That "God" in this passage means the Father, no one will deny. Here, then, we have an inspired Apostle, solemnly addressing the Supreme Being in behalf of the Corinthian Church; but his address is not to the Father only, but to the three Divine persons, namely, Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. It is certain, therefore, that the three addressed by Paul, are the one God whom he worshipped.

The

But let Arianism interpret this prayer. Bible teaches that "the grace of God bringeth salvation" that we are saved "by grace," and that this grace is "the gift of GOD." Paul says, "By the grace of God I am what I am," and he expressly declares, that his preaching was "to testify the gospel of the grace of God." Now when he comes to pray for his Corinthian brethren, he prays for "the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ." If then, as Arians tell us, Christ is a creature, and a distinct being from God, the prayer of Paul was not for the grace of God, but of a poor finite creature! He enjoyed the grace of God himself-the only grace that can bring salvation-but, upon the Arian hypothesis, when he prays for others he asks only the grace of an inferior, dependent "agent !"

But enough has been said on the subject of this chapter. Though we might greatly enlarge the above list of texts, we consider those already quoted as abundantly sufficient. Our object has been to show that while the Scriptures reveal but one God, and yet reveal three Divine Persons, of one substance, power, and eternity, they reconcile the apparent contradiction by uniting the Father, Word, and Holy Ghost, as the one living and true God. 'This point we now consider established. We have shown that the God that sent forth Isaiah, was a God consisting of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost

that these three are the one God to whom the Apostles prayed, and the Father, Word, and Holy Ghost are ONE. With this summary we shall close the argument, so far as direct proofs are concerned, and proceed in the next chapter to consider objections.

CHAPTER X.

OBJECTIONS TO THE DOCTRINE OF THE TRINITY-
ANSWERED.

Ir is well known that the usual course pursued by modern Arians, in propagating their doctrine, is to stand at a respectful distance from the arguments of their opponents, and raise objections to the doctrine of the Trinity. To this we should not object, provided they were candid and fair in their animadversions; but the truth is, not one in ten of their objections is urged against our real sentiments. They first misapprehend or wilfully distort our views, and then fall upon their own Agag, and hew him to pieces. Having destroyed their man of straw, they often rejoice, as if they had driven Trinitarianism from the earth. This farce has been acted over and over again in different parts of the country.

If our opponents would state our views as they are, or suffer our articles to speak for themselves, without a forced construction, the doctrine of the Trinity would furnish within itself an answer to every reasonable objection. But to proceed :

I. It is objected that "the doctrine of the Trinity

is of human origin." In support of this position, Millard asserts, that the doctrine of the Trinity was invented at the Council of Nice, A. D. 325, and completed at the Council of Constantinople, A. D. 381. That creeds were formed by these Councils as declarations of the general faith, we do not deny; but this fact is decidedly in our favor. These primitive Christians took the Bible for their guide, and after the proud and ambitious Arius introduced his heresy, and began to spread it abroad, Constantine assembled the ministers of the Church to discuss this doctrine, in the presence of the Arian party, and to pronounce upon its character. At this Council they condemned Arianism, and declared the doctrine of the Trinity to be the doctrine of the primitive Church, and of the Bible. A person of very limited historical knowledge must know this to be the fact. We have, then, this proof, that the doctrine of the Trinity was the doctrine of the Church of Christ; and was pronounced such in her confessions of faith, at least as far back as within 225 years of the death of St. John.

Again: If this doctrine is of human origin, how is it that nearly all who have taken the Bible for their guide, in all ages of the Church, have been Trinitarians? How is it that the great majority of learned and pious Christians have found this doctrine in the Bible; while comparatively few have rejected it?

II. It is objected that this doctrine is “ an invention of Popery." The objection just now considered is a sufficient answer to this. If the doctrine was invented at the Council of Nice, A. D. 325, it cannot be an invention of Popery; for the Bishop of Rome was not acknowledged Universal Bishop or Pope till A. D. 606; so that there was no "Popery" till

281 years after the Nicene Council. The doctrine of the Trinity was known at least 281 years before Popery was known, even Arians themselves being judges.

This objection, when stated in a Protestant community, is an appeal to prejudice rather than to the judgment. Suppose Catholics do hold to the doctrine of the Trinity, does that circumstance militate against its truth? Do they not hold to other doctrines that are considered fundamental in Christianity, even by Arians? That Popery is a corrupt religion, both in theory and practice, we firmly believe; but to reject every doctrine that is held by the Catholics, would be to reject the being of a God, the immortality of the soul, the resurrection of the dead, and future rewards and punishments, as well as the doctrine of the Trinity.

In our view, the fact that Romanists are Trinitarians, is in favor of the truth of the doctrine. While they have corrupted many doctrines, and have covered up others, during the nine hundred years of their ascendency, the doctrine of the Trinity remains unchanged and uncorrupted, the same as in the days of Constantine. This shows that it was too conspicuous and prominent on the pages of the Bible to be covered up, and too stern and pointed in its evidences to yield to their efforts at corruption. Again: we all know that there is a tendency in human nature, to go from one extreme to another. When Luther and his coadjutors came out from the Romish Church, and protested against her doctrines and practices, they rejected every thing that they did not find revealed in the word of God. In sifting truth from error, they were far more liable under the circumstances to reject a truth, because they found it with Romish errors, than to adopt and

perpetuate mere Papal inventions as the truth of God. But with all their prejudices, they transfer the doctrine of the Trinity from the Romish to the Protestant Church, as a doctrine of the Bible-a doctrine which they dare not reject as a human invention, much as they despised the errors and corruptions of Popery.

Now, if this doctrine has been in every branch of the Church up to 1517, and at that time passed the ordeal of the Reformation as a Bible doctrine -if at this ordeal, where the Bible was made the law, and prejudiced men the judges, this doctrine was acquitted as true, and adopted as from heaven; what reasonable man will be terrified by the cry of "Popery ?" or be influenced in the least by this frivolous objection?

III. A third objection is, that "the doctrine of the Trinity is unscriptural." This is grounded mainly upon the fact, that the words "Trinity," "incarnation," &c., are not found in the Bible. "If these phrases were in the Bible," says Kinkade, "I would not say a word against them; but, as neither the word Trinity, co-equal, co-essential, &c., is in the Holy Scriptures, but are all mere human inventions, no person who takes the Bible for a standard, will consider me erroneous for rejecting them." Again, he says, "It is not common for logicians to dispute much about words, when they agree in idea." But do not Arians claim to be "logicians ?" and do they not make the whole controversy turn upon "words?" We do not say the word " Trinity" is in the Bible, but the doctrine is there; and no logician will dispute about mere words. According to their own showing, then, the above objection is groundless.

After what has been said on the term Trinity &c., Chap. II, and the proofs adduced from the