“I have read long arguments from Dr. Hodge of Princeton, proving that there is no such thing taught in Romans v., the only passage ever claimed to teach this doctrine that I ever heard of. My brother, Dr. E. Beecher, thus concludes a long argument on this subject in the Conflict of Ages: ‘The doctrine that our depraved natures or our sinful conduct have been _caused_ or _occasioned_ by the sin of Adam, is not asserted in any part of God’s word.’ ” The high, moral and intellectual character of the gentlemen to whom this appeal was thus made, forbids the idea that they would allow such statements and arguments and appeals to go unnoticed if they felt able to afford any light in reply to these questions. It was their highest duty as teachers of theology, if they could do it, to show how to answer the argument of “Young America” against the Bible as containing the Augustinian dogma; to show that the passage introduced above as a specimen of the Pelagianism taught by the New Haven divines either _is not_ the doctrine they teach or is not Pelagianism; to show that there _are_ some passages in the Bible that teach that the nature or the constitution of man is not the best possible in the nature of things, and _is_ different from that of the unsinning angels or unfallen Adam; and finally, to show that there _is_ some passage in the Bible that teaches that the depraved nature of man was caused or occasioned by the sin of Adam. Not only the professors and editors thus addressed, but all the theologians of all schools, so far as the writer can learn, have maintained a profound _silence_ on all these questions. The _Independent_ also declined any _discussion_ thus: “We have no intention of surrendering our columns to a _theological_ or _psychological controversy_ such as might be introduced by the communication we now publish.” The writer after this, in several cases, suggested to some of the most active and intelligent minds in some of the above theological seminaries, to endeavor to secure a full discussion of these topics in their lecture rooms, and was told, in reply, that all such efforts were decidedly discouraged. She also addressed notes to several editors of the secular press to see if their columns could be used for the purpose. From the one whose past freedom led to the expectation of an affirmative answer, the reply was, that he had promised his orthodox friends that he would not _needlessly_ introduce _heresy_ into his paper, and that the greatest of all heresies was _common sense_! Finally, on consulting one of the most shrewd and best informed publishers in regard to the future volume, he expressed the opinion that “in whatever else theologians differed, they were all united in the determination that the investigation proposed by the author _should not be permitted_.”