-I regret much that this article has been put in, but I do not believe any attack was intended against the atonement. He speaks of scripture giving no uncertain sound as to that. It would indeed destroy all the foundation we have to rest in. some time ago now, brought this idea out, but with no thought of enfeebling the atonement, but merely the use of the word "wrath." In my last edition of the Sufferings, I have referred to this, saying I did not change the word lest it should weaken the sense of the thing, but that scripture was wiser than we were. And I was content then to accept it as a fact, and in one publication [Bible Witness and Review, vol. 2, p. 389] avoided, I think, the use of it without making any remark: as if it was not in scripture, I was sure it was wiser than we—but I have used it in preaching—and felt that if so it was to avoid the application of it to His Person: never as to what He did or suffered in atonement. In these days above all it is necessary to hold this fast. But I have some thought that Psa. 88 warrants the word itself. It is not found in the New Testament.- had no such thought, I am assured, as that wrath was not due to us, but only objected to the use of the word as applied to Christ—not to the substitution of Christ in atonement for us as bearing our sins and drinking the cup and being made a curse: but though, if not in scripture, we do well to speak with scripture, yet I fear in these cases with many they dislike the word because they dislike the thing. I do not believe it is the case here; but there is danger for others. Psa. 102 hardly reaches the case, but it seems to me Psa. 88 does.
I first heard it used really to deny the truth of propitiation.—-quoted then Psa. 102, but dropped the word to chew he denied the thing. This was long ago in Canada, and made me on the watch as to giving up the word. We cannot be too jealous as to true propitiation and atonement now. I have had one side of this point with Waldenstrom.