migrations will be illustrated, with several differences in
circumstances, by the following extract from Parsons’ Travels: “It was
entertaining enough to see the horde of Arabs decamp, as nothing could
be more regular. First went the sheep and goat herds, each with their
flocks in divisions, according as the chief of each family directed;
then followed the camels and asses, loaded with the tents, furniture,
and kitchen utensils; these were followed by the old men, women, boys,
and girls, on foot. The children that cannot walk are carried on the
backs of the young women, or the boys and girls; and the smallest of the
lambs and kids are carried under the arms of the children. To each tent
belong many dogs, among which are some greyhounds; some tents have from
ten to fourteen dogs, and from twenty to thirty men, women, and
children, belonging to it. The procession is closed by the chief of the
tribe, whom they call emir and father, (emir means prince,) mounted on
the very best horse, and surrounded by the heads of each family, all on
horses, with many servants on foot. Between each family is a division or
space of one hundred yards, or more, when they migrate; and such great
regularity is observed, that neither camels, asses, sheep, nor dogs,
mix, but each keeps to the division to which it belongs, without the
least trouble. They had been here eight days, and were going four hours’
journey to the north-west, to another spring of water. This tribe
consisted of about eight hundred and fifty men, women, and children.
Their flocks of sheep and goats were about five thousand, beside a great
number of camels, horses, and asses. Horses and greyhounds they breed
and train up for sale: they neither kill nor sell their ewe lambs. At
set times a chapter in the Koran is read by the chief of each family,
either in or near each tent, the whole family being gathered round, and
very attentive.” Instead of the Koran of modern times, let us conceive
of Abraham, and other patriarchal emirs, collecting their numerous
dependents and teaching them the true religion, and we then see with
what truth they are called the Lord’s “prophets.”
TREASURE. The Hebrew word signifies any thing collected together,
provisions, or magazines. So they say, a treasure of corn, of wine, of
oil, of honey, Jer. xli, 8; treasures of gold, silver, brass, Ezek.
xxviii, 4; Dan. xi, 43. Snow, winds, hail, rain, waters, are in the
treasuries of God, Psalm cxxxv, 7; Jer. li, 16. The wise men opened
their treasures, Matt. ii, 11, that is, their packets, or bundles, to
offer presents to our Saviour. Joseph acquainted his brethren, when they
found their money returned in their sacks, that God had given them
treasures, Genesis xliii, 23. The treasures of the house of God, whether
in silver, corn, wine, or oil, were under the care of the Levites. The
kings of Judah had also keepers of the treasures both in city and
country, 1 Chron. xxvii, 25; and the places where these magazines were
laid up were called treasure cities. Pharaoh compelled the Hebrews to
build him treasure cities, or magazines.
TREE is the first and largest of the vegetable kind, consisting of a
single trunk, out of which spring forth branches and leaves. Heat is so
essential to the growth of trees, that we see them grow larger and
smaller in a sort of gradation as the climates in which they stand are
more or less hot. The hottest countries yield, in general, the largest
and tallest trees, and those, also, in much greater beauty and variety
than the colder do; and even those plants which are common to both
arrive at a much greater bulk in the southern than in the northern
climates; nay, there are some regions so bleak and chill, that they
raise no vegetables at all to any considerable height. Greenland,
Iceland, and similar places, afford no trees at all; and the shrubs
which grow in them are always little and low. In the warmer climates,
where trees grow to a moderate size, any accidental diminution of the
common heat is found very greatly to impede vegetation; and even in
England the cold summers we sometimes have give us an evident proof of
this in the scarcity of produce from all our large fruit trees. Heat,
whatever be the producing cause, acts as well upon vegetation one way as
another. Thus the heat of manure, and the artificial heat of coal fires
in stoves, are found to supply the place of the sun. Great numbers of
the eastern trees, in their native soil, flower twice in a year, and
some flower and bear ripe fruit all the year round; and it is observed
of these last, that they are at once the most frequent and the most
useful to the inhabitants; their fruits, which always hang on them in
readiness, containing cool juices, which are good in fevers, and other
of the common diseases of hot countries. The umbrageous foliage, with
which the God of providence has generally furnished all trees in warm
climates, affords a most refreshing and grateful shade to those who seek
relief from the direct and hurtful rays of a tropical sun.
