"In a state of society in which every inch of land, every blade of grass, every spray of water, every bird and flower has an owner, what has the poor man to do with orthodox religion which begins by proclaiming him a miserable sinner, and ends by leaving him a miserable slave, as far as unrequited toil goes? "The poor man finds himself in an _armed_ world where might is God, and poverty is fettered. Abroad the hired soldier blocks up the path of freedom, and the priest the path of progress. Every penniless man, woman, and child is virtually the property of the capitalist, no less in England than is the slave in New Orleans.* Society blockades poverty, leaving it scarce escape. The artisan is engaged in an imminent struggle against wrong and injustice; then what has he the struggler, to do with doctrines which brand him with inherited guilt, which paralyse him by an arbitrary faith, which deny saving power to good works, which menace him with eternal perdition?" The two first works of importance, controverting Secularist principles, were by the Rev. Joseph Parker and Dr. J. A. Langford; Dr. Parker was ingenious, Dr. Langford eloquent. I had discussed with Dr. Parker in Banbury. In his _Six Chapters on Secularism_** which was the title of his book, he makes pleasant references to that debate. The _Christian Weekly News_ of that day said: "These Six Chapters have been written by a young provincial minister of great power and promise, of whom the world has not yet heard, but of whom it will hear pleasing things some day." * Not entirely so. The English slave can run away--at his own peril. ** Published by my, then, neighbour, William Freeman, of 69 Fleet Street, himself an energetic, pleasant-minded Christian. This prediction has come true. I had told Mr. Freeman that the "young preacher" had given me that impression in the discussion with him. Dr. Parker said in his first Chapter that, "If the New Testament teachings oppose our own consciousness, violate our moral sense, lead us out of sympathy with humanity, then we shall abandon them." This was exactly the case of Secularism which he undertook to confute. Dr. Langford held a more rational religion than Dr. Parker. His _Answer_, which reached a second thousand, had passages of courtesy and friendship, yet he contended with graceful vigor against opinions--three-fourths of which justified his own. In an address delivered Sept. 29, 1851, I had said that, "There were three classes of persons opposed to Christianity:-- "1. The dissolute. "2. The indifferent. "3. The intellectually independent.