sey, in the course of his appeal, says: "Though men are by nature sinful, they are God's children and the objects of His love. To affirm that men are the children of God's wrath is not merely to affirm what is not in the Articles, but to talk pure nonsense. . . . The Articles of Religion only affirm that the sin of man is the object of God's wrath, and they do not affirm that the persons of sinners are so. . . . The Articles of Religion nowhere say that men are under God's curse: they do not even quote the passage about 'Christ being made a curse for us.' They do say that a certain tendency or disposition in us deserves God's wrath, and this I have continually maintained. Even more I have affirmed: that our sinful tendency not only deserves God's wrath, but inevitably and surely meets its due punishment. The wrong tendencies in our own children deserve and bring down the anger of their parents, but are the children therefore under their parents' curse P Is not the righteous anger of God against evil-doing itself a blessing and not a curse to the evil-doer? I will now briefly state what I have aimed at contradicting in the sermons cited under the articles of charge. What I have denied, is the theory that Adam was morally perfect, whereas by common consent he is believed to have fallen at the first temptation, as most of his posterity do now. I have never denied that God is angry with sin, but have declared my belief that He will and does punish us justly for everything we do amiss, and that His
