nothing of the astronomical mythology or of the Egyptian eschatology, could only conclude that it must be historical. No “Jewish monotheist” could explicate the duality of the deity. The Psalmist celebrates the coming of the Lord, but who the Lord is or what the advent may be it is impossible to tell when the mythical background has been left out of view by the adapters of the ancient matter. As Egyptian, Iu the son is the ever-coming one as the means by which the father of eternity manifests in time and other natural phenomena. As Egyptian, the divine duad of father and son had been Ptah and Iu, or Atum and Iu, or Osiris and Horus, according to the cult through pre-Hebraic and pre-Christian ages. In Israel it might be Jacob-El the father, with Joseph-El as the beloved son; or Abraham with Isaac, the sacrificial son; or Ihuh and David, the divinely-begotten son; or David and Solomon, the wise youth and prince of peace.
It has now to be shown that these two represent the father and his beloved son who are Ihuh and David in the book of Psalms. These are the two lords as the Lord and the Lord’s anointed in Psalm CX: “The Lord said unto my Lord, sit thou at my right hand until I make thine enemies thy footstool. The Lord shall stretch forth the rod of thy strength out of Zion. In the beauty of holiness from the womb of the morning thou hast the dew of thy youth. Thou art a priest for ever after the order of Melchizedek” (Ps. CX. 4). That is the Lord who is the “coming son” in all the so-called prophecies; and David is the son who thus converses with the father as Horus did with Ra, or as Jesus is represented in converse with Jehovah. As a divine personage David is a form of the beloved son; hence perhaps the origin of his name. David, Daoud, or Dood means the beloved; and as a mythical character the beloved one, the Lord’s anointed, the Messiah, is the son of Ihuh, not the son of Jesse, who is not mentioned in the Psalms. This is the typical character with which we are now concerned, the original in the mythos who afterwards became a subject for the popular märchen. The inscription on the Moabite Stone shows that the Israelites of the northern kingdom worshipped a deity named Dodo or Dod (=David) by the side of Ihuh, “or rather they adored the supreme god under the name of Dodo as well as under that of Ihuh” (Sayce, Hib. Lectures, pp. 56, 57). Mesha, the Moabite king, announces that he has carried away the altars of Dodo and “dragged them before Chemosh,” Dodo and Ihuh being David and Ihuh as two divinities, or the one god in the dual character of father and son. And if, like Jacob-El, Joseph-El, and Israel, David was a god, it follows that the son assigned to him as Solomon was so likewise. Only a divinity could be the prince of peace. Solomon was also a form of the divine son called the beloved. Hence the prophet Nathan gives him the name of Jedidiah, the “beloved of the Lord” (II Sam. XII. 24, 25). And the beloved son was the messianic or anointed son.
In addition to the divine duality of father and son which was imaged in Ptah and Kheper, Atum and Iu, Osiris and Horus, Ihuh, and Iah, and the Egypto-gnostic Ieou and Iao, there was a twofold nature manifested in the sonship human and divine. This has been one of the most profound of the ancient and most perplexing of
modern mysteries. It is to the Egyptian wisdom we must turn if we would trace the origin of this messianic mystery to the root in nature. But there is no beginning with the solar mythos. As it is said of Jesus, there are three which bear witness that the Messiah came in the water, in the blood, and in the spirit (I John V. 6, 7). As Egyptian, the first was Horus who came by water in the inundation, the second was Horus who came in the blood of Isis, the third is Horus of the resurrection, who came again in the spirit; and, as Horus in these characters, “the three agree in one. The Book of the Dead describes the source and origin of life as water and the water-plants. This was religiously commemorated as a mystery of Amenta. The water-spring was imaged in the tuat of the nether-world, “which nobody can fathom,” and the offerings of which are “edible plants” (Rit., ch. 172), the water-plant being a form of primeval food. Thus Horus on his papyrus springing from the water represents the soul of life that came by water in or as primeval food. Hence he was depicted as the shoot. He would now be called the spirit of vegetation, born of water. Horus is also imaged as the child that issues from the plant or from the mother earth. The child=the shoot was typical of an ever-renewing and eternal youth; hence Horus the eternal child. The Egyptian “eternal” was æonian and ever-coming, whether figured by the shoot or as the child. Horus came by water annually, and brought abundant food. There was famine when the water failed, and therefore Horus as the spirit of vegetation was a kind of saviour to the world. He came from Ethiopia as the messu. The messu in Egyptian is the child, and Horus was the messu of the inundation, the water-born upon his papyrus, and