Who were these sons of God? Were they from heaven? If they were, then their morals were sadly out of order. Were they angels? Then it is very plain they never got back to heaven: nor are wicked angels ever sent to earth from heaven. And they are not on earth for the angels that sinned, are confined where there is certainly no water; and these were all drowned. And angels can not be drowned. Angels belong to heaven, and if they do anything wrong there, they are sent, not to earth, but to—tophet. They are not the sons of men from below, nor its angels; for these could not be called sons of God. Who were they then? We answer, without the fear of successful contradiction, that they were the sons of Adam and Eve, thus denominated by pre-eminence; and as they truly were, the sons of God, to show the horrible crime of their criminal association with beasts. Immortal beings allying themselves with the beasts of the earth. These daughters of men were negroes, and these sons of God, were the children of Adam and Eve, as we shall see presently, and beyond a shade of doubt.
God told Adam and Eve to multiply and replenish the earth. Then it is plain, God could have no objection to their taking themselves wives of whom they chose, of their own race, in obeying this injunction; for they could not do otherwise in obeying it. But God did object to their taking wives of these daughters of men. Then it is plain that these daughters of men, whatever else they may have been, could not be the daughters of Adam and Eve; for, had they been, God would certainly not have objected, as they would have been exactly fulfilling his command, to take them wives and multiply. But our Saviour settles these points beyond any doubt, when he taught his disciples how to pray—to say, Our Father, who art in heaven. His disciples were white, and the lineal and pure descendants of Adam and Eve. This being so, then, when he told such to say, "Our Father, who art in heaven," equally and at the same time told them that, as God was their father, they were the sons of God; and as God did object to the "sons of God" taking them wives of these daughters of men, that it is ipso facto God's testimony that these daughters of men were negroes, and not his children. This settles the question that it was Adam's pure descendants who are here called the sons of God, and that these daughters of men were negroes.
By this logic of facts we see, then, who these sons of God were, and who these daughters of men were; and that the crime they were committing, could not be, or ever will be, propitiated; for God neither could or would forgive it, as we shall see. He determined to destroy them, and with them the world, by a flood, and for the crime of amalgamation or miscegenation of the white race with that of the black—mere beasts of the earth. We can now form an opinion of the awful nature of this crime, in the eyes of God, when we know that he destroyed the world by a flood, on account of its perpetration. But it is probable that we should not, in this our day, have been so long in the dark in regard to the sin, the particular sin, that brought the flood upon the earth, had not our translators rejected the rendering of some of the oldest manuscripts—the Chaldean, Ethiopic, Arabic, et al.—of the Jewish or Hebrew scriptures, in which that sin is plainly set forth; our translators believing it impossible that brute beasts could corrupt themselves with mankind, and then, not thinking, or regarding, that the negro was the very beast referred to. But even after this rejection, such were the number and authenticity of manuscripts in which that idea was still presented, that they felt constrained to admit it, covertly as it were, as may be seen on reading Gen. vi: 12-13, in our common version.