The Land of Promise cannot boast, like many other countries, of
extensive woods; but considerable thickets of trees and of reeds
sometimes arise to diversify and adorn the scene. Between the Lake
Samochonites and the sea of Tiberias, the river Jordan is almost
concealed by shady trees from the view of the traveller. When the waters
of the Jordan are low, the Lake Samochonites is only a marsh, for the
most part dry and overgrown with shrubs and reeds. In these thickets,
among other ferocious animals, the wild boar seeks a covert from the
burning rays of the sun. Large herds of them are sometimes to be seen on
the banks of the river, near the sea of Tiberias, lying among the reeds,
or feeding under the trees. Such moist and shady places are in all
countries the favourite haunts of these fierce and dangerous animals.
Those marshy coverts are styled woods in the sacred Scriptures; for the
wild boar of the wood is the name which that creature receives from the
royal psalmist: “The boar out of the wood doth waste it; and the wild
beast of the field doth devour it,” Psalm lxxx, 13. The wood of Ephraim,
where the battle was fought between the forces of Absalom and the
servants of David, was probably a place of the same kind; for the sacred
historian observes, that the wood devoured more people that day than the
sword, 2 Sam. xviii, 8. Some have supposed the meaning of this passage
to be, that the soldiers of Absalom were destroyed by the wild beasts of
the wood; but it can scarcely be supposed, that in the reign of David,
when the Holy Land was crowded with inhabitants, the wild beasts could
be so numerous in one of the woods as to cause such a destruction. But,
supposing the wood of Ephraim to have been a morass covered with trees
and bushes, like the haunts of the wild boar near the banks of Jordan,
the difficulty is easily removed. It is certain that such a place has
more than once proved fatal to contending armies, partly by suffocating
those who in the hurry of flight inadvertently venture over places
incapable of supporting them, and partly by retarding them till their
pursuers come up and cut them to pieces. In this manner a greater number
of men than fell in the heat of battle may be destroyed. It is probable,
however, that nothing more is intended by the sacred historian, than the
mention of a fact familiar to military men in all ages, and whatever
kind of weapons were then employed in warfare,--that forests, especially
such thick and impassable forests as are common in warm countries,
constitute the very worst ground along which a discomfited army can be
compelled to retreat. Their orderly ranks are broken; the direction
which each warrior for his own safety must take is uncertain; and while
one tumultuous mass is making a pass for itself through intervening
brushwood and closely matted jungle, and another is hurrying along a
different path and encountering similar or perhaps greater impediments,
the cool and deliberate pursuers, whether archers or sharp shooters,
enjoy an immense advantage in being able to choose their own points of
annoyance, and by flank or cross attacks to kill their retreating foes,
with scarcely any risk to themselves, but with immense carnage to the
routed army.
Several critics imagine that by עץ חדר, rendered “goodly trees,” Lev.
