea of active caloric, as emanating from the sun, so it will agree with its homophone in Arabic and Syriac; for let it be noticed, that the Arabic word حَمٌّham ham or haman, means to be hot, as of the sun. So the Syriac [ܗܡܳܐ] hama means œstus, calor, &c. But in Deut. xxxii. 24, 33, it is translated poison; thus, poison of serpents, and ‘the poison of dragons,’ from the notion that great heat, rage, anger, &c. are cognate with poison.”

This word occurs in Zeph. ii. 12. The received version is, “Ye Ethiopians also, ye shall be slain by my sword.” The original is, גַּם־אַתֶּ֣ם כּוּשִׁ֔ים חַלְלֵ֥י חַרְבִּ֖י הֵֽמָּהgam-ʾattem kûšîm ḥallê ḥarbî hēmmâ, and has been subject to much investigation. Gesenius considers the word הֵֽמָהhēmâ a pronoun in the second person, and Lee seems to side with him, but says, “the truth is, the place is inverted and abrupt, and should read thus: גַּם־אַתֶּ֣ם חַלְלֵ֥י חַרְבִּ֖י כּוּשִׁ֔ים הֵֽמָּהgam-ʾattem ḥallê ḥarbî kûšîm hēmmâ,” and which he translates thus—“Even ye (are) (the) wounded of my sword,—they are Cushites.” We do not perceive how he has made the passage more plain. Let us, for a moment, examine how the Hebrews used this form חֵמָהḥēmâ or חֵםḥēm, that we may the better comprehend its sense in the present instance. Jer. v. 22: “Though they roar,” וְהָמ֥וּwĕhāmû ve hamu, rage, &c., “yet can they not pass over it!” vi. 23: “Their voice roareth like the sea,” יֶֽהֱמֶהyehĕme rageth, &c. xxxi. 35; “Which divideth the sea, when the waves thereof roar,” וַיֶֽהֱמ֖וּwayehĕmû say ye, hemen, rage, &c. li. 15: “When her waves do roar (וְהָמ֤וּwĕhāmû ve hamu se, rage, &c.) like great waters.” Isa. li. 13: “But I am the Lord thy God that divided the sea, whose waves roared,” raged. li. 13: “Because of the fury (חֲמַ֣תḥămat rage, &c.) of the oppressor,” “and where is the fury (חֲמַ֥תḥămat hamath, rage, &c.) of the oppressor?” li. 15: “whose waves roared,” וַיֶֽהֱמ֖וּwayehĕmû raged, &c. Ps. xlvi. 4 (the 3d of the English text): “Though the waters thereof roar (יֶֽהֱמ֣וּyehĕmû rage, &c.) and be troubled,” יֶחְמְ֣רוּyeḥmĕrû great agitation, rage, &c.

But let us take a more particular view of this word, as used in the passage from Zephaniah. The Septuagint has translated this passage in Καὶ ὑμεῖς Αἰθίοπες τραυματίαι ῥομφαίας μοῦ ἐστέ, which is very much like our received version.

But it should be noticed that it has translated the Hebrew word חַלְלִ֥יḥallî into τραυματίαι; τραῦμα would imply the injury, wounds, carnage, or slaughter of a whole nation, army, or body of people; but τραυματίαι implies individuality, and reaches no farther than the person or persons named. The prophet had been uttering denunciations against many nations, but in this passage emphatically selects the Ethiopians as individuals; and the Greek translator evidently discovered there was in this denunciation something peculiarly personal as applied to the Ethiopians.

The Hebrew conveys the idea of reducing, subjecting, or bringing low, as by force, to cause to sink in character as in Ps. lxxxix. 40 (39th of the English text): “Thou hast made void the covenant of thy servant: thou hast חִלַּֽלְתָּḥillaltā wounded, subjected, or reduced his crown to the earth.” Ezek. xxii. 26: “Her priests have violated my law, and have חַלְּל֣וּḥallĕlû (wounded, subjected, lowered the character of) my holy things.”

