For this reason, in the Addenda to the first volume the Augustinian theory is introduced, and very briefly shown to be, not only contrary to the common sense and moral sense of mankind, but also without support from the Bible. Before publication, this work was sent to a large number of those regarded as among the most acute and profound theologians of the several classes described herein, with the request that if they detected inaccuracies as to _facts_, or _fallacious reasonings_, they would point them out for revision. In making this appeal it was stated that the writer had little taste for metaphysics or theology, and had been driven to them in the stress of great sorrow and under a tremendous pressure of motive as narrated in the Introduction. Several of those thus addressed, returned criticisms and remarks in reply. The book was then issued, in which the author appeared not in the attitude of a teacher, but as an inquirer. And the closing inquiries were: Are these principles of common sense accepted? Is _the system_ of natural religion evolved by their aid accepted? Is the Augustinian theory of depravity, as tried by these principles and the rules of interpretation, supported either by reason or the Bible? The work, as thus revised, was again sent to these same theologians, and it was noticed in most of the periodicals. The result was the same as was accorded to the arguments of the _Conflict of Ages_. Some criticisms on style, language and minor matters appeared in the notices of the book, but the above main questions thus submitted were met with an ominous _silence_. None of the theologians of any school has pointed out any misstatement of any specific fact; nor have they attempted to dispute the principles of common sense set forth, or the results of their application in the _system_ thus evolved. Nor have they attempted to show that the passage in the Bible on which the Augustinian theory chiefly rests, is sanctioned by the interpretations of the apostolic ages, or that the interpretation of it in the _Conflict of Ages_, is incorrect. Moreover, in the columns of the Independent, in reply to their notice of her work, the following statement was made by the author: “The case stands thus: I am aiming to present, in a short and popular form, in my next volume, the _evidence_ that, in the Bible, we have _reliable_ and _authoritative_ revelations from the Creator, and to educe from these documents the true answer, not only to the question, ‘What must _we do_ to be saved?’ but to the grand question of my own profession, ‘What must we do the most effectively to train the young mind to virtue and immortality?’ “At my first step I am met by ‘Young America,’ with such an honest, amiable, and powerful leader as Theodore Parker. Regarded as holding the creed in which I was educated, and most of my life have advocated, I am thus interrogated: