variance with God's laws. When he committed so gross and violent a sin, it
may be, that the curse of God, which had lain tranquil long, was roused and
uttered against him: a curse not conditional, not implied--now, as then, a
mandate of the Eternal.

Among the curses threatened by the Levites upon Mount Ebal, was the one
found in the 16th verse of the 27th chapter of Deuteronomy: "Cursed be he
that setteth light by his father or his mother." By the law of Moses, this
sin was punished with death: "Of the son which will not obey the voice of
his father or the voice of his mother," "all the men of his city shall
stone him with stones that he die." (Deut. xxi. 21.) God in his wisdom
instituted this severe law in early times; and it must convince us that
there were reasons in the Divine mind for insisting on the ordinance
exacting the most perfect submission and reverence to an earthly parent.

"When, after the deluge," says Josephus, "the earth was settled in its
former condition, Noah set about its cultivation; and when he had planted
it with vines, and when the fruit was ripe, and he had gathered the grapes
in the season, and the wine was ready for use, he offered a sacrifice and
feasted, and, being inebriated, fell asleep, and lay in an unseemly
manner. When Ham saw this, he came laughing, and showed him to his
brothers." Does not this exhibit the impression of the Jews as regards the
character of Ham? Could a man capable of such an act deserve the blessing
of a just and holy God?

"The fact of Noah's transgression is recorded by the inspired historian
with that perfect impartiality which is peculiar to the Scriptures, as an
instance and evidence of human frailty and imperfection. Ham appears to
have been a bad man, and probably he rejoiced to find his father in so
unbecoming a situation, that, by exposing him, he might retaliate for the