The increased size of heavy guns and the advances in naval construction having rendered the coast defences inadequate, a series of new experiments in fortification was commenced at Fortress Monroe and Fort Delaware by the engineer department. General Barnard, with a corps of assistants, visited Europe and by the study of the latest developments in the art was enabled to make most satisfactory recommendations to the board of which he was so long the president. His writings on technical engineering were numerous.
- Marc P Lalonde - tatavukaxo.tk.
- CorelDRAW 12 Unleashed.
- The Labor Market and Business Cycle Theories.
- Keyword Search.
He wrote also on mathematical and other subjects, and was one of the associate editors of Johnson's Universal Cyclopedia, to which he contributed more than 90 articles. General Barnard had many intellectual interests besides his profession, among them a fondness for music. He was the author of a number of compositions, including a Te Deum. His death occurred on May 14, , at Detroit, Michigan. Professor Bartlett was distinguished both as a soldier and as a man of science. He was born in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, in , and early in life moved to Missouri. He was appointed to West Point from that State, graduated in at the head of his class and became second lieutenant of engineers.
From to he was assistant professor in the Military Academy, and Acting Professor of Natural and Experimental Philosophy from to In the intervening years, from to , he was engaged in construction work at Fortress Monroe and at Fort Adams, and from to was assistant engineer at Washington, D.
Resigning his lieutenancy, he returned to West Point in and was appointed to the professorship of natural and experimental philosophy which he had held as an acting officer in previous years. In this position he remained until In that year, at his own request, he was retired, with the rank of colonel, and became actuary for the New York Mutual Life Insurance Company. During the year , Professor Bartlett went abroad to purchase instruments for observations at West Point and travelled extensively, visiting the principal observatories of the world.
He made numerous contributions to the American Journal of Science, and also wrote a treatise on rifled guns which was published in Memoirs of the National Academy of Sciences. Alexis Caswell, who was descended from early settlers of New England and traced his pedigree back to Peregrine White, was born at Taunton, Massachusetts, January 29, His childhood was spent on a farm, and when he arrived at the proper age was prepared for college at Bristol Academy in Taunton.
He entered Brown University at the age of 19 and was graduated in , with first honors. For five years he was a tutor or professor in Columbian College, Washington, at the same time pursuing studies in theology under the guidance of the President, Dr. After preaching a year in Halifax, he became assistant to the Rev. Except for a year spent in Europe, Professor Caswell performed the duties of this position for 35 years, adding to them those of the President, when Dr. Wayland's absence or indisposition necessitated a substitute.
Resigning his professorship in , he spent five years in pursuing his favorite studies, and was then called to the presidency of Brown University, and retained that office until A little later, Dr. Caswell was elected a member of the board of trustees of the University and in became a fellow in the corporation. For nearly 50 years he was closely associated with his Alma Mater, and his life work was that of an educator. His greatest interest as a scientific investigator was in meteorology and astronomy.
Adding later observations, a period of 45 years was covered. Caswell delivered four lectures on astronomy at the Smithsonian Institution in Washington. He joined the American Association for the Advancement of Science in , and was twice elected President. Caswell was an eminent speaker, a convincing writer, and a good citizen, taking an active part in all the interests of his city, his state and his country.
He published a number of scientific papers, besides essays, biographical sketches, and sermons. His death occurred on January 8, , at Providence, Rhode Island. Upon the downfall of Napoleon, he came to America and engaged in several unsuccessful business ventures, including a brief experiment in farming at Milford, Pennsylvania.
Here his son, William, was born in May, William Chauvenet received his elementary education in the schools of Philadelphia, and at the age of 16 entered Yale College, from which he was graduated in From an early age, he had shown a special aptitude for mathematical and mechanical studies, and soon after graduation was engaged to assist Professor Bache in magnetic observations at Girard College. Not long afterwards he was appointed a professor of mathematics in the Navy, and upon the death of Professor David McClure in , was placed in charge of the naval schools, which were then located in the Naval Asylum in Philadelphia, but in were removed to Annapolis.
The old plan of instructing midshipmen when at sea had proved unsatisfactory, and an eight months' course at the naval schools was substituted. This in turn seemed far from adequate, and Professor Chauvenet elaborated a plan for a regularly organized institution for the training of naval officers, and urged it upon the consideration of several successive secretaries of the Navy.
It was not until , however, that a regular four years' course was finally adopted. At first as professor of mathematics and astronomy, later of astronomy, navigation, and surveying, he was always the most prominent of the academic staff. The Academy derived reputation from his recognized ability. In Professor Chauvenet was offered the position of Professor of Mathematics in Yale College and in that of astronomy and natural philosophy.
At the same time he received an offer from Washington University, then newly-founded, of the professorship of mathematics. After consideration, he accepted the position in Washington University, and in , he became Chancellor of that institution. He labored assiduously and successfully in developing the University, but his health soon became impaired, and in he felt himself obliged to resign his position.
He died the next year at St. Paul, Minnesota, at the age of 51 years. Besides numerous papers on astronomical and mathematical subjects, Professor Chauvenet published several text-books of a high order of excellence. These included a work on trigonometry , a manual of spherical and practical astronomy , and a text-book of geometry In addition to his abilities as a man of science and an educator, Professor Chauvenet possessed marked talent as a musical performer, and his enthusiastic interest in that art continued to the end of his life.
Professor Coffin was born at Wiscasset, Maine, in He was graduated from Bowdoin College in In he was appointed Professor of Mathematics in the United States Navy and served on various vessels. He was detailed to the Naval Observatory at Washington and placed in charge of the Mural Circle in During the latter portion of this period, he was Professor of Astronomy and Navigation.
