4. Its form. From the description given in the sa cred writings, it appears to have had the figure of an ob long square, with a flat bottom, and sloping roof ; with out any kind of helm, or mast, or oars ; formed to lie upon the water without rolling, and intended to float ra ther than to sail. It is supposed to have contained three separate stories ; the lower of which is understood to have been designed for the beasts ; the middle, for the food ; and the upper for the birds, with the family of Noah. These stories have beerl, divided by different authors, according to the suggestions of their own fan cy, into a certain number of apartments ; but the detail of such unsupported conjectures would be a very un reasonable encroachment upon the time and patience of our readers. It may be sufficient to mention, that the lowest computation makes 72 rooms or stalls ; and the highest, 400.
5. Its capacity and dimensions. According to the ac count given by Moses, the ark was 300 cubits in length. 50 in breadth, and 50 in height ; but the exact measure ment of this cubit has been the subject of many calcu lations and conjectures. Some of the suppositions, which have been advanced on this point, such as that of Origen and Augustine, who extend the cubit of the ark to 9 feet, are ridiculously extravagant ; and others. which estimate this measure at 3 feet, are, at least, equally unauthorised by any evidence from sacred or profane history. The only opinions worth noticing are 1. That of bishop Cumberland, who calculates the He brew cubit as very nearly equal to 22 inches ; which would render the length of the ark about 550 English feet, its breadth 91, and its height 55. 2. That of the learned Parkhurst, who computes the cubit at some thing less than 18 inches ; which makes the ark 450 feet long, 75 broad, and 45 high. The great question now arises, whether, upon any of those measurements, the internal capacity of this vessel can be considered as sufficient to contain the various animals, which were pre served from the deluge, with the quantity of provisions, which would be necessary during the long period of their confinement. Even upon the smallest estimate of
the cubit measure, the competency of the ark for the purpose assigned to it by the sacred historian, has been satisfactorily proved by different writers ; but especially by the ingenious bishop Wilkins, who has established his point with a clearness and exactness amounting al most to demonstration. It would occupy too large a portion of this article to give a distinct view of his cal culations ; and a partial statement would only tend to obscure the final result. It may only be observed, that, after the most minute computation, he finds rather too much room, than too little ; for which he easily ac counts by this obvious consideration, that we cannot be supposed to know every species of animal which exists, and that several therefore must have been preserved in the ark which have not yet been discovered. Thus does this seeming difficulty, like many others connected with the scripture history, the more closely that it is investi gated, lurnish an evidence, instead of an objection, to the truth of revealed religion ; and it is not easy to con ceive how any writer, such as Moses, at a time when men's skill in geometry and acquaintance with natural history must have been extremely limited, could even have been able, without supernatural instruction, to de scribe a vessel so mathematically proportioned to its contents. Sec Buteo de 4rca .A'oe. Pelletier, Dissert. sur 1%?1rche de Noe, c. ii. p. 29. Bp. Wilkins's Essay towards a real character, part ii. c. 5. Saurin, Discours Historique, torn. i. p. 87. ?nc. Univ. Hist. p. 219. Irish Trans. vol. vi. p. 291. Bryant's Mythology, vol. ii. p. 213. (q)