The For cannot pronounce with certainty on the subject. The number of years assigned by Couplet for each reign is evidently fictitious. For having mistaken the birth of Noah, for the reign of Adam, he places that epoch at A. M. 1054, and allots 115 years for its duration. Consequently he had only 480 disposable years, to divide between the six reigns that preceded that of Yau, which he admits to have commenced A. M. 1650: whereas every other nation allots from 724 so 728 years. chronology of Couplet must be erroneous. whether Fo-hi was Adam, or Noah, his reign could neither have commenced a. м. 1054, nor his death have taken place A. M. 1169. The subsequent numbers are, therefore, necessarily erroneous. That the Chinese state the reign of Fo-hi at 115 years is certain. But it forms a part of the 932 years, during which they suppose that he lived. That nearly every oriental nation should place the commencement of the reign of the firstcreated just 817 years from the creation, proves that some tradition was extant relative thereto. For each nation differs in respect to the length of his reign, so as to make it meet the period at which they place his death. The Egyptians allot 83 years; the Chaldeans 100; and the Chinese 115: because the Egyptians, who like the Hindus, reckon in round numbers, state the death of the first-created, when the three first ages were completely passed; or at the end of 900 years; so 817 + 83 = 900. The Chaldeans state it at 917. years; so 817 + 100 = 917: the Chinese at 932 = years; so 817 + 115 932. The reason that regulated the number of years affixed as the duration of the reign of the first-created, evidently arose from the different lengths of the years, by which the different nations calculated, increasing and decreasing the portion of time allotted for the six princes, between the first ruler of the old, and new world. Why each nation should have fixed on 817 years of 365 days and 6 hours, as the life of the first-created, before his reign commenced, is a question worth investigating. The several nations who assigned 83100, or 115 years, for the reign of the first-created, certainly did not intend those numbers to denote the whole duration of his reign, but the number of years he reigned from a given epoch, or the cycle of 60 years. For 817 years of 365 days and 6 hours, are equal to 829 of 360 days; and it is certain that the cycle commenced in the 829th year of the world. Oriental chronology is so ill understood, that we cannot be surprised at the years being mistaken. Nearly every Greek author who has copied from Berosus, has fallen into the same error. The Chaldean priest allotted 74 Zapoi, for the reign of the six princes, and ten for that of Alorus, making in all 840 years. The reign of Sisuthrus being in the postdiluvian world, is placed at A. M. 1657, and the 840 years assigned by Berosus for the seven reigns were deducted therefrom, leaving 817 years as the commencement of the cycle. But the 84 Zapor of Berosus contained only 302400 days, or 828 Julian years, which deducted from A. M. 1657 leaves 829 years, the true epoch when the cycle of 60 commenced*. This equally applies to every other eastern nation. The reign of the antediluvian princes being reckoned in years of 360 days, and deducted from the year of the world in which the reign of Noah in the postdiluvian world commenced, or 1657 years of 365 days and 6 hours; a convincing proof that each nation place the epoch of the deluge in the same year. Oriental nations do not meet us at the top of every page with an Anno Mundi, but they generally furnish us with documents, that answer the same purpose. The Chinese neither give us the number of years that formed the sum of the reigns of the six princes, nor the number of years each reigned. But we gather from their accounts, that it was 724: because they place the end of the reign of the first-created at A. M. * Vide Appendix (A). 932, and the deluge at A. M. 1656. Again, we trace the death of the third emperor to A. M. 1140; consequently, from that period to the deluge was 516 years the Hebrews state it at 515*. Although the grand periods, such as cycles, periods of 3600 years, and the four ages, are the same with those introduced by the Hindus, it must nevertheless be recollected, that the Hindu tables will not decypher all Chinese dates; because their division of time is different. and night consist of 12 hours The Chinese day only; their hour The first six, or being twice the length of our's. day, commences at midnight; the second six, or night, at noon. These twelve hours are divided into an hundred equal parts, and each part into an hundred minutes. So that their day, or from midnight to midnight consists of 10000 minutes. They have likewise other divisions of time, for astronomical purposes. The most determined opposer of the antediluvian system, is Mr. Bryant. In his new system of ancient mythology, he not only supposes all the dynasties postdiluvian, but affirms that Noah was the first of men. I cannot leave this subject without answering the objections which he produces in proof of the dynasties copied from Berosus being * Vide page 100, and 288. the progeny of Noah; because on these arguments the Solar and Lunar dynasties have been so considered. He informs us that "by following his system we may be enabled to detect and refute the absurdities of Abydenus and Apollodorus; who pretend, on the authority of Berosus to produce ten antediluvian kings." (Vol. IV. p. 142.) And again, in page 151, he gives us to understand that these absurdities originate in the wilful misrepresentation of Eusebius; "for whatever kings may have reigned in Babylon, or in Chaldea, they have had their series reversed; and, by a groundless anticipation, have been refered to another period; but if we turn the tables and reduce the series to its original order, we shall find Sisuthrus the patriarch stand first; and those that are brought between him and Alorus will come after. For Alorus will be found to be no other than Nimrod the son of Cush. He is by Berosus truly styled Xaλdatos, one of the Chusdim or Chaldeans, and represented as the first king of Babylon. He was, indeed, the first that reigned upon earth.” Again, our Scripture having idly followed the Greeks and the Romans renders Chaldeus, that which should be Chusdim or Chasdim." If we admit such assertions as proofs, we may reject every text that militates against the system that is most consonant to our views. We have seen, that |