PREFACE. THE following discussion was conducted in writing, the letters appearing, at intervals of a fortnight, in the pages of the Sccidar Rmiau. The two disputants had met in oral debate on the platform several times rcviously, when the same questions had been dealt with. But it was thought that Inore justice could be done to the views respectively advocated, by sitting down to write in the calm atmosphere of the Study than by extemporaneous speaking amid the noise, tumult, and excitement that usually prevail at public meetings. The result is now before the reader. The discussion was conducted during eleven months, the first letter appearing on November sth, 1880, and the last on October rst, 1881. That either disputant has made out the best possible case for the side espoused, is more than he can hope for. He has done his best in the space at his disposal-limited, after all, when the extensive nature of the subjects is taken into consideration. Each writer has studiously avoided anything like er sonality and abuse, and has always kept in view the fact that he was discussing principles, not men. That occa sionally strong language may have been employed, and warmth of feeling displayed, is possible but no offensive epithets have been used by one disputant of the other. That the follo ring pages may be carefully read and studied, is thc carnest desire of both. London, Nozember s f 1 IT is difficult to compare Secularism with Christianity, because the latter is a system complete in itself, which the former is not. Christianity is contained in the New Testament, and any one m110 desires to discover what it is has only to peruse that volume for himself. But where is the system ofSecularism to be found In the writings of Secularists 1 find no system. There are maxims, statements, precepts, etc., but they do not form a can sistent whole, And, moreover, Secularists themselves differ with regard to many points of teaching. Such differences are fatal to the whole thing, because outside of these there exists no authority to which an appeal can be made. How am 1 to learn what Secularism is wher, those only who are competent to speak upon the srrbjcc are not agreed among themselves If Mr. Varts announces certain views which he terms Secularism, why should I accept thein as such when they are rejected by ather Secularistic writers To give an ildustration, Mr. G, J, Holyoake says The most attractive explanation offered of religion is that it is the loftiest and crowning speculaiion which illuminates the field of human duty and the dim path of human destiny hta nm X, ., p., 304. Is this true, because, if it be, the present discussion is uncalled for, since 1 agree with every word of it But both Mr. Watts and Mr. Bradlaugh have written far