The same year, , he had charge of the American Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac. This work was then published at Cambridge, Massachusetts, but the office was afterwards removed to Washington. Professor Coffin continued his labors in this connection until September, , when he was retired from the Navy. He died at Washington, January 8, He published a number of articles on the phases of astronomy and mathematics to which he had given special study. Admiral Dahlgren was born in Philadelphia on November 13, His father, Bernhard Ullrik Dahlgren, a Swede, was obliged to leave his native country in , owing to his advocacy of republican principles.
He came to America in , and his government having withdrawn its opposition he obtained the post of Swedish Consul at Philadelphia. John Dahlgren attributed his inventive genius to his mother, while his desire for a seaman's life was stirred by the sight of the ships that lay at the wharves, or at the Navy Yard, at Philadelphia.
Commencing his education at the Quaker School, he made such progress under the watchful care of his father that when application was made for a midshipman's place in the Navy, the heartiest recommendations were received from his instructors. On the 12th of April orders came to proceed to Norfolk and report to Captain Barron for duty on the frigate Macedonia, sailing for Brazil. A cruise in the Mediterranean followed, with promotion to a lieutenancy. A little later he took part in the work of the Coast Survey.
About this time a threatened loss of eyesight caused the young man to retire to a farm near Hartsville, Pennsylvania, and later he made a home for his family at Wilmington, Delaware. With restored sight, Lieutenant Dahlgren, in , returned to active duty in the Navy and made a cruise of two years' duration in the Mediterranean in the ship Cumberland. In , being ordered to Washington on ordnance duty, Lieutenant Dahlgren began the studies and labors which in 16 years placed him at the head of the Ordnance Department of the Navy. In he announced the principles which he had evolved and after many discouragements and difficulties in protecting his inventions, and securing recognition for his ordnance system, on August 13, , he was given command of the sloop-of-war Plymouth, with which to introduce his new weapons of naval warfare and especially his inch gun.
After a year's cruise, the ship returned, all objections to the heavy guns having been overcome, and their inventor after his 11 years of labor, having obtained a complete victory for his ordnance principles. In July, , he took command of the South Atlantic Squadron and the following year he was placed in charge of the fleet stationed before Charleston, S. For gallant conduct he received the thanks of Congress and was made a rear-admiral. At the close of the war, Admiral Dahlgren returned to Washington and subsequently was placed in charge of the South Pacific Squadron.
Returning from the cruise, he took up his duties as Chief of the Bureau of Ordnance at Washington, continuing in this position until his death, July 12, The Dana family is supposed to be either French or Italian in origin. Its earliest American representative was Richard Dana who came from England in , and settled at Cambridge, Massachusetts. From him many men illustrious in science and literature trace their pedigree.
Entering as a sophomore, he was graduated in By the recommendation of his professors, he received the position of instructor in the Navy, leaving New York, on August 14, of the same year, in the ship of the line Delaware, for a cruise to the Mediterranean. In July, , he visited Mt. Vesuvius, and a letter written to Professor Silliman describing its state at that time was published in the American Journal of Science the following year.
On his return to New York after a voyage of 16 months, Dana was invited to become assistant to Professor Silliman, which offer he gladly accepted and was thus brought into touch with the circle of scientific men at Yale. At this time he began work on his System of Mineralogy the first edition of which was published in This appointment was made in January, , but the expedition did not sail until August 18, It returned to New York on June 10, Dana's letters written during the cruise are most entertaining, besides furnishing valuable geological and mineralogical information regarding the countries visited.
While preparing his reports, which occupied him for a period of 13 years, Professor Dana resided for a part of the time in Washington, but after his marriage to the daughter of Professor Silliman, he made his home in New Haven, that city then offering better facilities for his work. Most of the drawings were made with his own hand.
The titles of his communications to scientific societies and journals during this period number more than In , Dana began the study of the glaciers of New England and published a monograph on the geology of the New Haven region.
In he retired from his active duties as a professor in the university and in became professor emeritus. He died at New Haven on April 14, For about 50 years he served as one of the editors of the American Journal of Science. Dana, in Amer. Seventeen years of Admiral Davis' early life were spent almost constantly at sea, in the service of the Navy. He entered the Navy in , having left college for that purpose before his course was completed, but taking his degree with the class of In this cruise Davis was also with the Dolphin, visiting the then unknown islands of the Pacific, when a new island of the Society group was discovered.
The Dolphin was the first American man-of-war to visit the Hawaiian Islands. Davis received his midshipman's warrant in , was appointed acting sailing-master of the Ontario, and made a three years' cruise in the Mediterranean. Later he served as flag-lieutenant on the Vincennes, was connected with the naval rendezvous in Boston, and made a cruise in the Independence. During this voyage, the ship stopped at Southampton and Davis was in London at the time of the death of William IV, and saw the young queen Victoria. He also visited St. Petersburg and was presented at court.
During all these years he devoted himself to the study of astronomy and hydrography, and having had experience in navigation, he found the position offered him in the rapidly-developing Coast Survey most congenial to his tastes. When the Navy Department resolved to publish an American Ephemeris and Nautical Almanac, Davis was placed in charge of the work, and by successfully establishing it, made an enduring monument to his abilities.
Enjoying the facilities of Harvard University and the Cambridge Observatory, and having built a house in Cambridge, Davis passed many happy years in the congenial society of the men of science and letters then residing there. He also published several works of value to navigators. During the Civil War, Davis rendered efficient service on the Construction Board of the Navy, and as fleet captain in the expedition against Port Royal, and flag officer in command of the Mississippi flotilla.
