p462 [To the same.] F S Monk, I agree with you that people are quite free to use human words to express their apprehension of what is in scripture, as Trinity, etc., and feel that, in general, rejecting the word is rejecting the thing:* 'the judgment of sin' is quite as objectionable, and if I have used it it has generally been with qualifying words. … I do not propose at present taking any step: when a word comes into controversy it is then well to use what scripture uses, and ascertain what the person really means. The addition of the word 'or atonement'** is what would trouble me most in it; for if scripture avoids the word, it would be that it might not be supposed that He was personally so. But I do not think that the author's intention was to deny what we mean by atonement. It is regrettable that the word propitiation, at least, was not used. But I regret the article greatly. The Lord is above it all, but I am conscious Satan is making a great set at brethren just now. But it is a mercy it is all out.
{*"Why object to speak of 'wrath' and yet feel no hesitation in speaking of Christ's 'bearing the judgement of sin' - the one as accurate or unscriptural as the other?"
**"Either personally or in atonement."}

Affectionately yours in the Lord.

September 14th.

[52313E]