God the Father, yet is that name, in various parts of Scripture, applied
to each person in the holy Trinity. The Hebrews considered that name in
so sacred a light, that they never pronounced it, and used the word
Adonai instead of it. It was, indeed, a name that ranked first among
their profoundest cabala; a mystery, sublime, ineffable, incommunicable.
It was called tetragrammaton, or the name of four letters, and these
letters are _jod_, _he_, _vau_, _he_, the proper pronunciation of which,
from long disuse, is said to be no longer known to the Jews themselves.
This awful name was first revealed by God to Moses from the centre of
the burning bush; and Josephus, who, as well as Scripture, relates this
circumstance, evinces his veneration for it, by calling it the name
which his religion did not permit him to mention. From this word the
Pagan title of Iao and Jove is, with the greatest probability, supposed
to have been originally formed; and in the Golden Verses of Pythagoras,
there is an oath still extant to this purpose, “By Him who has the four
letters.” As the name Jehovah, however, in some instances applied to the
Son and the Holy Spirit, was the proper name of God the Father, so is
Logos in as peculiar a manner the appropriated name of God the Son. The
Chaldee Paraphrasts translate the original Hebrew text by _Mimra da
Jehovah_, literally, “the Word of Jehovah,” a term totally different, as
Bishop Kidder has incontestably proved, in its signification, and in its
general application among the Jews, from the Hebrew _dabar_, which
simply means a discourse or decree, and is properly rendered by
_pithgam_. In the Septuagint translation of the Bible, a work supposed
by the Jews to have been undertaken by men immediately inspired from
above, the former term is universally rendered Λόγος, and it is so
rendered and so understood by Philo and all the more ancient rabbins.
The name of the third person in the ever blessed Trinity has descended
unaltered from the days of Moses to our own time; for, as well in the
sacred writings as by the Targumists, and by the modern doctors of the
Jewish church, he is styled Ruach Hakhodesh, the Holy Spirit. He is
sometimes, however, in the rabbinical books, denominated by Shechinah,
or glory of Jehovah; in some places he is called Sephirah, or Wisdom;
and in others the Binah, or Understanding. From the enumeration of these
circumstances, it must be sufficiently evident to the mind which unites
piety and reflection, that so far from being silent upon the subject,
the ancient Scriptures commence with an avowal of this doctrine, and
that, in fact, the creation was the result of the joint operations of
the Trinity.
If the argument above offered should still appear inconclusive, the
twenty-sixth verse of the first chapter of Genesis contains so pointed
an attestation to the truth of it, that, when duly considered, it must
stagger the most hardened skeptic; for in that text not only the
plurality is unequivocally expressed, but the act which is the peculiar
prerogative of Deity is mentioned together with that plurality, the one
circumstance illustrating the other, and both being highly elucidatory
of this doctrine: “And God (Elohim) said, Let _us_ make man in our
image, after our likeness.” Why the Deity should speak of himself in the
plural number, unless that Deity consisted of more than one person, it
is difficult to conceive; for the answer given by the modern Jews, that
this is only a figurative mode of expression, implying the high dignity
of the speaker, and that it is usual for earthly sovereigns to use this
language by way of distinction, is futile, for two reasons. In the first
place it is highly degrading to the Supreme Majesty to suppose he would
take his model of speaking and thinking from man, though it is highly
consistent with the vanity of man to arrogate to himself, as doubtless
was the case in the licentiousness of succeeding ages, the style and
imagined conceptions of Deity; and it will be remembered, that these
solemn words were spoken before the creation of any of those mortals,
whose false notions of greatness and sublimity the Almighty is thus
impiously supposed to adopt. In truth, there does not seem to be any
real dignity in an expression, which, when used by a human sovereign in
relation to himself, approaches very near to absurdity. The genuine
fact, however, appears to be this. When the tyrants of the east first
began to assume divine honours, they assumed likewise the majestic
language appropriated to, and highly becoming, the Deity, but totally
inapplicable to man. The error was propagated from age to age through a
long succession of despots, and at length Judaic apostasy arrived at
such a pitch of profane absurdity, as to affirm that very phraseology to
be borrowed from man which was the original and peculiar language of the
Divinity. It was, indeed, remarkably pertinent when applied to Deity;
for, in a succeeding chapter, we have more decisive authority for what
is thus asserted, where the Lord God himself says, “Behold, the man is
become as one of us;” a very singular expression, which some Jewish
commentators, with equal effrontery, contend was spoken by the Deity to
the council of angels, that, according to their assertions, attended him
at the creation. From the name of the Lord God being used in so
emphatical a manner, it evidently appears to be addressed to those
sacred persons to whom it was before said, “Let us make man;” for would
indeed the omnipotent Jehovah, presiding in a less dignified council,
use words that have such an evident tendency to place the Deity on a
level with created beings?
