I. The Biblical Doctrine. — It has always been allowed that the doctrine of the Trinity was not fully revealed before tiie time of Christ, and is clearly taught only in the New Test. Yet, while it is true (1 ) that if the New Test, did not exist we coidd not derive the doctrine of the Trinity from the Old Test, alone, it is equally true
(2) that by the manner of (iod's revelation of himself in the Old Test, the way was prepared for the more full disclosure of his nature that was afterwards made. But
(3) respecting the intimate connection of these persons, or respecting other distinctions which belong to the doctrine of the Trinity, there is nothing said in the (31d Test. While in each particular text allusion is made to a trinity or plurality in God, yet these texts are so many in number and so various in kind that they im- press one with the o|)inion that such a plurality in God
is indicated in the Old Test., though it is not fully develojied or clearly defined.
(I.) The texts of the Old Test, may be arranged iu the following classes:
1. Those giving the names of God in the plural form, and thus seeming to indicate a plurality of his nature, of which C'TI'JN. "'ITN, n"'i"'np are cited as examples ; but as these may be only the pluralis mujestaliriis of the Oriental languages, they afford no certain proof.
2. Texts in which tiod speaks of himself in the )ilurnl. The plural in many of these cases can be accounted for from the use of the plural nouns D''ri'3X, "3TN, etc. Philo thinks (De Opif. Muiidi, p. 17) that in the ex- pression " Let us make man" (Gen. i, 2(1), God addresses the angels. It is not inicommon in Hebrew for kings to speak of themselves in the plural (1 Kings xii, 9; 2 Chron. X, 9; Ezra iv, 18). In Isa. vi, 8 God asks, who will go for us (^13^), where the plural form may be ex- plained either as the pluralis mujestaticus, or as denoting an assembly for consultation.
3. Texts in which n'ri"' (Jehovah) is distinguished from D"'rl3X (Elohim). These texts do not, however, furnish any decisive proof; for in the simplicity of an- cient style the noun is often repeated instead of using the pronoim; and so, from Jehovah may mean f-om himself, etc. Further, the name D"'!l'"X (Elolum) is sometimes given to earthly kings, and does not, there- fore, necessarily prove that the person to whom it is given must be of the divine nature.
4. Texts in which express mention is made of the Son of God and of the l/oly Spirit.
(a.) Of the Son of God.— The principal text of this class is Psa. ii, 7, " Thou art my son ; this day have I begotten thee;" comp. Psa. Ixxii, 1 ; Ixxxix, 27. This Psalm was understood by the Jews and by the writers of the New Test, to relate to the Messiah. But the name Son of God was not unfretiuently given to kings; it is not, therefore, nomen essenti(e, itut dirpnt(ttis A/essi- ance. The passage woidd then mean. " Thou art the king (Messiah) of my appointment ; this day have I de- clared thee such." In this psalm, therefore, the IMessiah is rather exhibited as king, divinely appointed ruler and head of the Church, than as belonging to the divine nature.
{h.) Of the /Ml/ Spirit. — There are many texts of this class, but none from which, taken by themselves, the personality of the Holy Spirit can be proved. In these texts the term Ifoli/ Spirit may mean (1) the divine nature in general; (2) particidar divine attributes, as omnipotence, knowledge, or omniscience; (3) the divine agencv, which is its more common meaning. Isa. xlviii, 16. "And now Jehovah (the Father) and his Spirit (Holy Ghost) hath sent me" (the Jlessiah), is supposed to teach the whole doctrine of the Trinity. But the expression "and his Spirit" is used by the prophets to mean the direct, immediate command of God. To say, then, the Lord and his Spirit hath sent me is the same as to say, the Lord hath sent me by a direct, immediate command.
5. Texts in which thr-ee persons are expressly men- tioned, or in which there is a clear reference to the number three (Numb, vi, 24; Psa. xxxiii, 6 ; Isa. vi, 3). But the repetition of the word Jehovah in the one text is not an undeniable proof of the Trinity; and in the other, the word of his mouth means nothing more than his command; and in the last text the threefold repeti- tion of the word holy may have been by three choirs, all uniting in the last words, "The whole earth is full of thy glory."
Tbns it appears that none of the passages cited from the Old Test, in proof of the Trinity are conclusive when taken by themselves ; but, as was before stated, when they are all taken together, they convey the impression that at least a plurality in the godhead was obscurely- indicated in the Jewish Scriptures.
TRINITY
552
TRINITY
(ir.) Since we do not find in the Old Test, clear or decided proof upon this sidjject, we must now turn to the Xcw Test. The texts relating; to tlie doctrine of the Trinity may be divided into two classes — tliose in which the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are menti(tned in connection, and those in which these three subjects are menlu>ned separately, and in which their nature and mutual relation are more ])articnlarly described.