xxiii, 40, the citron tree is intended. עץ-עבת, rendered “thick trees”
in the same verse, and in Neh. viii, 15; Ezek. xx, 28, is the myrtle,
according to the rabbins, the Chaldee paraphrase, Syriac version, and
Deodatus. The word אשל, translated “grove” in Gen. xxi, 33, has been
variously translated. Parkhurst renders it an oak, and says, that from
this word may be derived the name of the famous asylum, opened by
Romulus between two groves of oak at Rome. On the other hand, Celsius,
Michaēlis, and Dr. Geddes render it the tamarisk, which is a lofty and
beautiful tree, and grows abundantly in Egypt and Arabia. The same word
in 1 Sam. xxii, 6; xxxi, 13, is rendered “a tree.” It must be noted too,
that in the first of these places, the common version is equally obscure
and contradictory, by making _ramah_ a proper name: it signifies hillock
or bank. Of the trees that produced precious balsams there was one in
particular that long flourished in Judea, having been supposed to have
been an object of great attention to Solomon, which was afterward
transplanted to Matarea, in Egypt, where it continued till about two
hundred and fifty years ago, according to Maillet, who gives a
description of it, drawn, it is supposed, from the Arabian authors, in
which he says, “This shrub had two very differently coloured barks, the
one red, the other perfectly green; that they tasted strongly like
incense and turpentine, and when bruised between the fingers they smelt
very nearly like cardamoms. This balsam, which was extremely precious
and celebrated, and was used by the Coptic church in their chrism, was
produced by a very low shrub; and it is said, that all those shrubs that
produced balsams are every where low, and do not exceed two or three
cubits in height.”
Descriptions of the principal trees and shrubs mentioned in Holy Writ
the reader will find noticed in distinct articles under their several
denominations.
TRIBE. Jacob having twelve sons, who were the heads of so many great
families, which altogether formed a great nation; every one of these
families was called a tribe. But Jacob on his death bed adopted Ephraim
and Manasseh, the sons of Joseph, and would have them also to constitute
two tribes of Israel, Gen. xlviii, 5. Instead of twelve tribes, there
were now thirteen, that of Joseph being divided into two. However, in
the distribution of lands to each which Joshua made by the order of God,
they counted but twelve tribes, and made but twelve lots. For the tribe
of Levi, which was appointed to the service of the tabernacle of the
Lord, had no share in the distribution of the land, but only some cities
in which to dwell, and the first fruits, tithes, and oblations of the
people, which was all their subsistence. The twelve tribes continued
united under one head, making but one state, one people, and one
monarchy, till after the death of Solomon. Then ten of the tribes of
Israel revolted from the house of David, and received for their king
Jeroboam, the son of Nebat; and only the tribes of Judah and Benjamin
continued under the government of Rehoboam. This separation may be
looked upon as the chief cause of those great misfortunes that afterward
happened to those two kingdoms, and to the whole Hebrew nation. For,
first, it was the cause of the alteration and change of the old
religion, and of the ancient worship of their forefathers. Jeroboam the
son of Nebat substituted the worship of golden calves for the worship of
the true God; which was the occasion of the ten tribes forsaking the
temple of the Lord. Secondly, this schism caused an irreconcilable
hatred between the ten tribes, and those of Judah and Benjamin, and
created numerous wars and disputes between them. The Lord, being
provoked, delivered them up to their enemies. Tiglath-Pileser first took
away captive the tribes of Reuben, Gad, Naphtali, and the half tribe of
Manasseh, which were beyond Jordan, and carried them beyond the
Euphrates, 2 Kings xv, 29; 1 Chron. v, 26; A. M. 3264. Some years after,
Shalmaneser king of Assyria took the city of Samaria, destroyed it, took
away the rest of the inhabitants of Israel, carried them beyond the
Euphrates, and sent other inhabitants into the country to cultivate and
possess it, 2 Kings xvii, 6; xviii, 10, 11. Thus ended the kingdom of
the ten tribes of Israel, A. M. 3283. As to the tribes of Judah and
Benjamin, who remained under the government of the kings of the family
of David, they continued a much longer time in their own country. But at
last, after they had filled up the measure of their iniquity, God
delivered them all into the hands of their enemies. Nebuchadnezzar took
the city of Jerusalem, entirely ruined it, and took away all the
inhabitants of Judah and Benjamin to Babylon, and the other provinces of
his empire, A. M. 3416. The return from this captivity is stated in the
books of Ezra and Nehemiah. See JEWS.
