Fo-hi or Adam, and Yau or Noah.

Neither is it very material. Since both the Hebrews and Hindus admit six rulers, in succession, in the race of Seth; and the Chaldeans and Egyptians the same number in that of Cain. So that, from which ever race the princes, recorded by the Chinese, descended, the numbers agree; making Adam the first, and Noah the eighth ruler in succession from the creation, and the first postdiluvian ruler. Neither can we decide, with certainty, from which of the sons of Noah China was peopled. The situation of the country, and the pure religion first observed in it, leads to the supposition of their being of the race of Shem. But if Navaret is correct, in placing the period when the country was first peopled at about 131 years after the deluge, it appears that they went immediately from Babylon. This is no otherwise material, than as it would enable us to discover the race from which the six princes in the antediluvian world descended. For the race of Shem invariably gives us those of Seth, and the race of Ham those of Cain. The few dates, which we are able to collect, lead us to suppose that the antediluvian princes were of the former race, and that the postdiluvian Chinese descended from Japheth. Let us compare the little we know of their history with that of the Hindus. The latter commence their antediluvian

dynasties with the third generation, during the fourth century; placing Icshwacu at the head of the Solar race. The Chinese do the same; placing Wang-ti of the third generation at the head of their dynasty. The Hindus admit Swayambhuva and his immediate son, the ancestor of Icshwacu, to have been supreme rulers before Icshwacu became such the Chinese admit Fo-hi, and his immediate son, the ancestor of Whang-ti, to have been sovereign rulers before he became such. The Hindus give all the princes, who governed over provinces, commencing with the sons of Swarochisha, the son of the first-created: the Chinese give all the princes who governed over provinces commencing with the sons of Shin-Nang, the son of the first-created. The genealogical table of the Chinese will be found in Couplet. How far the names are correct, I will not determine. The dates are generally omitted, and the inferences drawn by Couplet invariably false. The number of years assigned to the several reigns, with the exception of the two first are totally without foundation. For the Chinese very correctly place the death of the third emperor, inclusive of Adam, at 515 years before the deluge: Consequently, the intervening space must have been divided between the four princes who reigned from the death of Wang-ti to the deluge, to whom

Couplet allows only 240 years. The fictitious number of 115 years, assigned for the reign of Fo-hi, was merely to make the intervening number of years 724, between the death of Adam and the flood, agree with the reign of the six princes as has been already explained. To regulate this chronology we must add the 817 years, which every nation admits from the commencement of the Antara, Chon, or creation of the first-created, to the period from whence they date his regal state. The three first reigns would then stand as follows:

This nearly corresponds with the Hebrew text, which assigns to the life of Adam 931 years, to the reign of Seth 112, and Enos 98. For 931 + 112 + 98 = 1141: which is a strong indication, that the princes were of the race of Seth. The Chinese, like the Hindus, have various modes of reckoning. They, likewise, record that at the end of the third age, Fo-hi closed his mortal career; assigning, therefore, only 900 years to his reign.

* Vide pages 290 and 291.

They sometimes add the overplus to the next reign, and state the reigns as follows:

Of the four following reigns, I know nothing. But we may conjecture a great deal. The Chinese furnish a genealogical table, ill-arranged, and very difficult to understand, evidently erroneous in all its minor details; but, as they confess that very little credit is due to it, we must be content to glean a few truths, wherever they present themselves. The arrangement of Couplet, although ingenious, renders the subject yet more obscure. He rejects all dates, because they militate against his hypothesis, that Fo-hi was Noah: from the Chinese we learn one great truth; that "Fo-hi, was the general father of mankind, and that those who pretend to carry the world further back, are allegorists that this Fo-hi had no parents, and, as such was considered the son of heaven: that he had three distinguished sons: that from the first, and third, two great dynasties descended, but from the second there was no issue:" which corresponds with the Hebrew text, Abel being the second son of Adam. The table may be considered so far as goes, as follows:

it

First family.
Shan or Cham.
With the exception of
Chwen-hyo*, who is
placed at the head of

the fifth dynasty, the
names of the kings
who became sove-

reigns of the world

are not given.

*

Chwen-hyo was the Dasaratha of India; the Mahalaleel of Scripture, who ruled over both lines for about 55 years.

is not mentioned among the kings, we find the exception of Enoch, who, being considered a God, third son of Fo-hi to be Seth. Then, with the table tolerably correct, if I am so, in supposing the The foregoing amendment will make this