Attributed to Matthew Turner (d. 1788?) and William Hammon.
Transcribed by the Freethought Archives
NOTE: Irregularities in orthography and punctuation have beenreproduced without emendation from the first edition of 1782.
The Editor of this publication has more in object to answer Dr. Priestleythan to deliver his own sentiments upon Natural Religion, which howeverhe has no inclination to disguise: but he does not mean to be answerablefor them farther, than as by reason and nature he is at presentinstructed. The question here handled is not so much, whether aDeity and his attributed excellences exist, as whether there is anyNatural or Moral proof of his existence and of those attributes.Revealed knowledge is not descanted upon; therefore Christians at leastneed take no offence. Doubts upon Natural Religion have not hithertobeen looked upon as attacks upon Revelation, but rather as corroborationsof it. What the Editor believes as a Christian (if he is one istherefore another affair, nor does he reckon himself so infallible orincapable of alteration in his sentiments, as not at another time toadopt different ones upon more reflexion and better information;therefore, though he has at present little or no doubt of what heasserts (taken upon the principles laid down) he shall hold himselftotally freed from any necessity of defending the contents of thispublication if brought into controversy; and as he has no desire ofmaking converts, hopes he shall not himself be marked out as an objectof persecution.
Speculative points have always been esteemed fair matters for a freediscussion. The religion established in this country is not thereligion of Nature, but the religion of Moses and Jesus, with whom thewriter has nothing to do. He trusts therefore he shall not be receivedas a malevolent disturber of such common opinions as are esteemed tokeep in order a set of low wretches so inclinable to be lawless. Atleast, if he attempts to substitute better foundations for morality,malevolence can be no just charge. Truth is his aim; and no professorsof religion will allow their system to be false. Or if he should bethought too bold a speculator, such of the ecclesiastics as will be hisopponents may rather laugh at him than fear him. They have a thousandways of making their sentiments go down with the bulk of mankind, toone this poor writer has. They are an army ready marshalled for thesupport of their own thesis; they are in the habit of controversy;pulpits are open to them as well as the press; and while the presentauthor will be looked upon as a miracle of hardiness for daring to puthis name to what he publishes, they can without fear or imputation liftup their heads; and should they even be known to transgress the boundsof good sense or politeness, they will only be esteemed as more zealouslabourers in their own vocation.
Dr. Priestley,
Your Letters addressed to a Philosophical Unbeliever I perused, notbecause I was a Philosopher or an Unbeliever; it were presumption togive myself the former title, and at that time I certainly did notdeserve the latter; but as I was acquainted with another, who inreality, as far as I and others who know him can judge, deserves thetitle of a Philosopher and is neither ashamed nor afraid of that of anUnbeliever, I conceived them apt to be sent to my friend, a