TRIBUTE. The Hebrews acknowledged none for sovereign over them but God
alone; whence Josephus calls their government a theocracy, or divine
government. They acknowledged the sovereign dominion of God by a
tribute, or capitation tax, of half a shekel a head, which every
Israelite paid yearly, Exod. xxx, 13. Our Saviour, in the Gospel, thus
reasons with St. Peter: “What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings
of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of
strangers?” Matt. xvii, 25, meaning, that as he was the Son of God, he
ought to be exempt from this capitation tax. We do not find that either
the kings or the judges of the Hebrews, when they were themselves Jews,
demanded any tribute of them. Solomon, at the beginning of his reign, 1
Kings xi, 22, 33; 2 Chron. viii, 9, compelled the Canaanites, who were
left in the country, to pay him tribute, and to perform the drudgery of
the public works he had undertaken. As to the children of Israel, he
would not suffer one of them to be employed upon them, but made them his
soldiers, ministers, and chief officers, to command his armies, his
chariots, and his horsemen. Yet, afterward, toward the end of his reign,
he imposed a tribute upon them, and made them work at the public
buildings, 1 Kings v, 13, 14; ix, 15; xi, 27; which much alienated their
minds from him, and sowed the seeds of that discontent which afterward
appeared in an open revolt, by the rebellion of Jeroboam, the son of
Nebat; who was at first indeed obliged to take shelter in Egypt. But
afterward the defection became general, by the total revolt of the ten
tribes. Hence it was, that the Israelites said to Rehoboam the son of
Solomon, “Thy father made our yoke grievous; now therefore, make thou
the grievous service of thy father, and the heavy yoke which he put upon
us, lighter, and we will serve thee,” 1 Kings xii, 4. It is needless to
observe, that the Israelites were frequently subdued by foreign princes,
who laid great taxes and tribute upon them, to which fear and necessity
compelled them to submit. Yet in the latter times, that is, after
Archelaus had been banished to Vienne in France, in the sixth year of
the vulgar era, and after Judea was reduced to a province, Augustus sent
Quirinius into this country to take a new poll of the people, and to
make a new estimate of their substance, that he might thereby regulate
the tribute that every one was to pay to the Romans. Then Judas,
surnamed the Galilean, formed a sedition, and made an insurrection, to
oppose the levying of this tribute. See in St. Matthew xxii, 16, 17, &c,
the answer that Jesus Christ returned to the Pharisee, who came with an
insidious design of tempting him, and asked him, whether or not it was
lawful to pay tribute to Cæsar? and in John viii, 33, where the Jews
boast of having never been slaves to any body, of being a free nation,
that acknowledged God only for master and sovereign.
TRINITY. That nearly all the Pagan nations of antiquity, says Bishop
Tomline, in their various theological systems, acknowledged a kind of
Trinity, has been fully evinced by those learned men who have made the
Heathen mythology the subject of their elaborate inquiries. The almost
universal prevalence of this doctrine in the Gentile kingdoms must be
considered as a strong argument in favour of its truth. The doctrine
itself bears such striking internal marks of a divine original, and is
so very unlikely to have been the invention of mere human reason, that
there is no way of accounting for the general adoption of so singular a
belief, but by supposing that it was revealed by God to the early
patriarchs, and that it was transmitted by them to their posterity. In
its progress, indeed, to remote countries, and to distant generations,
this belief became depraved and corrupted in the highest degree; and he
alone who brought “life and immortality to light,” could restore it to
its original simplicity and purity. The discovery of the existence of
this doctrine in the early ages, among the nations whose records have
been the best preserved, has been of great service to the cause of
Christianity, and completely refutes the assertion of infidels and
skeptics, that the sublime and mysterious doctrine of the Trinity owes
its origin to the philosophers of Greece. “If we extend,” says Mr.
