When, therefore, the secular press and the popular lyceum take up these great questions they will insist that the discussions shall be carried on in popular language, so that the labor demanded shall not be increased by the unknown tongue of theological and metaphysical science. Again, there will be an improvement in the mode of conducting such discussions, by the banishment of all adventitious topics and the firm grasping of the one great fundamental point in debate. It will be insisted that the question is not at all whether Arminians or Universalists, or Unitarians hold this or that opinion, nor whether advocating such and such views would injure the cause of this or that institution, or sect or individual; nor whether this or that person has certain faults, or is a proper advocate of some innovations; nor whether undesirable results would follow from expressing certain views, but simply _what is the truth_, so far as it can be discovered by honest statements and fair discussion. The grand question in debate is not whether men are _depraved_ in _character and action_ as they appear in the history of the world. All parties agree in the _fact_ of such dreadful depravity. The question is in regard to the _philosophy_ of this fact, that is to say, What is the _cause_ or reason of this depravity? Here it will be found that two classes exist in all the great Protestant sects, viz.: Those who hold that the cause is a depraved _nature_, [signifying what men mean when in common life they use the terms, _nature_, _organization_, _construction_ or _constitution_,] and those who deny that any such depraved nature exists. These two opposite opinions, ever since the third century, have been expressed by the terms, _Augustinian_ and _Pelagian_. The case is now so fairly and clearly before _the people_, that every theologian who has capacity and training sufficient to understand an argument must knowingly do one of these things: 1. Deny depravity of _nature_ and allow that he is a Pelagian; or 2. Affirm such depravity, take rank as an Augustinian and then meet the argument which, on this assumption, destroys all evidence of the benevolence of God, and renders a _reliable_ revelation from him impossible. 3. Withdraw from all discussion either by entire silence, or by hiding in the fogs of metaphysical and theological technics, or by the disgraceful arts of debate practiced to alarm and delude the ignorant.