384 
tion of Egypt, taking that pyramid as the first step, has been a degradation and 
not an advancement. Neither Egypt nor any other country ever civilized 
itself. Go to Central Africa, and see how low and small is the amount of 
civilization there, and consider how much light has passed through it in 
early days. In the same way go into China, and remember that it was at 
one time a Christianized empire, not in the higher sense, but avowedly so, 
and remember that it now shows a degradation from that position and not 
an advancement upon it. (Mr. Row. — May I ask your authority for saying 
that China was ever a Christian empire ?) It is mentioned by Duhold. I 
learnt the fact in China — the Chinese scholars were of that opinion. 
Mr. Masterman. — May I add a few remarks to what the chairman has said 
in reference to the great pyramid ? The date, which is believed to have been 
discovered as that of its erection, may not be the true one, but the arguments 
in its favour are very curious and interesting. The date assigned by Piazzi 
Smyth is 2170 years B.C. ; and if that is the true one, and the pyramid, as is 
almost universally acknowledged, preceded all the other monuments in Egypt, 
we certainly have a great approximation to the dates generally received as 
part of the popular Biblical chronology. Speaking of the chronology of the 
Bible, I think it is apt to be forgotten that the period which is disputed 
is that between the creation of man and the Flood. It is in that earlier 
period that there is room for difference of opinion, at least within certain 
limits ; but from the time of Noah I doubt if there is room for a variation 
from the received chronology exceeding 200 or .300 years. 
Rev. Preb. Row. — I think we should exercise the greatest caution in 
pinning our faith, not to the chronology of the Bible, but to what people 
have called the chronology of the Bible. The whole question is one of in- 
terpretation. Some say the chronology of the Bible is part of the Bible, 
and, no doubt, that would be so if you could get at its real chronology, but 
you cannot do that, and you must not assume any interpretation as the 
Word of God. The Bible, not our interpretation of it, is the Word of God. 
I scarce agree with Mr. Howard in one part of his paper where he calls 
Julian the Apostate a free-thinker ; I should rather have considered him as a 
most superstitious person. I regard the paper itself as most interesting, and 
it shows the great antiquity of Egyptian civilization, but I am not certain 
that it proves anything. 
Capt. F. Petrie. — One or two remarks made by Dr. Currcy have re- 
called to my mind a letter which I lately received with regard to the 
different characteristics of the inhabitants of ancient Egypt. Dr. Currey 
said that a large amount of time must have elapsed to have produced such 
divergence in features among the inhabitants of the world. Now Mr. Parker, 
the President of the Microscopical Society, and an authority on such sub- 
jects, says he considers, from the researches he has made, that races have a 
habit of throwing out branches each having very different characteristics 
and that these branches have ever afterwards maintained themselves side 
by side, but have never come together again ; and, as an instance, he alludes 
to the “Yankees,” as a sub-species which has developed itself in less than a 