But the word חַלְּלֵיḥallĕlê is here used in the construct state, showing that the idea imposed by this word was brought about by the following term, חַדְבִי֖ḥadbiy, which the Septuagint translates rhomphaias, which properly means the Thracian spear; but חַרְבּיḥarby means any weapon, a goad harpoon as well as a sword. The fact is, neither of these words were the usual Hebrew or Greek term to mean a sword. The Greeks would have called a sword μάχαιρα, and the Hebrews חֲנִיתḥănît or דֹחַמdōḥam or כִּדוֹןkidôn, or perhaps שׂכהśkh; and Dr. Lee has given Ἅρπη as the Greek translation of חַרְבִ֖יḥarbî, which means a sickle, a goad for driving elephants, &c. It was a thing to inflict wounds by which to enforce subjection, and the idea is that the Ethiopians are covered by wounds by their being reduced by it, or that they shall be. When Jeremiah announced captivity and slavery to the Egyptians and the adjacent tribes, he used this word as the instrument of its execution. Thus Jer. xlvi. 14: “Declare ye in Egypt, and publish in Migdol, and publish in Noph, and in Taphanhes; say ye, Stand fast, and prepare thee, for the sword חֶ֖רֶבḥereb shall devour round about thee.” 16: “Arise and let us go again to our own people, and to the land of our nativity, from the oppressing sword,” חֶ֖רֶבḥereb. Many such instances might be cited, showing the fact that, in poetic strain, this was the instrument usually named, as in the hand of him subjecting others to bondage; and much in the same manner, even at this day, we use the term “whip,” in the hand of the master, in reference to the enforcement of his authority over his slave.

In a further view of the word חֵמָּהḥēmmâ, as used in this passage, we deem it proper to state that Gibbs considers it a pronoun of the third person plural, masculine, they, and adds, “sometimes” (probably an incorrectness drawn from the language of common life) “used in reference to women,” and quotes Zech. v. 10; Cant. vi. 8; Ruth i. 22. And he further adds, “It is used for the substantive verb in the third person plural, 1 Kings viii. 40, ix. 20; Gen. xxv. 16; also for the substantive verb in the second person, Zeph. ii. 12: ‘Also, ye Cushites חַלְלֵ֥י חַרְבִּ֖י הֵֽמָּהḥallê ḥarbî hēmmâ shall be slain by my sword.’” Gibbs’s Lex. p. 175. In Stuart’s Grammar, p. 193, he says, “Personal pronouns of the third person sometimes stand simply in the place of the verb of existence;” e. g. he cites Gen. ix. 3, Zech. i. 9, and says, “Plainer still is the principle in such cases, as follows: Zeph. ii. 12, ‘Ye Cushites, victims of my sword אַתֶּ֣ם הֵֽמָּהʾattem hēmmâ are ye.’”

The fact is, the verb of existence, called the verb “to be,” and the verb substantive, in Hebrew, as in all other languages, is often not expressed, but understood. This circumstance is well explained in Gessenius’ Hebrew Grammar, revised by Rodiger, and translated by Conant, p. 225, thus, “When a personal pronoun is the subject of a sentence, like a noun in the same position, it does not require for its union with the predicate a distinct word for the copula, when this consists simply in the verb ‘to be,’ אָֽנֹכִ֣י הָֽרֹאֶ֔הʾānōkî hārōʾe ‘I (am) the seer,’ 1 Sam. ix. 19.” And again: “The pronoun of the third person frequently serves to convert the subject and predicate, and is then a sort of substitute for the copula of the verb to be, e. g. Gen. xli. 26: ‘The seven good cows, שֶׁ֤בַע שָׁנִים֙ הֵ֔נָּהšebaʿ šānîm hēnnâ seven years (are) they.’” To say in English, “The seven good cows, seven years they,” would be thought too elliptical; but we do not perceive how the expression converts “they” into the verb “to be.”

But again, the same author says, p. 261: “The union of the substantive or pronoun, which forms the subject of the sentence, with another substantive or adjective, as its predicate, is most commonly expressed by simply writing them together without any copula. 1 Kings xxiii. 21: יְהוָ֤ה הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙yhwh hāʾĕlōhîm ‘Jehovah (is) the true God.’” The idiom of the language then does not necessarily convert הֵמָּהhēmmâ in the passage before us into the verb “to be.” And here let us repeat the sentence, גַּם־אַתֶּ֣ם כּוּשִׁ֔ים חַֽלְלֵ֥י חַרְבִּ֖י הֵֽמָּהgam-ʾattem kûšîm ḥallê ḥarbî hēmmâ Zeph. ii. 12. It will be perceived that גַּם־אַתֶּ֣םgam-ʾattem are connected by Makkaph. Hebrew scholars do not agree as to how far this character is effective as an accent. But the rules for its use are—“Makkaph is inserted in the following cases: 1. Particles, which, from their nature, can never have any distinctive accent, are mostly connected with other words by the mark Makkaph: גַּם־לְאִישַׁהּgam-lĕʾîšah even to her husband; בְּתָם־לְבָבִ֛יbĕtom-lĕbābî in the integrity of my heart. Gen. xx. 5, &c. 2. When words are to be construed together, &c., as זַרְעוֹ־ב֖וֹzarʿô-bô its seed (is) within itself. Gen. i. 11,” &c.—Lee’s Lectures, p. 61.