an image of the source and sustenance of life born of a mother who was ever-virgin but non-human. Such is the root origin of the messianic mystery, and also of the mythical virgin and her ever-coming child. But the ever-coming child not only came by water. He also came by blood as Horus who was incarnated in the blood of Isis. Thus Horus of the incarnation was the child that came by blood and was made flesh by her who doctrinally was the ever-virgin mother. This is the elder Horus, the eternal child of her who was known to the gnostics as the eternal virgin. This duality in the sonship of Horus has its origin in his twofold advent and his twofold character, which implied a twofold motherhood. In the first he was the child of the virgin mother as the soul of the mother only. In the second he was Horus in spirit, the beloved only-begotten son of the father in heaven, who was Ra the Holy Spirit. Horus in two of his characters is palpably depicted in the Hebrew scriptures. In the first he is Horus, who in the Ritual (ch. 115) is called the “Afflicted One.” This was the Horus of the incarnation, the god made flesh in the imperfect human form, the type of voluntary sacrifice, the image of suffering; being an innocent little child, maimed in the lower members, marred in his visage, lame and blind and dumb, and altogether imperfect. No man upon the cross or in the Tat-tree could ever make appeal to equal this, the most pathetic picture in the world. And Horus, “lord of resurrections” from the house of darkness (Rit., ch. 64), who as the first “of them that slept” woke up in death as the “soul most mighty” and burst the mummy-bandages and rent the tomb asunder and arose as Horus divinized,
the victor over death and hell and all the powers of evil, is the most triumphant figure in the world.
A piteous portrait of the first Horus, the afflicted sufferer, is depicted by Isaiah. “Behold, my servant shall deal wisely; he shall be exalted and lifted up, and shall be very high. Like as many were astonished at thee (his visage was so marred more than any man, and his form more than the sons of men).” “Who hath believed our report? and to whom hath the arm of the Lord been revealed? For he grew up before him as a tender plant, and as a root out of a dry ground; he hath no form nor comeliness; and when we see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He was despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief; and as one from whom men hide their face he was despised, and we esteemed him not. Surely he hath borne our griefs and carried our sorrows, yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed. He was oppressed, yet he humbled himself and opened not his mouth; as a lamb that is led to the slaughter, and as a sheep that before her shearers is dumb; yea, he opened not his mouth. And they made his grave with the wicked and with the rich in his deaths. Thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin” (ch. 53). The character here portrayed for the Messiah is that of the Messu-Horus in every feature, except that he was not “wounded for our transgressions” nor “bruised for our iniquities.” The Egyptians were indefinitely older than the Semites, but had never heard of the world being lost by Adam’s fall, or its need of an historic saviour who should take the place and act the part of the Jewish scapegoat. The later doctrine of vicarious atonement has been added. That is Semitic, not Egyptian. Osiris of the mysteries was dramatically represented as a victim, but not as a vicarious sacrifice on account of human “transgressions” or “iniquities.” Osiris, the good being, gave his life that men and animals might live, which was in providing the elements of water and food. This was commemorated in the sacramental meal, at which his body was eaten as the bread of life and his blood was drunk in the red wine or beer. The doctrine itself is indefinitely older. The Great Mother was imaged earlier still as the giver of life and sustenance in or as the tree by Hathor, who was imaged in the sycamore-fig as the tree of life, which was her body; and by the Cyprian Venus, who was apparently bound upon the tree. In neither case is there any doctrine of the scapegoat, neither as animal, human being, or divine. Horus is said to be the altar and the offering in one, and a form of the altar is the tat. The tat-cross was the tree, whether of Hathor or Horus, of Osiris or Ptah. But there was no sufferer on it or in it who bore the sins of the world. That is a doctrine of barbarous, non-Egyptian ignorance, only fit for cowards, slaves, and criminals. The only substitution in the Osirian religion is when Horus becomes the voluntary substitute for the suffering god the father as a type of divine sonship and an example for all men to follow in the war of good against evil. But there is no scapegoat and no innocent victim of divine wrath, no expiatory sacrifice in the Egyptian eschatology. That was a perversion of the Egyptian doctrine. There is a sacrificial victim as Child-Horus, but it was a voluntary sacrifice.
