the name suggests servile obedience),
who was as despotical to his inferiors as he was rebellious against his
superiors. When the father gave that name to his son, he thought only
of submissiveness to _his_ orders; but God, who, in His mysterious
providence, disposes of all these matters, had another submissiveness
in view.

But why is Canaan cursed and not Ham? For an answer to this question,
we are at liberty neither to fall back upon the sovereign decree of
God, as _Calvin_ does, nor to say with _Hofmann_: "Canaan is the
youngest son of Ham (Gen. x. 6); and because Ham, the youngest son of
Noah, had caused so much grief to the father, he, in return, is to
experience great grief from his youngest son." This latter view rests
upon false historical suppositions. We have already proved that Ham was
not the youngest son of Noah; and it by no means follows from Gen. x.
6, that Canaan was the youngest son of Ham. Canaan's name is mentioned
last among the sons of Ham, because the whole account of Ham's family
was to be combined with the detailed enumeration of Canaan's
descendants, who stood in so important a relation to Israel. The
boundary line as regards Shem is formed, quite naturally, by that
branch of Ham's family which stood in so important a relation to the
main branch of the family of Shem. But, as little reliance can be
placed upon the theological grounds of that conjecture; for the
question at issue is not the withdrawal of outward advantages. Canaan
is _cursed_, and it is just the sting of his servitude that it is the
consequence of the curse. It would indeed sadly affect the biblical
doctrine of recompense, if cursing and blessing were dependent upon
such external reasons as, in the case before us, upon the circumstance
that Canaan was so unfortunate as to be the youngest son.

The right answer to the question is without doubt this:--Ham is
punished in his son, just as he himself had sinned against his father.
He is punished in _this_ son, because he followed most decidedly the
example of his father's impiety and wickedness. To this view we are led
by the whole doctrine of Holy Scripture concerning the visitation of
the guilt of the fathers upon the children. (Compare the author's
"_Dissertations on the Genuineness of the Pentateuch_," vol. ii. p.
373.) [Pg 35] To this view we are also led by the passage in Gen. xv.
16: "But in the fourth generation they shall come hither again, for the
iniquity of the Amorite