ments, that Egyptian history admirably accords with the sacred books. e. g., Abraham arrived in Egypt about 1900, i. e., under the shepherd kings. The kings of the Egyptian race would not have permitted a foreigner to enter their country. It was also under a shepherd king that Joseph was minister in Egypt, which could not have occurred under one of Egyptian race. The monarch of the Diospolitan, or 18th dynasty, is the 'rex novus qui ignorabat Joseph,' mentioned in Holy Scripture, who was of Egyptian race, and could not know Joseph, he being the minister of an usurper. It was he who reduced the Hebrews to slavery.........It was under Ramses V., called Amenophis, at the commencement of the 15th century, (B. C.) that Moses delivered the Hebrews. This took place during the youth of Sesostris, who immediately succeeded his father, and made his conquests in Asia, while Moses and the Israelites were wandering forty years in the wilderness. It is for this reason that sacred Scripture makes no mention of this conqueror. All the other kings of Egypt mentioned in the Bible, are found upon Egyptian_monuments in the same order of succession, and at the precise epochs, where the Holy Scriptures place them. I will also add that the Bible has recorded their true names more accurately than the Greek historians have done." p. 265.

Dr. Wiseman, after Rosselini, illustrates the accordance of Biblical and Egyptian records still farther, in the history of the Israelites in Egypt, and removes a difficulty, which, without any knowledge of Egyptian history, would always have hung over one passage of the sacred narrative. Joseph counselled his brethren to say to Pharaoh that they were shepherds, and yet it is immediately added, that "every shepherd is an abomination to the Egyptians." (Gen. 46: 3134.) But as we know that the Hykshos, or Shepherd Kings, at that time had possession of Lower Egypt, having before expelled the native Egyptians, and driven them as far up, at least, as the cataracts of the Nile,-we see how it was, the Hykshos having themselves followed a pastoral life, that the family of Jacob was so kindly received by the then ruling Pharaoh, and assigned with their flocks to the best land in the country. It would also be difficult to account for the hostility subsequently shown to the Israelites, on the supposition of its proceeding from the immediate descendants of those who had before shown them such distinguished favor, and who were under some obligations to the happy administration of Joseph. But the difficulty is quite removed, when we learn that the Hykshos had now been expelled from Lower Egypt by Amosis, or Amenoph, the founder of the 18th dynasty, and that the original Egyptians were now again in possession. As the Israelites had been the friends

and allies of the race of Shepherd Kings, the new dynasty would naturally be suspicious of them, as likely to prove enemies in case of war. And as the Hykshos for some time persisted in attempts to recover their lost country, we can discover the ground of the Egyptian jealousy of the Israelites, and of their attempts to destroy them, as narrated in the first chapter of Exodus.

Archæology is the subject of Lecture IX., in which are discussed the evidences derived from medals, inscriptions and monuments, in proof of the authenticity of Scripture. We shall take no other notice of this Lecture, than by extracting the following remarkable passage, still farther to illustrate the agreement of Egyptian and sacred history:

"The first book of Kings, (14: 24,) and the second of Chronicles, (12: 2,) inform us, that Shishak, king of Egypt, came against Judah, in the fifth year of Rehoboam, with 1200 chariots and 60,000 horsemen, and a countless host; that, after taking the fortified places of the country, he approached to besiege Jerusalem; that the king and people humbled themselves before God, and that He, taking pity on them, promised them that He would not destroy them, but still should give them into the invader's hand to be his slaves; 'nevertheless they shall be his servants, that they may know my service, and that of the kingdoms of the nations.' Shishak therefore came and took the spoil of the temple, and among it the golden shields which Solomon had made. (2 Chron. 12; 8.) In the great court of Karnak, the exploits of this mighty conqueror and restorer of the Egypt an power, are represented at full. We might naturally expect this conquest of Juda to be included among them, the more so as that kingdom might be considered at its zenith, just after Solomon had overawed all neighboring nations by his splendid magnificence. Let us see if this is so. In the representations at Karnak, Shishak is exhibited, according to an image familiar in Egyptian monuments, as holding by the hair a crowd of kneeling figures heaped together, and with his right hand raised up, ready with one blow of his battle-axe to destroy them all. Besides these, the god Ammon-Ra drives forwards towards him a crowd of captives, with their hands tied behind them."

We shall epitomize the remainder. Among the captive kings is one with a complete Jewish physiognomy, and with a beard. Each bears a shield inscribed with hieroglyphics, to designate who he is, most of which, however, are too much defaced to be legible. But, as if by a Divine interposition, that one borne by the Jewish figure is entire, and is inscribed "King of Juda."

"Well may we say," says Wiseman, "that no monument ever yet discovered, gives such new confirmatory evidence to the authenticity of Scripture history." pp. 305-6.

Lectures X. and XI. are entitled "Oriental Studies;" the tenth being a disquisition upon the advantages derivable from Sacred Literature; and the eleventh, upon the value of "Profane Studies."

Lecture XII. is the "Conclusion," and contains a summary of the results gained from the topics discussed in the preceding Lectures. It would be quite foreign to our purpose to give an analysis of these, and for a knowledge of them, as indeed we may say of all the others, we must refer the reader to the book itself. We hope that what has already been given, will have been sufficient to excite a wish for the perusal of the whole.