It will be admitted by all Biblical scholars, and doubted by none, that immediately after the fall of Adam in the garden of Eden, God then (perhaps on the same day), instituted and ordained sacrifices and offerings, as the media through which Adam and his race should approach God and call upon his name. That Adam did so—that Cain and Abel did so; and that Seth, through whom our Saviour descended after the flesh, did so, none can or will doubt, who believe in the Bible. Now, Seth's first-born son, Enos (Adam's first grandson), was born when Adam was two hundred and thirty-five years old. Upon the happening of the birth of this grandson, the sacred historian fixes the time, the particular time, immediately after the birth of Enos, as the period when a certain important matter then first took place; that important event was: that "Then men began to call on the name of the Lord," as translated in our Bible. Who are these men that then began to call on the Lord? It was not Adam; it was not Cain; it was not Abel; it was not Seth; And these were all the men that were of Adam's race that were upon the earth at that time, or that had been, up to the birth of Enos; and these had been calling on the name of the Lord ever since the fall in the garden. Who were they, then? What men were they, then on earth, that then began to call on the name of the Lord? There is but one answer between earth and skies, that can be given in truth to this question. This logic of facts, this logic of Bible facts, plainly tells us that these men who then began (A.M. 235) to call upon the name of the Lord, were negroes—the men so named by Adam when he named the other beasts and cattle. This can not be questioned. Any other view would make the Bible statements false, and we know the Bible to be true. If our translators (indeed all translators whose works we have examined), had not had their minds confused by the idea that all who are, in the Bible, called men were Adam's progeny; or had they recognized the simple fact, that the term man was the name bestowed on the negro by Adam, and that this name was never applied to Adam and his race till long after the flood, they would have made a very different translation of this sentence from the original Hebrew. The logic of facts existing before and at the time the sacred historian said that "Then men began to call," would, in conjunction with the original Hebrew text, have compelled them to a different rendering from the one they adopted. But, believing as they did, that it was some of Adam's race, then called men, they stumbled on a translation that not one of them has been satisfied with since they made it. The propriety of this assertion in regard to antecedents controlling the proper rendering, will be readily admitted by all scholars. The rendering, therefore, of the exact idea of the sacred historian, would be this: "Then men began to profane the Lord by calling on his name." This is required by the Hebrew, and the antecedent facts certainly demand it; otherwise we would falsify the Bible, as Adam and his sons had been calling on the Lord ever since the fall; therefore, the men referred to, that then began to call, could not be Adam, nor any of his sons. This logic of facts compels us to say that it was the negro, created before Adam and by him named man, for there were no other men on the earth. That the calling was profane, is admitted by all of our ablest commentators and Biblical scholars, as may be seen by reference to their works. See Adam Clark, et al. The Jews translate it thus: "Then men began to profane the name of the Lord."
But we have this singular expression in the Bible, occurring about the flood: That it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and that it grieved him at his heart. Now, it is clear that God could not refer, in these expressions, to Adam as the man whom it repented and grieved him that he had made; for Adam was a part of himself, and became so when God breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and he became a living soul, immortal, and must exist, ex consequentia, as long as God exists. God can not hate any part of himself, for that would be perfection hating perfection, and Adam did partake of the divine nature to some extent; and therefore the man here referred to could not have been Adam's posterity; and must have been, from the same logic of facts, the man, negro, the beast, called by God, man before he created Adam. Now, it must have been some awful crime, some terrible corruption, that could and did cause God to repent, to be grieved at his heart, that he had made man. What was this crime? what this corruption? Was it moral crimes confined to Adam's race? Let us see. It was not the eating of the forbidden fruit; for that had been done long before. It was not murder; for Cain had murdered his brother. It was not drunkenness; for Noah, though a preacher of righteousness, did get drunk. It was not incest; for Lot, another preacher of righteousness, committed that. It was not that of one brother selling his own brother as a slave, to be taken to a strange land; for Joseph's brethren did that, and lied about it, too. It was not—, but we may go through the whole catalogue of moral sins and crimes of human turpitude, and take them up separately, and then compound them together, until the whole catalogue of human iniquity and infamy is exhausted, and then suppose them all to be perpetrated every day by Adam's race, and as they have been before and since the flood, still we would have but one answer, and that answer would be, It is none of these, nor all of them combined, that thus caused God to repent and be grieved at his heart, that he had made man; but add one more—nay not add, but take one crime alone and by itself—one only, and that crime Adam's children, the sons of God, amalgamating, miscegenating, with the negro—man—beast, without soul—without the endowment of immortality, and you have the reason, why God repented and drowned the world, because of its commission. It is a crime, in the sight of God, that can not be propitiated by any sacrifice, or by any oblation, and can not be forgiven by God—never has been forgiven on earth, and never will be. Death—death inexorable, is declared by God's judgments on the world and on nations; and he has declared death as its punishment by his law—death to both male and female, without pardon or reprieve, and beyond the power of any sacrifice to expiate.