But Stuart, seeing no way to translate the sentence without making הִ֖מָּהhimmâ the verb “to be,” 3d person plural, “are,” takes אַתֶּ֣םʾattem the personal pronoun, 2d person plural, equivalent to ye or you, away from גַּםgam, to which it is attached by Makkaph, and carries it down to precede הֵמָּהhēmmâ in the sentence, and thus reads “are ye,” while he supplies another אַתֶּם֣ʾattem as understood to precede כּוּשִיםkûšîm, and reads, “ye Cushites, victims of my sword are ye.” We consider this as quite as objectionable as Dr. Lee’s—“Even ye (are) (the) wounded of my sword,—they are Cushites.”

But permit us now to inquire into the probability of הֵמָּהhēmmâ being even a pronoun. אָנכִיʾānkî a-no-khi is not believed to be a Hebrew word. It is a homophone of the Coptic word [Ⲁⲛⲟⲕ], and used by the Egyptians, who spoke Coptic, as the personal pronoun I. This word is believed to have been borrowed by the Hebrews at the time they were in bondage in Egypt, and the habit of it so strongly established during their four hundred years of servitude, that neither the literature of the age of Moses nor the genius of the people could ever eradicate it. Their original personal pronoun was probably totally lost; nothing analogous to this Coptic term can be found in any other of the Shemitic tongues. But Lee says that Gessenius has found it in Punic, and quotes Lehrege-baude, note, p. 200. In Chaldaic, the personal pronoun, first person singular, is אֲנָהʾănâ a-nah, and its phonetic cognates are found in all the other sister dialects. We may then well suggest that the lost Hebrew term was אֲנָאʾănāʾ a-na, or quite analogous thereto.

Such then being the facts, let us inquire into the origin, composition, and signification of this Coptic pronoun. It will be agreed that some language must have had precedence in the world, and it is usually yielded to the Hebrew. That such precedence was the property of some one of the Asiatic dialects all agree; and the nearer the subsequent language exists to its precedent, the more plainly will its descent be manifest. If the Hebrew was such precedent, or any other of its immediate sisters, the Coptic, existing in their immediate neighbourhood, must have been originally very analogous to them.

It is immaterial whether our suggestion be right or wrong as to what particularly was the lost Hebrew pronoun; let us take the Chaldaic, which, of all these dialects, was the most nearly like the Hebrew—the personal pronoun אֲנָהʾănâ I, I am, and the word כִּיkî ki, which means a mark as a stigma, indelibly fixed, as burned in, a mark intended pointedly to indicate something; and hence it became a particle attached to a word often by Makkaph, whence the attention was to be particularly called, as, mark me, mark ye, are just, &c. &c. Isa. iii. 24: pm tr1 he 'כִּי תַחַת יוׄפִי' 'kî taḥat ywpî' a burned mark of stigma, instead of beauty. Some have doubted the accuracy of the Hebrew in this instance, and the fact is, no doubt, that it is rather an Arabicism; but that in no way affects our deduction; it matters not whether the Coptic borrowed from Chaldean, Hebrew, or Arabic. These two words are beyond question the origin, the compound of the Coptic pronoun, meaning and including the individuality of the first person singular, and originally expressing also the fact, that such person was marked as a stigma indelibly, as burned in, &c. Anoki, I, a marked one; I, one deformed as if branded, &c.; I, one that carry the mark of, &c. &c., was the original idea expressed by this Coptic term of individuality. Thus it expressed the fact that the person was a successor in the curses of Ham and Cain, and in no other manner can the extraordinary appearance of הֵםhēm and sometimes הֵמָּהhēmmâ in the third person of the pronoun be accounted for. It is evidently from a new and other source, the same or cognate with the term applied to the son of Noah.

These adjective associations of the pronoun, through the lapse of ages, would naturally be forgotten by the Copts themselves, and were probably unknown to the Hebrews; just as we ourselves have forgotten that our word obedient still expresses some of the qualities of the Hebrew word עֶבֶדʿebed ebed and abed, from which it has been derived through the Latin.

This pronoun אָנׄכִ֖יʾonkî I, &c. was often contracted by the Hebrews into אֲנִ֖יʾănî ani, and in its declination stood thus:

1st person singular, common gender:
אָנכִיʾānkî sometimes אֲנִיʾănî	I.
Plural:
אֲנַֽחְנוּʾănaḥnû	We.
2d person singular masculine:
אַתָּ֖הʾattâ	Thou.
Plural:
אַתֶּ֖םʾattem	You.
Singular feminine:
אַתְּʾat	Thou, fem.
Plural:
אֲתֶּןʾăten	You, fem.
3d person singular, masculine:
הֽוּאhûʾ	He.
Plural:
הֵ֥םhēm hem—occasionally הֵ֖מָהhēmâ	They.

