Secondly, the curse mentioned in Scripture was not denounced upon Cham, but Canaan, his youngest son, and the reasons thereof are divers. The first from the Jewish tradition, whereby it is conceived that Canaan made the discovery of the nakedness of Noah, and notified it unto Cham. Secondly, to have cursed Cham, had been to curse all his posterity, whereof but one was guilty of the fact. And lastly, he spared Cham, because he had blessed him before. Now if we confine this curse unto Canaan, and think the same fulfilled in his posterity, then do we induce this complexion on the Sidonians, then was the promised land a tract of Negroes, for from Canaan were descended the Canaanites, Jebusites, Amorites, Girgashites, and Hivites, which were possessed of that land.

Thirdly, although we should place the original of this curse upon one of the sons of Cham, yet were it not known from which of them to derive it. For the particularity of their descents is imperfectly set down by accountants, nor is it distinctly determinable from whom thereof the Ethiopians are proceeded. For whereas these of Africa are generally esteemed to be the issue of Chus, the elder son of Cham, it is not so easily made out. For the land of Chus, which the Septuagint translates Ethiopia, makes no part of Africa, nor is it the habitation of blackamoors, but the country of Arabia, especially the Happy and Stony possessions and colonies of all the sons of Chus, excepting Nimrod and Havilah, possessed and planted wholly by the children of Chus, that is, by Sabtah and Ramah, Sabtacha, and the sons of Raamah, Dedan, and Sheba; according unto whose names the nations of those parts have received their denominations, as may be collected from Pliny and Ptolemy, and as we are informed by credible authors, they hold a fair analogy in their names even unto our days. So the wife of Moses translated in Scripture an Ethiopian, and so confirmed by the fabulous relation of Josephus, was none of the daughters of Africa, nor any Negro of Ethiopia, but the daughter of Jethro, Prince and Priest of Midian, which was a part of Arabia the Stony, bordering upon the Red Sea. So the Queen of Sheba came not unto Solomon out of Ethiopia, but from Arabia, and that

part thereof which bore the name of the first planter, the son of Chus. So whether the eunuch, which Philip the deacon baptised, were servant unto Candace, queen of the African Ethiopia, (although Damianus à Goes, Codignus, and the Ethiopic relations aver it,) is yet by many, and with strong suspicions, doubted. So that the army of a million, which Zerah, King of Ethiopia, is said to bring against Asa, was drawn out of Arabia, and the plantations of Chus; not out of Ethiopia, and the remote habitations of the Moors. For it is said that Asa pursuing his victory took from him the city Gerar; now Gerar was no city in or near Ethiopia, but a place between Cadesh and Zur, where Abraham formerly sojourned. Since therefore these African Ethiopians are not convinced by the common acception to be the sons of Chus, whether they be not the posterity of Phut or Mizraim, or both, it is not assuredly determined. For Mizraim, he possessed Egypt, and the east parts of Africa. From Lubym, his son, came the Libyans, and perhaps from them the Ethiopians. Phut possessed Mauritania, and the western parts of Africa, and from these perhaps descended the Moors of the west, of Mandinga, Meleguette, and Guinea. But from Canaan, upon whom the curse was pronounced, none of these had their original; for he was restrained unto Canaan and Syria, although in after ages many colonies dispersed, and some thereof upon the coasts of Africa, and prepossessions of his elder brothers.

Fourthly, to take away all doubt or any probable divarication, the curse is plainly specified in the text, nor need we dispute it, like the mark of Cain; Servus servorum erit fratribus suis, "Cursed be Canaan, a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren;" which was after fulfilled in the conquest of Canaan, subdued by the Israelites, the posterity of Sem. Which prophecy Abraham well understanding, took an oath of his servant not to take a wife for his son Isaac out of the daughters of the Canaanites, and the like was performed by Isaac in the behalf of his son Jacob. As for Cham and his other sons, this curse attained them not; the son of Chus, set up his kingdom in Babylon, and erected the first great empire; Mizraim and his posterity grew mighty

for Nimrod,

monarchs in Egypt; and the empire of the Ethiopians hath been as large as either. Nor did the curse descend in general upon the posterity of Canaan, for the Sidonians, Arkites, Hamathites, Sinites, Arvadites, and Zemerites seem exempted. But why there being eleven sons, five only were condemned, and six escaped the malediction, is a secret beyond discovery.5