Maurice, “our eye through the remote region of antiquity, we shall find
this very doctrine, which the primitive Christians are said to have
borrowed from the Platonic school, universally and immemorially
flourishing in all those countries where history and tradition have
united to fix those virtuous ancestors of the human race, who, for their
distinguished attainments in piety, were admitted to a familiar
intercourse with Jehovah and the angels, the divine heralds of his
commands.” The same learned author justly considers the first two verses
of the Old Testament as containing very strong, if not decisive,
evidence in support of the truth of this doctrine: Elohim, a noun
substantive of the plural number, by which the Creator is expressed,
appears as evidently to point toward a plurality of persons in the
divine nature, as the verb in the singular, with which it is joined,
does to the unity of that nature: “In the beginning God created;” with
strict attention to grammatical propriety, the passage should be
rendered, “In the beginning Gods created,” but our belief in the unity
of God forbids us thus to translate the word Elohim. Since, therefore,
Elohim is plural, and no plural can consist of less than two in number,
and since creation can alone be the work of Deity, we are to understand
by this term so particularly used in this place, God the Father, and the
eternal Logos, or Word of God; that Logos whom St. John, supplying us
with an excellent comment upon this passage, says, was in the beginning
with God, and who also was God. As the Father and the Son are expressly
pointed out in the first verse of this chapter, so is the Third Person
in the blessed Trinity not less decisively revealed to us in Gen. i, 2:
“And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters:” “brooded
upon” the water, _incubavit_, as a hen broods over her eggs. Thus we see
the Spirit exerted upon this occasion an active effectual energy, by
that energy agitating the vast abyss, and infusing into it a powerful
vital principle.
Elohim seems to be the general appellation by which the Triune Godhead
is collectively distinguished in Scripture; and in the concise history
of the creation only, the expression, _bara Elohim_, “the Gods created,”
is used above thirty times. The combining this plural noun with a verb
in the singular would not appear so remarkable, if Moses had uniformly
adhered to that mode of expression; for then it would be evident that he
adopted the mode used by the Gentiles in speaking of their false gods in
the plural number, but by joining with it a singular verb or adjective,
rectified a phrase that might appear to give a direct sanction to the
error of polytheism. But, in reality, the reverse is the fact; for in
Deut. xxxii, 15, 17, and other places, he uses the singular number of
this very noun to express the Deity, though not employed in the august
work of creation: “He forsook God,” _Eloah_; “they sacrificed to devils
not to God,” _Eloah_. But farther, Moses himself uses this very word
Elohim with verbs and adjectives in the plural. Of this usage Dr. Allix
enumerates many other striking instances that might be brought from the
Pentateuch; and other inspired writers use it in the same manner in
various parts of the Old Testament, Job xxxv, 10; Joshua xxiv, 19; Psalm
cix, 1; Ecclesiastes xii, 3; 2 Samuel vii, 23. It must appear,
therefore, to every reader of reflection, exceedingly singular, that
when Moses was endeavouring to establish a theological system, of which
the unity of the Godhead was the leading principle, and in which it
differed from all other systems, he should make use of terms directly
implicative of a plurality in it; yet so deeply was the awful truth
under consideration impressed upon the mind of the Hebrew legislator,
that this is constantly done by him; and, indeed, as Allix has observed,
there is scarcely any method of speaking from which a plurality in Deity
may be inferred, that is not used either by himself in the Pentateuch,
or by the other inspired writers in various parts of the Old Testament.
A plural is joined with a verb singular, as in the passage cited before
from Genesis i, 1; a plural is joined with a verb plural, as in Gen.
xxxv, 7, “And Jacob called the name of the place El-beth-el, because the
Gods there appeared to him;” a plural is joined with an adjective
plural, Joshua xxiv, 19, “You cannot serve the Lord; for he is the holy
Gods.” To these passages, if we add that remarkable one from
Ecclesiastes, “Remember thy Creators in the days of thy youth,” and the
predominant use of the terms, Jehovah Elohim, or, the “Lord thy Gods,”
which occur a hundred times in the law, (the word Jehovah implying the
unity of the essence, and Elohim a plurality in that unity,) we must
allow that nothing can be more plainly marked than this doctrine in the
ancient Scriptures.