Here we find the word in question, if a pronoun. The feminine of the third person is הִי֖אhiyʾ, and plural נָהnâ, and yet הֵֽפָּהhēppâ is used in Canticles in a condition evidently feminine; and yet in Zeph. ii. 12, it is said it must be in the second person plural. But can any one believe that these words, thus arranged in the declination of this pronoun, could ever have had a common origin? The fact is, no original language was ever formed from rules; the rules are merely its description after it is formed. Language, in the infancy of its formation, resents restraint and all laws, except such as apply to its incipient state. Suppose a soldier for life should persist in calling his infant son soldier, either playfully or mournfully; the child would associate the term “soldier” with his individuality, and say soldier am sleepy, &c. In case the soldier’s family was isolated from the rest of the world, in the land of Nod, or elsewhere, then the family of languages would be quite apt to have a new term as a personal pronoun.

More pertinent examples would explain our idea perhaps more fully. There never was a language upon this earth, of which any thing is known, that does not show an extraordinary irregularity in the formation of its personal pronouns,—often giving proof that the different cases and persons have been formed from different roots. Webster says—“I, the pronoun of the first person, the word which expresses one’s self, or that by which a speaker or writer denotes himself.” “In the plural, we use we and us, which appear to be words radically distinct from I.” Under we, he says, “From plural of I, or rather a different word, denoting,” &c. Does any one imagine that I, you, me, and us are from the same root? Webster noticed the discrepancy; we could have hoped that he would have given the world a history of the personal pronoun of all languages: we know of no intellect more capable. Such a history would develop many curious things in the history of man, but would be attended with great labour; and human life has too few days for such a man.

Thus we may, hypothetically at least, point out the class of operating causes whereby the Copts introduced הֵםēm or occasionally הֵמָּהhēmmâ as a person of the pronoun, with the signification that the person to whom it was applied was a descendant of the son of Noah; and the pronoun so introduced derived from the noun חָםḥām Ham. For, can we suppose the first person singular אָנֹכִ֖הʾānōki a-no-ki, and its third person plural הֵ֖םhēm hem, occasionally הֵֽמָּהhēmmâ hemmah, have the same root, or are of the same origin? This הֵםhēm and the word חָםḥām the son of Noah, are identical, except the son of Noah is generally written with a heth, instead of a he; but all know, who have studied the matter, these characters very often interchange, and that copyists have often inadvertently placed the one for the other. That which would seem the pronoun is used in Gen. xiv. 5, and the Septuagint has translated it as a pronoun; but our received version has no doubt restored the true reading. The passage בְּהָ֑םbĕhām is translated “in Ham,” i. e. the land occupied by the descendants of Ham, the son of Noah. The change of Kamets into Tsere, is really of no moment. These characters were never invented until after the language ceased to be spoken, and was long since dead. The points, in reality, are no part of the language. The word in Genesis is indisputably a noun, preceded and governed by the preposition בְּb.

Perhaps no one has ever yet succeeded to satisfy himself and others in the translation of this passage of Zephaniah; all, or others for them, find it full of difficulty: but let us consider הֵמָּהhēmmâ a noun of the same order as the הָםhām of xiv. 5 of Genesis,—in some respect in apposition to כּוּשִיםkûšîm, but more emphatic, as the affix of הh would seem to indicate, by its increase of the intensity, as well as its accounting for the dagesh of the מm mem, or its duplication. Let us consider it to mean the descendants of Ham,—to express the idea, with great intensity, that the Cushites were Hamites. True, it is not in the usual form of a patronymic. But we know not who will account, by grammatical rules, for all the anomalies found in Hebrew, a language so full of ellipses that some have thought it a mere skeleton language. With this view of the subject it will read elliptically, thus: So ye Ethiopians wounded of the sword, Hamites—with the meaning, that the Ethiopians were subject to bondage, and at the same time putting them in mind that the curse of slavery, as to the posterity of Ham, was unalterable.

The meaning of the prophet is—So ye Ethiopians, reduced to a condition of bondage, remember ye are the inheritors of the curse of Ham!

