(as appears when we scrutinise into our ideas) no conception and therefore can give no account.  It is said, after all this, that men do still believe in such a Deity, I then do say in return, they do not make use of their intellects.  The moment we go into a belief beyond what we feel, see and understand, we might as well believe in will-with-a-whisp as in God.  But I would fix morality upon a better basis than belief in a Deity.  If it has indeed at present no other basis, it is not morality, it is selfishness, it is timidity; it is the hope of reward, it is the dread of punishment.  For a great and good man, shew me one who loves virtue because he finds a pleasure in it, who has acquired a taste for that pleasure by considering what and where happiness is, who is not such a fool as to seek misery in preference to happiness, whose honour is his Deity, whose conscience is his judge.  Put such a man in combat against the superstitious son of Spain or Portugal, it were easy to say who would shew the truest courage.  The question might be more voluminously discussed, but I feel already proof of conviction; if you, Dr. Priestley, do not, perhaps some other readers may.  I have nothing to do with men of low minds.  They will always have their religion or pretence of it, but I am mistaken if it is not the gallows or the pillory that more govern their morals than the gospel or the pulpit.

After all, atheism may be a system only for the learned.  The ignorant of all ages have believed in God.  The answer of a Philosophical Unbeliever though written in the vulgar tongue may probably not reach the vulgar.  If argument had prevailed they were long converted from their superstitious belief.  The sentiments of atheistical philosophers have long been published.  If mischief therefore could ensue to society from such free discussions, that mischief society must long have felt.  I think truth should never be hid, but few are those who mind it.  I will therefore take upon myself but little importance though I have presumed to preface an answer from a Philosophical Unbeliever to Letters which you, Dr. Priestley have written.  If you deem that answer detrimental to the interests of society, you will recollect that you invite the proposal of objections and promise to answer all as well as you can.  If you should happen to be exasperated by the freedom of the language or the contrariety of the sentiment, this answer will gain weight in proportion as you lose in the credit of a tolerant Divine.  Therefore if you reply at all, reply with candour and with coolness; heed the matter and not the man, though I subscribe my name, and am

     Reverend Sir,
     Your friend, admirer, and humble servant,
     WILLIAM HAMMON.

Oxford-Street, No. 418. Jan. 1, 1782.

ANSWER FROM A PHILOSOPHICAL UNBELIEVER.