107 
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 e 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 99 (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. Thomp- 
son has wed observed that C( 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 ac- 
quainted with Egyptology, because we want much more information on 
the subject than is contained in this paper. I shah 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 newly- 
discovered stone of which we have all heard. 
Rev. J. H. Titcomb. — While fully acknowledging the research and in- 
dustry 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 
VOL. VI. K 