The arrangement of the language to us clearly indicates that sense. Besides, we must take into consideration the peculiar meaning of the words חַלְלֵיḥallê and חַרְבִּ֖יḥarbî— that the prophet is writing in a highly figurative and poetic strain; and we would also compare what this prophet says to the Ethiopians with what the other prophets have said of the same people. כּוּשִׁיםkûšîm is here applicable to all the tribes of Ham, as in Amos ix. 7: “Are ye not as children of the Ethiopians unto me? O children of Israel, saith the Lord.” It may be well here to notice also that the word “Ethiopian” is of Greek origin, and associates with the idea blackness, like that of Ham. Thus, Αιθιοπς, Aithiops, sun-burnt, swarthy as Ethiopians; αιθος, warmth, heat, fire, ardent, blazing like fire, blackened by fire, black, dark; αιθοπς, burning fiery, blazing, burned, darkened by fire, dark-coloured, consuming, destroying. Donnegan p. 34. But Isaiah speaks of the descendants of Ham perhaps in a more figurative language, and in a more elevated and poetical strain:

1. Wo to the land shadowing with wings,

Which is beyond the rivers of Ethiopia:

2. That sendeth ambassadors by the sea,

Even in vessels of bulrushes upon the waters,

Saying, Go, ye swift messengers, to a nation scattered and peeled;

To a people terrible from the beginning hitherto;

A nation meted out and trodden down,

3. Whose land the rivers have spoiled!

All ye inhabitants of the world, and dwellers on the earth,

See ye, when he lifteth up an ensign on the mountains,

And when he bloweth a trumpet, hear ye!

4. For so the Lord said unto me, I will take my rest,

And I will consider in my dwelling-place,

Like a clear heat upon herbs,

And like a cloud of dew in the heat of harvest.

5. For afore the harvest, when the bud is perfect,

And the sour grape is ripening in the flower,

He shall both cut off the sprigs with pruning-hooks,

And take away and cut down the branches.

6. They shall be left together unto the fowls of the mountains,

And to the beasts of the earth;

And the fowls shall summer upon them,

And the beasts of the earth shall winter upon them.

7. In that time shall a present be brought unto the Lord of hosts,

Of a people scattered and peeled,

And from a people terrible from the beginning hitherto;

A nation meted out and trodden under foot,

Whose land the rivers have spoiled,

To the place of the name of the Lord of hosts, the Mount Zion.

Isa. 18.

The denouncements of Jehovah against the children of Ham are more plainly expressed in the promises of God to these of the true worship, his peculiar people:

Thus saith the Lord,

The labour of Egypt, and merchandise of Ethiopia,

And of the Sabeans, men of stature,

Shall come over unto thee, and they shall be thine:

They shall come after thee;

In chains they shall come over;

And they shall fall down unto thee.

They shall make supplication unto thee,

Saying, Surely God is in thee;

And there is none else,

There is no God (beside),—(or, there is no other God.)

Isa. xlv. 14.

So Jeremiah: “Declare ye in Egypt, and publish it in Migdol, and publish in Noph and in Taphanhes; say ye, Stand fast, and prepare thee; for the sword shall devour round about thee.

“O thou daughter dwelling in Egypt, furnish thyself to go into captivity: for Noph shall be waste and desolate, without an inhabitant.

“The daughter of Egypt shall be confounded; she shall be delivered into the hands of the people of the north.” Jer. xlvi. 1, 19, 24.

“And the sword shall come upon Egypt, and great pain shall be in Ethiopia, when the slain shall fall in Egypt, and they shall take away her multitudes, and her foundations shall be broken down.

“Ethiopia, and Lybia, and Lydia, and all the mingled (mixed-blooded) people, Chub and the men of the land that is in league, shall fall with them by the sword.

“In that day shall messengers go forth from me in ships to make the careless Ethiopians afraid, and great pain shall come upon them, as in the day of Egypt: for, lo, it cometh.

“The young men of Aven and of Pibeseth shall fall by the sword: and these cities shall go into captivity.

“At Taphanhes also the day shall be darkened, when I shall break there the yokes of Egypt: and the pomp of her strength shall cease in her: as for her, a cloud shall cover her; and her daughters shall go into captivity.

“And I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations and disperse them among the countries, and they shall know that I am the Lord.” Ezek. xxx. 4, 5, 9, 17, 18, 26.

“And I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hands of the children of Judah, and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, to a people afar off: for the Lord hath spoken it.” Joel iii. 8.

It may be we have occupied too much time, in remarks too obscure and indistinct for biblical criticism, upon this passage of Zephaniah; and it may be that, in the judgment of some, we have thus made ourselves obnoxious to the satire of the reverend and witty commentator upon the words:

“Strange such difference there should be

'Twist tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee.”

But we were sure the passage had been greatly misunderstood, and were, perhaps, too much emboldened by the hope, that the providence of the All-wise might yet again issue forth the truth from the tongue of the feeble.

---