102 
the truth of this theory, but, as in the case of the Horus myth, I think it 
deserving of consideration. 
I would wish, before pioceeding further, to mention a few points on which 
I am obliged to dissent from the learned author of this paper : e.g., p. 1, I 
cannot admit that the so-called “ Creed of St. Athanasius ” is in anywise a 
“ commentary of the definite language of the Nicene Creed.” Neither can 
I agree with him that “ long prior to the time of Abraham the cardinal dogmas 
of the Church were known to the nations of the world ” (p. 2 of Paper) ; or 
that “ the arrival of Jacob and his family cannot have been earlier than the 
XVIIIth, and the expulsion of [? at] the Exodus than the XIXth dynasties ” 
{idem), or that the Great Pyramid should be described as “the oldest of Egyptian 
buildings” (p. 3 of Paper). 
Reversing the order of these, I would remark that the Pyramid at 
Saqquarah is said to be older; and the Ashmolean Museum at Oxford 
contains r part of a tomb belonging to the Ilnd dynasty, certainly a century 
older than the Great Pyramid of Ghizeh ; and that if tradition, with other 
evidence beside, is to have any weight, Jacob and his family must have 
arrived in Egypt during the reign of Apophis, the most distinguished of the 
Hycsos kings. If Mr. Cooper will refer to Canon Cook’s Excursus , at the 
end of Part I. of the first volume of the Speaker's Commentary , he will find 
many reasons for concluding that the Exodus of the Israelites occurred under 
the XVIIIth, and not under the XIXth dynasty. 
His remark, however, respecting “the cardinal dogmas of the Church being 
known to the nations of the world long prior to the time of Abraham,” seems to 
open the whole question as to the application of the Horus myth to the funda- 
mental doctrine of the Christian religion. Mr. Cooper has adduced many points 
which appear to show some analogy between the two ; but if such be admitted, 
there is so much dross in the teaching of that extraordinary book, The 
Egyptian Ritual, on which the author almost entirely rests his case, that it 
leaves the matter very undecided. As far as revelation is concerned, while 
the antediluvian world must, we gather from Genesis iii. 15, have had some 
tradition of the promised Deliverer, it is no less certain from Joshua xxiv. 2, 
that between the dispersion and the time of Abraham, the nations, whether 
Semitic, Hamitic, or Japhetic, were worshipping idols. And there is ample 
evidence that the Egyptians of the race of Ham at a very early period were 
gross idolaters. But it is probable that Mizraim, the son of Ham (Gen. x. G), 
the first colonizer of Egypt, and, I believe, the same as the Menes of the 
Greek historians, and founder of the empire, may have carried to Egypt from 
the plains of Shinar, together with the first band of emigrants, some tradition 
of the promised Deliverer. 
I do not quite understand to which Horus Mr. Cooper refers in his interest- 
ing paper. There appear to have been two of that name, known to the early 
Egyptians as “the son of the great gods.” — 1. Horus, or lle.r-pa-Chruti, the 
ordinary hieroglyphic sign of “ child,” son of Osiris and Isis, out of which 
grew the Grecian Harpocrates ; 2. Horus Aroeris, “the mighty,” god of Het, 
Edfu, &c. (see Wilkinson, xvii. 1), the eldest son of Hathor and Isis, bearing 