For his gallant conduct he was made Rear-Admiral, February 7, , and received the thanks of Congress. During this year, Admiral Davis became the first Chief of the Bureau of Navigation and in assumed the superintendency of the Naval Observatory, raising it to a high degree of efficiency. Called once more to service at sea, Admiral Davis in assumed charge of the Brazilian Squadron, when he encountered the unfortunate trouble with Lopez, which caused so much discussion in military circles.
During his absence in Brazil, Harvard University conferred on him the degree of Doctor of Laws, the only instance up to that time in which it had been given to a naval commander. Admiral Davis commanded the naval station at Norfolk for three years, returning to the superintendency of the Observatory in , when he became chairman of the Transit of Venus Commission. In editing Captain Hall's journal of Arctic expeditions and in work on the naval exhibit at the Centennial Exhibition, he overtaxed his health and died at Washington, February 18, He was buried on the banks of the Charles River, overlooking the University and his old home, and a stained-glass window, bearing his record, has been placed in the Memorial Hall at Harvard.
He was one of those most deeply interested in the Academy movement, and seems to have been the first to conceive the idea of having it incorporated under the Federal Government. He was a member of the first Council of , and served on many important committees. He was born at Frankfort-on-the-Main, February 2, His parents established a school for young ladies, to which both contributed their superior talents, and his earlier education was guided by them.
At the age of 15 years he showed a great interest in botany, and began a collection of plants. Studying at home until his 18th year, he entered the University of Heidelberg, in Here he formed a friendship with Alexander Braun, which lasted until the death of that distinguished scientist. Having joined in a political demonstration in Heidelberg, young Engelmann was obliged to leave the University, and went to Berlin.
His inaugural dissertation, relating chiefly to the monstrosities and aberrant forms of plants, and illustrated by plates made by himself, is still considered one of the most philosophical of its kind, and was highly commended at the time by the poet-philosopher Goethe. He made many fatiguing horse-back journeys through the neighboring States, during which he kept a record of his botanical observations, which he afterwards used in his scientific work. Deciding to remain in St. Louis, then only a trading post, Dr. Engelmann commenced the practice of medicine with so little means, that he was forced to part with his gun and his faithful horse to furnish his offices.
C. S. Lewis
Four years later, however, his practice had become very successful. Familiarity with French and German added much to this success among the early settlers who spoke those languages. This and his great professional ability brought him financial independence, but even to the last year of his life he did not hesitate to respond to the call of those desiring his aid.
His vacations, spent at the Harvard gardens and herbarium in the company of his friend Dr. Asa Gray, or in Europe with his wife and son, were devoted to gathering data for his scientific work. In later life Dr. Engelmann visited the mountain region of North Carolina and Tennessee, the Lake Superior region, the Rocky Mountains and the Pacific Coast, seeing for the first time in the native haunts many species of plants he had studied before from dried specimens, and adding to the great collections already made.
He was deeply interested in the land of his adoption and showed his devotion to its scientific welfare by his efforts in the founding of the St. Louis Academy of Science, of which he was 16 times elected President. He also delivered courses of lectures at Washington University, an institution in which he took great interest. In return, many marks of appreciation were given him, preeminently in the generosity of Mr. Shaw and others in collecting and republishing all his botanical works. His entire herbarium, comprising , specimens, and his library, including his notes and botanical sketches, have since been given by his son to the Missouri Botanical Garden, sometimes known as the Shaw Garden.
Crushed in spirit by the death of his wife and the illness of his son, in Dr. Engelmann's health was seriously impaired, but accepting Professor Sargent's invitation to accompany him to the forests of the Pacific Coast he gradually regained his spirit of cheerfulness, and though the journey was an arduous one for a man of his age he once more took up his work. In he revisited Europe, but soon after his return succumbed to the disease that had fastened itself upon him, and died February 4, Engelmann's last publication was his meteorological work —the result of his observations for 47 years.
His botanical work was very extensive, the notes made in the examination of specimens amounting to 20, slips, constituting 60 quarto volumes. His studies of the cactus family, of the yucca and the agave, of the American oaks and conifers, and of North American vines, show marks of his indomitable energy and patience. His endurance as a traveller was remarkable. The career of John Fries Frazer was largely connected with the city of Philadelphia. He first attended a school in Philadelphia, where he took high rank in study and likewise in sports, and after spending a year at the military school of Captain Partridge, at Middletown, Connecticut, became a pupil of Rev.
By him he was thoroughly drilled in the classics and in mathematics, as well as in ecclesiastical history. After graduation from the University of Pennsylvania, young Frazer served as laboratory assistant to Professor Bache. Later he held the position of assistant in the Geological Survey of Pennsylvania, and also took up the study of law in the office of John M.
In due course he was admitted to practice. The physical and chemical sciences, however, proved more attractive to Frazer, and after being professor in the High School of Philadelphia for some time, he accepted the professorship of chemistry and physics in the University of Pennsylvania. This position he held till his death, when, from being the youngest member of the faculty, he had become senior professor and Vice-Provost.
As a teacher, Professor Frazer was most successful. His lectures were delivered with enthusiasm and enlivened by many anecdotes, and roused the deepest interest in the students. At the Franklin Institute, also, he carried on, with great satisfaction, the task of popularizing physical science.
After his marriage in , his house became a center of social and intellectual intercourse. He had assembled a large library, with the contents of which he was so well acquainted that, on a great variety of subjects, he could turn to the exact pages of works rarely referred to, and give the desired information. Ill health obliged him in to seek rest and recreation by journeying to Europe.
He was so much benefited thereby that he was able to carry on his work again, which he did until his sudden death on October 12, This occurred on the day following the inauguration of the new University building, while superintending the transfer of his apparatus and scientific library to the shelves in his department. Wolcott Gibbs belonged to a family in which scientific tastes were strongly manifested.
