We have, however, authentic testimony that the inventive faculty existed at a very early period. The peculiar condition of man at that time must have afforded many imperative occasions for its exertion. Hence we read that “Jabal was the father of such as dwell in tents” (i. e. inventor of tent-making); that “Jubal, his brother, was the father” (inventor) of musical instruments: such as the kinnor, harp, or stringed instruments, and the ugab, organ, or wind instruments; that “Tubal-cain was the instructor of every artificer in brass and iron, the first smith on record, or one to teach how to make instruments and utensils out of brass and iron; and that the sister of Tubal-cain was Naamah, whom the Targum of Jonathan ben Uzziel affirms to have been the inventrix of plaintive or elegiac poetry[5]. Here is then an account of the inventive faculty being in exercise 3504 years before the Christian era; or 1156 years prior to the deluge; or 804 years before the earliest period assigned to the Chinese for the discovery of silk. And of whatever arts or sciences existing amongst men prior to the deluge, there is no difficulty in conceiving the possibility of the transmission of the leading and most essential parts, at least, to the post-diluvians, by the family of Noah.
[5] As a proof that the inventive faculty, as to every thing truly useful to man, originally proceeded from the only “Giver of every good and perfect gift,” consult Isa. xxviii. 24-29: and also a beautiful comment by Dr. A. Clarke on, “And thou shalt speak unto all that are wise hearted, whom I have filled with the spirit of wisdom.” Exod. xxviii. 3: and also on, “I have filled him with the spirit of God in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship; to devise cunning works, to work in gold, and in silver, and in brass; and in cutting of stones, to set them, and in carving of timber, to work in all manner of curious workmanship.” Exod. xxxi. 3, 4, and 5.
But instead of giving our unqualified assent to what has been servilely copied from book to book from the most accessible account, we shall advert to the great discrepancy relative to Chinese chronology, amongst those who have had equal access to their records. Thus the time of Fohi, the first emperor, has been said to be 2951 B. C., by some 2198 B. C., and by others 2057, or about 300 years after the deluge: of Hoang-ti, 2700 B. C., by Mailla it is quoted at 2602 B. C., by Le Sage at 2597 B. C., and by Robinson and others at 1703 B. C. Similar disagreements might, would our limits allow, be observed concerning the rest, and particularly of the emperors, Hiao-wenti, Chim-ti, Ming-ti, Youen-ti, Wenti, Wou-ti, and Hiao-wou-ti. Even in more modern times, and relative to a character so notorious as Confucius, no less than three dates are equally affirmed to be true. As to Hoang-ti, who is said to have begun the culture of silk, we are inclined to prefer the latter account, 1703 B. C., which makes him contemporary with Joseph, when prime minister over the land of Egypt.
As a confirmation of this, it may be stated, that by referring to the account given of nine[6] of the patriarchs at this period, we shall find that the average age of human life, before much greater, soon after rapidly declined. Now the average duration of the reigns of the first three[7] Chinese emperors, including Hoang-ti, was 118 years; of the five that immediately succeeded, only 68 years. After this, until the Christian era, the average duration of a single reign did not exceed 23 years, and thence until the present time not 13 years. Since, therefore, the average duration of the reign of the first three emperors bears an evident and fit proportion to that of the age of man at the period specified, though not at any other before or after, being in the former case as much too small as it would in the latter be too great, the opinion now offered is the only one that can be consistent with these striking facts; and, if duly considered, presents an argument strongly corroborating this view of the subject.
[6] Peleg, Reu, Serug, Nahor, Terah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph: Gen. xi. 16-26; xlvii. 28; and l. 26.
[7] Fohi, Eohi Chinun, and Hoang-ti.
To attempt to establish any greater certainty, in a case of this nature, the Chinese during the dynasty of Tschin, having, to conceal the truth, destroyed everything authentic, would be in vain. It would be even more rational to have recourse to the Vedas, or sacred books of the Brahmins, or to records in the Sanscrit, were it not a well known fact, that nearly all ancient nations, except the Jews, actuated by the same ambition, have betrayed a wish to have their origin traced as far back as the creation. And in the gratification of this passion none are so notoriously pre-eminent as the Egyptians, Hindoos, and Chinese.[8] For them the limits of the creation itself have been too narrow, and days, weeks, and even months too short, unless multiplied into years.[9]
[8] See Dr. A. Clarke’s remarks: end of Gen.
[9] See pp. 68, 74, 119 and 294.
The chronology relative to the early culture of silk, as found in Chinese documents, for several irrefragable objections already assigned, is exceedingly questionable, and therefore we are by no means pledged to affirm that either in the authenticity of the books, or in the correctness of the dates have we any faith. M. Lavoisnè dates the commencement of the Chinese dynasties at A. M.[10] 1816, or 159 years after the deluge. The Rev. J. Robinson of Christ Col., Cam., at A. M. 1947. We have already given as strong reasons, as under the extreme incertitude of the case, can, perhaps, be offered, for preferring the latter; the important points may be briefly stated, thus: