269 
Mr. Titcomb. — But a crucifixion with a sponge and spear is unique. Then 
with regard to what fell from Mr. Moule as to taking with caution the asser- 
tions of the Jesuits ; that no doubt, is very important, but I would call to 
his attention that Gutslaff, the great Chinese missionary, and others, quote 
them, and say with reference to one of the earliest Chinese books, in exist- 
ence before the Jesuits came, and dealing with a period long anterior to 
Christianity, that it contains the history of Fo-hi and the Deluge, showing 
that Fo-hi came from western parts with seven companions — his wife, three 
sons, and three daughters. That thoroughly gets rid of the idea that there 
has been any manufacturing in the matter. Similar things are to be found 
throughout the world, and yet we are told that they arise from the constitu- 
tion of the human mind, and that no just argument as to a common origin 
is to be drawn from them. No doubt that is logical and true to a certain 
extent, but yet it must be taken within certain limits. 
Mr. Row. — Oh, of course. 
Mr. Titcomb. — For instance, I have not taken the general idea of serpent- 
worship. It appears to me that naturally the serpent would have been taken 
as an embodiment of evil to be worshipped from dread, but I believe that the 
evidence which I have drawn from serpent-worship is not based upon that 
natural disposition of the human mind, but upon the concurrence of artificial 
and otherwise not natural ideas which appear and reappear here, there, and 
everywhere, and which I think indicate, from their general concurrence, a 
common origin. You find a serpent, a tree, fruit, a man and woman, and 
the serpent in an erect position. Will you tell me that it is a natural develop- 
ment of the human mind to make these representations in consequence of 
the general idea of serpent-worship from dread ? I can imagine that such 
things may have nothing to do with Scripture, but when you come to the 
artificial combination of these various parts, the whole question is different. 
If we are candid, and reason without prejudgment for or against, it is a priori 
reasonable to suppose that there must have been a common origin. The 
general fact that all nations have a deluge would not prove the deluge of 
Noah ; but when you come to a multitude of these cases grouped together — • 
the deluge of Chaldea, the deluge related by Lucian, the deluge of Coxcox, 
and the deluge of Satyaurata — from different parts of the world and in dif- 
ferent ages — not a bare deluge, but one in which people are preserved, and 
in which you have the division of two and two animals ; and a deluge 
caused, too, by the moral degeneracy of mankind, subsequent to which there 
is a dispersion of the new race over the world — all these things present pecu- 
liarities and specialties so diverse from the uninformed conception of the 
human mind, that I think they indicate a common origin. It is like the 
putting together of different bones on the principles of comparative anatomy 
and declaring that they all belonged to one animal. But this does not touch 
what Mr. Heuslow has said. He says the sceptic might say “ You have col- 
lected together an accumulation of facts all of which are agreeable to each 
other, but how can you prove that the Scripture is not part and parcel of the 
same congeries of events, and has not taken up the same tale ? ” But every- 