His father, Colonel George Gibbs, wrote several memoirs upon mineralogical subjects, and his name was given to the mineral Gibbsite. His brother also attained some reputation as a geologist. On his mother's side, several of the Wolcott family held important positions under the Government, her father having been Secretary of the Treasury, a Justice of the U. Circuit Court, and finally Governor of Connecticut. An earlier representative of the family, another Oliver Wolcott, was one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence.
His father's death, when he was only 11 years old, left him to the care of his mother, who impressed on him the influence of her superior character. At a very early age, he showed a fondness for minerals and flowers. He was sent to a private school in Boston when seven years old, and his summers were spent near Newport at the home of Dr.
Channing, who was a connection by marriage. Returning to New York, young Gibbs prepared for college, and entered Columbia, from which he was graduated in In his junior year he published a paper on a new kind of galvanic battery in which carbon was used, probably for the first time, as the inactive plate. Though never practicing medicine, Gibbs obtained a diploma from the College of Physicians and Surgeons in New York, in , having previously been associated with Professor Robert Hare in his laboratory at the University of Pennsylvania. To perfect his training in chemistry, Dr.
Gibbs spent some time in Berlin, at Giessen, and in Paris, and among his teachers Heinrich Rose probably stands foremost in the influence which he had in turning Gibbs' attention toward analytical and inorganic chemistry. After his return to America, Dr. Much of his time was given to research work, and in , in connection with Genth, Dr. Gibbs published an important memoir on the ammonia-cobalt bases, which brought him prominently to the notice of the scientific world.
He became associate editor of the American Journal of Science in , and furnished abstracts amounting to pages to that periodical. In he published his researches on the platinum metals, which established his reputation as a chemist. In he was called to the Rumford professorship at Harvard University. Besides lecturing on heat and light, Professor Gibbs had charge of the chemical laboratory in the Lawrence Scientific School. Associated in this school with Agassiz, Gray, Wyman, Peirce and Cooke, he carried on research work for eight years, at the same time supervising the work of the post-graduate students whose investigations were undertaken on their own initiative, with only a final examination for the bachelor's degree, after the pattern of the German schools, whose methods, through the influence of Gibbs, were thus introduced into the United States.
He equipped a small laboratory for himself and carried out those brilliant researches on complex inorganic acids, which brought him the highest praise. The chief piece of apparatus used in these important investigations was a cast-iron cooking stove, and the rest of the equipment was equally modest. After the closing of the Scientific School laboratory, Dr.
Gibbs lectured to small classes upon the spectroscope, and on thermodynamics. Upon his retirement as professor emeritus, he removed his private laboratory to Newport, where he had a summer home. Here he took pleasure in his garden and especially in the cultivation of roses. His death occurred on December 9, , when he was nearly 87 years of age. Gibbs wrote no books and delivered no popular lectures, but his researches and his voluminous scientific writings brought him honors from many scientific societies in Europe and America.
He was the first Home Secretary of the National Academy of Sciences and its President for five years, and also presided over the American Association for the Advancement of Science in As a citizen he was not devoid of public spirit. From F. His father, who was in the service of the Government, was a descendant of Thomas Gilliss, a native of Scotland, who settled at an early date on the Eastern Shore of Maryland.
James Melville Gilliss entered the Navy, as midshipman, in He obtained leave of absence in , and entered the University of Virginia, but was able to remain there only a year on account of a serious affection of the eyes, brought on by overstudy. In he was assigned to the Depot of Charts and Instruments, an office whose function was in part the rating of chronometers. Gilliss was soon placed in charge of this office and began to make observations for the determinations of time. In the winter of —8 he observed a large series of transits of the moon and moon-culminating stars.
When the United States Exploring Expedition sailed in , Gilliss remained in Washington under orders to observe moon-culminations, occultations and transits, and continued in that work during the four years in which the expedition was absent. He published the first American volume of astronomical observations, prepared the first catalogue of stars and constructed a working astronomical observatory. At the same time he carried on magnetic and meteorological observations.
Gilliss pursued his investigations with remarkable energy and studious application and was possessed of extraordinary powers of sight which enabled him to make extremely accurate observations. The establishment of the U. Naval Observatory in was brought about largely through the efforts of Gilliss, and he was charged with the preparation of the plans for the construction of the building and the arrangement of the instruments. In he was assigned to duty in the Coast Survey under Professor Bache. At the suggestion of Dr.
Gerling of Marburg, he initiated a movement for an expedition to Chile, for the purpose of observing the planet Venus and in established a station at Santiago where for nearly three years he carried on observations of Venus and Mars, together with meridian observations of 2, stars and also zones of about 23, stars, as well as observations on earthquakes, and barometer and thermometer readings.
From to he was occupied in preparing the report of this expedition which comprises six quarto volumes. In he made a brief expedition to Peru and in to Washington Territory for the purpose of observing the total eclipse of the sun. In he was placed in charge of the U. Naval Observatory, in which office he remained until his death in From B. His father was a teacher of music and a skilful engraver, but turned his hand to many things, among which was the management of a small farm on which he lived. From to he was a member of the State Legislature.
The care of the little farm among the hills demanded the help of his son Augustus, who at 15 years of age took entire charge of it. Having a desire to obtain more education than he had received at the common school, young Gould by great industry succeeded in gaining the preparation for entering Harvard College, which he did in During his whole course he maintained himself by hard work and in strict economy. He studied medicine in Boston, and after spending one year as resident student in the Massachusetts General Hospital, received his doctor's degree in Natural history was always his favorite study, and he became a member of the Boston Society of Natural History soon after its formation, and labored afterwards for it until his death, rising at four o'clock in the morning and working on the collections before his professional duties began.