That Adam was especially endowed by his Creator, and by him commissioned with authority to rule and have dominion over everything created on earth, is unquestioned; that to mark the extent of his dominion, everything named by him was included in his right to rule them. His wife was the last thing named by him, and consequently under his rule, government and dominion. But a being called man existed before Adam was created, and was named man by Adam, and was to be under his rule and dominion, as all other beasts and animals. But did God call Adam man, after he had created him? Most certainly he did not. This fact relieves us of all doubt as to who was meant as the men of whose daughters the sons of God took their wives, independent of the preceding irrefragable proofs, that it was the negro; and the crime of amalgamation thus committed, brought the flood upon the earth. There is no possibility of avoiding this conviction.
But this will be fully sustained as we advance. Cush was Ham's oldest son, and the father of Nimrod. It appears from the Bible, that this Nimrod was not entirely cured, by the flood, of this antediluvian love for and miscegenation with negroes. Nimrod was the first on earth who began to monopolize power and play the despot: its objects we will see presently. Kingly power had its origin in love for and association with the negro. Beware! Nimrod's hunting was not only of wild animals, but also of men—the negro—to subdue them under his power and dominion; and for the purposes of rebellion against God, and in defiance of his power and judgment in destroying the world, and for the same sin. This view of Nimrod as a mighty hunter, will be sustained, not only by the facts narrated in our Bible, of what he did, but to the mind of every Hebrew scholar, it will appear doubly strong by the sense of the original. We see that God, by his prophets, gives the name hunter to all tyrants, with manifest reference to Nimrod as its originator. In the Latin Vulgate, Ezekiel xxxii: 30, plainly shows it. It was Nimrod that directed and managed—ruled, if you please—the great multitude that assembled on the Plain of Shinar. This multitude, thus assembled by his arbitrary power, and other inducements, we shall see presently, were mostly negroes; and with them he undertook the building of the tower of Babel—a building vainly intended, by him and them, should reach heaven, and thereby they would escape such a flood as had so recently destroyed the earth; and for the same sin. Else why build such a tower? They knew the sin that had caused the flood, for Noah was yet living; and unless they were again committing the same offense, there would be no necessity for such a tower. That the great multitude, gathered thus by Nimrod, were mostly negroes, appears from the facts stated in the Bible. God told Noah, after the flood, to subdue the earth "for all beasts, cattle," etc., "are delivered into thy hands." The negro, as already shown, was put into the ark with the beasts, and came out of it along with them, as one. If they went into the ark by sevens, as is probable they did, from being the head of the beasts, cattle, etc., then their populating power would be in proportion to the whites—as seven is to three, or as fourteen is to six; and Nimrod must have resorted to them to get the multitude that he assembled on the Plain of Shinar; for the Bible plainly tells us where the other descendants of Noah's children went, including those of Nimrod's immediate relations; and from the Bible account where they did go to, it is evident that they did not go with Nimrod to Shinar. This logic of facts, therefore, proves that they were negroes, and explains why Nimrod is called the mighty hunter before, or against the Lord, as it should have been translated in this place. David stood before Goliah; but evidently against him. The whole tenor of the Bible account shows these views to be correct, whether the negro entered the ark by sevens or only a pair. For, when we read further, that they now were all of one speech and one language, they proposed, besides the tower, to build them a city, where their power could be concentrated; and if this were accomplished, and they kept together, and acting in concert, under such a man as the Bible shows Nimrod to have been, it would be impossible for Noah's descendants to subdue the earth, as God had charged they should do. It was, therefore, to prevent this concentration of power and numbers, that God confounded their language, broke them into bands, overthrew their tower, stopped the building of their city, and scattered or dispersed them over the earth.
Let us now ask: Was not their tower an intended offense to, and defiance of, God? Most certainly. If not, why did God destroy it? Did God ever, before or after, destroy any other tower of the many built about this time, or in any subsequent age of the world, made by any other people? No. Why did he not destroy the towers, obelisks and pyramids, built by Mizraim and his descendants, on the banks of the Nile? And why prevent them from building a city, but for the purpose of destroying concentrated power, to the injury of Noah's children, and their right from God to rule the earth? The Bible nowhere tells us where any of the beasts of earth went at any time: hence, the negro being one, it says not one word about where any of them went. But we are at no loss to find them, when we know their habits. The negro, we know from his habits, when unrestrained, never inhabits mountainous districts or countries; and, therefore, we readily find him in the level Plain of Shinar. The whole facts narrated in the Bible, of what was said and done, go to show that the positions here assumed, warrant the correctness of the conclusion that the main body of these people were negroes, subdued by and under the rule and direction of Nimrod; that the language used by them, why they would build them a tower, shows they were daily practicing the same sin that caused God to destroy the earth by a flood; and that, actuated by the fear of a similar fate, springing from a like cause, they hoped to avoid it by a tower, which should reach heaven; that their confusion and dispersion, and the stopping of the building of their city by God—all, all go to show what sort of people they were, and what sin it was that caused God to deal with them so totally different from his treatment of any other people. The very language used by them, on the occasion, goes plainly to prove that those Babel-builders knew that they were but beasts, and knew what the effect of that sin would be, that was being committed daily. They knew it was the very nature of beasts to be scattered over the earth, and that they had no name (from God, as Adam had); therefore they said, "one to another, let us make brick, and let us build us a city, and a tower whose top may reach heaven; and let us make us a name (as God gave us none), lest we be scattered abroad." Name, in the Hebrew scriptures, signified "power, authority, rule," as may be readily seen by consulting the Bible. And God said: "And this they will begin to do, and nothing will be restrained from them which they have imagined to do; let us, therefore, confound their language, that they might not understand one another." This language is very peculiar—used as it is by God—and there is more in it than appears on the surface, or to a superficial reader; but we will not pause to consider it now. The confusion of language was confined to those there assembled. Why should God object to their building a city, if they were the descendants of Adam and Eve? But it is plain he did object to their building one. Did God object to Cain's building a city?—although a fratricidal murderer. Did he object to Mizraim and his descendants building those immense cities which they built on the Nile? No. In short, did God ever object to any of the known descendants of Adam and Eve building a city, or as many as they might choose to build? Never. But, from some cause or other, God did object to those people building that city and that tower. The objection could not be in regard to its locality, nor to the ground on which it was proposed to build them; for the great City of Babylon and with higher towers, too, was afterward built on the same spot—but by another people—Shem's descendants. Then, what could be the reason that could cause God to come down from heaven to prevent these people from building it? It must be some great cause that would bring God down to overthrow and prevent it. He allowed the people of Shem, afterward, to build the City of Babylon at the same place.
Reader, candid or uncandid, carefully read and reflect on the facts described in this whole affair. Then remember that, on one other occasion, God came down from heaven; that he talked with Noah; that he told him he was going to destroy the world; that he told him the reason why he intended to destroy it. Reader, do not the facts here detailed, of the objects and purposes of these people, and this logic of facts, force our minds, in spite of all opposing reasons to the contrary, to the conviction that the sin of these people was the identical sin, and consequent corruption of the race, as that which caused the destruction of the world by the flood; and that sin, the amalgamation or miscegenation of Nimrod and his kindred with beasts—the daughters of men—negroes. But, this view of who it was that attempted the building of the tower and city of Babel, and their reasons for doing so, will be confirmed by what is to follow.
