84 
Melchisedech, Balaam, aud Job exhibited this, why should not a remnant 
of truth (though in a disfigured and debased form) be found also in the 
Egyptian creed ? * So far from being an argument against the Bible, it 
is all in its favour; for, by the promised victory of a Redeemer over the 
Serpent, or spirit of evil, as delivered in Gen. iii. 15, the primeval races of 
mankind would be sure to hand down traditional ideas of a conquest of some 
personal deliverer over the powers of darkness. Thus the foundations of 
truth in this Horus myth are sufficiently accounted for by the Word of God 
itself ; and, therefore, all arguments raised by infidelity against the Bible, 
based upon the analogies presented in this paper, are useless. 
Why should we be surprised, for example, at the grandeur of the titles 
which the Egyptians ascribed to Horus, aud at their striking similarity 
to those which belong to Christ in our own theology ? These affinities are 
found not only in Egypt, but in Chaldea and ancient Hindustan also. In 
Hindoo theology, do we not find Brahma addressed by the grandest titles, 
and always the most sublime and pure in proportion as they are most ancient? 
Why, then, should we be surprised that Horus was called “ Son of the 
eternal Bather” ? Is it any grander than might have been deduced from the 
early revelations of God to man; such as those in the book of Job, for 
instance, which were as much originated outside the family of Abraham as 
if they had come from Egypt itself ? In that most ancient and wonderful 
book — probably older even than the book of Genesis — do we not read of the 
same great relics of truth which are found in this Horus myth, and which 
seem to come straight from the history of the Ball and the promised 
Redemption? I refer to the doctrine of an avenging and justifying Redeemer, 
and to the belief in a perpetual conflict of evil spirits against good men. 
Why, then, should we marvel, if either Assyrian tablets, lately discovered, 
or the Horus myth as sketched in this paper, should exhibit, under different 
forms, various representations of these old beliefs ? 
I trust these remarks (which have been, I fear, rather too long) will, at 
all events, prove that we are not afraid to meet the attacks of infidelity, and 
that we know how to defend the heritage of our faith, with all the force 
wffiich belongs to earnest zeal and sanctified intellect. (Cheers.) 
Professor Seager (Professor of Hebrew^, &c.). — Sir, — I think it may 
fairly be assumed, that when attention is called to points of likeness, or 
apparent likeness, between heathen mythology and the Bible, no more is of 
necessity meant than that some portion of that primeval light which for us 
has been embodied in Scripture, has also, whether by tradition or otherwise, 
and whether in a substantially correct or in a more or less altered form, found its 
way into the mythology in question. I quite agree with the preceding speaker 
* Canon Titcomb has since suggested that it is possible Melchisedcch may 
have been the head of a dynasty of so-called Shepherd Kings from Canaan, 
whose religion may have been corrupted, and yet have left, traces of its grand 
original. This would account for the phenomenon, and might be worked 
out, if one had time and the British Museum at one’s disposal. 
