Page:Anacalypsis vol 1.djvu/65

 who uses his eyes can doubt. But the latter is in a different predicament. A question may arise whether man existed before the flood above spoken of, or not. If the universality of a tradition of a fact of this nature would prove its truth, there would be scarcely room for doubt, and the previous creation of man would be established. But I think in the course of the following inquiry we shall find that universal tradition of a fact of this kind is not enough by itself for its establishment. It appears to me that the question of the existence of the human race previous to the flood will not much interfere with my inquiries, but will, if it be admitted, only oblige me to reason upon the idea that certain facts took place before it, and that the effects arising from them were not affected by it.

If I speak of persons or facts before the deluge, and it should be determined that the human species did not exist before that event, then the form of speech applied erroneously to the ante-diluvians must be held to apply to the earliest created of the post-diluvians; and this seems to me to be the only inconvenience which can arise from it. I shall therefore admit, for the sake of argument, that an universal flood took place, and that it happened after the creation of man.

Much difference of opinion has arisen upon the question whether the flood to which I have alluded was universal or not. The ancient records upon which Christians found their religion, as generally construed, maintain the affirmative; but no one who gives even a very slight degree of consideration to the circumstances of the Americas can deny that probability leans the contrary way. It is a very difficult question, but I do not consider that it has much concern with the object of this work.

Though it be the most probable, if man were created before the last general deluge, that a portion of the human race was saved along with the animals in the new, as well as a portion in the old world, yet it is equally probable that one family, or at most only a very small number of persons, were saved in the latter.

The strongest argument against the descent of the present human race from one pair has hitherto been found in the peculiar character of the Negro. But it is now admitted, I believe, that Mr. Lawrence has removed that difficulty, and has proved that man is one genus and one species, and that those who were taken by some philosophers for different species are only varieties. I shall assume this as a fact, and reason upon it accordingly. If there were any persons saved from the deluge except those before spoken of, who were found near the Caspian Sea, they do not appear to have made any great figure in the world, or to have increased so as to form any great nations. They must, I think, soon have merged and been lost in the prevailing numbers of the oriental nation. But I know not in history any probable tradition or circumstance, the existence of the Negro excepted, which should lead us to suppose that there ever were such persons. If they did exist, I think they must have been situated in China. It is possible that they may have been in that country, but it is a bare possibility, unsupported by any facts or circumstances known to us. No doubt the Chinese are entitled to what they claim—a descent from very remote antiquity. But it is acknowledged that one of their despots destroyed all their authentic and official records, in consequence of which little or no dependence can be placed upon the stories which they relate, of transactions which took place any length of time previous to that event.

The cautious way in which I reason above respecting the universal nature of the flood, and the conditional style of argument which I adopt in treating the question of man’s creation before or after it, no doubt will give offence to a certain class of persons who always go to another class, called priests, for permission to believe, without using their own understandings. I am sorry that I should offend these good people, but as I cannot oblige them by taking for granted the truth of alleged facts, the truth or falsity of which is, at least in part, the object of this work, it is clearly not fit, as it is not intended, for their perusal.