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,