The Bible informs us that Canaan, the youngest son of Ham, settled Canaan; and that it was from him the land took its name, as did the land of Mizraim, Ham's second son take its name from him, of what is now called Egypt. It was against this Canaan (not Ham) that the curse of Noah was directed, that a servant of servants should he be to his brethren. There is something of marked curiosity in the Bible account of this Canaan and his family. The language is singular, and differs from the Bible account of every other family in the Bible, where it proposes to give and does give the genealogy of any particular family. Why is this, there must be some reason, and some valid reason too, or there would be no variation in the particulars we refer to from that of any other family? The account in the Bible reads thus—"And Canaan begat Sidon his first born, and Heth." So far so good. And why not continue on giving the names of his other sons as in all other genealogies? But it does not read so. It reads, "And Canaan begat Sidon his first born, and Heth, and the Jebusite, and the Amorite, and the Girgasite, and the Hivite, and the Arkite, and the Sinite, and the Arvadite, and the Zemarite and the Hamathite, and who afterward were the families of the Canaanite spread abroad." With all other families the Divine Record goes on as this commenced, giving the names of all the sons. But in this family of Canaan, after naming the two sons Sidon and Heth (who settled Sidon, Tyre and Carthage, and were white as is plainly shown) it breaks off abruptly to these ites. Why this suffix of ite to their names? It is extraordinary and unusual; there must be some reason, a peculiar reason for this departure from the usual mode or rule, of which this is the only exception. What does it mean? The reason is plain. The progeny of the horse and ass species is never classed with either its father or mother, but is called a mule and represents neither. So the progeny of a son of God, a descendant of Adam and Eve with the negro a beast, is not classed with or called by the name of either its father or mother, but is an ite, a "class"—"bonded class," not race, God intending by this distinguishment to show to all future ages what will become of all such ites, by placing in bold relief before our eyes the terrible end of these as we shall see presently. Reader, bear in mind the end of these ites when we come to narrate them. These ites, the progeny of Canaan and the negro, inhabited the land of Canaan; with other places, they occupied what was then the beautiful plain and vale of Siddim, where they built the notorious cities of Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, and Zeboim. Like all counterfeits, they were ambitious of appearing as the genuine descendants of Adam, whose name they knew or had heard meant "red and fair" in Hebrew; they, therefore, called one of their cities Admah, to represent this "red and fair" man, and at the same time it should mean in negro "Ethiopic" "beautiful"—that kind of beauty that once seduced the sons of God, and brought the flood upon the earth. About the time we are now referring to, Abraham, a descendant of Shem was sojourning in Canaan. He had a nephew named Lot who had located himself in the vale of Siddim, and at this time was living in Sodom. One day three men were seen by Abraham passing his tent; it was summer time. Abraham ran to them and entreated that they should abide under the tree, while he would have refreshment prepared for them; they did so, and when about to depart one of them said, "shall we keep from Abraham that thing which I do (God come down again), seeing he shall surely become a great and mighty nation, for I know he will command his children and household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord;" that is, keeping Adam's race pure—a mission the Jews are to this day fulfilling. And they told Abraham of the impending fate of these cities. Abraham interceded for them, and pleaded that the righteous should not be destroyed with the wicked. God ultimately promised him, that if there were ten righteous in all these cities that he would not destroy them. What strong foundation have we people of the United States in God's mercy and forbearance in this incident? Will we prove worthy? The angels went to Sodom and brought out all the righteous, being only Lot and his two daughters (and their righteousness was not in their morality), his wife being turned into a pillar of salt. This done, God rained fire upon these cities and literally burnt up their inhabitants alive, and everything they had, and then sunk the very ground upon which their cities stood more than a thousand feet beneath, not the pure waters of the deluge, but beneath the bitter, salt, and slimy waters of Asphaltites, wherein no living thing can exist. An awful judgment! But it was for the most awful crime that man can commit in the sight of God, of which the punishment is on earth. Exhaust the catalogue of human depravity—name every crime human turpitude can possibly perpetrate, and which has been perpetrated on earth since the fall of Adam, and no such judgment of God on any people has ever before fallen, on their commission. But one crime, one other crime, and that crime the same for which he had destroyed every living thing on earth, save what was in the ark. But now he destroys by fire, not by water, but by fire, men, women and children, old and young, for the crime of miscegenating of Adam's race with the negroes. Noah was a preacher of righteousness to the antediluvians, yet he got drunk after the flood. Lot too was a preacher of righteousness to the cities of the plain, and he too not only got drunk but did so repeatedly, and committed a double crime of incest besides. Then we ask, what righteousness, what kind of righteousness was it that was thus preached by such men? We speak with entire reverence when we say that the logic of facts shows but little of morality—but it does show, as it was intended to be shown by God, that, though frail and sinful in a moral sense as they were, yet, being perfect in their genealogies from Adam and Eve, they could still be his preachers of righteousness, they themselves being right in keeping from beastly alliances.