83 
there was no such thing as any idea of Ilorus coming upon earth in order 
to rescue the righteous from destruction ; whereas, this is the very corner- 
stone both of the Old and New Testament teaching. In the Bible, Messiah 
is always the coming One, 6 The Church is taught to wait and 
watch, in the spirit of patient hope, for a great work of redemption which He 
is hereafter to accomplish ; but in the Horus myth there is nothing of this 
kind. Hence, it cannot be said that in this particular Moses, or the sacred 
writers, drew their inspiration from Egypt. 
1 come now to the Egyptian doctrine of Divine Judgment ; which, not- 
withstanding that it presents certain analogies with Scripture (as writteu 
by its later authors), is nevertheless based on a totally distinct foundation. 
Eor Egyptian mythology places Horus in the Judgment Hall of Osiris, in 
the depths of an unseen world, immediately after death, and not judging the 
body but the soul — -whereas, from Daniel to Revelation, the Scripture 
doctrine of judgment is connected with earth, and not Hades, and with the 
body as much as the soul; and not after death, but at the “end of time.” 
Now is not that a radical and fundamental distinction which deserves a 
place in all honest criticism upon this subject? 
Yet, after all said and done, I can well imagine certain minds still staggered 
by the strange coincidences which are presented in this paper, between the 
Horus , myth and the teaching of the Word of God concerning Christ. 
When infidelity, therefore, describes the latter as a mere plagiarism from the 
former, with variations of its own in order to hide its true source, we must 
not only show (as I have briefly endeavoured to do) the fundamental 
originality of the Hebrew theology, but the reasons which exist for our 
antecedently expecting to find similarities between it and the primitive faiths 
of the ancient world. In adopting this course I am aware that I assume 
the truth of Scripture ; my argument being, that there is everything within 
the sacred writings to account for whatever amount of truth we may find in the 
Egyptian or Chaldean religions. The fact is that, in looking over the primeval 
races of mankind, we see the remnants of revealed knowledge through the 
chinks of antiquity. Divine light streamed through those chinks from the 
very beginning — a light which, though dimmed and darkened by subsequent 
ignorance and superstition, was still clear enough to exhibit certain survivals 
of original truth. This was the case with other people beside the Egyptians, 
as may be seen by the early history of Scripture itself — people who, though 
not of the Abrahamic family, were yet in possession of much divine know- 
ledge, which they derived through oral traditions. Melchisedech and Balaam, 
for example, were not of the chosen people, and Job was no less distinct. 
Yet these three persons, notwithstanding they were separated from the 
covenant given to Abraham, enjoyed some knowledge of the true God. Now 
these men are but types and representatives of others, who, within every 
variety of shade, must have retained fragments of an earlier illumination. 
Why not, therefore, the people in Egypt ? Why should there not have been 
a residuum of remembered truth in Egypt, as well as in Midian ? If 
G 2 
