Exodus i. 10, Acts vii. 22, and Hebrews xi. 24, that he was reared as the adopted son of "Pharaoh's daughter," who must have been a Queen Regnant in her own right, as none but such could have compelled so jealous a priesthood to train her adopted child "in all the wisdom of the Egyptians." Now it can be satisfactorily shown from the monuments, that in the whole line of Pharaohs there was only one Queen Regnant, whose name appears as such during that long period of time. Her name is read on the monuments in full as Hat-asu Numpt-amun, and she appears exactly in the place we should have expected to find her from the account in Exodus, being, as is seen in the above pedigree, the granddaughter of the "king which knew not Joseph." She reigned many years in Egypt, first in the name of her father, then conjointly with her husband, and subsequently in the name of her younger brother Thothmes III., who latterly sought to erase every sign of his sister's rule, either through revenge at her having offered the succession to Moses, or from some other cause unknown.

25. Queen Hat-asu is invariably represented on her monuments with a beard to denote that she was a sovereign in her own right, like our own Queen Victoria. She erected two obelisks at Thebes in memory of her father, one of which is still standing, and the fragments of the other are scattered all around. The standing one, the second largest and certainly the most beautiful obelisk in the world, is formed of a single block of red granite, highly polished, with reliefs and hieroglyphs of matchless beauty. The inscription on the plinth states that it was commenced in the 15th year of Queen Hat-asu's reign, and completed in the seventeenth. On each side of the obelisk it is stated that she reigned "in the name of her father;" and amongst other titles which. she bears, such as "royal wife," "Queen of Upper and Lower Egypt,"-is found the significant and well-known name of "PHARAOH'S DAUGHTER."

26. The temple of Dier-el-Bahari, at Thebes, is another monument due to the magnificence of Queen Hut-asu, on the walls of which are sculptured with great skill the details of a campaign against the Ethiopians. They represent the Egyptian general receiving the enemy's commander-in-chief, who presents himself as a suppliant before him, accompanied by his wife and daughter. And it is just possible that the representation of Hat-asu's general may refer to her adopted child Moses; for Scripture shows that he was "mighty in words and deeds," before he "refused to be called the son of Pharaoh's daughter." And Josephus (Antiq., II. x. § 2) and

Irenæus (Frag. de Perdit. Iren. Tract., p. 347) alike relate the fame which Moses gained as general of the Egyptian army in a war with Ethiopia, which, though encumbered with a good deal of romance, still serves to explain the statement in Numbers xii. 1, that Moses married a woman of that country.

27. Perhaps the most positive proof from the monuments of the existence of the Israelites in Egypt at this period of history, is seen in the well-known picture of the brickmakers at the village of Gournou, near Thebes, there still exists the remains of a magnificent tomb belonging to an Egyptian noble named Ros-she-ra. He appears to have been overseer of all the public buildings in Egypt during the reign of Thothmes III. The paintings on this tomb, which are given with great effect in Lepsius, Denkmäler (Abth. iii., Bl. 40), afford clear proof not only of the Israelites being in Egypt at the very time that Moses was compelled to flee to Midian, but of their being forcibly engaged in the occupation of brickmaking. There are several inscriptions on this remarkable monument, portions of which read as follow:

The centre inscription

"Captives brought by his Majesty Thothmes III.
To carry on the works at the Temple of Ammon."

On the left

"Moulding bricks for making a treasure city in Thebes." On the right

"The chief task-master says to the builders: 'Work Actively with the hands. Be not idle. Let there be no giving in.""

28. Some of these captives employed in making bricks bear the unmistakable features of the Hebrew race; and among them four Egyptian task-maskers are represented as described in the Book of Exodus, so as to leave no reason for doubt but that the picture represents a striking commentary on the oppression of the children of Israel. Sir Gardner Wilkinson remarks "that more bricks bearing the name of Thothmes III. have been discovered than of any other period." Rosellini adds that "the bricks which are now found in Egypt, belonging to this reign, always have straw mingled with them, although in some of those that are most carefully made it is found in very small quantities."

And

29. The world was startled a few years ago by M. Chabas's discovery in the Leyden papyrus of a set of captives who are

described as being employed in drawing stone for the Temple of the Sun, built by Ramessu the Great, which he reads as belonging to the tribe of the Aperi-u, identifying them with the "Hebrews," and confidently challenging disproof of this theory. But independently of the fact that the same tribe are spoken of as possessing a Lower and an Upper Kingdom when the bondage of the Israelites was at its height in the reign of Thothmes III., and also as "captives" during the time of Ramessu IV., i.e. centuries after the exode, making it thereby impossible to identify them with the Jewish race, we are compelled to reject M. Chabas's theory on philological grounds likewise e.g., the exact mode of rendering the word "Hebrews" in Roman characters would be Haberim; the hieroglyphic characters read literally Apu-ri-aa-a, by which it will be at once seen that these letters do not approximate sufficiently near to the Hebrew word Haberim to warrant our identification of them as the same people.

30. A variety of incidents combine to show that the grandson of Thothmes III., and bearing the same name, was the individual Pharaoh who appears from Scripture to have been overthrown in the Red Sea, notwithstanding that Sir Gardner Wilkinson, who regards Thothmes III., as the Pharaoh of the exode, contends "there is no authority in the writings of Moses for supposing that Pharaoh was drowned in the Red Sea." (Ancient Egyptians, i. 54.) It is certain from the monuments that his reign was a short one, which agrees with what Scripture records of this infatuated king. A tablet between the paws of the Great Sphinx at Ghizeh is one of the few monuments remaining of this Pharaoh. Another inscription discovered on a granite rock opposite the island of Philæ, on the Nile, has this singular circumstance connected with it. After the usual boasting titles, it stops suddenly short with the disjunctive particle" then,"-evidently pointing to defeat and disaster, which were the characteristics of this Pharaoh's reign. And the inference that he was the Pharaoh lost in the Red Sea appears to be confirmed by the fact that after all the careful researches of modern explorers, no trace has been found of this king's tomb in the royal burialplace near Thebes, where the sovereigns of the 18th Dynasty lie; though that of his successor, Amenophis III. has been discovered in a valley adjoining the cemetery of the other kings. (Wilkinson's Thebes, pp. 122, 3.)

