our god has lately been made public in Rome ever since the 
time that a certain hireling convict of a bullfighter put forth a 
picture with some such inscription as this — the God of the 
Christians, ONOKOIHTHZ.* He was there depicted with 
the ears of an ass, with one of his feet hoofed, holding in his 
hand a book, and clad in the toga.” 
There is another gem to which I must also call your atten- 
tion. It is, unfortunately, of the rudest possible workmanship, 
and some of the details are merely indicated ; but I think I am 
not wrong in assigning it to the Horus Christian class. f It re- 
presents an ass or dog-headed man, with a staff in his right hand, 
treading upon what seems to have been intended for a crocodile ; 
to his right is the sacred Urseus serpent. At his feet, on the 
left, sits the deity Tlioth, or rather the cynocephalous monkey 
of Thoth, an animal which you will recollect play3 so prominent 
a part in the psychostasis in the Hall of the Two Truths, and 
in the Egyptian Karr or Hell. Higher up in the scene is the 
hawk (here rendered into an eagle) of Horus ; and what 
seems meant to represent the scarabeus of Kheper Ra. Over 
the head of the principal figure is a scorpion. The idea is, 
of course, taken from the previously described cippi of Horus, 
where, instead of the scorpion, is sculptured the head of the 
Typhonic monster Bes. As you will see, the head of Horus is 
something like that of an ass, and indeed he may be Horus 
Anubis, the jackal-headed god of the dead, whom I have 
already referred to (fig. 10). 
These illustrations will now, I think, suffice for the purpose 
that I have in view, — the purpose of proving that the works of 
art, the ideas, the expressions, and the heresies of the first four 
centuries of the Christian era cannot be well studied without a 
right comprehension of the nature and influence of the Horus 
myth; and that it becomes every student, or at all events every 
expositor of the Book of books, to examine this myth, and 
work out its operations for himself. Of its immense antiquity 
there can be no reasonable doubt ; equally so can there be none 
of the extent to which the myth has been modified by the Classic, 
Jewish, and Christian theologies, although we are not yet in a 
position to separate the true from the false, and to assign to 
each interpolation or interpretation its proper place in the 
chronology of mythology. We cannot, I repeat it, ignore these 
facts. We have, as Christians, no reason to be afraid of them. 
As philosophical scholars we are bound to make use of the 
materials brought ready to our hands in the records of the 
past, and as true believers in the co-eternal divinity and 
redeemership of our blessed Lord, we should be impelled 
* So in King. 
f Montfaucon, Antiquit&s , vol. ii. pi. 154. 
