generation of patriarchs complete. Of the two latter, the Chinese record, that Chi never became an emperor, and that the reign of Yau commenced one year after the deluge: Ci-e is admitted, in all the accounts, to have been the eldest son of Ti-co, probably his grandson; but he was in the direct line of succession, and it is expressly said, that the reign of the seventh emperor ended with the deluge, and that his successor Yau, the eighth emperor commenced his reign one year after, or "the year after the flood of Yau." We are, therefore, authorized in placing A. M. 1656 against the name of Ci-e, admitting that Ci-e, was Methuselah, and Chi, Lamech; which I have no doubt was the case. Chi, although the father of Yau, dying several years before his father, could not have been an emperor. Couplet makes the aggregate of the reign of the six princes 480 years, assigning to Shinnang 140, to Whang-ti 100, to Shan-han 84, to Chwen-Hyo 78, to Ti-co 70, to Chi 8. These are evidently supposititious dates. The death of Whang-ti, the inventor of the cycle of 60, appears the only marked epoch. Besides which, the missionintroduces Chi, whom no Chinese considers as an emperor, and omits Ci-e, whose reign reached to the deluge. The Chinese do not divide the number of years, during which the six princes reigned; yet they ascertain the aggregate, by adding 115

ary

years to the given sum of 817; making from the creation of Fo-hi to his death 932 years; and placing the deluge at A. M. 1656. The intervening space, by implication, is, therefore, understood to be 724 years, for the reign of the six intervening princes. How far these alterations are admissible you must determine. I shall proceed to compare the coincidence of events with that of dates. Fo-hi designated Tyen-tsi, or the son of heaven, like Swayambhuva, who sprang from the Self-created, had two distinguished sons; from whom two great dynasties sprang, who governed the antediluvian world. Each nation records, that the division of the world, or the forming the country into districts, over which rulers of each race were placed, was during the third generation, commencing with the immediate sons of the two sons of the first-created. At this period (during the fourth century) Sanchoniatho, equally with Berosus, informs us, that the race of Cain lived without rule or order, the sexes mixing together like the beasts of the field; that the children were named by their mothers, the fathers being uncertain; that they lived in huts, and covered their bodies with the skins of wild beasts, pouring the blood of such beasts on stones, and stumps of wood, before which they bowed down and worshipped. Berosus adds, "in the first year after the return of this race,

the Oannes appeared, for the purpose of reforming them. We have seen that the return of this race was A. M. 413, and the commencement of their rule A. M. 474. The first year, probably meant, the first year of their return; for we must suppose them somewhat reformed before they were appointed rulers. As the Musaris Oannes, or fishdeity denotes Enoch, so does the Oannes, Adam who instructed these new comers in every kind of knowledge. He infused into them a knowledge of right and wrong, instructed them in every science, directed them how to build temples, and houses; to collect seeds, and the various fruits of the earth for their nutriment: in short, as their general father, he spared no pains to soften their manners, and improve their morals:" such is the account we receive from Berosus, let us compare it with that of the Chinese.

"In those early times men differed little from beasts; they knew their mothers but not their fathers; they were uncivilized and rude; they never eat but when pressed by hunger, and when that was satisfied they threw away what was left; they swallowed the hair, drank the blood, and cloathed themselves with the skins of animals: Fo-hi taught them how to make fishing-nets and snares for birds, also to rear domestic animals, as

well for food as for sacrifice. To mitigate the natural fierceness of his new subjects, and calm wild and turbulent spirits, Fo-hi invented music." We might proceed to an unpardonable length. Sufficient has been said to prove, that Sanchoniatho and Berosus were treating of the same period with the Chinese; and then I should just as soon suppose Noah to represent Adam as Fo-hi. Who were the new subjects of Noah? Noah ruled over his own sons only. Every nation that admits the deluge, gives the immediate ancestor of the pious prince, who was saved in the ark. Why should the Chinese alone suppose he had no parents? The knowledge of the Chinese, relative to Fo-hi, or Adam, is very circumscribed. It is confined to a decided belief of his wisdom and piety, and that he softened and humanized the manners of his new subjects, after their return. Of the prince saved in the ark they have a more comprehensive knowledge. They place his birth at A. M. 1053, his succeeding his father as a ruler, at A. M. 1649; and the commencement of his reign immediately after the flood, which they suppose to have happened during the 756th year of the Cali age, or A. M. 1656. We will next accompany the Chinese into the postdiluvian world; when, according to Couplet, Yau commenced his reign A. M. 1650. But the

missionary calculates the reign from the death of Chi A. M. 1649, not recollecting that Chi, like Lamech, the father of Noah, never succeeded to regal power. To obviate this difficulty, Couplet not only alters the cycle, but the year of the cycle in which the deluge took place; that it might correspond with the reign of Yau, which he places in the forty-first, in lieu of the forty-seventh, year of the cycle.

Yau of the Chinese, like Noah of the Hebrews, Sisuthrus of the Chaldeans, and Vaivaswata of the Hindus, is represented as a prince of exemplary virtue. He, like them, was the eighth ruler of the world, and the first king that reigned after the deluge. But here they become divaricate for, although an immediate descendant of the eighth monarch, is placed by each nation at the head of the ninth dynasty, yet neither supposes him the ruler of the whole world. On the contrary, a son of such descendant is by each nation stated as at the head of the tenth dynasty from the creation, and the first king of that country where they settled. The third in descent from Noah, was the first king of Egypt; the third from Sisuthrus the first king of Chaldea: the third from Vaivaswat the first king of Magadha; the third from Yau, the first emperor of China.