His first collections were of insects, but afterwards he turned his attention to mollusks. He prepared a volume of nearly pages, on invertebrate animals of Massachusetts, illustrated by more than drawings which he made with his own hand from nature. This attracted much attention from naturalists both at home and in Europe, and received special commendation from the elder Agassiz. In , Dr. He also edited the unfinished work of his friend, Dr. Amos Binney, on the terrestrial air-breathing mollusks of the United States.
Gould made his greatest contribution to natural history by the work done on the collection made by Captain James P. Couthouy, U. As all the notes were lost, and various restrictions were made as to the manner of doing the work, the task was a perplexing one. Besides his papers on natural history, which number more than , he also published medical addresses and reports, which were of great value to his profession. He was President of the Massachusetts Medical Society, and for several years consulting physician of the Massachusetts General Hospital.
The church to which he belonged, and the public schools were benefited by his labors. Untiring in his work he was still hoping to attain better results as a physician and naturalist, when he was suddenly attacked by cholera, and died on September 15, The life of Benjamin Apthorp Gould was intimately connected with the city of Boston. Born there on September 27, , he received his early education from his father, a teacher of acknowledged merit, and entered Harvard College in For a short time after graduation, he was head-master of the Roxbury Latin School. Though early in his college course he showed a fondness for the classics, the later years were devoted largely to mathematics, and he thus laid the foundation for his future work.
It is said that through the influence of Alexander von Humboldt, Gould obtained a home in the family of the astronomer Gauss. Though this was considered a high honor, the first of the kind, probably, paid to an American, Dr. Gould declined the position, in spite of the fact that it was urged upon him a second time.
His desire was to mark out for himself an astronomical career in America. From to Dr. Gould was connected with the Government service, carrying forward, under the Coast Survey, the work begun by Bache and Walker in fixing the longitude of places in the United States. During this period he served as Director of the Dudley Observatory at Albany, assisted in reducing and computing astronomical observations made at the Naval Observatory in Washington, and made some valuable contributions to astronomical literature, which added greatly to his European reputation.
During the Civil War, Dr. In , he married Mary Apthorp Quincy, daughter of Rev. Josiah Quincy, and by her aid he was able to build an observatory at Cambridge, and engage in astronomical observations, which he did for several years. Gould went to the Argentine Republic for the purpose of organizing a government observatory at Cordoba. He remained in Argentina for 15 years and devoted himself to the study of the southern celestial hemisphere, the crowning work of his life. The loss of his two elder children by drowning and afterwards the death of his wife, who had ever aided him in his labors, bore heavily upon his spirits, but after the last of three trips to his home in Boston, he resolutely returned alone to Cordoba to complete his task.
When in he finally came back to this country he brought with him photographic plates of southern stellar clusters. To the measurement and reduction of these he devoted the rest of his life, and had the satisfaction of seeing the last of these results printed in the Astronomical Journal, which was brought to him a few hours before his death.
For the continued publication of the Journal he had made adequate provision. A public dinner was given Dr. Gould on his arrival in Boston, presided over by Hon. Leverett Saltonstall, Dr. Gould did valuable work for the American Metrological Society of which he was at one time president. He was one of the founders, and first president, of the Colonial Society of Massachusetts, and received the honorary degree of Doctor of Laws from Harvard and Columbia.
Many distinguished societies enrolled him among their members, and he was made a Knight of the Order of Merit in Prussia, a distinction given to only two other Americans. His life ended by an accident on the evening of Thanksgiving Day, November 26, His father was a farmer and tanner. Asa, the oldest of eight children, assisted his father, and attended the country school.
Later, he attended the grammar school at Clinton, New York, and was also a student at Fairfield Academy for four years. His first interest in natural science was aroused by the lectures of Dr. James Hadley at the Fairfield Medical School. His taste for botany was aroused by reading in Brewster's Edinburgh Encyclopaedia and Gray soon became interested in collecting plants about Fairfield, besides making excursions to other parts of the State of New York.
In he became a student at Fairfield Medical School and received a doctor's degree in , but never practiced. While a student, Dr. Gray assembled quite an extensive herbarium, and many mineralogical specimens, and began a correspondence with Dr. Lewis C. Beck of Albany and Dr. John Torrey of New York. Gray was called to New York as assistant to Professor Torrey.
From this time, his attention was chiefly given to botany, and some original papers were soon published. The University proved unable, however, to meet its engagements and Dr. The first volume of this important treatise appeared in , and the second in Attracting the favorable notice of President Quincy of Harvard, the newly-endowed Fisher Professorship of Natural History was soon offered him. Gray entered on his duties there in Having married, he established himself in Cambridge and surrounded himself with books and plants.
His home soon became a center for the study of botany by students both old and young. Out of his small salary, Gray contrived to find means to carry on his investigations in botany and to accumulate specimens, so that in , when he presented his collections to the Harvard College, the herbarium contained more than , specimens and the library about 2, books.
From the beginning of his botanical work, Dr. Gray believed that the description and classification of the flowering plants was of the utmost importance and after thirty-five years spent in the development of this branch of botany he could safely be said to stand at the head of American systematists, and ranked with the great botanists of the world. He died on January 30, From W. D ANA , in Amer.
He was named after the Swiss patriot Arnold von Winkelried. His boyhood was passed at Hauterive, and from his home there he had glorious views of the Bernese Oberland, the Jungfrau, the Schreckhorn, and other mountain peaks, which must have helped to inspire in him the love of nature which he manifested early in life.
