indecent character, remained in practice up to, at least, 1740 in
France, and 1780 in Italy. (See throughout the above work.) If
Christians knew a little more about their creed they would be far less
proud of it, and far less devout, than they are at present.

Mr. Glennie, in a pamphlet reprinted from "In the Morning Land," points
out the resemblance between Christianity and "Osirianism," as he names
the religion of Osiris: "'The peculiar character of Osiris,' says Sir
Gardner Wilkinson, 'his coming upon earth for the benefit of mankind,
with the titles of "Manifester of Good" and "Revealer of Truth;" his
being put to death by the malice of the Evil One; his burial and
resurrection, and his becoming the judge of the dead, are the most
interesting features of the Egyptian religion. This was the great
mystery; and this myth and his worship were of the earliest times, and
universal in Egypt.' And, with this central doctrine of Osirianism, so
perfectly similar to that of Christianism, doctrines are associated
precisely analogous to those associated in Christianism with its central
doctrine. In ancient Osirianism, as in modern Christianism, the Godhead
is conceived as a Trinity, yet are the three Gods declared to be only
one God. In ancient Osirianism, as in modern Christianism, we find the
worship of a divine mother and child. In ancient Osirianism, as in
modern Christianism, there is a doctrine of atonement. In ancient
Osirianism, as in modern Christianism, we find the vision of a last
judgment, and resurrection of the body. And finally, in ancient
Osirianism, as in modern Christianism, the sanctions of morality are a
lake of fire and tormenting demons on the one hand, and on the other,
eternal life in the presence of God. Is it possible, then, that such
similarities of doctrines should not raise the most serious questions as
to the relation of the beliefs about Christ to those about Osiris; as to
the cause of this wonderful similarity of the doctrines of Christianism