He comes to earth and takes upon himself the burden of mortality, and is conscious that he has to suffer and die in order that he may demonstrate the resurrection in spirit to the manes in Amenta and to men on earth. He comes as the calf of the sacrificial herd, and in a body that will be eaten at the sacramental meal (Rit., ch. 105). “In his deaths,” which are periodic, he comes to an end on behalf of the father in heaven, at whose table he will ultimately rest (Rit., ch. 70). The elder Horus in the Osirian cult is that child of the virgin mother who in a second phase and at the second advent is the father’s own begotten and beloved son, who takes upon himself to suffer in the father’s and the mother’s stead, not only in the phenomena of external nature, but also as a figure of the human soul immersed in matter. This involved the doctrines of the incarnation, the virgin mother, baptismal regeneration, the begettal of the anointed son as Horus of the resurrection, Horus the great judge, Horus the avenger, Horus the spirit glorified in the likeness of the father. He dwelt on earth as mortal Horus in the house of Seb (earth) until he was twelve years of age. He went down to Amenta as the human soul in death, or as the sun of winter sinking in the solstice. He rose again from the dead in search of his father, whom he had not known on earth. The father, as Osiris in Amenta, had been overcome by Sut, the power of darkness. Horus rises in Amenta as the avenger; he rises as “the living soul,” Horus who now comes in the spirit (Rit., ch. 5). He comes to see Osiris and to drive away the darkness (ch. 9). He comes as the beloved son to seek for Sut, the adversary of Osiris, in the nether earth, and pierce him to the heart (ch. 11). The teaching of the Ritual is that sacrifice was of a twofold nature. In one aspect of the doctrine it was voluntary, in the other it was vengeful and piacular. This doctrine was brought on at second-hand in Rome as the bloody and unbloody sacrifice, both being associated with one victim there instead of two. But as Egyptian there were two, one innocent and one guilty. Osiris or Child-Horus of the mysteries was the voluntary victim of the unbloody sacrifice, and Sut the victim of the vengeful sacrifice that is celebrated in the Ritual on the night of the great slaughter and the manuring of the fields with blood. Osiris was the voluntary sacrifice. He was the god who gave himself in all the elements of life that all his creatures might have life. He came to earth or manifested in the water, and in flesh and blood, in vegetation and cultivated corn, or, more abstractly, as the bread from heaven. For the later providence was imaged in some likeness of the primitive provider. Hence Osiris is depicted as the wet-nurse with a myriad mammæ. The Great Mother as the bringer of plenty might be superseded together with her seven cows, and Isis, the good lady, by Osiris as Un-Nefer, the good being, with whom she was united in one; but still the figure of food and drink remained as an eternal type, when the god gave “the food that never perishes” by the incorporation, or the later incarnation, of himself. This was the voluntary victim who was made a sacrifice in the Osirian mysteries. As represented, he was slain by Sut, the leader of the evil powers, on the night of the great battle. Then follows the vast vengeful sacrifice of Sut and his co-conspirators, who in the form of the Typhonian animals were slain upon the highway of the damned so long as there was any blood to flow.