In Guyot went to Germany to complete his education. He spent some months at Metzingen, and later at Carlsruhe in the family of Mr. Braun, the father of Alexander Braun, the distinguished botanist and philosopher, where he met Agassiz, Schimper, Imhoff, and other naturalists. Here, under the preaching of the. Reverend Samuel Petit-pierre, he turned from science to theology, and began to prepare himself for the church, although his leisure hours were still spent in collecting plants and shells, and in other scientific activities.
In he went to Berlin, chiefly to attend the lectures of Schleiermacher, Neander and other historians and theologians at the University of Berlin, but he also became interested in those of Hegel, Steffens, Hofmann, Dove, and other professors of the scientific faculty, and made the acquaintance of Humboldt. After a little time he found his inclinations toward the study of nature so strong that he abandoned theology for natural science. While in Berlin, Carl Ritter, the geographer, made an especially strong impression on him and turned his mind in the direction of geographical studies.
While in Paris in , he was urged by Agassiz to take up the study of the glaciers of the Alps, to which he himself had attracted the attention of the scientific world the preceding year by the announcement of his glacial theory. Guyot acceded to the request of his friend and spent some weeks in an examination of the Alpine glaciers. He made several important original discoveries regarding their structure and action, but as it had been agreed between himself and Agassiz that his special field should be considered to be the phenomena of the Swiss erratic boulders, his results were withheld from publication for forty years.
His results were to have appeared in the second volume of Agassiz's work on glaciers, but unfortunately the enterprise was terminated abruptly by the outbreak of the revolution of The Academy was suppressed, and the professors, including Guyot, were left without occupation.
Guyot was urged by Agassiz to come to the United States, which he finally decided to do. After this time Guyot was occupied for six years, under the auspices of the Massachusetts Board of Education, in lecturing to teachers on geography and methods of teaching, and also prepared a series of geographies and maps for schools which had a very extensive use throughout the country. Soon after coming to the United States, Guyot made the acquaintance of Joseph Henry, who consulted him regarding the development of the system of meteorological observations, and also entrusted him with obtaining improved instruments.
He prepared directions for meteorological observations for the Smithsonian Institution in , and a volume of meteorological and physical tables, which was published originally in , and has passed through several editions. Under the joint auspices of the Smithsonian Institution and the State governments of New York and Massachusetts, Guyot located meteorological stations throughout the States mentioned. In , on the occasion of a visit to Europe, he instituted a comparison of American and European barometers.
For thirty years Guyot carried on, largely with the encouragement of the Smithsonian Institution, extensive barometric investigations throughout the mountain ranges of the Atlantic slope, from the White Mountains of New Hampshire to the Smoky Mountains of North Carolina. He made thousands of barometric measurements of altitudes, including those of Mount Washington and other high peaks, which were remarkable for their exactness. In , he began studies in natural history under Amos Eaton at the Rensselaer School now the Polytechnic Institute in Troy, New York, where he afterwards occupied the chair of geology until , at which time he became professor emeritus.
He was appointed assistant geologist in the geological survey of the Fourth District of New York in , and the following year, as geologist, was placed in charge of the work of this western district He published reports annually from to , and in a final report in quarto form—one of the series of volumes on the natural history of the State printed by order of the Legislature. In this, the fossils, the lithological characters of the rocks, and the succession of the strata are fully described.
The same year Hall was appointed paleontologist of the State and continued in that position until In , he was appointed Geologist of Iowa, and in Geologist of Wisconsin, and the results of his western investigations are largely embodied in the reports of the surveys of those States. In , he received the Wollaston Medal of the Geological Society of London, of which he was a foreign member. At about this time he took up the study of the graptolites of the so-called Quebec group, and in published an elaborate monograph in the 20th Report of the New York Cabinet of Natural History.
In , he aided in organizing the International Congress of Geologists, and was Honorary President of the Congress held in Washington in He was also the first President of the Geological Society of America in He also contributed many papers to the American Journal of Science and to the transactions of American and foreign scientific societies. The life of Henry may be properly divided into three periods; his early years, the period during which he was a professor in the Albany Academy and at Princeton University, and the period during which he was Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution.
Simon Newcomb said of him in What, under the circumstances, could be said within a brief space to show what the world owes to him has already been so well said by others that it would be impracticable to make a really new presentation without writing a volume. Henry was born on December 17, , at Albany, New York. He was of Scotch descent, and both his maternal and paternal grandparents came to New York at the same time in His early years were spent at Albany and at Galway, a village near Saratoga. As a boy he was imaginative. His mind ran on romance and adventure, and his reading was made up largely of novels, poetry and plays.
He even organized an amateur dramatic company, and took part as an actor or directed the acting of others. He attended a night school, and afterwards the Albany Academy, and also engaged in the study of medicine. Having occupied himself for a little time as a private tutor and a surveyor, at the age of twenty-six he became Professor of Mathematics in the Albany Academy. Here in he began that most important series of investigations which in a few years placed him at the head of American men of science.
In he was elected Professor of Natural Philosophy at Princeton University, then the College of New Jersey, and during the fourteen years in which he occupied this position, all his spare time was spent in original research in electro-magnetism, the results of which were published at frequent intervals. Regarding these investigations the Academy registered its opinion in in the following terms:. They base this suggestion upon his distinguished merit in the following respects, viz.
As being the first to develop the power of the electro-magnet as actuated by an intensity or a quantity battery. As the first to apply the electro-magnet in the invention of an electromagnetic telegraph. For the plan of the Smithsonian Institution for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men, and the successful development of this plan during an administration of more than twenty-five years as Scientific Director of this Establishment. For the improvement in fog-signals in connection with the United States Light House Board, and discoveries in sound.
