of Egyptian edifices. They are read upon different portions of the fabrics of Karnac and of Luxor at Thebes, and upon the magnificent palace of Medinet-Habou; whose sculptures representing warlike scenes, seem to justify the title of Martial or favorite of Mars, which sometimes occurs in the legends. His tomb also is known in the valley of Biban-el-Molouk, near Thebes; and though there was sufficient reason for attributing it to this Pharaoh from his cartouches, the fact is still farther confirmed by Greek inscriptions traced upon the walls of the excavation, which attest the visits made by ancient travellers to the tomb of Ramses Meïamoun. This sepulchral dwelling once contained a sarcophagus, whose cover of red granite and of colossal dimensions was carried to England a few years since, by the traveller Belzoni, and given to the university of Cambridge.* The sarcophagus itself has since been raised out of the catacombs of Biban-el-Molouk, and now adorns the Royal Museum of the Louvre. But the most curious, surely, of all the monuments relating to this Pharaoh, is a plan of this same tomb in faint colors on papyrus, which strictly conforms to that in the description of Egypt, and in which the grand hall presents a sarcophagus painted in red granite color, whose ensemble and details correspond perfectly with the original. This production of geometrical design among the Egyptians, wholly unique in its kind, was discovered by Champollion in the midst of a large quantity of papyri contained in the Turin Museum.†

6. We come, finally, to the fourth Pharaoh mentioned in Scripture, the last in the books of Moses, and the most celebrated of all. The name of Pharaoh, expressed with

* Messrs. Yorke and Leake have given a design of this monument in plate xiv. of their collection entitled; The principal Egyptian Monuments of the British Museum, etc. London, 1827, in 4to. + Bulletin des sciences historiques, tom. 11. p. 300.

out any addition to determine its application, would in most minds immediately call up the idea of a prince who was the adversary of Moses, and who suffered chastisements for his hardness of heart. The Lord tells us in his sacred word, that having heard the groans of his oppressed people, he had pitied them, and sent them a deliverer. Moses presented himself before Pharaoh in behalf of God, and demanded from him the liberty of the Hebrews; but this blinded prince, despising the orders of the Lord, rejected the demand of his commissioned agent, and made yet heavier the yoke with which he oppressed the children of Israel (Exod. v.). Moses, repeating the orders of the Lord, and to prove his divine mission, performed miracles which all the skill of the wise men in Egypt assayed in vain to imitate, and could not withstand (vii.). The king becoming more hardened, Egypt was struck successively with ten disastrous plagues; and by the last, in a single night, all the first born perished (vii.-xii.). It was then that Pharaoh, terrified by the evils which he drew upon his people, and recognizing, himself and his priests, the finger of God, consented finally to let the children of Israel go (xii. 31). But soon, repenting that he permitted them to withdraw from the land of Egypt, he pursued them with his army. The waters of the Red Sea divided themselves to open a miraculous passage for the people of the Lord, and closing upon the Egyptians in their imprudent attempt to pass, swallowed them up in their abyss (xiv.).

This presumptuous and impious monarch is recognized by many chronologists in the Pharaoh Amenophis (third of the name), seventeenth and last king of the eighteenth dynasty; and this identity is indisputable. It was already established, in our view, by Manetho in a fragment which Josephus cites (cont. App. 1. 26), where he relates this remarkable circumstance, that the king feared to contend

against God, or against the gods; ἀλλὰ μέλλειν θεομαχεῖν voμioas. In this narrative we cannot but perceive an allusion to the mournful circumstances which transpired at the departure of the Hebrews; and the expression we have quoted seems to us to present a striking relation with the expression of Scripture, viz., the finger of God is here (Exod. viii. 19), and to describe the terror with which the ten plagues had struck Egypt and its king. But this opinion is farther proved by the Egyptian chronology established by Champollion Figeac, from the monuments and the lists of Manetho. This Pharaoh, son and successor of Ramses Meïamoun, reigned nineteen years and six months, and the known date of the reign of Menophres fixes this period between 1493 and 1473 years before the Christian era. About this time it is agreed to place the departure from Egypt. Usher fixes it in the year 1491 before the Christian era.

The monuments of this Pharaoh, which are less numerous than those of most of his predecessors, give him the name of Ramses (the V.). They are found upon some portions of the palace of Karnac in Thebes; and the museum of Charles X. contains a funereal figure in alabaster which is the image of this prince, and also a scarabee which bears his surname.

We see that most of the Pharaohs mentioned in the books of Moses, belong to the eighteenth dynasty. This Diospolitan family, which produced the greatest princes, is that under which the government of Egypt most prospered, which built the most beautiful and vast edifices, and which carried the arts to their highest perfection. The intimate and continuous relations which the Hebrews had with Egypt, in consequence of their sojourn for two centuries at least in this strange country, the prominent part which they sustain in the most important events of

sacred history, and the accounts given us in Scripture concerning many individuals of this people, render them, in our view, worthy of being studied with all the interest which sacred criticism inspires.

It might be expected that we should continue to investigate, in the monuments and in the lists of the historian Manetho, the rest of the Pharaohs mentioned in other books of the Holy Scriptures. But we must first resolve a sufficiently weighty difficulty relative to Pharaoh the cotemporary of Moses, who resisted so long the commands of the Lord, and who we have found to be identical with the king Ramses Amenophis. Good faith demands that we should not dissemble; and as this subject needs development, we shall examine it farther in the following chapter

CHAPTER IV.

DIFFICULTY RELATIVE TO THE LAST PHARAOH OF
EXODUS.

Did this Pharaoh perish in the Red Sea ? Silence of the historical books on this subject. Examination of passages in the song of the Israelites and in the Psalms. Some evidence in favor of the opinion that this prince did not share in the calamity of his army.

IN the preceding chapter, we have pointed out, in accordance with many critics, the identity of Amenophis Ramses with the last Pharaoh mentioned in the books of Moses, under whose reign the long sojourn of the Israelites in Egypt ended. According to Manetho, he reigned about twenty years; viz. from the year 1493 before the

Christian era to the year 1473, as it is calculated by Champollion Figeac. The departure from Egypt then, which occurred about the year 1491 before the Christian era, took place in the second or third year of this prince. It is usually said that this Pharaoh perished with his army, which was drowned in the Red Sea as it pursued the Hebrews. How shall we reconcile this fact with our chronology, or, which is the same thing, what shall be done with the seventeen remaining years of the reign attributed to Amenophis?

It is evident that these two facts imply a contradiction; that it is impossible to reconcile them; and that one must necessarily be modified by the other. The epoch fixed on by Champollion Figeac, viz. that of the reign of Menophres (which we employ as a point of departure), is, as we have seen, indisputably determined; the identity of the Pharaoh in question with Ramses Amenophis, appears to us equally certain; and the date we have assigned to the deliverance of the people of God, is now generally admitted, with the exception of certain slight differences that have no connection with the seventeen years about which the difficulty exists. Besides, the chronological system we have adopted, and which embraces about thirteen centuries, exhibits a consistent and methodical whole, perfectly in harmony with other epochs in Scripture, and it will demonstrate our remaining statements concerning the Pharaohs."

Is it a certain fact then, that the Pharaoh who pursued the Hebrews was drowned in the Red Sea? True, it has been related by most modern historians, who have construed literally certain figurative expressions of Scripture, and it has been copied particularly in all those abridgements which in our childhood gave us a lively impression of this tragical event. But the opinion is not a necessary result