31. It is not quite clear that Amenophis III. immediately succeeded his reputed father Thothmes IV., though he is so represented in the two tablets of Abydos, which if true would serve to confirm the opinion of the latter being the Pharaoh

of the exode. Wilkinson says that "though Amenophis III. calls himself the son of Thothmes IV., there is reason to believe that he was not of pure Egyptian race. His features differ very much from those of other Pharaohs, and the respect paid to him by some of the 'stranger kings' seems to confirm this, and to argue that he was partly of the same race as those kings who afterwards usurped the throne and made their name and rule so odious to the Egyptians " (Rawlinson's Herod., Appendix, II. viii. § 2). If this surmise be correct, and several other incidents, such as the change in the national religion which commenced in the reign of Amenophis III., seem to confirm it, it is noteworthy to see how far it agrees with the statement in Exodus, that the eldest son of the Pharaoh of the exode did not succeed his father on the throne, as it is written: "At midnight the Lord smote all the first-born in the land of Egypt, from the first-born of Pharaoh that sat on his throne, unto the first-born of the captive that was in the dungeon."

32. Such is a brief sketch of the history of Israel in Egypt as confirmed by the monuments of that country. Dr. Thompson has well observed that "the illustration and confirmation which the Egyptian monuments bring to the sacred narrative is capable of much ampler treatment than it has yet received. Every incident in the pastoral and agricultural life of the Israelites in Egypt, and in the exactions of their servitude, every art employed in the fabrication of the Tabernacle in the Wilderness, every allusion to Egyptian rites, customs, and laws find some counterpart or illustration in the picture history of Egypt; and whenever the Theban cemetery shall be fully explored, we shall have a commentary of unrivalled interest and value upon the Books of Exodus and Leviticus, as well as the later historical books of the Hebrew Scriptures." (Smith's (Dictionary of the Bible, art. Thebes.)

The CHAIRMAN. -I have now to move that the thanks of this meeting be given to the author of this paper, who, I am sorry to say, is absent this evening on account of illness. Had he been present, I should have asked him many questions, but I hope we have some one else here who is acquainted with Egyptology, because we want much more information on the subject than is contained in this paper. I shall now be glad to hear any observations which those present may have to offer on the subject before us, and may I express a hope that some reference will be made to the newlydiscovered stone of which we have all heard.

Rev. J. H. TITCOMB.-While fully acknowledging the research and industry manifested in the compilation of Mr. Savile's paper, I feel bound to say, that I regard it as the work of an enthusiast to one idea rather than that

of a patient and large-minded investigator into a sphere which is almost boundless in its capacity for illustration. If I understand Mr. Savile's argument rightly, it stands or falls with the chronological synchronism of Moses and Tuthmosis, or, as Mr. Savile calls him, Thothmes III., and of Joseph and Pharaoh Apophis. Assuming, of course, that that synchronism is correct, I am ready to grant that Mr. Savile brings several points which fairly illustrate his position; but the question is, has Mr. Savile fair grounds for being so confident as he is upon this particular point? I think he speaks with too much confidence when he says, in his 12th section,—

"The assertion of Joseph being Viceroy of Egypt under Pharaoh Apophis is as much an historical fact as that Sejanus was prime minister to Tiberius in ancient, or William Pitt to George III. in modern times."

And in another sentence, in his 21st section, he is still more confident, for he says:

"I believe it to be as certain an historical fact that the 'king which knew not Joseph' was Amosis, the head of the 18th dynasty, and conqueror of the Shepherds, as that our William I. was the hero of the Norman conquest."

Now, it will be my object to show that that theory is not correct, and first by pointing out what I consider to be some of the weak points of the paper. In the 13th section Mr. Savile tries to show that Joseph told his brethren to tell Pharaoh that they were shepherds, as a recommendation to Pharaoh, because Pharaoh himself was one of the shepherd kings. That is Mr. Savile's argument; but it might be equally well put just the opposite way. Assuming that Pharaoh was not a shepherd king, and that ordinarily shepherds were held in abomination in Egypt,* then Joseph might have told his brethren to declare that they were shepherds, in order to be kept as far away as possible, in the land of Goshen, out of the reach of danger and insult. That, I maintain, is quite as natural a supposition as the other. (Hear, hear.) Then, in his 16th section, Mr. Savile maintains that the city Avaris was "the city of the Hebrews," and that that is its real meaning; but I venture to criticise that point. Assuming it to be the case that Avaris was "the city of the Hebrews," and was known by that title, and had its origin because it was given to the Hebrews when they settled there in the time of Apophis, I can show by a quotation from Manetho that the whole of that theory may be entirely upset. Manetho says:

"Salatis found a city lying to the east of the Bubasrite arm of the Nile, called Avaris, which he repaired and fortified with strong walls. He

* See Canon Cook On the Bearings of Egyptian History upon the Pentateuch, Speaker's Commentary, vol. i. p. 443, et seq. Bishop Harold Browne says the monuments of the Egyptians indicate their contempt for shepherds and goatherds, by the mean appearance always given to them.-ED.