Thus the presence of God’s Spirit in Adam’s mind, according to Dr. Hodge, insured a “disposition” to delight in God, which was lost by its withdrawal. According to Arminius, this withdrawal so affected the whole race, that “in respect to the _true good_” the will of man has _no powers whatever_, except such as are excited by grace—that is, by a measured return of God’s Spirit, withdrawn for Adam’s sin, which return was purchased by Christ’s death. It is clear, that it is the powers and faculties of mind that are meant here, in this explanation of the depravity of man’s nature. Thus it is shown that every attempt to explain what depravity consists in, by theologians, results in their teaching a _constitutional malformation_, which proves the author of the construction to be depraved. We will now present the evidence, that theologians contradict themselves, and deny that they use the word _nature_ in the sense of constitutional organization or construction, and maintain that they use it in some other sense. In all creeds and all theological teachings, the authors expressly disclaim that they maintain any thing which makes God “the author of sin.” And they allow, that making God the creator of a depraved nature, would make him the author of sin. Therefore, to escape the difficulty, they claim that God is the author of one nature, which is perfect and in his own image, and that there is _another_ nature which man himself made, either _by_, or _in_, or _before_ Adam, which is depraved. Then when they are driven to identify the nature that God made and the nature that man made, they are again at fault. Man really has but one nature, and that is the nature which is discovered by his qualities and actions, as learned by experience. There is no other nature conceivable, and no other idea that men ever attach to the word when applied to the mind or soul of man. Therefore, theologians really do use it in the sense which they deny, for there is no other. Again, theologians deny that they teach “physical depravity” and “physical regeneration,” and the only intelligible sense of this disclaimer is, that they do not teach depravity of construction and the reformation of this depravity of construction. But, as before shown, when they describe the depravity and regeneration, they make out what actually is physical depravity and physical regeneration, and nothing else. Again, when they attempt to describe what they mean, one class of theologians—_i.e._, new school Calvinists—teach that the whole depravity consists in a want of “_right willing_.” And this is exactly what the common‐sense system teaches—_i.e._, that the depravity of man is in the wrong _action_ and not in the wrong _construction_ of mind. And yet when they are charged with holding the Pelagian doctrine of perfect mental construction, they deny it, and say they teach depravity of nature.