86 
adversaries will make against us, of being misled by our theological pro- 
clivities into unnatural expositions or renderings ; and this, too, with the 
further disadvantage, that the more the meaning of a passage is forced, the 
greater the danger that the passage itself will seem out of keeping with the 
context. 
But if it did not enter iuto the design of the Pentateuch to speak openly of 
the Resurrection, it by no means follows that the chosen people were un- 
acquainted with the doctrine of the immortality of the soul. Whatever of 
truth tradition had preserved, or reason, with the Divine assistance, was able 
thence or otherwise to develop, if attainable by the world in general, was 
doubtless, so far as was seen to be good, within their reach also. 
Far indeed was the privilege of possessing, with and in the Divine Law, 
the types and promises of that as yet veiled Gospel which in the end was to 
enlighten the world ; — ‘far indeed was this privilege from destroying or 
diminishing any other useful knowledge which they either already had or were 
able to acquire. Only by blindness to the fact that in the letter was contained 
something beyond the letter, and only in proportion as this blindness was 
perversely adopted as a principle, did that letter, in itself a bright type of life, 
become to those who so perverted it, the letter that kills. 
Reference, however, has been made to those alleged intimations of the 
doctrine of the Holy Trinity which are said to be contained in the plural 
designations and forms which in the Hebrew Bible are applied to the Deity. 
As examples we may take the plural noun Elohm, which is the ordinary 
expression for GOD, and the verb naghaseh , let US make, in the first chapter 
of Genesis. For myself, I quite hold that such designations and forms may 
fairly be regarded as intimations of the kind alleged; but only as veiled inti- 
mations ; in accordance both with the general principle of which I have 
spoken, and with the fact that while they undoubtedly admit of this deeper 
interpretation, they nevertheless do not of themselves force any one to adopt 
it ; being capable, also, of being understood as plurals of excellence or honour, 
such as are, among ourselves, You for Thou , and We as used by kings and other 
great men.* 
One, however, of the points of likeness which were brought forward in Mr. 
Cooper’s paper was that of the judgment after death; and with reference to 
this point attention has been called to an alleged difference between the 
Egyptian and our own notion of the judgment in question. But it is import- 
ant not to lose sight of the fact that, by a very large proportion of Christiaus, 
besides the general and declaratory judgment at the end of the world, there 
is held to be also a particular judgment for each individual, immediately after 
death. And if this fact is borne in mind, the difference will not be found so great. 
(* In colloquial Hindustani the use of ham, we, in the place of maing, I, is 
so general that if you wish to make sure of its being understood as a real 
plural, you must add log, people : compare in Flemish (in which language 
the old du, thou, has ceased to exist), — compare the similar compound gy-lieden, 
you-people. — Prof. S.) 