The first passage to be adduced from the New Testament in proof of this
important doctrine of the Trinity, is, the charge and commission which
our Saviour gave to his apostles, to “go and teach all nations,
baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the
Holy Ghost,” Matt. xxviii, 19. The Gospel is every where in Scripture
represented as a covenant or conditional offer of eternal salvation from
God to man; and baptism was the appointed ordinance by which men were to
be admitted into that covenant, by which that offer was made and
accepted. This covenant being to be made with God himself, the ordinance
must of course be performed in his name; but Christ directed that it
should be performed in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of
the Holy Ghost; and therefore we conclude that God is the same as the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost. Since baptism is to be performed in
the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, they must be all
three persons; and since no superiority or difference whatever is
mentioned in this solemn form of baptism, we conclude that these three
persons are all of one substance, power, and eternity. Are we to be
baptized in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,
and is it possible that the Father should be self-existent, eternal, the
Lord God Omnipotent; and that the Son, in whose name we are equally
baptized, should be a mere man, born of a woman, and subject to all the
frailties and imperfections of human nature? or, is it possible that the
Holy Ghost, in whose name also we are equally baptized, should be a bare
energy or operation, a quality or power, without even personal
existence? Our feelings, as well as our reason, revolt from the idea of
such disparity.
This argument will derive great strength from the practice of the early
ages, and from the observations which we meet with in several of the
ancient fathers relative to it. We learn from Ambrose, that persons at
the time of their baptism, declared their belief in the three persons of
the Holy Trinity, and that they were dipped in the water three times. In
his Treatise upon the Sacraments he says, “Thou wast asked at thy
baptism, Dost thou believe in God the Father Almighty? and thou didst
reply, I believe, and thou wast dipped; and a second time thou wast
asked, Dost thou believe in Jesus Christ the Lord? thou didst answer
again, I believe, and thou wast dipped; a third time the question was
repeated, Dost thou believe in the Holy Ghost? and the answer was, I
believe, then thou wast dipped a third time.” It is to be noticed, that
the belief, here expressed separately, in the three persons of the
Trinity, is precisely the same in all. Tertullian, Basil, and Jerom, all
mention this practice of trine immersion as ancient; and Jerom says, “We
are thrice dipped in the water, that the mystery of the Trinity may
appear to be but one. We are not baptized in the names of Father, Son,
and Holy Ghost, but in one name, which is God’s; and, therefore, though
we be thrice put under water to represent the mystery of the Trinity,
yet it is reputed but one baptism.” Thus the mysterious union of the
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, as one God, was, in the opinion of
the purer ages of the Christian church, clearly expressed in this form
of baptism. By it the primitive Christians understood the Father’s
gracious acceptance of the atonement offered by the Messiah; the
peculiar protection of the Son, our great High Priest and Intercessor;
and the readiness of the Holy Ghost to sanctify, to assist, and to
comfort all the obedient followers of Christ, confirmed by the visible
gift of tongues, of prophecy, and divers other gifts to the first
disciples. And as their great Master’s instructions evidently
distinguished these persons from each other, without any difference in
their authority or power, all standing forth as equally dispensing the
benefits of Christianity, as equally the objects of the faith required
in converts upon admission into the church, they clearly understood that
the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, were likewise equally the
objects of their grateful worship: this fully appears from their
prayers, doxologies, hymns, and creeds, which are still extant.
The second passage to be produced in support of the doctrine now under
consideration, is, the doxology at the conclusion of St. Paul’s Second
Epistle to the Corinthians, “The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the
love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Ghost, be with you.” The
manner in which Christ and the Holy Ghost are here mentioned, implies
that they are persons, for none but persons can confer grace or
fellowship; and these three great blessings of grace, love, and
fellowship, being respectively prayed for by the inspired apostle from
Jesus Christ, God the Father, and the Holy Ghost, without any intimation
of disparity, we conclude that these three persons are equal and Divine.
