As to Peter, biblical criticism has shown that in all probability he had no more to do with the foundation of the Latin Church at Rome than to furnish the pretext, so readily seized upon by the cunning Irenæus, of endowing the Church with a new name for the Apostle—Petra or Kiffa—a name which, by an easy play upon words, could be readily connected with Petroma. The Petroma was a pair of stone tablets used by the Hierophants at the Initiations, during the final Mystery. In this lies concealed the secret of the Vatican claim to the seat of Peter. As already quoted in _Isis Unveiled_, ii. 92: In the Oriental countries the designation Peter (in Phœnician and Chaldaic an interpreter), appears to have been the title of this personage.(227) So far, and as the “interpreters” of _Neo_‐Christianism, the Popes have most undeniably the right to call themselves successors to the title of Peter, but hardly the successors to, least of all the interpreters of, the doctrines of Jesus, the Christ; for there is the Oriental Church, older and far purer than the Roman hierarchy, which, having ever faithfully held to the primitive teachings of the Apostles, is known historically to have refused to follow the Latin seceders from the original Apostolic Church, though, curiously enough, she is still referred to by her Roman sister as the “Schismatic” Church. It is useless to repeat the reasons for the statements above made, as they may all be found in _Isis Unveiled_,(228) where the words, Peter, Patar, and Pitar, are explained, and the origin of the “Seat of Pitah” is shown. The reader will find upon referring to the above pages that an inscription was found on the coffin of Queen Mentuhept of the Eleventh Dynasty (2250 B.C. according to Bunsen), which in its turn was shown to have been transcribed from the Seventeenth Chapter of the _Book of the Dead_, dating certainly not later than 4500 B.C. or 496 years before the World’s Creation, in the Genesiacal chronology. Nevertheless, Baron Bunsen shows the group of the hieroglyphics given (_Peter‐ref‐su_, the “Mystery Word”) and the sacred formulary mixed up with a whole series of glosses and various interpretations on a monument 4,000 years old. This is identical with saying that the record (the true interpretation) was at that time no longer intelligible.... We beg our readers to understand that a sacred text, a hymn, containing the words of a departed spirit, existed in such a state, about 4,000 years ago, as to be all but unintelligible to royal scribes.(229) “Unintelligible” to the non‐initiated—this is certain; and it is so proved by the confused and contradictory glosses. Yet there can be no doubt that it was—for it _still is_—a mystery word. The Baron further explains: