author* informs, that "each Zapos contained 6000 years." This number multiplied by 120 Zapo, Σαροι, which are equal to 432000 Matires of the Hindus, give 720000, or 6000 x 120=720000. But neither of these authors alluded to the four ages. The latter number denoted a day of the Deity, or period of time of 1000 years. For as 432000 Matires are contained in one half day, or 12 hours, so are there 720 periods, or half days in one year, or 311040000 ÷ 432000 = 720; and 720 × 1000= 720000; making 6000 Zapot, equal to 1000 years.

The prolonged periods of the Chinese may be explained in the same manner; their cycle, like that of the Hindus, consists of 60 years. But to prevent the necessity of giving names to each year, their cycle is composed of roots and branches, so constructed, that no two ever come together more than once, during the same cycle. Ten characters, called roots, are placed on one side; and 12 signs, called branches, on the other: so that the number of years elapsed from the commencement of the cycle is known from the root and branch that appear together. This sometimes leads to mistakes; particularly when translators are not well acquainted with the Chinese characters. Thus, although the deluge is placed in the same year of

* Salmasius.

the world by the Hindus and Chinese, and the commencement of their cycles agree, each placing the deluge in the 47th year of a cycle, Couplet places it in the 40th year; a difference which will be accounted for in treating of the Chinese antediluvian dynasties. They, like the Hindus, profess ignorance as to the period when the cycle was first introduced; and this has occasioned a difference of opinion relative to the epoch of the general deluge. For, although each nation places the reign of their first postdiluvian ruler at the distance of 3267000 years, which answers to the Cali year 757 (for 3888000 is to 900 as 3267000 is to 756), and places the deluge one year prior thereto, answering to A. M. 1656, yet some pretend, that if the deluge happened in the 47th year of the 14th cycle of the last grand period, which commenced 71 years before the Cali age, or B. c. 3102, then the Chinese epoch of the world must have been so far back as 2060 years before the Julian period; and consequently that 4427 years had expired before the deluge. In order to obviate this objection, great pains have been taken to change the epocha of the Cali age. We are told, that the mistaken doctrine, of an oscillation in the cardinal points, compelled the Hindus to place it 1920 years too early; and that, because according to their calculations in the year of Christ 499, the vernal equinox was found by

observation in the origin of their ecliptic, they were of opinion that it must have had the same position in the first year of the Calijug, and were therefore induced, by their erroneous theory, to fix the beginning of their fourth period 3600 years before the time of Vara'ha. Now no one part of this

theory is true. First, although the antediluvians were sufficiently versed in Astronomy, to have a systematic knowledge of that science, yet we cannot suppose that the doctrine of oscillation was known in the year B. c. 3173: and our reason forbids us to admit that the epocha of the Cali age, which is established in the Vedas, and in the institutes of Menu (both of which are admitted to be antecedent to the Pentateuch of Moses), could have been regulated by the appearance of the heavens, five hundred years after the birth of Christ. Secondly, as a grand period of 3600 years did not. commence with the Cali age, that epocha could not have been regulated thereby it being an established fact, that the first grand period, or cycle of cycles, commenced 71 years before the Calijug or Cali age, that one only of these grand periods. have clapsed, and that we are now in the 24th cycle of the second period of 3600 years*, although we entered into the fourth grand age, 4917 years ago. The Calijug or Cali age was fixed at B. c. 3102,

not because "the Hindus established the beginning of the precession according to their ideas of it, in the year of Christ 499;" but because, according to their ideas, the epocha of the world was 900 years prior thereto. Consequently the grand period, or cycle of cycles, that commenced B. c. 3179, and which continued 3600 years, could not have had any influence in fixing the period of the fourth age; although it establishes the assertion, that the Chinese and Hindu epocha of the Creation was the 711th year of the Julian period, or the year B. C. 4002. Nevertheless, no very great reliance can be placed on the early records of the Chinese : since they admit, that the second Emperor of their fourth dynasty ordered all the records, civil and religious, to be destroyed, about 200 years before Christ; and, although a few copies were recovered in the succeeding reign, they are said to have been so mutilated by damp and worms, that many chasms were supplied by the old literati. Their dates are, however, tolerably correct; and in most instances they agree with the Hebrew text of our Bible. The birth and reign of the first postdiluvian ruler Yau, corresponds with that of Noah. And the Chou of Fo-hi corresponds with the creation of Adam. They, like the Hebrews, admit but of six sovereigns in succession, between Adam and Noah. And, although they do not furnish the number of years during which each king reigned, we

learn that the aggregate number was 726. Martinus, Couplet, and others, who profess to believe that Fo-hi was Noah, record that he reigned in China 115 years, and that his reign commenced 2952 years before Christ. These assertions are scarcely worth refuting: since they place the commencement of the reign of Fo-hi at 600 years before the flood; when Enos, the great sire of Noah, in the seventh degree, was yet alive, and ruling over that country, which he had inherited from Seth. But they go further; they place the death of Fo-hi 485 years before Noah entered the ark; making him the ruler over China 700 years before, according to their own account, China was peopled. The Chinese accounts, on the contrary, say "Fo-hi the son of Heaven, the first created, reigned 115 years:" but the commencement of his reign is fixed at A. M. 817, as appears in the history of their kings. They further record that the Chou of the first Emperor, that is, of the first Emperor, or ruler of the new world, commenced A. M. 1054, which the missionaries very correctly place at the year B. c. 2952. But the Chou of the Chinese, like the Antara of the Hindus, denotes his time or birth. The Hebrew text of the Scripture places the birth of Noah at A. M. 1056. The Chinese proceed to say, that this prince, named Yau, commenced his reign one year after the deluge; which even the missionaries, who place it in the 41st year of a