other Doctor can put his name boldly to a book in favour of Theism, loudly call the supporters of a contrary doctrine to the argument, and if no answer is produced, assert their own reasoning to be unanswerable.  In that sense their sort of reasoning has been frequently unanswerable.  Here however is an instance of a poor unknown individual, making experience of the candour of the ecclesiastics and the equity of the laws of England, for he ventures to subscribe his publication with his name as well as Dr. Priestley does his Letters, to which this publication is an answer.  Perhaps he may have cause to repent of his hardiness, but if he has, he is equally resolved to glory in his martyrdom, as to suffer it.  Whatever advantage religion has had in the enumeration of it’s martyrs, the cause of atheism may boast the same.  As to the instances of the professors of any particular form of religion, or modification of that form, such as Christians or sects of Christians, suffering martyrdom for their belief, I shall no more allow them to be martyrs for theism than Pagans similarly suffering for their belief, shall I call martyrs for atheism.  Theism very likely has had it’s martyrs.  I can instance one I think in Socrates, and I shall mention Vanini as a martyr for atheism.  The conduct of those two great men in their last moments may be worth attending to.  The variety of other poor heretical wretches, who have been immolated at the shrine of absurdity for all the possible errors of human credence, let them have their legendary fame.  I put them out of the scale in this important inquiry.

Not that I really think the argument to be much advanced by naming the great supporters of one opinion or of another.  In mathematics, mechanics, natural philosophy, in literature, taste, and politics the sentiments of great men of great genius are certainly of weight.  There are some subjects capable of demonstration, many indeed which the ingenuity of one man can go farther to illustrate than that of another.  The force of high authority is greater in the three former sciences than in the latter.  Theism and Atheism I hold to be neither of them strictly demonstrable.  You, Dr. Priestley, agree with me in that.  Still I hold the question capable of being illustrated by argument, and I should hold the authority of great men’s names to be of more weight in this subject, were I not necessarily forced to consider that all education is strongly calculated to support the idea of a Deity; by this education prejudice is introduced, and prejudice is nothing else than a corruption of the understanding.  Certain principles, call them, if you please, data, must be agreed upon before any reasoning can take place.  Disputants must at least agree in the ideas which they annex to the language they use.  But when prejudice has made a stand, argumentation is set at so wide a distance, through a want of fixt data to proceed upon, that attention is in vain applied to the dispute.  Besides, the