Let us now endeavour to account for these striking coincidences. There are only three ways in which this can be attempted, and only one of these can be true. 1st, It may be said that the scripture account has been derived from the heathen mythology. The superior antiquity of the sacred writings renders this next to impossible. It would be much the same as to say, that the Greeks derived their mythology from the Romans, because the creeds of the two nations resem ble each other. This argument is only fit for that most ignorant and most impudent calumniator* of sacred truth, who could suppose that the scripture was drawn up from Grecian legends, because the words Orion and Arcturus are found in our translation. He might as well have supposed that they were composed from Eng lish romances, because he found them in English, which appears to be almost the only language with which he was acquainted. 2d, It may be said, and indeed has often been said, by learned and good men, that the heathen accounts are derived from the sacred records ; but this is an opinion that we would not be forward to maintain. In a few particular cases, it may be true ; but, generally speaking, and considered as a key to explain all the coincidences between sacred and profane history, we have no doubt that it must be abandoned. 3d, The only other supposeable reason that can be as signed for these coincidences is, that the sacred and profane records in which they occur, are independent histories of the same events, totally unconnected with each other. This we believe to be the only legitimate solution of the case ; and it has this advantage over the other two suppositions, that it is perfectly sufficient to account for all the phenomena. Viewing the subject in this light, the discrepancies and coincidences arc such as might be expected. The accounts which ap
proach nearest to the time of Moses, in point of anti quity, most nearly resemble his in the facts which they detail ; but the stream of tradition necessarily became corrupted ; and the accounts which it conveyed were so disfigured by fable and allegory, that it was scarcely possible to trace their connection with the original events.
With regard to the population of the antediluvian world, nothing is known with certainty, except that. according to the ordinary rate of increase in the human species, it must have been immensely great. As the duration of human life was at least ten times longer than it is at present, the rate of increase must have been in the same proportion ; calculating on this prin ciple, the world must have been much more populous, during the period before the flood, than it is at the pre sent moment. See tables to ascertain the amount, in Whiston, and Cockburn On the Deluge ; or the reader may find more accurate principles of calculation in Mal thus's Principles of Population.
There has been considerable difference of opinion re specting the chronology of the antediluvian period. The following table exhibits a summary of this subject, according to the Hebrew, the Samaritan, the Septuagint and Josephus.
These several opinions have each their supporters ; but the contest lies chiefly between the Hebrew and the Septuagint. We think that the arguments in favour of the former greatly preponderate. See Bishop Newton's works, vol. i. ; or, for the other side, Poli Synop. Gen. v.
For the subject of the antediluvian history in general, see Shuckford's Connections, vol. i. Anc. Un. Hist. vol. i. Newton's Works, as above ; Watson's Tracts, vol. i. Faber's Hone Illosaicie, vol. i. Maurice's Hist of Hin dostan, vol. i. where the subject is treated at great length. (g)