cases than one they have ascribed to me,) but such gross ignorance on the subject as is barely credible with respect to men who voluntarily undertook to criticize another.

On this subject (with respect to which I am willing to appeal to the most prejudiced of my readers, and which, when it is well considered, will appear to be, in fact, decisive in favour of the Unitarian doctrine having been taught by the apostles) the Bishop of St. David's, in both his last publications, has been absolutely silent; and I am persuaded he will continue to

be so.

Mr. Badcock charging me with a wilful perversion of the passage in Justin Martyr, in which he is also countenanced by Bishop Horsley, is another instance of a premature triumph of the same kind; discovering both their ignorance of the subject of this controversy, and of a very common idiom of the Greek language. This charge I will also venture to say the Bishop of St. David's will not repeat.

I cannot help congratulating the friends of free inquiry on the attention that is given to the subject of this controversy, and the happy effects of this attention, indifferent, or distasteful, as it is to many. Though the superior orders of the clergy do not, for reasons that may easily be conceived, engage in the public discussion, it is frequently the subject of their charges to the clergy, of which that of the Bishop of Peterborough, noticed page 168, is one instance. But another proof of a singularly curious nature appears in a bill that was to have been brought into the House of Commons in favour of the Catholics the last session of parliament. For among the provisos in this bill, the seventh in

number is the following, which I give verbatim from a printed copy put into my hands:

"PROVISO, THAT THE ACT SHALL NOT EXTEND TO PERSONS WRITING AGAINST THE TRINITY.'

This bill was not actually brought into parliament; but it had been settled with the minister, and the several articles of it had undergone much discussion. That this proviso was not inserted by the Catholics is very evident, nor could it have any meaning with respect to them; since they can no more be suspected of a disposition to write against the doctrine of the trinity, than against that of transubstantiation, both of them being equally fundamental articles of their creed. The real aspect of this clause, therefore, must be towards some persons who are known to disbelieve that doctrine, and who may be suspected of an intention to write against it; and the intimation it conveys is, that no favour is to be shown by government to such persons. But what is sufficient to my purpose is, that it shows, in the strongest light, the extreme apprehensions of some persons in power (no doubt either bishops, or statesmen influenced by bishops) on the subject of this controversy.

As to the intimation, given in so awkward and roundabout a manner, that no favour will be shown by the present government to those who, like myself, write against the doctrine of the trinity, it is sufficient to inform them, of what they might have discovered themselves, that our silence is not to be procured by such means. If we be silenced at all, it must be by argument, not by such implied threats. Let ministers of state direct the bishops to defend their cause by writing, and let not bishops so evidently betray their want of

confidence in argument, as to engage the ministry to oppose us by laws. Though both the methods will be ineffectual, there will be greater propriety in the former than in the latter.

This controversy having continued several years, and so much attention having been given to it, that there can be no doubt but that those who are most interested in the defence of the doctrine of the trinity must have produced all that they could allege in its favour, both the parties may now be supposed to be come to an issue; so that we may leave the decision to our proper judges, the learned Public. As to myself, I do not wish to tire my readers with a repetition of the same answers to the same arguments; and I ́am as little ambitious of having the last word, for the sake of its being so, as the Bishop of St. David's; and it must be something more specious, at least, than any thing that I have yet seen from him, or any other of my antagonists, that will convince me of the propriety of writing any more of these Defences. At a proper time I shall probably, in imitation of my antagonist, reprint all my Tracts in this controversy, and then I shall have an opportunity of noticing any thing that I may think deserving of it. My backwardness to write, when I have been properly called upon, has not yet been complained of.

I had proposed to conclude this controversy with a Serious Address to the Bench of Bishops, and to the Legislature of this Country. But I do not know that it will be necessary; as nothing I could say would be materially different from what I have already, and repeatedly, advanced on several other occasions. In this, however, I shall be determined by the circumstances

in which I may hereafter find myself. I particularly recommend an attention to what I have briefly urged in the conclusion of my History of the Corruptions of Christianity, my History of early Opinions concerning Christ, and my Letter to Mr. Pitt.

Εχθρον δε μοι εστιν

Αντίς αριζήλως ειρημενα μυθολογεύειν.

BIRMINGHAM,

January 1, 1790.

HOMERI ODYSS.

LETTERS

TO THE

LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'S.

LETTER I.

Of his Lordship's avowed Object to depretiate his Antagonist.

MY LORD,

AFTER waiting, I believe, nearly twice eighteen months, the interval between your two preceding publications in this controversy, I am happy to see you make your appearance in it once more. Your Lordship's greatest admirers have not wished for this event so ardently as myself and my unitarian friends; because we consider your publications in this controversy as contributing in an eminent manner to the propagation of that great truth for which we think it glorious to contend, and which you oppose. The fact unquestionably is, that, since the commencement of this controversy, the progress of unitarianism has been rapid, compared to what it ever was before; and more within the church of England than among the Dissenters, though among them the number of converts has been considerable.

Truth will never fail to recommend and establish itself, notwithstanding, and even by means of, all