The point where this writer seems to fail, in this extract, is, in a want of the distinction, pointed out in the chapter above mentioned, between _voluntary_ and _involuntary_ love. A person may be “under the dominion of conscience,” by a purpose to obey all the laws of God, and for want of the true view of God’s character, as exhibited in Jesus Christ, may experience only emotions of fear and awe in performing such obedience. It is the true, _efficient_ purpose to obey Christ which constitutes a man a Christian. It is right views of God’s character, as seen in Jesus Christ, that gives new _strength_ to carry out such a purpose. “When we were yet _without strength_, in due time Christ died for the ungodly,” thus giving new motives of love and gratitude, in addition to those of fear and awe. Not until all the false theories that hitherto have vailed the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ are cast away, will the full meaning of the above text be fully understood. Note G. Among theologians and pastors there are two classes now existing, in all the great Protestant sects, the one holding to a _real_ depravity of _nature_, and striving to make such a fact consistent with common sense and with the ideas of benevolence and justice in the Creator; the other, holding only to a depravity of _action_ and of character, resulting from such action in this life, are striving to evade open antagonism with the Augustinian theory. No third position being possible, every man is necessarily Augustinian or Pelagian; either holding that man _is_ depraved _in nature_, or that he is _not_. In the first class, is one whom, above all others, the writer would prefer to meet in a discussion on this great question. It is one who is remembered in early life as the honest, serious, book‐loving boy; next as the earnest Christian and faithful student, winning the highest honors of a collegiate course; next as a student of theology called to several of the highest city pulpits, even before finishing his preparatory course; next, even in youth, the president of a flourishing western college, taking a decided stand on the slavery question, defending the _freedom of the press_ with its first martyr, and very nearly sharing his fate; next resuming the pastor’s office, mainly to gain more freedom to write and publish his peculiar views, which he well understood would encounter all the organized interests of Christendom, and place a drag‐chain on all his personal and professional interests; finally, one who, as scholar, metaphysician and theologian, in the writer’s view, has never been surpassed, while he never has, and never will, resort to a cowardly or unfair mode to weaken or escape an argument. Thus much, if not allowable toward a brother, may be permitted toward an antagonist.