new Sacrament, that his Unity fhould now be believed in a new," (that is, in a far more explicit) "manner, as inclufive of the Son, and of the Spirit; and that God, whose Unity was not clearly apprehended, as comprehenfive of the Son, and of the Spirit, when he was preached in time paft" (to the Jews)" might now be openly known according to his PROPER NAMES and [Namely, according to the Names and Perfons of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoft.]

PERSONS"

*

Tertullian pursues, "When I fay that the Father is one, the Son another, and the Spirit another, a fottish, or a perverfe man, takes that expreffion in a wrong fenfe, and fuppofing that it implies a diverfity" (of Gods)" from this miftaken diverfity, he pretends that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, are feparate."+

*The laconic ftyle of Tertullian has obliged me to add little parentheses, in italicks, to render his obvious meaning plain to an English reader. However, that Dr. P. may not complain, I'mhall transcribe, from his own Book, the original quotation:Judaicæ fides ifta res fic unum Deum credere, ut Filium adnumerare ei nolis, et poft Filium, Spiritum. Quid opus, Evangelii fi non exinde Pater, et Filius, et Spiritus, unum Deum fiftunt? Sic Deus voluit novare Sacramentum, ut nove unus crederetur per Filium et Spiritum, et coram jam Deus in fuis propriis Nominibus et Perfonis cognofceretur, qui et retro per Filium et Spiritum prædicatus non intelligebatur. Ad Praxeam, Se&t. 30. P 518.

+ Ecce enim dico alium effe Patrem, et alium Filium, et alium Spiritum. Male accipit Idiotes quifquis aut Perverfus hoc dictum, quafi diverfitatém fonet, et ex diverfitate feparationem prætendit Patris. Filii, et Spiritus. Ad Praxcam, Se&. 8. p. 504

I do not tranflate the word Idiotes, Unlearned (as Dr. P does) but Idiot, or Stupid. (1.) Becaufe this fenfe of it fuits beft the tenor of the whole Book, and of this particular fentence; and (2.) Because it has the primary meaning which Ainfworth ascribes to Idiota, and which he proves to be claffical, by obferving, that Cicero opposes the word Idiota to an intelligent and fenfible perfon. D. Horfley has, by the fame reafons, rescued another capital paffage of Tertullian, which Dr. P. had preffed into his fervice by the mistake I guard against.

Should

Should you, Sir, find fault with my translation of thefe two paffages, you will not difpute the exactness of your own translation of a third paffage from Tertullian's Works, which is a glorious teftimony, that, (according to the Catholic Faith, the REGULA FIDEI) the Son not only pre-cxifted, contrary to your favourite error, but was with the Father, the Maker of the world. You give us this wholesome antidote in your Remarks on the Rev. Mr. Badcock's Review of your Letters to Dr. Horsley, p. 18.

REGULA FIDEI (the Rule of Faith; you fay after Tertullian in the Treatife De Præfcriptione} by which we are taught to believe, that there is but one God, and this no other than the Maker of the world, who produced every thing out of nothing, by his own WORD then firft fet down: that the WORD was called his Son; that he appeared varioufly in the Name (that is, in the Character) of GOD, to the Patriarchs; that he was afterwards conveyed, by the Spirit and power of God the Father, into the Virgin Mary; that he was made flesh in her womb, and from her appeared in the perfon of Jefus Chrift, &c." We worshippers of God the Son manifeft in the flesh, are much obliged to you, Sir, for thus informing your readers, that the Rule of Faith taught the primitive Chriftians, Firft, that the Word and Son of God was fent out from the Father to produce the world out of nothing: Secondly, that this very Word or Son appeared variously to the Patriarchs in the character of GOD: and Thirdly, that He afterwards was made flesh in the womb of the Virgin Mary, and appeared in the perfon of Jefus Chrift. This is all we contend for: You prove that it was the Catholic Faith, and yet you are fo forgetful of your own quotations, as to pretend to prove from the Fathers, that our Lord was a

From these three quotations it appears, that Dr. P. instead of demonftrating that the primitive Church was, in general, of his way of C thinking,

thinking, has only proved, that the primitive Rule of Faith was against him, and that in Tertullian's days, about two hundred years after Chrift, fome mistaken perfons took exception against the doctrine of the Trinity: but who were these perfons, befides the unbelieving Jews and the heretick Praxeas? Truly the STUPID OF PERVERSE people, who chanced to hear the gofpel; and Dr. P. is welcome to all the weight they can add to his cause, and to all the honour they can confer upon his party.