In Henry resigned from Princeton and became the first Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution, then just established. The following year he presented his plan of organization and from that time until his death in , a period of 31 years, he devoted all his energies to its practical development, whereby he gained an unique position among American men of science and made the Smithsonian Institution better known throughout the world than any other American institution. His official position brought him into constant contact, either personally or by letter, with all in the United States who were engaged in scientific work, and the inspiration and direct control which he exercised were constant and far-reaching.
They related to a great variety of subjects—acoustics, meteorology, education, the phenomena of physical and organic forces, evolution, the qualities of building materials and of illuminating oils, etc. In he was appointed by President Fillmore a member of the Lighthouse Board. Early in the Civil War he, with Professor Bache and Admiral Davis, was appointed by the Secretary of the Navy on the commission to investigate various practical questions connected with the operations of the Navy.
It was the work of this commission that appears to have suggested the organization of the National Academy of Sciences in the form which it finally assumed. Henry, according to his own utterances, did not take part in its organization but he was one of the charter members and the chairman of the first committee of the Academy, that on weights, measures and coinage. In he was elected Vice-President, and in became President, his term of office extending over eleven years. See also the sketch by W M. His father, Theodore Erasmus Hilgard, was for many years Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals, but on account of his liberal opinions was so dissatisfied with conditions in his native country that in he emigrated to America.
The journey from his native place to Havre was made in wagons. After a voyage of 62 days, the family landed at New Orleans at Christmas, and journeyed up the Mississippi to St. Louis, and thence to a farm at Belleville, Illinois. As the oldest son, Julius gave valuable help by his practical talents. His education was carried on at home. Music, chemistry, ancient and modern languages and mathematics the higher branches of the latter being studied without outside help , occupied his attention until , when he went to Philadelphia to study engineering and to obtain employment.
In that city he made the acquaintance of Professor Bache, and commenced a life-long friendship with Elisha Kent Kane, the arctic explorer. The first work obtained was in the preliminary surveys of the Bear Mountain Railroad. Soon, however, Professor Bache, recognizing his abilities, procured young Hilgard a position in the Coast Survey, in which service he continued, with short interruptions, until his death.
In the field work, in computations and investigations in the office, in the publication of the records and results of the Survey, in his influence on political leaders, Mr. Hilgard rendered highly intelligent and valuable aid to the service. During the failing health of Professor Bache, Hilgard, who was at that time in charge of the Coast Survey office, was obliged to perform the duties of Superintendent, which he did without extra compensation until the appointment of Benjamin Peirce to the position.
Though it seems fitting that Hilgard should have become Superintendent upon the death of Bache, he did not receive the appointment until While Assistant Superintendent, his work in the Office of Weights and Measures gained him most favorable notice in Europe and he was invited to the directorship of an International Bureau of Weights and Measures about to be established in Paris. He also had great satisfaction in being instrumental in bringing to a successful ending the operations for the telegraphic determination of transatlantic longitudes.
Resigning his position in July, , he lived in retirement for five years, and died at Washington, May 9, From E. Edward Hitchcock was born in Deerfield, Massachusetts, in His parents were intellectual, high-minded, and deeply religious people, and from them he inherited on the one hand his interest in religion and theology, and on the other his love of learning, and the inquiring turn of mind which early in life led to a persevering study of science.
He began teaching when only 22 years of age, first in his native town, and later in Conway, Massachusetts. Although interested in many subjects, he devoted almost all of his time to geology, and in was made chief of the Geological Survey of Massachusetts. Hitchcock was the first to suggest and carry on the survey of the State of Massachusetts, which was the first, not only in the long series of surveys subsequently carried on in the United States, but the first survey of an entire State under government authority inaugurated anywhere in the world. Similarly in the case of the commissurotomy analogy.
It is highly unnatural to treat the distinct centers of consciousness as distinct persons; rather, it is most plausible to treat them as mere aspects of a single subject. Note, too, that it is hard to see how the personalities and centers of consciousness that figure into these analogies could be viewed as the same substance as one another, as the doctrine of the trinity requires us to say of the divine persons. Again, it is natural to see them merely as distinct aspects of a single substance.
This, then, seems to be the primary objection that proponents of these sorts of analogies need to overcome. More formally:. If this claim is true, then it is open to us to say that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same God but distinct persons. Notice, however, that this is all we need to make sense of the trinity.
If the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same God and there are no other Gods , then there will be exactly one God; but if they are also distinct persons and there are only three of them , then there will be three persons. The main challenge for this solution is to show that the Relative Sameness assumption is coherent, and to show that the doctrine of the trinity can be stated in a way that is demonstrably consistent given the assumption of relative identity.
Peter van Inwagen's work on the trinity , has been mostly concerned with addressing this challenge. Their suggestion is that reflection on cases of material constitution e. If this is right, then, by analogy, such reflection can also help us to see how Father, Son, and Holy Spirit can be the same God but three different persons.
Consider Rodin's famous bronze statue, The Thinker. It is a single material object; but it can be truly described both as a statue which is one kind of thing , and as a lump of bronze which is another kind of thing. A little reflection, moreover, reveals that the statue is distinct from the lump of bronze. For example, if the statue were melted down, we would no longer have both a lump and a statue: the lump would remain albeit in a different shape but Rodin's Thinker would no longer exist. This seems to show that the lump is something distinct from the statue, since one thing can exist apart from another only if they're distinct.
If this is right, then this is not a case in which one thing simply appears in two different ways, or is referred to by two different labels. It is, rather, a case in which two distinct things occupy exactly the same region of space at the same time. Most of us readily accept the idea that distinct things , broadly construed, can occupy the same place at the same time. The event of your sitting, for example, occupies exactly the same place that you do when you are seated.