The vengeful sacrifice is also shown when Apap, the enemy of Ra, is slain. It is said, “Apap is stricken with swords; he is sacrificed” (Book of Hades, Records, vol. XII). Horus the child was the typical babe and suckling that was accredited with a revelation beyond the range of human faculty concerning things that were hidden from the wise and understanding. That was in a mystery, not meant for an apotheosis of infants or simpletons and bibliolaters. Horus the human was the child, and the divine Horus was the prince, the repa with the kingly countenance; and these are alluded to disparagingly by Iahu when he says of the people of Israel, “I will give children to be their princes, and babes shall rule over them” (Is. III. 4). Human Horus came to earth in the character of a little child, a type of gentleness otherwise figured as a lamb or a calf. This typical little child is described by Isaiah in his millennial account of the Messiah who came periodically as the bringer of peace, Iu-em-hetep or Horus, or the Hebrew Mes-Iah, which is equivalent to Mes-Iu the coming child in Egyptian, who is otherwise the Iu-su, son of Atum and Iusāas. “And the wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion falling together; and a little child shall lead them. And the cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. And the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder’s den. They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain” (Is. XI. 6, 9). This little child was the human Horus in the Egyptian mythos. The tender plant that springs up out of the dry ground, in the prophecy of Isaiah, is also represented both in the Osirian religion and in the earlier cult of Atum-Ra. Horus, the branch, or natzer, was the branch of the unbu or golden bough. The speaker in this character says (Rit., ch. 71, Renouf), “I am unbu of An-ar-f, the flower in the abode of occultation.” An-ar-f denotes the abode of the sightless Horus, who was encircled by darkness and obscurity. It was there, in a waste place where nothing grew, that the golden unbu, or golden bough, burst into blossom as the living shoot from out the soil or the annually decaying tree of vegetable life, as offspring of the sun. Child-Horus as the natzer or Messiah was the “tender plant” that literally grew up “as a root out of a dry ground.” As the plant of Anrutef he is rooted in the dry desert (Rit., ch. LXXI; cf. Is. LVIII. 11) which precedes the place of emergence from Amenta in the east. The dry ground was intensely actual in Egypt at the time of the winter solstice, when the land was left waterless. It was the season of coming drought that was reflected in the wilderness of Anrutef, through which the suffering sun god had to pass. It was there that Isis sought the water of life which was imaged as her lost Osiris. In this desert Horus suffered his great thirst, and here he sprang up as the tender plant from a root in the dry ground when nourished at the breasts of his mother. He had no form of comeliness, because he was that amorphous product of the virgin that lacked the soul and seal of the authenticating fatherhood which conferred the grace and favour upon Horus the divinized adult. This was the human Horus who was but human in the way already indicated as the maimed, crippled, shapeless, dumb, blind, impubescent product of the mother nature only. It was the ancient Child-Horus who was continued in the catacombs
as the little old and ugly Christ. “He hath no form nor comeliness” (says Isaiah), “and when we see him there is no beauty that we should desire him; as one from whom men hide their face he was despised.” Or as one who hid his face from men. The man of sorrows who had neither form nor comeliness was but a typical, not a natural man, still less an historic personage who hid his face and opened not his mouth; and the type was identical with that amorphous birth of the gnostic Sophia which she produced when flowing away into immensity until she was crossed and stayed by Stauros, who stopped the issue of blood. Both were the same as the imperfect, inarticulate child of Isis. The tender plant of Isaiah is one with Horus the shoot, who is also called a plant out of the Nun. The Hebrew man of sorrows is thus doubly identified with the human Horus, and only in the human Horus do we reach the genesis in nature of that Jesus who was reputed to have been born of flowing not of concreted blood. For mystical reasons this was the child who never could become a man, and never did; the typical victim of this sacrifice always remained a child. And because the Horus was but a type, he could be represented by the red shoot, the red fruit, the red calf or lamb, the red crown, or the red sun as sufferer in the winter solstice. Various types of this meek and lowly Horus made divine appeal to human tenderness and melted their way to the heart on behalf of the suffering mother and her dear, deaf, dumb, and sightless little one, the child of silence who was her Logos in sign-language.