It was not our intention to give a formal review of this work, but rather to make such a presentation of it as would satisfy the timid and doubting, that no injury can finally accrue to Christianity from a proper study of the sciences,to direct such persons to a work in which these topics are discussed in a Christian temper, and in an able and interesting manner, and in which they may find a happy relief from any fears and doubts caused by imperfect and unchristian works upon the same or similar subjects,-and finally, to furnish an occasion and basis for some remarks, which could not well be made in our review of the publication which will soon receive our attention. But the interest and value of these Lectures are not confined to the class abovementioned. We know not how any one, even though totally indifferent to their purpose as a defence and support of sacred history, can fail of a deep interest in their perusal, as an exposition of the present state of several of those important studies, which, for half a century, have been claiming the patient toil of ardent and able investigators, and the results of which continually delight and astonish all who have the ability to understand and appreciate them.

The two Lectures of Dr. Nott, as we are told in his Preface, were delivered as part of a course of "popular Lectures" which had been instituted in Mobile, "with the view of exciting a taste for literary and scientific pursuits." They "were written in the midst of pressing professional engagements, without the most distant idea of publication," and were committed to the press as an act of self-defence," in consequence of their having been "misunderstood and misrepresented." In the "Introduction," we are told that the subject of these Lectures, and the other departments of Na

tural History, as well as the sciences of Astronomy and Geology, have had their advancement impeded by "determined opposition from well-meaning and other religious men.”

"The scientific men who have been bold enough to speak truth, and to uphold the works of God, have been persecuted by those who mistake their own intellects for a measure of wisdom, and their own passions and prejudices for the will of heaven."

Then we are told the oft-repeated tale of Galileo and the Inquisition. But, he says, "time has served to show that Galileo was right, and the Bible still stands 'the rock of ages.'" He continues:

"The Unity of the Human Race is a question appertaining to Natural History, which should be left open to fair and honest investigation, and made to stand or fall according to the facts. I should therefore have much preferred not to involve theological points, but I know that others will do it,-that I shall have anathemas heaped on my head, and wrong motives imputed to me,-false issues will be made, and the true points for discussion evaded. I am prepared for all this; those who know me well, I have the vanity to believe, will do me justice; and I am quite indifferent to the censure of those who hold up Christ as their model, while they are pouring out phials of wrath." p. 3.

Judging from the odor of the above extract, we should suspect that the Doctor carried some of the same sort of phials about him, and that he knows how to uncork them on occasion. But we hope their contents are of a volatile nature, and quickly evaporate into air. It is certainly to be regretted, if any "well-meaning and other religious persons" have so applied the inquisition to the author, or fallen into such acts of persecution, as to justify him in putting the sad history of Galileo upon the same page with his own. But if they have done no more than express a warm yet honest disapprobation of his sentiments, he ought not to have been surprised or offended. May they not say, in the words of his own motto,-"Si ma raison vient d'en haut, c'est la voix du ciel qui me parle par elle; il faut que je l'ecoute?" But again, we think the author has done needless violence to the faith of those who have implicit confidence in the veracity of the Scriptures, and whose feelings or prejudices deserve to be respected when honestly and sacredly cherished, in that he has thrown confusion into the chronology, and cast some doubts upon the facts of Scripture, when, by a few words, he could easily have relieved those persons from

all alarm on those subjects, and have explicitly stated whether he had more respect for the sacred records, or for the deductions of his own reason from the yet unplaced facts of some fluctuating sciences. They whose faith in Revelation is fixed, and whose eternal hopes rest only on the belief of its being truly the word of God, are a large and respectable component of society, and are deserving of some little heed. This class must necessarily regard it as a fault, and a grievous fault, in some writers, that either from hostility to Scripture truth, from a careless disregard of it, or from an overweening attachment to science, they enter upon investiga tions which may collaterally affect Revelation, without the least regard to the question of its authenticity and genuineness, thereby intimating that it is unworthy of credit, or that its credit is inferior to the deductions of science. The first great question which every man, as a reasonable being and as the subject of God, ought thoroughly to solve, is,-Is the Bible truly the word of God? If he has settled this affirmatively, then he is logically bound to hesitate in every conclusion of physical science which contradicts it. And if he is even in doubt about it, he cannot peremptorily decide in favor of the contrary deduction of any science which is not demonstrative. Those who have some regard for the inspired word, are oftentimes too much captivated by a favorite theory, to be checked in the progress of a rapid investigation by the intervention of established truths, not directly connected with the line of their pursuit. This species of favoritism will suffer no diverging attraction from the object of its earnest regard. All things must be drawn towards it, or be wholly overlooked. Such persons cannot be accurate reasoners, and are illogical of necessity.

Now, if there was an apparent indifference in the Lecturer to Divine truth,-if he sometimes seemed to speak rather disrespectfully of it, or if he so presented any facts that they would logically imply its inaccuracy, or be calculated to raise doubts or leave unfavorable impressions in regard to it, particularly where there was no occasion for such a course,-(and we think the Lectures give too much evidence of all these faults, though the writer disclaims any intention of the kind,)-then we think that nought else could be expected, than that the believer in Christianity would express his disapprobation of our author's manner of treating his subject, and openly declare his dissent from his doctrine.