shrink from what I consider to be my duty, as a public Lecturer, to state the judgment I have been led to form, upon due consideration, on all the circumstances of the case. And I do so with the less hesitation, because the great authority attached to the names of acknowledged scholars is apt to mislead the generality of readers; because being prejudiced in their favour, on account of the deference they are inclined, and have been properly taught to pay to the opinions of such men, they very often adopt, as indisputable truths, sentiments, systems, and notions, which by no means deserve the flattering appellation.

Continuation of the same subject-Hypothesis of Mr. Faber in regard to the Exodus and the Hyk-shos analysed-General reflections Historical monuments--Important facts-Attempt at explanation-Objections-Conclusion.

We concluded our last Lecture with the criticism on the system imagined by Mr. Bryant, to solve the grand question, who were the Hyk-shos, or Shepherd kings, whence they came, and at what period they ruled over Egypt. As, according to the authority of Manetho and other ancient writers, the history of these invaders is closely connected with the eventful departure of the Israelites from Egypt, I endeavoured, in as full a way as I could, to put you in possession of what is known, or rather of what has been said about them by the most credible ancient authors. I quoted the fragment of Manetho, which has been preserved by Josephus, Chæremon, and Lysimachus; and I quoted also what Diodorus and Tacitus have written on the subject. I endeavoured to point out to you the most important points on which these several authors agree or disagree

among themselves, and proceeded afterwards to explain the different systems which have been formed to ascertain who were these Hyk-shos, or Shepherd kings, whose figures are so often met with either painted or engraved on many of the Egyptian monuments of high antiquity. I stated then that the fathers and the primitive Christian writers, for the sake of enhancing the antiquity of the Jewish nation, have strongly maintained the opinion, that these Shepherds were the Israelites ; but I observed at the same time, that this opinion is inadmissible; for it does not only contradict the report of all historians, but also the undoubted authority of the Egyptian monuments; and I might also have added, which I lament I did not, the still more undoubted authority of the Bible. I passed then to examine the hypothesis of the learned historian of Ancient Mythology, of which I endeavoured to give you, to the best of my power, a detailed account; and pointed out both the merits it possessed, and the strong objections to which it was liable. We must now go on with our subject; and according to what I stated then, I must now endeavour to make you acquainted with another hypothesis, invented by a no less celebrated and venerable writer, I mean Mr. Faber; and what he says of the Hyk-shos, or Shepherd kings, may be reduced to the following account:

"We are informed by Manetho," says Mr. Faber, "that while Egypt was in a state of profound tranquillity, a fierce and warlike race suddenly invaded

G g

it, under the name of the Shepherd kings. These, during the reigns of six of their princes, which jointly amounted to 260 years, remained masters of the country, and governed it with the utmost tyranny. They were then besieged by the native Mizraim, in a walled district, denominated Avaris, and at length expelled. Upon this they retired into Palestine, and built Jerusalem. Shortly after their secession, the king of Egypt granted the land of Avaris, now unoccupied, to another race of Shepherds, whom circumstantial evidence demonstrates to have been the Israelites. Here these multiplied so rapidly, that they soon found themselves in a sufficiently flourishing condition to prepare for war with their sovereign. Desirous, however, of ensuring success, they called in the aid of the expelled Shepherd kings, and invited them to return and repossess themselves of Avaris. The invitation was accepted; the whole of Egypt was conquered by the allies; and its unfortunate prince was driven into the Thebais and Ethiopia."

In confirmation of this hypothesis, Mr. Faber observes, on the authority of Manetho, that "the leprous Shepherds, who were leagued with the Shepherd kings, are plainly the Israelites; hence," he concludes, that "they left Egypt at the same time which the Shepherd kings did, who must clearly have been their taskmasters; for, during the time of their servitude, the native Egyptians were either expelled or subjected; and like the children of Israel, they were employed in burning

bricks, and in building for their tyrants. But at the expiration of 215 years, the Israelites were miraculously brought out by Moses, notwithstanding the reluctance of their oppressors; therefore, these oppressors must have been the Shepherd kings. Hence the king and the host that perished in the Red Sea must have been the king and the host of these Shepherds, not of the native Egyptians; for these latter did not recover their independence until the Shepherds were finally expelled; and the Shepherds were not finally expelled until the day of the Exodus.

"Their arm of strength being thus broken by the judgment which plunged beneath the waves their choicest warriors, the dispirited residue were attacked by the native Egyptians." But Mr. Faber supposes, that although this was the end of the 511 years mentioned by Manetho for the final expulsion of the Shepherds; yet he seems to quibble upon the meaning of this word final, and takes it as "the last in point of succession, but not the last in point of time;" for, says he, " then commenced their final expulsion: but, as might naturally enough be supposed, this clearing the land of strangers was not effected in a single day," and he assigns for this total clearing of the land a period of more than ninety years.

"The work," adds he, "began with the recess

Shepherds appear to have made a considerably To prove this assertion,

protracted resistance."