This solemn benediction may therefore be considered as another proof of
the Trinity, since it acknowledges the divinity of Jesus Christ and of
the Holy Ghost. The third passage is the following salutation or
benediction in the beginning of the Revelation of St. John: “Grace and
peace from Him which is, and which was, and which is to come; and from
the seven spirits which are before his throne, and from Jesus Christ.”
Here the Father is described by a periphrasis taken from his attribute
of eternity; and “the seven spirits” is a mystical expression for the
Holy Ghost, used upon this occasion either because the salutation is
addressed to seven churches, every one of which had partaken of the
Spirit, or because seven was a sacred number among the Jews, denoting
both variety and perfection, and in this case alluding to the various
gifts, administrations, and operations of the Holy Ghost. Since grace
and peace are prayed for from these three persons jointly and without
discrimination, we infer an equality in their power to dispense those
blessings; and we farther conclude that these three persons together
constitute the Supreme Being, who is alone the object of prayer, and is
alone the Giver of every good and of every perfect gift. It might be
right to remark, that the seven spirits cannot mean angels, since
prayers are never in Scripture addressed to angels, nor are blessings
ever pronounced in their name. It is unnecessary to quote any of the
numerous passages in which the Father is singly called God, as some of
them must be recollected by every one, and the divinity of the Father is
not called in question by any sect of Christians; and those passages
which prove the divinity of the Son and of the Holy Ghost separately,
will be more properly considered under those heads. In the mean time we
may observe, that if it shall appear from Scripture, that Christ is God,
and the Holy Ghost is God, it will follow, since we are assured that
there is but one God, that the three persons, the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Ghost, by a mysterious union, constitute the one God, or, as it
is expressed in the first article of the church of England: “There is a
Trinity in Unity; and in the unity of this Godhead there be three
Persons of one substance, power, and eternity, the Father, the Son, and
the Holy Ghost.”
The word Trinity does not occur in Scripture, nor do we find it in any
of the early confessions of faith; but this is no argument against the
doctrine itself, since we learn from the fathers of the first three
centuries, that the divinity of the Son and of the Holy Ghost was, from
the days of the Apostles, acknowledged by the catholic church, and that
those who maintained a contrary opinion were considered as heretics; and
as every one knows that neither the divinity of the Father, nor the
unity of the Godhead, was ever called in question at any period, it
follows that the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity has been in substance,
in all its constituent parts, always known among Christians. In the
fourth century it became the subject of eager and general controversy;
and it was not till then that this doctrine was particularly discussed.
While there was no denial or dispute, proof and defence were
unnecessary: _Nunquid enim perfecté de Trinitate tractatum est, antequam
oblatrarent Ariani?_ But this doctrine is positively mentioned as being
admitted among catholic Christians, by writers who lived long before
that age of controversy. Justin Martyr, in refuting the charge of
atheism urged against Christians, because they did not believe in the
gods of the Heathen, expressly says, “We worship and adore the Father,
and the Son who came from him and taught us these things, and the
prophetic Spirit;” and soon after, in the same apology, he undertakes to
show the reasonableness of the honour paid by Christians to the Father
in the first place, to the Son in the second, and to the Holy Ghost in
the third; and says, that their assigning the second place to a
crucified man, was, by unbelievers, denominated madness, because they
were ignorant of the mystery, which he then proceeds to explain.
