transubstantiation.

+Romans vi. 2. 11.

But is not "every imagination of the thoughts of sinners hearts," said
in scripture to "be only evil continually?"

Such is said to have been the state of antediluvian sinners, when the
spirit had ceased to strive with them, agreeably to the threatening.*

* Genesis vi. 3.

It is a representation of the last grade of human depravity; but not
applicable to every natural man. Those who are unrenewed are not all
equally depraved. Some "are not far from the kingdom of God."--In some
are things lovely in the Savior's eyes. "Then Jesus, beholding him,
loved him." +

+ Mark xii. 24. x. 21.

It is further asked, Whether every motion toward a return to God, is
not the effect of divine influence? And whether divine influence doth
not necessarily produce effect?--We answer,

To suppose man not capable of acting, but only of being acted on, or
acted with, is to exculpate his enmity against God, and opposition to
his law and gospel. To suppose his enmity and opposition to be the
effect of divine influence, is to excuse them. Blame rests with the
efficient. The creature cannot be culpable, because he is what God
made him; or while he remains what he was made of God. To denominate
either temper or conduct morally good or evil, consent is necessary,
to suppose consent, in the creature, to be the effect of almighty
power operating upon it, nullifies it to the creature, in a moral
view. The work of God cannot be the sin, or holiness, of the creature.

But depravity and wickedness are wrong, and criminal, apart from all
consideration of their source--they are so in themselves.

They cannot therefore be from God, but must have some other source.
The creature which vitiates another, is viewed as culpable, though it
only tempts to wickedness, which is all a creature can do to vitiate
another, and leaves the tempted ability to retain integrity; what must
then be our views of a being whom we conceive to produce the same
effect _by an exertion of Almighty power_?--"God cannot be tempted
with evil, neither tempteth he any man," Is it then supposeable that
he can produce it by direct efficiency?

But suppose him to produce it, Suppose it to derive immediately from
him. Is its nature altered? Is it less criminal or odious?

God forbid that we should make the supposition! It is a compound of
absurdity and blasphemy! As well may we suppose the sun to diffuse
darkness! They "trusted in lying wor