66 CHAPTER IX THE SATISFACTION OF GOD IN THE WORK OF CHRIST IT is one of the principal contentions of the older theories of atonement that in the work of Christ, and specifically in his death, a satisfaction or reparation is made to God on account of human sin. This so-called objective element," or "Godward reference" of Christ's sufferings, is the one constant factor in the theories which are commonly called orthodox. But the agreement among these theories is, as we have had occasion to notice, only formal. Anselm, Grotius, Edwards, Shedd, Dale, Lidgett all assert "objective" satisfaction; but there will be found to be no agreement among these writers as to the occasion or nature of this satisfaction. This circumstance not only detracts considerably from the force of any argument e consensu, but easily occasions confusion and misunderstanding in expositions and discussions of the subject. The differences of view to which we here allude arise very naturally from the difficulty of conceiving and defining the sense in which God can be the object of a satis faction by means of Christ's sufferings. Of course, the general idea which the historic theories try to construe and apply is that by Christ's death some effect was wrought upon God whereby he was enabled to do what, otherwise, he would have been unable, in consistency, to do. But precisely what was this effect, and what is the rationale of it? How and why should the death of Christ accomplish it? On these questions the greatest divergences of view have appeared, giving rise to rival theories which, closely considered, are as irreconcilable with each other as are the "objective" and the "subjective" types of explanation. Now if it is correct to say that, on account of sin, God's anger is implacable until he has either punished it in full, or inflicted sufferings equivalent to sin's penalty upon some one who takes man's place, and that Christ's sufferings were the vicarious substitute for man's punishment, then it is easy to see what is meant when it is said that those sufferings constituted an objective satisfaction to God. In that case they appeased and placated his wrath; they propitiated and quenched his indignation, thereby enabling him to be merciful, as he could not otherwise have been. This is the strict penal theory of satisfaction. It is the post-Reformation doctrine and the theory of such modern Calvinistic divines as Drs. Crawford, Hodge, and Shedd. In my opinion it deserves this commendation, that it is the clearest and most consistent attempt to apply frankly and fearlessly the idea of a satisfaction rendered to God by the suffering of a substituted victim. As we have seen, there are objections to it, such as that it is founded on a heathen and not on the biblical conception of God, to say nothing of the specifically Christian conception, — and that it predicates a most astounding separateness of Christ from God, in view of the fact that they had been previously defined as partaking eternally in the same essence; but with these objections we are not now concerned. It is doubtful if the theory was ever carried out in strict consistency; certainly most expositions of it display important concessions and qualifications of its principles, the most common being in the form of such phrases as: "so far as possible," "as if," and "as it were." Nevertheless, it is a heroic attempt, and those who hold, with whatever inconsistencies and aberrations, that Christ vicariously endured the penalty of sin, may properly be said to believe in an objective, propitiatory satisfaction to God's wrath. I revert to this theory here only for illustrative purposes. Happily there is little occasion to argue against it; its statement is its sufficient refutation. - We must recall next the long series of attempts to show how the death of Christ satisfied God in some other way than by appeasing his appetite for punishment. Anselm's was one of these. God was satisfied by the death of Christ because his dignity was thereby sustained; Christ's sufferings afforded a reparation to his offended honor. How this could be we need not stop to inquire. It was made possible to the mind of Anselm by his regarding the life of Christ as a precious gift which he presented to God — a gift whose value outweighed the enormity of sin. This gift so gratified the Sovereign's sense of his dignity that he saw fit, in consideration of it, to overlook the insult offered him by human sin and to reward the giver by conferring salvation upon those who attach themselves to his person. Closely considered, Anselm's is the most anthropomorphic of all the historic theories of satisfaction. The private dignity of the Sovereign, the traffic between him and his Son, and the payment of surplus merits to men, are not characteristically biblical conceptions. The Cur Deus Homo is wonderfully acute, but its plausibility disappears when one no longer believes, with the mediaval metaphysics, in the substantial reality of logical concepts. It is a masterly juggling with abstractions. Imagine Christ making a present of his life to God, and God in turn presenting him with salvation to distribute to