evidences are taken notice of by Sir John [900]Marsham; who cannot
extricate himself from the difficulties with which his system is attended.
He has taken for granted, that Sesostris and Sesonchosis are the Sesac of
the Scriptures; though every circumstance of their history is repugnant to
that notion. [901]_I know_ _not,_ says he, _what to make of this
Sesonchosis; who is represented as five thousand years before Menes, and
who is referred to the time of the Demigods_. In another place: _Sesostris,
who is in the twelfth Dynasty of Africanus, and whose aera extends higher,
than the Canon of Eusebius reaches, reigned according to Scaliger's
computation in the 1392d year of the Julian Period. By this calculation
Sesostris is made prior to Sesostris; and this too by no less than 2355
years: for it is manifest, as I will shew from Scripture, that Sesostris
undertook his expedition into Asia, and got possession of Jerusalem in the
3747th year of the Period abovementioned_. What is said in the sacred
writings, I have taken notice of before. Not a word occurs about Sesostris,
nor of any such Asiatic expedition. I am obliged to say, that through the
whole of this learned writer's process, instead of a proof, we find nothing
else but the question begged, and some inferences of his own in consequence
of this assumption. He indeed quotes the authority of Manethon from
Josephus to prove that the great actions of Sesostris were the same as were
performed by Sesac. But Manethon says no such thing: nor does Josephus
attribute any such exploits to Sesac: but expressly says more than once,
that Sesac, and Sesostris were two different [902]persons. It is no where
said of Sesac, that he made an expedition into Asia; much less that he
conquered it, as is supposed of Sesostris. Sesac went up against Jerusalem,
and took it, [Greek: amacheti], without meeting with any opposition. Upon
this he departed, and carried with him the treasures which he had there
seized: in other words, he went home again. There is not the least mention
made of his invading [903]Samaria, or the country about Libanus, and Sidon;
or of his marching to Syria: all which made but a small part of the great
Continent, called in aftertimes Asia: much less did he visit the countries
of the Assyrians, and Babylonians; or the regions of Elam and the Medes.
All this, and much more he must have done, to have come up to the
character, to which they would fain entitle him.

I will no