But the

would turn out a prodigious extent. Egyptian aroura was a square superficial measure:

lotted to him 12 arouras of land; amounting according to Bp. Cumberland to 9 English acres, and 165 millesimals, or one tenth of an acre. I imagine therefore, that Josephus is not understood in what he says; and that the passage, appar xorta popiar ene wipuitpor, means a circumference, that contained so many por tions of land for it is plain, that among the Egyptians the aroura was a square piece of ground, a measure of superficial quantity, and not a measure of length and distance. They measured great intervals by cubits and schoni. Sir John Marsham, and they, who follow him, do not see what absurdities their opinion is attended with. He supposes the place of this extent to have been Pelusium. De Pelusio autem nullum est dubium. Munimentum hoc, omnium vetustissimum-Præsidium ei impositum est militum 240000. Paulo post Manetho ponit hunc locum apagar Exorta pupon the wegiμergor-Quodlibet quadrati latus fuerit 2500 jugerum; area 6250000. sec. VIII. pag. 109. This learned man has given an extent to Pelusium, which not only no city, but few provinces were equal to. If we except Egypt, I question whether in those times there was a kingdom upon earth of that bigness. An aroura was 100 cubits: and if we suppose these cubits to be the same as the cubit of Cairo=21 inches, 2500 arouras, or one side of the city, amounts to 82 English miles; and the circumference to 328. A square of these dimensions could not stand in lower Egypt. And fashion it any way, that it may be comprehended; and measure it by any cubit: still it will be too large for any camp, and much more for a city. Such an inclosure, which is supposed to have been in the Sethroïte nome, would take in not only that nome, but seven nomes at least out of the ten, which were in the Deltoïd triangle. The cubit of Cairo is properly 21.880 English inches. See Arbuthnot's Tables. pag. 66.

2

and it is not probable, that it was here intended for a measure in length. When Josephus therefore, or Manetho says, άρθρων έχοντα μυρίων την Tigergov; there is great reason to think, that in the original an inclosure was meant by that expression; and that the square surface amounted to the number of arouras specified. Now 10000 Egyptian arouras might be a district about three miles square and probably was the amount of that part of the province of Cushan, which was called by the Greeks Phaccusa: the same, that had been their original place of residence, and which they made their last retreat. Here they were closely pressed; and after a siege of some time, they were reduced to a state of capitulation. The only terms, which the enemy would allow them, were that they should be permitted to retire unmolested, if they would immediately quit the country. They acceded to the terms; and forthwith evacuated the land of Egypt, which according to Manetho they had been in possession of above 500 years3.

I have mentioned, how great their alarms were in respect to the Assyrians, during their abode in Egypt. As they formed a large body at their departure, they were still afraid, that they might

2

Josephus contra Apion. lib. 1. §. 14.

3 In the term of 500 years, I imagine, is comprehended the time of the twofold race of Shepherds in Egypt, though not distinguished by Manetho.

4

awaken the jealousy of their antient enemies; especially, as every step they took, they advanced towards them. They therefore do not seem to have proceeded far; and there is great reason to think, that they took up their residence among the Amalekites, and the sons of Caphtor in * Philistim, and among the nations upon the Red Sea: from whence they extended themselves to the remoter parts of Arabia. The Arabians call the people, who conquered Egypt, Amalekites: and there were probably many of that tribe among them. This nation has been by many represented as the de scendants from Esau; being reputed the posterity of Eliphaz his firstborn, who had Amalek by Timna the Horite. This is one of those strange suppositions, for which there is no accounting. Yet it is Mr. Sale's opinion, and in some degree the opinion of the learned' Reland. But it is intirely

Polemo, stiled Ernλonowa, who lived in the time of Ptolemy Epiphanes, and is quoted by Africanus, affirms that some forces withdrew out of Egypt, and settled in Palestine upon the borders of Arabia, in the time of Apis the son of Phoroneus. Euseb.. Præp. Evang. lib. 10. cap. 10. Marsham supposes this to have been 272 years before the Exodus.

5 Gen. 36. v. 12.

• Universal History. Book. I. chap. 5. sect. 5.

Amalec ipse, phoy, unde et gentis et terra nomen defluxit, nepos erat Esavi ex filio Eliphaz et concubinâ Thamná. Palæstina. lib. 1. cap. 14.

8

groundless. The Amalekites were a very antient nation; and engaged in the first warfare, that is recorded. They were far prior to Eliphaz, or to Esau and were a people before the birth of Abraham. Their name occurs very frequently in the sacred writings; which renders their history very plain and when they are represented as attacking the children of Israel in Rephidim, they are particularly distinguished from the posterity of Esau. 9" And the Lord said unto Moses, Write this for "a memorial in a book, and rehearse it in the ears "of Joshua: for I will utterly put out the re"membrance of Amalek from under heaven."The Lord hath sworn, that the Lord will have war with Amalek from generation to generation." 10" Remember what Amalek did unto thee by the

way when ye were come forth out of Egypt. "Thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek "from under heaven; thou shalt not forget it,” Not so with Edom: he is more respected and distinguished and strict injunctions were given, that he might not be molested. "1" Command thou "the people, saying, Ye are to pass through the "coast of your brethren the children of Esau,

8 Clerici Comment. in Pentateuch. ad Gen. 14, v, 7. et Num 24. v. 20.

"which dwell in Seir; and they shall be afraid of

"you take ye good heed unto yourselves there"fore.-Meddle not with them: &c." 12 ❝ Thou "shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy bro"ther." How is it possible, that these things could be said of one and the same people? and they must have been the same people, if the Amalekites were from the firstborn of Esau. They must likewise have been a very recent nation: whereas the Amalekites are spoken of as of antient date. For when the Israelites pitched in the plains of Moab, Amalek is mentioned as "" the first of "the nations," though the time was to come, when he was to "perish for ever." The princes of this nation were called Agag, from whence the people were denominated Agagites; a name no ways applicable to the sons of Edom: and their kingdom was so powerful, that it was prophesied of the house of Israel, 14" his king shall be higher than Agag: "and his kingdom shall be exalted." The good bishop Cumberland, among others, takes much pains to set all this aside; merely because there was a man in aftertimes, whose name was Amalek. He takes it for granted, without the least evidence to support him in his notion, that this person gave

12 Deuteron. 23. v. 7. Numbers. 20. v. 14, &c.

13 Numbers, 24. v. 20.

14 Ibid. v. 7.