his followers, because he is so well satisfied by the gift; imagine this, I say, as an account of Christ's saving mission. Such is the "objective" satisfaction made to God's honor in the theory of Anselm; Christ's death is an act of deference to his dignity-a compliment, one may call it, so gratifying that it allays all resentment and even moves the Almighty to generosity. But the point to be observed here is that Anselm's is not a consistent, unqualified, "objective satisfaction " theory after all. It is only quasiobjective. Anselm's most fundamental propositions are usually qualified by an "as if." It is as if sin affected God thus and so, and as if he received a compensating gratification. I will add that to me it seems as if Anselm dimly discerned the unreality of his own reasoning. At any rate he strikingly illustrates the difficulty and unclearness with which the idea of satisfying God ab extra was applied by a thinker of great subtlety and acuteness. The Grotian theory has a still different conception of the satisfaction which is afforded to God by the death of Christ. Here the death of Christ satisfies God because it is an act of homage to his law and government. It illustrates, not his determination to punish, but his zeal to maintain the majesty of his moral rule. God is satisfied when his authority is vindicated in the sufferings and death of the Redeemer. It is evident that this is a compromising, mediating theory. It lacks the clearness and definiteness of the penal view. I will not repeat the criticisms already made upon it, but simply call attention to its unclearness at the point in question. The notion of placating God's wrath is weakened down into that of asserting the justice of his government. The Grotian view has, indeed, the important advantage of discarding the monstrous idea of an appeasement of God; but the conception which it substitutes provides no clear answer to two questions: (1) What can be meant by vindicating those abstractions called God's law and government? and (2) Assuming the feasibility of such a vindication, how does Christ's death, contemplated as a penal example, accomplish that end? What is the "law" of which the rectoral theory speaks? Probably it is, in theory, the moral rule of God in general, but in reading the writings of its advocates one gains the impression that it is, in practice, the Mosaic legislation. In any case, how is God propitiated by having his "legislation" vindicated, and how should this legislation require Christ's death? I can conceive the idea that God may be gratified at having the Mosaic law obeyed, but this notion falls far short of an "objective" satisfaction which so appeases his wrath that he does not need to appease it further in punishment. The advocates of the penal theory maintain-correctly, as I think — that the rectoral theory is a halfway house in which reflective thought can never permanently rest. Let us put the question to the test by reference to a concrete example. All will agree that among modern theolo gians there is no more masterly logician than the elder Edwards. In his treatise on The Necessity of Satisfaction for Sin he begins by saying that God must either punish sin or else there must be rendered to him some compensation which shall balance the greatness of the injury done. Instead of saying with the penal theory: God must punish all sin, either in the persons of the guilty or in the person of some innocent substitute, he introduces the idea of another course of action than punishment which is supposed to answer the divine purposes equally well—some "other compensation" which will support his "rectoral justice" as adequately as punishment would do- which will "magnify the law and make it honorable." Now assuming that all this is entirely intelligible, it is also purely formal. The crucial question is: How, in actual fact, did the sufferings of Christ serve this end? How did they take the place of punishment for sin and thus "objectively" satisfy God's hostile feeling toward moral evil as well as punishment would have done? Or, as Edwards puts it: How did Christ "bear the wrath of God" and so satisfy for sin? To this question Edwards answers that he could do so "in no other but these two ways": (1) He had "a great and clear sight of the infinite wrath of God against the sins of men, and the punishment that they deserved," and (2) He "endured the effects of God's wrath." Christ had in his own heart and experience an acute realization of the evil of sin; he saw it as God sees it and condemned it in his feeling as God condemns it. He bore the burden of our sins through that sympathetic identification with us which his love accomplished. He endured God's wrath "in the sense he had of the dreadfulness of the punishment of sin." By his experiencing the effects of God's wrath Edwards means that God dealt with him as if he had been angry with him, though, of course, he was not. He forsook him on the cross, "withholding from him the pleasant ideas and manifestations of his love," although at that time, as always, he "infinitely loved him." Thus, says our author, Christ suffered the wrath of God "in such |