Athenagoras, in replying to the same charge of atheism urged against
Christians, because they refused to worship the false gods of the
Heathen, says, “Who would not wonder, when he knows that we, who call
upon God the Father, and God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, showing
their power in the unity, and their distinction in order, should be
called atheists?” Clement of Alexandria not only mentions three divine
persons, but invokes them as one only God. Praxeas, Sabellius, and other
Unitarians, accused the orthodox Christians of tritheism, which is of
itself a clear proof that the orthodox worshipped the Father, the Son,
and the Holy Ghost; and though in reality they considered these three
persons as constituting the one true God, it is obvious that their
enemies might easily represent that worship as an acknowledgment of
three Gods. Tertullian, in writing against Praxeas, maintains, that a
Trinity rationally conceived is consistent with truth, and that unity
irrationally conceived forms heresy. He had before said, in speaking of
the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, that “there are three of one substance,
and of one condition, and of one power, because there is one God:” and
he afterward adds, “The connection of the Father in the Son, and of the
Son in the Comforter, makes three united together, the one with the
other; which three are one thing, not one person; as it is said, I and
the Father are one thing, with regard to the unity of substance, not to
the singularity of number:” and he also expressly says, “The Father is
God, and the Son is God, and the Holy Ghost is God;” and again, “The
Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, believed to be three, constitute
one God.” And in another part of his works he says, “There is a Trinity
of one Divinity, the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Ghost.” And
Tertullian not only maintains these doctrines, but asserts that they
were prior to any heresy, and had, indeed, been the faith of Christians
from the first promulgation of the Gospel. To these writers of the
second century, we may add Origen and Cyprian in the third; the former
of whom mentions baptism (alluding to its appointed form) as “the source
and fountain of graces to him who dedicates himself to the divinity of
the adorable Trinity.” And the latter, after reciting the same form of
baptism, says that “by it Christ delivered the doctrine of the Trinity,
unto which mystery or sacrament the nations were to be baptized.” It
would be easy to multiply quotations upon this subject; but these are
amply sufficient to show the opinions of the early fathers, and to
refute the assertion that the doctrine of the Trinity was an invention
of the fourth century. To these positive testimonies may be subjoined a
negative argument: those who acknowledged the divinity of Christ and of
the Holy Ghost, are never called heretics by any writer of the first
three centuries; and this circumstance is surely a strong proof that the
doctrine of the Trinity was the doctrine of the primitive church; more
especially, since the names of those who first denied the divinity of
Christ and of the Holy Ghost, are transmitted to us as of persons who
dissented from the common faith of Christians.
But while we contend that the doctrine of the Trinity in Unity is
founded in Scripture, and supported by the authority of the early
Christians, we must acknowledge that it is not given to man to
understand in what manner the three persons are united, or how,
separately and jointly, they are God. It would, perhaps, have been well,
if divines, in treating this awful and mysterious subject, had confined
themselves to the expressions of Scripture; for the moment we begin to
explain it beyond the written word of God, we plunge ourselves into
inextricable difficulties. And how can it be otherwise? Is it to be
expected that our finite understandings should be competent to the full
comprehension of the nature and properties of an infinite Being? “Can we
find out the Almighty to perfection,” Job xi, 7; or penetrate into the
essence of the Most High? “God is a Spirit,” John iv, 24, and our gross
conceptions are but ill-adapted to the contemplation of a pure and
spiritual Being. We know not the essence of our own mind, nor the
precise distinction of its several faculties; and why then should we
hope to comprehend the personal characters which exist in the Godhead?
“If I tell you earthly things, and you understand them not, how shall ye
understand if I tell you heavenly things?” When we attempt to
investigate the nature of the Deity, whose existence is commensurate
with eternity, by whose power the universe was created, and by whose
wisdom it is governed; whose presence fills all space, and whose
knowledge extends to the thoughts of every man in every age, and to the
events of all places, past, present, and to come, the mind is quickly
lost in the vastness of these ideas, and, unable to find any sure guide
to direct its progress, it becomes, at every step, more bewildered and
entangled in the endless mazes of metaphysical abstraction. “God is a
God that hideth himself.” “We cannot by searching find out God.”
“Behold, God is great, and we know him not,” Job xxiii, 9; xi, 7; xxxvi,
26. “Such knowledge is too wonderful and excellent for us; it is high;
we cannot attain unto it,” Psalm cxxxix, 6. It is for us, simply and in
that docile spirit which becomes us, to receive the testimony of God as
to himself, and to fix ourselves upon that firmest of all foundations,
and most rational of all evidence, “Thus saith the Lord.”
