good should work in us, there could be no hope to man of rising from the fall by that free will [free agency] by which, when standing he fell into ruin.

The question is, whether free agency is taken away, or only the mind is depraved; and the language of this Synod shows that they held the latter. The inability was 'spiritual;' but we don't apply 'spiritual' to bones and sinews, nor to the substance of the soul. These men say that the Spirit does not act upon the mind of a sinner, as He does upon stones and trees; but if man lies in a state of natural impotency, then He does and must. Every word the Synod employs, excludes the notion of natural inability, and includes that of moral inability. This is the inability which is removed by the Spirit when He inclines the sinner to choose rightly. He does not move him like a block or a stone. He does not move him as a whirlwind carries a tree along.

Another error charged against me is, that I teach that regeneration is produced by the instrumentality of truth. On this subject, I shall refer the court to Turretin, the great apostle of orthodoxy, the text book which is used by the Princeton Seminary, under the patronage and control of the Presbyterian church, and out of which Dr. Alexander teaches the students of divinity and forms the rising ministry of the church. The passage which Professor Stowe has been good enough to translate for me, is taken from the Geneva edition, vol. 1, pp. 729, 7.30.

Professor Stowe said, that he pledged his reputation as a scholar and as an honest man for the correctness of the version here given.

Dr. Wilson said he was perfectly satisfied. Pages 729, 30. Turretin distinguishes six sorts of necessity-The fifth, he says is moral necessity 'seu servitutis,' which arises from habits, good or evil, and the presentation of objects to their faculties. For such is the nature of moral habits, that, however the acquisition of them might have been in our power, yet when our will has once become imbued with them, they cannot be laid aside, nor their exercise avoided, as the philosopher rightly teaches. Eth. Lib. iii. Hence it happens that the will, free in itself, is so determined to good or evil that it cannot but do good or evil. Hence flows the bondage of sin or righteousness.'

cap. v.

Page 731. And hence it is plain that our adversaries, especially Bellarmine, falsely criminate us, because they say that the will is in bondage in a state of sin, as though its freedom was destroyed: For it is so declared in the scripture above, (Rom. vi, 17, 18) and indeed with a twofold limitation:-1st, that the bondage is understood not absolutely and physically, but relatively after the fall, in a state of sin:-2d, Not simply respecting every external object, natural, civil, or moral, but principally concerning a spiritual object good of itself; in which manner the inability to good is the more strongly asserted, but the essence of freedom is not destroyed, because although the sinner is so enveloped with sin, that he cannot but sin, nevertheless he doth not cease to sin, most freely and with the utmost liberty. Hence Jansenius (?)

acknowledges that Luther was not the first to invent the name of the enslaved will ('servi arbitrii') but followed Augustine, who had said the same thing concerning it long before; and he censures those who pretend that the phrase, enslaved will, was unknown before Luther. Augustine says 'the will is free, but not enfranchised, free to righteousness, but the slave of sin, in which men are involved through various hurtful lusts, some more, and others less, but all wicked,' and again, "man using his free will wickedly destroys both himself and it.”

Page 939. The question is not concerning the power or natural faculty of will, 'a qua est ipsum velle vel nolle,' which may be called first power and the material principle of moral action; for this always remains in man, and by it he is distinguished from the brutes; but concerning his moral disposition to will rightly, which is called second power or the formal principle of those actions; for, as to will, results from natural power, so, to will rightly, results from moral disposition.

Page 752. Therefore man, laboring under such an inability is falsely said to be able to believe if he wishes; as if faith, which Paul so expressly declares to be the gift of God (Acts ii, 8) were ek ton eph emin. For, although the phrase may, to some extent, be tolerated, understood concerning the natural power of willing, which, in whatever condition we may be, is never taken away from us, insomuch as by it we are distinguished from the brutes; yet it cannot be admitted when we speak of the moral disposition of the will to good, not only to willing, but to willing rightly, concerning which alone, there is controversy between us and our adversaries; unless we go over to Pelagius, who asserted that a good will was placed in the power of man.

Page 751. The inability of man as a sinner is not to be called moral simply, in contradistinction to natural, as that is said by moral philosophers to be morally impossible which is such by custom (?) rather than by nature, and which indeed is done with difficulty, yet is done sometimes and ought not to be reckoned among those things which are absolutely impossible; since that inability is to us innate and inseparable.— Nor is it simply natural as that is natural by which we are accounted neither good nor evil, since it is certain that inability is both vicious and culpable. Nor as natural is distinguished from voluntary, as there is in a stone or brute a natural inability to speak, because our inability is in the highest sense voluntary-nor as that is called natural which arises from want of faculty or natural powers (as there is in the blind an inability to see, in the paralytic to walk, and in the dead to rise,) because our inability does not exclude, but supposes in man the natural power of understanding and willing. Nevertheless, it is but denominated both natural and moral in different respects.

Moral, 1st. OBJECTIVELY, because it has respect to moral duties. 2d, As to its origin, because it is brought on one's self; which arises from moral corruption, voluntarily acquired by the sin of man. 3d, As to its character (formaliter) because that is voluntary and culpable, which is founded in a habit of corrupt will.

It is also natural-1st, As to its origin, because it is born with us and from nature, not created by God but corrupted by man, for which reason, we are said by Paul to be by nature children of wrath, Eph. ii, 3; and by David to be shapen in iniquity and conceived

ly is not commanding more than you can pay. For if you give it not to him, you will give it to something else that is far from being so deserving of it. The law, then, is not impossible, in the strict and proper sense, even to you.'

Now if I am a heretic, then I say that Dr. Green deserves to be put out of the church; and that quickly, lest he should die before justice overtakes him; for recommending in the very strongest terms, to the confidence of the whole church, such an arch heretic as this. It is a thing not to be endured. The church has come to a high pass indeed; and great must be her danger when works like these are palmed off upon the world, under the high recommendation of Dr. Green. Now there was but one place where I thought it would be difficult to throw one ray of light. But here that spot was enlightened. For Dr. Witherspoon himself says that

"Without perplexing ourselves with the meaning of the imputation of Adam's first sin, this we may be sensible of, that the guilt of all inheritant corruption must be personal, because it is voluntary and consent ed to. Of both these things a discovery of the glory of God will powerfully convince the sinner.'

I shall next refer to Dr. Watts:

'Man has lost, not his natural power to obey the law; he is bound then, as far as natural powers will reach. I own his faculties are greatly corrupted by vicious inclinations, or sinful propensities, which has been happily called by our divines a moral inability to fulfil the law, rather than a natural impossibility of it.'

And now I come to the testimony of Dr. Spring, of New York. Dr. Spring is well known as a distinguished theologian and minister of a large congregation in the city of New York; and in all the early period of his ministry, was engaged in what might be called a virulent controversy with the men of the old school, who all considered him as dangerous heretic, because he maintained and defended the doctrine of man's natural ability. He was then considered as the great champion of that doctrine in the city. For reasons which I have never been able to explain, he has since associated himself in action with the men of the old school. Still, however, he has not changed his principles. I have of ten heard of his saying that his doctrinal sentiments were in no respect altered. It would therefore seem that there are some heretics who may be tolerated in the church, that is, provided they vote right.

Dr. Wilson here inquired, to how late a period Dr. Beecher referred, when he said that Dr. Spring had not changed his opinions?

Dr. Beecher replied, that he referred to a period extending to within two years since. At that time Dr. Spring had not changed his opinion respecting doctrine, but only in regard to discipline and new measures. Besides which he could refer to more recent evidence, which was contained in a work on infant character, publish

ed by Dr. Spring about a year ago, in which he expressly asserts the voluntariness of all sin; and yet that heretic, is at this day appointed by the General Assembly to represent the Presbyterian church in Europe; an arch heretic, who ought to be turned out of the church with me. I hope I shall be safe till he gets home, and then we can be tried and turned out together.

'Seriously considered it is impossible to sin without acting voluntarily. The divine law requires nothing but voluntary obedience, and forbids nothing but voluntary disobedience. As men cannot sin without acting, nor act without choosing to act, so they must act voluntarily in sinning.' Spring's Essays, p.

120.

This nature of sin, as actual and voluntary, he carries out in its application to infants. He

says:

"Every child of Adam is a sinner [an actual sinner] from the moment he becomes a child of Adam. He

sins not in deed nor word, but in thought. The thought of foolishness is sin. * * * Who ever heard or conceived of a living immortal soul without natural faculties and moral dispositions? Every infant that has attained maturity enough to have a soul, has such a soul as this. It is a soul which perceives, reasons, remembers, feels, chooses, and has the faculty of judging of its own moral dispositions.' Spring on Native Depravity, pp. 10, and 14.

It is the doctrine of our church that there is a difference between original and actual sin. would seem that Dr. Spring denies this distinction; and holds all sin to be the voluntary transgression of known law.

My next authority is Matthew Henry in his Commentary upon Ezekiel xviii. 31:

'Make you a new heart and a new spirit, for why will ye die, O house of Israel.' We must do our endeavor, and then God will not be wanting to us to give us his grace. St. Austin well explains this precept: God does not enjoin impossibilities, but by his commands admonishes us to do what is in our power, and to pray for what is not. * * The reason why sinners die is, because they will die, they will go down the way that leads to death, and not come up to the terms on which life is offered; herein sinners, especially sinners of the house of Israel, are most unreasonable and act most unaccountably.'

