[See page image]

Page 210

trespass be punished either on earth or in hell. Calvin (d- 1564) held that Christ satisfied the justice of God by suffering the punishment of

Penal our sin. Gerhard (d. 1637) affirmed Satisfaction. that Christ effected the perfect satisfaction by experiencing the wrath of God, the curse of the law, and the penalties of hell (Loci theolici, locus xvii., chap. ii. 54). Tobias Crisp (d.1643; Christ Made Sin, London, 1691, new ed., ib. 1832) and John Owen (q.v.; "The Death of Death in the Death of Christ," in Works, vol. v., London, 1826) claimed that Christ satisfied for our sins by suffering the punishment and death our sin deserved-"ejusdem." According to Quenstedt (1688) Christ was substituted for debtors and " in his satisfaction . . . felt even the very pangs of hell, although not in hell or eternally " (Theologia didactico-Polemics, i. 39). Jonathan Edwards (d. 1758), who marks the dividing line between the penal and the New England view of the atonement, declared that Christ made satisfaction for sin not by reason of any excellency in his sufferings, but by the fulfilment of the law in him whereby through his death the nature, design, and perfection of the law, together with the authority and truth of the law-giver, were maintained (Works, vii. 512-516, NewYork, 1830). The more recent advocates of the penal satisfaction theory are: T. J. Crawford (The Doctrine of the Holy SeripturesRespeetingtheAtonement, London, 1871),George Smeaton (Doctrine of the Atonement as Taught by Christ Himself, Edinburgh, 1868; and . . . A sTaughtby theApostles, Edinburgh, 1870), Charles Hodge (Systematic Theology, New York, 1871-73), and W. G. T. Shedd (Dogmatic Theo'ogy, New York, 1889). The following characteristic features of their presentation are to be noted: (1) a technical meaning is assigned to the terms employed. Our "sins" and our" Guilt" (q.v.) were transferred to Christ by "Imputation" (q.v.); on him was inflicted the "punishment" which belonged to us. (2) The relative values given to justice and love: justice is "a principle of God's nature, not only independent of love but superior to love." (3) The satisfaction while sufficient for all is efficient for the elect only. J. McL. Campbell (d. 1872), taking a hint from Jonathan Edwards (Works, vii. 505), that satisfaction may be made for sin either by an adequate punishment or by an "answerable repentance," declared that Christ, the "great Penitent in humanity," made a perfect confession for human sin; hence that is accorded to divine justice which is its due and could alone satisfy it (Nature of the Atonement, pp. 117-118, London, 1873). The New England theory of the atonement (see ATONEMENT; NEW ENGLAND THEOLOGY) held that the sufferings of Christ satisfied the general or public, but not distributive or individualizing, justice of God (E. A. Park; The Atonement, Introductory Essay, Andover, 1859).

Satisfaction has, however, been differently conceived. The point of 'view is love instead of justice. This presents love as the central principle of God, by which he both affirms his own perfection and blessedness and wills that all his creatures and especially man shall share his love in the measure of their capacity-a purpose which is perfectly

disclosed in his revelation of grace in Christ. Hare love is absolute and justice relative; or love and justice are regarded as complementary Satisfaction aspects of the same gracious will. from the Abelard (1142) maintained that Christ View-point satisfied the divine benevolence by of Love. overcoming the rebellion and the guilty fear of sinners by his immeasurable love. Schleiermacher (d. 1834) conceives of Christ as our " satisfaction-making substitute " (Der Chrisliche Glaube, ii. 103 sqq., 128-129, Berlin, 18311832). According to Albrecht Ritschl (1889), since God's righteousness is essentially identical with his grace, satisfaction can only signify the fulfilment of his eternal purpose of love (Rechtfertigung and Verstihnung, p. 474, Bonn, 1888-89; Eng. transl., Edinburgh, 1900). Samuel Harris (d.1899) presents the satisfaction of God as the normal consummation of all his revealed action rendering service in conformity with the law of love (God, the Creator and Lord of All, p. 375, New York, 1896). William Newton Clarks (q.v.) affirms that God is eternally satisfied with the suffering of love in behalf of sinners (Outline of Christian Theology, p. 348, ib., 1898). According to John Scott Lidgett, satisfaction is defined in terms of fatherhood; the fatherly is satisfied in perfecting the filial (The Spiritual Principle of the Atonement, p. 301, London, 1898).

BIBL206RAPHY: For the development of the doctrine readers are referred to the works named in and under Doc TarxE, HISTORY or'--e.g., Haraack, Dogma, vi. 54-78, 190 eqq., 257 eqq. et passim. As a theme in systematic theology the subject is discussed in the works named in and under DOGMA, DOGMATICS, e.g., W. G. T. Shedd, Dogmatic Theology, ii. 433-434, New York, 1889. The literature under ATONEMENT, with that already noted, gives practically all that is necessary. Special mention may be made of: F. C. Baur, Die ehasUiche Lehre von der Verashnung, TObingen, 1838; G. B. Stevens, The Christian Doctrine of Sacrifice, New York, 1905; K. Staab, Du Lehre von der atellroertretenden CJenuptuuup Christi, Paderborn, 1908.

Cardinal; b. at Marsciano (14 m. s.w. of Perugia), Umbria, Italy, July 21, 1839; d. in Rome Jan. 8, 1910. He was educated at the seminary of Perugia, the Roman Seminary, and the College of the Propaganda; after which he was professor, and later rector, of the Greek College, Rome, and later still president of the Accademia