What effect the learned Doctor's Book will

have upon the unwary, and upon those who take his partial quotations upon truft, I do not know: but I can fay with truth, that the 60th page of his long Hiftory, has confirmed me in the faith I vowed to Chrift at my baptifm, and feems to me fufficient to prevent the mifchief of the wholę. When God fuffers us to be tempted to dangerous errors, he always opens, with the temptation, a door that we may efcape: through his overruling Providence, the learned Doctor himself has here opened us the door, by informing us, that it was NOT judicious, and good Chriftians, but SOTTISH and PERVERSE people, who formerly miftook, and cavilled at, the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity. We thank the Doctor for the door, and making our eafy efcape at it; we blefs the Keeper of Ifrael, who takes the wife in their own net; and adapting the fecond Pfalm to the Builders, who, in our day, reject the head-ftone of the corner, we fing, The wife ones of the earth ftand up, and take counfel together against the Lord, and against his Anointed. But he that dwelleth in heaven fhall laugh: The Lord fhall have them in derifion. Be wife now, therefore, ye Philofophers be learned, ye that are Doctors in Ifrael. Kifs the Son, left he be angry, and fo ye perish in the fottishness or perverfeness of your unbelief.

THIRD

THIRD EXPOSTULATION.

BEAR, dear Sir, with the plainnefs of this ap plication. Did you err only in the lefs important truths of the gofpel, we would pass over in filence your theological miftakes, as refulting almoft neceffarily from your numerous avocations, and from the intenfenefs of your philofophical ftudies. But is this the cafe? Do you not bend yourfelf against the fundamentals of Chriftianity, against thofe very doctrines, which (excepting Mahomet's Miffion) moft peculiarly diftinguish the Bible from the Coran ? Mahomet forbids us to pay divine honours to any but the Father; whereas our Lord teaches us to honour the Son as we honour the Father, and to honour the Holy Ghoft as we do the Son; enjoining us to be equally baptized in the name (equally confecrated to the fervice) of the FATHER, of the Son, and of the HOLY GHOST; commanding us to receive with the fame "reverential awe, the teftimony of the Three, who bear witnefs in heaven, the FATHER, the WORD, and the SPIRIT; and directing us to pray and wait equally for the grace of our LORD JESUS CHRIST, for the love of God the Father, and for the fellowship of the HOLY GHOST. But, endeavouring to break the facred bonds of this adorable Trinity, you indirectly exhort us to make void the covenant of our Baptifm; urging us to renounce the adoration of Son, together with all dependence on his merits, and to difclaim all ex pectation of the influences of the Holy Spirit. And if he that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father; and if we have liberty of accefs to the Father only through the Son and by the Spirit (Eph. ii. 18.) then, it appears, if we follow you, we fhall not even worship the Father, but fhall in truth be also ev xoow, Atheists in the world, rejecting altogether the one true God, who, from the firft ftep of our Chriftian race, manifefts a Trinity to us, as the grand object of our religious confidence.

Nor do we advance a groundless charge, when we complain, that you weaken or deftroy the foundations of Chriftianity: for, when you af fert that the Son is a mere man, you indirectly tell us, that he is as improperly joined with the Father to be the great object of our faith in baptifm, as a taper would improperly be joined with the Sun to enlighten the universe. And when' you represent the Holy Ghoft as a fenfeless power, and a power whereby we must not now hope to be influenced, you might as well tell us, that he is as unfit to have a place among the Three who bear record in heaven, as your power of motion, or the energy of your mind, would be abfurdly mentioned as parties in a contract, where your name and perfon are particularly fpecified.Thus, you take from us the two Comforters, with whom we are peculiarly bleffed under the gospel. If we believe you, the one is a mere man, who cannot hear us; and the other is a mere property, or an unconfcious energy, by which we fhall be no way benefitted, and as infenfible to our faith as to our unbelief: and when our Lord' bids all nations to be baptized in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghoft, (if the Son does not mean the proper Son of God; if it means only the Son of the Carpenter Jofeph,' and if the Holy Ghoft is only the Father's energy, and an energy whereby we can neither be quickened nor comforted) this Gofpel-charter is far more extraordinary, than would be the Royal Patents, by which gentlemen are created Lords, if they all began thus, Be it enacted in the name, or by the fupreme authority of King George the Third, of Jofiah the Carpenter's Son, and of the royal power or energy, that A. B. Efq; be numbered among Peers of the Realm. Such is the wifdom difplayed by the Philofophers, who call the Divinity of the Son the leading corruption of Chriftianity, and who pretend to reform all the Reformed Churches!

FOURTH