There is no commentary in the English language which from the time when it was written until now, has embodied the suffrages of the christian church to a greater extent than this work of Matthew Henry. I could, I suppose if it were necessary, gather up bushels of recommendations which have been written by our first ministers to aid its circulation. I will now present to the court, a work written by Dr. J. P. Wilson, of Philadelphia.

Dr. Wilson here inquired on what evidence this work was ascribed to that author.

Dr. Beecher replied, that it was universally ascribed to him by his friends, and the authorship had never been disavowed.

'No mere man is able, either of himself, or by any grace received in this life, perfectly to keep the com

mandments of God, &c. The ability which is here denied, is evidently of the moral kind, because the aid of the inability is supposed to be grace, which adds no new faculties. The passage taken from the Confession of Faith, chap. xvi. is a representation of the same thing. This ability to do good works, is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of God.' Here the ability spoken of is that which the saint has, and the sinner has not; and is derived from the Spirit of God; it is therefore merely the effect of regenerating grace, which changes the heart, removes the prejudices and thus enlightens the understanding; the law itself ought to convince such minds of their inability to render an acceptable righteousness, and thus lead them to Christ. In all these instances, the inability consists not in the natural, that is physical defects, either of mind or body; if it were such, it would excuse; but it consists in the party's aversion to holiness. This is also clear from another passage cited in the essay, page 15, from the Confession of Faith."A natural man, being altogether averse from that which is good, and dead in sin, is not able, by his own strength, to convert himself, or to prepare himself thereto.' Here the words 'dead in sin,' express a higher degree of that 'aversion to good,' which had been predicted of man in his natural and unrenewed state, and suppose the party to have no more disposition to things spiritual and holy than a dead carcase possesses towards objects of sense. The inability or want of strength here mentioned, is affirmed of the natural man; and his inability, or that circumstance in which it consists, is pointed out expressly by the intercalary member, being, altogether averse from that which is good, and dead in sin.' Language can scarcely be found more clearly to show, that the only culpable inability or want of strength in the sinner, lies in his aversion to that which is good. pp. 14, 15.

6

It was remarked by the prosecutor, that among all the authorities I have produced in support of my exposition of the Confession of Faith, I had quoted only a single author from the Presbyterian church. I have now brought forward a number. He also said, after passing a high and merited eulogium on Dr. Witherspoon, that in all his extensive works, but a single sentence was to be found which could be pressed into my service, and that that one sentence had been seized upon with avidity. I have now presented additional testimonies from Dr. Witherspoon, and could easily adduce much more.

Dr. Dickinson, a cotemporary of his in New Jersey, and a cotemporary also with Dr. Green in the early part of his life, has this sentiment on the point of discussion: 'Let inability be properly denominated and called obstinacy.' This was a divine of admitted and unimpeachable or thodoxy, a man of eminent abilities, a friend to revivals of religion, and one of the pillars of the Presbyterian church.

President Davis, the pioneer and planter of Presbyterianism in Virginia, afterward president of Princeton college, one of the most pungent, popular and successful of preachers, inquires, What is inability but unwillingness?"

Edwards, the younger, president of Union college, was a Presbyterian, and what does he say? To the question whether the moral inability which his father taught, can be removed by the sinner, his answer was, 'Yes: and the moment you deny this, you change the whole character of the inability together with the whole character of the man; for then his inability ceases to be obstinacy, and becomes physical incapacity.'

P. 17.

Every real convert lays these natural faculties under contribution. His disappointment arises, not so much from a defect in his natural powers, which are as well suited to the service of God as of sin; his chief mistake lies in depending upon his supposed moral abilities, the nature and strength of his own purposes, resolutions, and performances. But when he finds his purposes change, his resolutions fail, and his performances all tainted with sin, and that while his natural powers are sufficiently strong to bring him into condemnation, he has no moral ability, or strength of inclination to God and holiness to direct his efforts towards proper objects; he is then disposed to sink into the dust, acknowledge his guilt and impotency, and cast himself upon the mercy of God in Christ. p. 22.

Our case though in some respects it bears a striking resemblance to those who sleep in the grave, yet in others is widely different. They make no opposition to the active pursuits of life. Nor does any blame attach to them on account of their insensibility. Not so, however, with us. We have eyes, but we see not; ears, but we hear not; we have indeed all the intellectual faculties and moral powers which belong to rational beings, but they are devoted to the world; they are employed against God and his government. Instead of love, the heart is influenced by enmity against God. Instead of repentance, there is hardness of heart. Instead of faith by which the Savior is received, there is unbelief by which with all his blessings he is rejected. We possess indeed all the natural facul ties which God demands in his service, but we are