The duality represented by Horus the Messiah in his twofold character is described in the Ritual from the root. This is the chapter (Renouf, 115) by which the manes cometh forth into heaven, or the Child-Horus changes into the Arm of the Lord, the mortal Horus into Horus the immortal. The speaker says, “I know the powers of Annu. Doth not the all-powerful issue forth like one who extendeth a hand to us? It is with reference to me the gods say, Lo the Afflicted One, who is the heir of Annu! I know on what occasion the lock of the male-child was made. Ra was speaking with Amhauf, and a blindness came upon him. Ra said to Amhauf, Take the spear, O offspring of men. And Amhauf said, “The spear is taken.” Whatsoever the meaning of this instruction, the result was that “two brethren came into being. They were Heb-Ra and Sotemanes, whose arm resteth not. As Child-Horus, he assumed the form of a female with the lock, which became the lock in Annu. Sotemanes is an image of Horus as the arm of Osiris. This is the arm that takes the spear to wield the weapon mightily. The Child-Horus might be of either sex, and the lock of childhood was worn by him as the type of both sexes. In his condition of blindness Horus of the lock was the afflicted one, but he is still the heir of Annu. That is the city where the transformation takes place in the temple. “Active and powerful is the heir of the temple, the active one of Annu. The flesh of his flesh is the all-seer, for he hath the might divine as the son whom the father hath begotten. And his will is that of the mighty one of Annu” (Gr. Heliopolis). This, we repeat, is the account given by the Ritual concerning the origin of the divine duality that was manifested in the double Horus, as the child of twelve years and the adult of thirty years, the wearer of the lock and the victorious lifter of the arm.
Now, Horus in these two characters can be as clearly traced in
the Psalms as he is described in the Ritual. As Horus the human, he is the child with the side-lock, the afflicted one, the maimed, dumb, and blind sufferer who is persecuted by Sut. As Horus divinized, Horus the king’s heir, “he hath the might divine as the son whom the father hath begotten”—that is, begotten in spirit for the resurrection from the dead. This is he whom the Psalmist celebrates: “My heart overfloweth with a goodly matter: I speak the things which I have made touching the king: my tongue is the pen of a ready writer. Thou art fairer than the children of men; grace is poured into thy lips: therefore God hath blessed thee for ever. Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O mighty one, thy glory and thy majesty. And in thy majesty ride on prosperously. Thou hast loved righteousness and hated wickedness: therefore God, thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows” (Ps. XLV. 1-9). This in the original was Horus the anointed, the son of god, the oil of gladness on whose face was typical of his divinity. The person addressed in the 45th Psalm is also recognizable as “the royal Horus,” Horus of the beautiful countenance. The Psalmist continues: “All thy garments (smell of) myrrh and aloes and cassia; out of ivory palaces stringed instruments have made thee glad. Kings’ daughters are among thy honourable women: at thy right hand doth stand the queen in gold of Ophir” (Ps. XLV. 2, 9). Isaiah has likewise reproduced a portrait of Har-Tema the mighty avenger in his second advent, who came at the end and re-beginning of the period which is called the year of redemption: “Who is this that cometh from Edom, with garments crimson from Bozrah; he that is glorious in his apparel, marching in the greatness of his strength, mighty to save?” “Wherefore art thou red in thine apparel, and thy garments like him that treadeth in the wine-vat?” “I have trodden the wine-press alone; and of the people there was no man with me: yea, I trod them in mine anger and trampled them in my fury: and their life-blood is sprinkled upon my garments, and I have stained all my raiment. For the day of vengeance was in my heart, and the year of my redeemer is come. I looked, and there was none to help; and I wondered if there was none to uphold; therefore my own arm wrought salvation unto me, and my fury it upheld me; and I trod down the people in my anger and made them drunk in my fury, and I poured out their life-blood on the earth” (Is. LXIII. 1-6). This in the original is magnificent; in its perversion it is bewildering, but no bibliolater could possibly have known what it was about. Hence the endeavour to make it a matter of prophecy by means of marginal misinterpretation; a feast of vengeance for good Christians to look forward to at the second coming of their long-belated Lord. It is not prophecy: it has no other meaning and had no other origin than that of the Egyptian mythology and the mysteries of Amenta. Horus in his human personation was the mother’s suffering son, the victim as described by Isaiah (chs. LII, LIII) and by the Psalmist as the sacrificial victim in the present, not in a future, near or far (Ps. XXII. 17, 18; XXXI. 5; XLI. 9; LXIX. 21). After his death, a representative of the Osiris rises again triumphant as the maker of justice visible. He does not merely speak of righteousness. He is the just and righteous judge who does justice in the judgment hall of Maati on the