Lastly, whereas men affirm this colour was a curse, I cannot make out the propriety of that name, it neither seeming so to them, nor reasonably unto us, for they take so much content therein, that they esteem deformity by other colours, describing the devil and terrible objects white; and if we seriously consult the definitions of beauty, and exactly perpend what wise men determine thereof, we shall not apprehend a curse, or any deformity therein. For first, some place the essence thereof in the proportion of parts, conceiving it to consist in a comely commensurability of the whole unto the parts, and the parts between themselves, which is the determination of the best and learned writers. Now hereby the Moors are not excluded from beauty, there being in this description no consideration of colours, but an apt connection and frame of parts and the whole. Others there be, and those most in number, which place it not only in proportion of parts, but also in grace of colour. But to make colour essential unto beauty, there will arise no slender difficulty. For Aristotle, in two definitions of pulchritude, and Galen in one, have made no mention of colour. Neither will it agree unto the beauty of animals, wherein notwithstanding there is an approved pulchritude. Thus horses are handsome under any colour, and the symmetry of parts obscures the consideration of complexions. Thus in concolour animals and such as are confined unto one colour, we measure not their beauty thereby; for if a crow or blackbird grow white, we generally account it more pretty; and in almost a monstrosity descend not to opinion of deformity. By this way likewise the Moors escape the curse of deformity, there concurring no stationary colour, and sometimes not any unto beauty.

5 Nor did the curse, &c.] First added in 2nd edition.

The Platonick contemplators reject both these descriptions founded upon parts and colours, or either, as M. Leo, the Jew, hath excellently discoursed in his Genealogy of Love, defining beauty a formal grace, which delights and moves them to love which comprehend it. This grace, say they, discoverable outwardly, is the resplendour and ray of some interior and invisible beauty, and proceedeth from the forms of compositions amiable. Whose faculties if they can aptly contrive their matter, they beget in the subject an agreeable and pleasing beauty; if over ruled thereby, they evidence not their perfections, but run into deformity. For seeing that out of the same materials, Thersites and Paris, monstrosity and beauty may be contrived, the forms and operative faculties introduce and determine their perfections. Which in natural bodies receive exactness in every kind, according to the first idea of the Creator, and in contrived bodies the fancy of the artificer, and by this consideration of beauty, the Moors also are not excluded, but hold a common share therein with all mankind.

Lastly, in whatsoever its theory consisteth, or if in the general we allow the common conceit of symmetry and of colour, yet to descend unto singularities, or determine in what symmetry or colour it consisted, were a slippery designation. For beauty is determined by opinion, and seems to have no essence that holds one notion with all; that seeming beauteous unto one, which hath no favour with another; and that unto every one, according as custom hath made it natural, or sympathy and conformity of minds shall make it seem agreeable. Thus flat noses seem comely unto the Moor, an aquiline or hawked one unto the Persian, a large and prominent nose unto the Roman; but none of all these are acceptable in our opinion. Thus some think it most ornamental to wear their bracelets on their wrists, others say it is better to have them about their ankles; some think it most comely to wear their rings and jewels in the ear, others will have them about their privities; a third will not think they are complete except they hang them in their lips, cheeks, or noses. Thus Homer to set off Minerva, calleth her yλauzis, that is, gray or light-blue eyed; now this unto us seems far less amiable

than the black.

Thus we that are of contrary complexions

accuse the blackness of the Moors as ugly; but the spouse

conceit, in that description of And howsoever Cerberus, and

in the Canticles excuseth this hers, I am black, but comely. the furies of hell be described by the poets under this complexion, yet in the beauty of our Saviour, blackness is commended, when it is said, his locks are bushy and black as a raven. So that to infer this as a curse, or to reason it as a deformity, is no way reasonable; the two foundations of beauty, symmetry and complexion, receiving such various apprehensions, that no deviation will be expounded so high as a curse or undeniable deformity, without a manifest and confessed degree of monstrosity.

Lastly, it is a very injurious method unto philosophy, and a perpetual promotion of ignorance, in points of obscurity, nor open unto easy considerations, to fall upon a present refuge unto miracles; or recur unto immediate contrivance from the unsearchable hands of God. Thus, in the conceit of the evil odour of the Jews, Christians, without a further research into the verity of the thing, or enquiry into the cause, draw up a judgment upon them from the passion of their Saviour. Thus in the wondrous effects of the clime of Ireland, and the freedom from all venomous creatures, the credulity of common conceit imputes this immunity unto the benediction of St. Patrick, as Beda and Gyraldus have left recorded. Thus the ass having a peculiar mark of a cross made by a black list down his back, and another athwart, or at right angles down his shoulders: common opinion ascribe this figure unto a peculiar signation, since that beast had the honour to bear our Saviour on his back. Certainly this is a course more desperate than antipathies, sympathies, or occult qualities; wherein by a final and satisfactive discernment of faith, we lay the last and particular effects upon the first and general cause of all things; whereas in the other, we do but palliate our determinations, until our advanced endeavours do totally reject, or partially salve their evasions.

evil odour of the Jews.] See more of this, p. 36, note 4.