It is this brother who for years has been laboring to sustain the Augustinian dogma by a theory which—could it be proved—is the only one yet devised that is at once rational, intelligible and actually secures the end designed. For if it were a fact that the _nature_ of mind is depraved, and if it were possible to prove that our race originally, in a preëxistent state, were created with a perfect nature, ruined themselves, and were born into this world for purposes of pardon and redemption, the grand difficulty _would_ all be remedied, and God _could_ be exhibited as wise, just and good in spite of this mournful fact. But it is _the fact_ of the _depraved nature_ of the human mind, where the writer and this brother are at issue, and not on any theory to relieve the difficulties incident to that fact. The argument of this work, to prove that there is no possible mode of proving the benevolence of God, or of proving that the Bible is a reliable revelation from him, to any man who teaches that the _nature_ of the human mind is depraved in _any_ sense that can be made intelligible by human language, _this_ is the place where the author of the Conflict of Ages, in due time, will meet this discussion fairly, openly and honorably. In the second class, mentioned above, is another brother, whom the writer believes to be as decidedly on the Pelagian ground. Whether he yet fully understands his position, is not affirmed by one, who has, for so short a time, fully understood her own bearings in this matter. But ere long, the only question remaining for him will be, whether he shall openly attack this strongly‐entrenched error, this wholesale slander on his Lord and Master, or take the Tract Society mode of evading discussion. All who best know the writer of the _Star Papers_, best understand that any question of _expediency_ will relate, not to the fearless, outspoken exhibition of his opinions, but only to the _time_ and _manner_ in which it shall be done. He must soon perceive that it is as much his duty openly to attack the _African_[A] enslavement of Anglo‐Saxon _minds_, as it ever was to combat the Anglo‐Saxon enslavement of African _bodies_. It will be noticed that this public appeal to family friends was not made until all other theologians, especially obligated to meet this discussion, had evaded it, and some of them by unfair, ungentlemanly and unchristian methods. [Transcriber’s Note: Obvious printer’s errors have been corrected.] FOOTNOTES 1 Note A. 2 The theory of Dr. E. Beecher, as it has not been accepted by any denomination, is not referred to here. 3 Most of the extracts in this and the preceding chapter are furnished by Dr. E. Beecher in his Conflict of Ages. 4 In scientific language, the _object_ of desire is called the _objective motive_, and the _desire_ itself is called the _subjective motive_.