vSome  nations  uniionniy  revtreu  tiie  uiititutions  of  their  an-


115

ccstors,  others  became  ambitious  of  distinguishing  themselves
by  new  inventions,  and  improvements,  and  ot  course  despised
the  simphcity  ot"  former  times,  and  a  third  sort  contented
themselves  with  satisfying  tlie  wants  and  gratifying  the
appetites  and  passions  of  nature,  upon  the  most  easy  terms,
and  so  degenerated  into  the  savage  state.
The  Greeks  and  Romans  from  whom  we  derive  much  of
our  learning,  and  many  of  our  errors  respecting  the  early
ages,  at  one  period  of  their  histor}',  were  not  far  removed
from  this  character.  Tlieir  avowed  want  of  information  as  to
the  remote  events  of  history,  and  their  readiness  to  adopt  a
heterogeneous  mass  of  fable  and  superstition  from  their  neigh-
bours, furnish  tiie  clearest  proofs  tliat  they  had  broken  the
chain  of  ancient  lore.  How  could  it  have  been  otherwise  ? —
The  states  of  the  former  people,  at  one  time,  were  little  more
than  conipanies  of  pyrates,  and  the  latter  owed  their  being  to
a  band  of  robbers.
In  the  preceding  sketches,  I  have  endeavoured  to  state  my
reasons  for  receiving  with  some  limitation  several  popular
opinions,  and  amongst  the  rest,  a  theory  which  has  been
conceived  by  distinguished  genius,  and  supported  by  a  pro-
fusion of  learning,  and  which  deduces  all  that  was  valuable
amongst  the  ancient  nations,  from  the  house  of  Ham,  and
from  the  confederates  of  Nimrod.
I  feel  no  pride  in  singularity.  It  is  with  regret,  I  differ  ia
some  particulars  from  incn  whose  talents  and  erudition  I  con-
template with  the  profoundest  reapec^  and  my  pen  hesitates
while  1  suggest  a  suspicion  that  there  is  some  defect  in  the
groundwork  of  the  system  I  have  just  mentioned.