TRIUMPHS, MILITARY. The Hebrews, under the direction of inspired
prophets, celebrated their victories by triumphal processions, the women
and children dancing, and playing upon musical instruments, and singing
hymns and songs of triumph to the living and true God. The song of Moses
at the Red Sea, which was sung by Miriam and the women of Israel to the
dulcet beat of the timbrel, is a majestic example of the triumphal hymns
of the ancient Hebrews. The song of Deborah and Barak, after the
decisive battle in which Sisera lost his life, and Jabin his dominion
over the tribes of Israel, is a production of the same sort, in which
the spirit of genuine heroism and of true religion are admirably
combined. But the song which the women of Israel chanted when they went
out to meet Saul and his victorious army, after the death of Goliath,
and the discomfiture of the Philistines, possesses somewhat of a
different character, turning chiefly on the valorous exploits of Saul
and the youthful champion of Israel: “And it came to pass, as they came,
when David was returned from the slaughter of the Philistine, that the
women came out of all the cities of Israel, singing and dancing, to meet
King Saul with tabrets, with joy, and with instruments of music: and the
women answered one another as they played, and said, Saul hath slain his
thousands, and David his ten thousands,” 1 Sam. xviii, 6, 7. But the
most remarkable festivity, perhaps, on the records of history, was
celebrated by Jehoshaphat, the king of Judah, in a succeeding age. When
that religious prince led forth his army to battle against a powerful
confederacy of his neighbours, he appointed a band of sacred music to
march in front, praising the beauty of holiness as they went before the
army, “and to say, Praise the Lord, for his mercy endureth for ever.”
After the discomfiture of their enemies, he assembled his army in the
valley of Beracha, near the scene of victory, where they resumed the
anthem of religious praise: “Then they returned, every man of Judah and
Jerusalem, and Jehoshaphat in the fore front of them, to go again to
Jerusalem with joy; for the Lord had made them to rejoice over their
enemies. And they came to Jerusalem with psalteries, and harps, and
trumpets, unto the house of the Lord,” 2 Chron. xx, 21, 27. Instead of
celebrating his own heroism, or the valour of his troops, on this
memorable occasion, that excellent prince sung with his whole army the
praises of the Lord of hosts, who disposes of the victory according to
his pleasure. This conduct was becoming the descendant and successor of
David, the man according to God’s own heart, and a religious people, the
peculiar inheritance of Jehovah.
The Roman conquerors used to carry branches of palm in their hands when
they went in triumph to the capitol; and sometimes wore the _toga
palmata_, a garment with the figures of palm trees upon it, which were
interwoven in the fabric. In the same triumphant attitude, the Apostle
John beheld in vision those who had overcome by the blood of the lamb,
standing “before the throne, clothed with white robes, and palms in
their hands,” Rev. vii, 9. The highest military honour which could be
obtained in the Roman state, was a triumph, or solemn procession, in
which a victorious general and his army advanced through the city to the
capitol. He set out from the Campus Martius, and proceeded along the Via
Triumphalis, and from thence through the most public places of the city.
The streets were strewed with flowers, and the altars smoked with
incense. First went a numerous band of music, singing and playing
triumphal songs; next were led the oxen to be sacrificed, having their
horns gilt, and their heads adorned with fillets and garlands; then, in
carriages, were brought the spoils taken from the enemy; also golden
crowns sent by the allied and tributary states. The titles of the
vanquished nations were inscribed on wooden frames; and images or
representations of the conquered countries and cities were exhibited.
The captive leaders followed in chains, with their children and
attendants; after the captives came the lictors, having their faces
wreathed with laurel, followed by a great company of musicians and
dancers, dressed like satyrs, and wearing crowns of gold; in the midst
of whom was a pantomime, clothed in a female garb, whose business it
was, with his looks and gestures, to insult the vanquished; a long train
of persons followed, carrying perfumes; after them came the general,
dressed in purple, embroidered with gold, with a crown of laurel on his
head, a branch of laurel in his right hand, and in his left an ivory
sceptre, with an eagle on the top, his face painted with vermilion, and
a golden ball hanging from his neck on his breast; he stood upright in a
gilded chariot, adorned with ivory, and drawn by four white horses,
attended by his relations, and a great crowd of citizens, all in white.
His children rode in the chariot along with him; his lieutenants and
military tribunes, commonly by his side. After the general followed the
consuls and senators, on foot; and the whole procession was closed by
the victorious army drawn up in order, crowned with laurel, and
decorated with the gifts which they had received for their valour,
singing their own and their general’s praises. The triumphal procession
was not confined to the Romans; the Greeks had a similar custom; for the
conquerors used to make a procession through the middle of their city,
crowned with garlands, repeating hymns and songs, and brandishing their
spears; the captives followed in chains, and all their spoils were
exposed to public view.