But we are more reluctant to say that distinct material objects occupy the same place at the same time. Philosophers have therefore suggested various ways of making sense of the phenomenon of material constitution. One way of doing so is to say that the statue and the lump are the same material object even though they are distinct relative to some other kind e.
The advantage of this idea is that it allows us to say that the statue and the lump count as one material object, thus preserving the principle of one material object to a place. The cost, however, is that we commit ourselves to the initially puzzling idea that two distinct things can be the same material object.
What, we might wonder, would it even mean for this to be true? It is hard to see why such a claim should be objectionable; and if it is right, then our problem is solved. The lump of bronze in our example is clearly distinct from The Thinker , since it can exist without The Thinker ; but it also clearly shares all the same matter in common with The Thinker , and hence, on this view, counts as the same material object.
Likewise, then, we might say that all it means for one person and another to be the same God is for them to do something analogous to sharing in common all of whatever is analogous to matter in divine beings. On this view, the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are the same God but different persons in just the way a statue and its constitutive lump are the same material object but different form-matter compounds.
Of course, God is not material; so this can only be an analogy. But still, it helps to provide an illuminating account of inter-trinitarian relations, and it does so in a way that seems at least initially to avoid both modalism and polytheism. Brower and Rea maintain that each person of the trinity is a substance ; thus, none is a mere aspect of a substance, and so modalism is avoided.
And yet they are the same substance ; and so polytheism is avoided. This account is not entirely free of difficulties however. Critics also object that this view does not directly answer the question of how many material objects are present for any given region, lump, or chunk. Is there an objective way of deciding how many objects are constituted by the lump of bronze that composes The Thinker? Are there only two things statue and lump or are there many more paperweight, battering ram, etc. And if there are more, what determines how many there are? The doctrine of the Incarnation holds that, at a time roughly two thousand years in the past, the second person of the trinity took on himself a distinct, fully human nature.
As a result, he was a single person in full possession of two distinct natures, one human and one divine. The Council of Chalcedon C. For example, it seems on the one hand that human beings are necessarily created beings, and that they are necessarily limited in power, presence, knowledge, and so on. On the other hand, divine beings are essentially the opposite of all those things. Thus, it appears that one person could bear both natures, human and divine, only if such a person could be both limited and unlimited in various ways, created and uncreated, and so forth.
And this is surely impossible. Two main strategies have been pursued in an attempt to resolve this apparent paradox. The first is the kenotic view. The second is the two-minds view. We shall take each in turn. According to this view, in becoming incarnate, God the Son voluntarily and temporarily laid aside some of his divine attributes in order to take on a human nature and thus his earthly mission.
If the kenotic view is correct, then contrary to what theists are normally inclined to think properties like omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence are not essential to divinity: something can remain divine even after putting some or all of those properties aside. The problem, however, is that if these properties aren't essential to divinity, then it is hard to see what would be essential.
If we say that something can be divine while lacking those properties, then we lose all grip on what it means to be divine. One might respond to this worry by saying that the only property that is essential to divine beings as such is the property being divine. This reply, however, makes divinity out to be a primitive, unanalyzable property.
Critics like John Hick 73 complain that such a move makes divinity out to be unacceptably mysterious. Alternatively, one might simply deny that any properties are necessary for divinity. It is widely held in the philosophy of biology, for example, that there are no properties possession of which are jointly necessary andsufficient for membership in, say, the kind humanity.
That is, it seems that for any interesting property you might think of as partly definitive of humanity, there are or could be humans who lack that property. Thus, many philosophers think that membership in the kind is determined simply by family resemblance to paradigm examples of the kind. Something counts as human, in other words, if, and only if, it shares enough of the properties that are typical of humanity. If we were to say the same thing about divinity, there would be no in-principle objection to the idea that Jesus counts as divine despite lacking omniscience or other properties like, perhaps, omnipotence, omnipresence, or even perfect goodness.
One might just say that he is knowledgeable, powerful, and good enough that, given his other attributes, he bears the right sort of family resemblance to the other members of the Godhead to count as divine. Some have offered more refined versions of the kenotic theory, arguing that the basic view mischaracterizes the divine attributes.
According to these versions of the kenotic view, rather than attribute to God properties like ommniscience, omipotence, and the like, we should instead say that God has properties like the following: being omniscient-unless-temporarily-and-freely-choosing-to-be-otherwise, being omnipotent-unless-temporarily-and-freely-choosing-to-be-otherwise, and so forth. These latter sorts of properties can be retained without contradiction even when certain powers are laid aside.
In this way, then, Jesus can divest himself of some of his powers to become fully human while still remaining fully divine. Feenstra, — Unfortunately, however, this response only raises a further question, namely: if Christ's incarnation required his temporarily surrendering omniscience, then his later exaltation must have involved continued non-omniscience or the loss of his humanity. However, Christians have typically argued that the exalted Christ is omniscient while retaining his humanity.
It is hard to see how this view can respond to such an objection. But for one response see Feenstra Moving away from the standard version of the kenotic theory, some philosophers and theologians endorse views according to which it only seems as if Christ lacked divine attributes like omniscience, omnipotence, and so on.
They are views according to which the apparent loss of divine attributes is only pretense or illusion. Among other things, this raises the concern that the incarnation is somehow a grand deception, thus casting doubt on Christ's moral perfection. More acceptable, then, are views according to which it somehow seems even to Christ himself as if certain divine attributes which he actually possesses have been laid aside. On this view, the loss of omniscience, omnipotence, and so on is only simulated.
Christ retains all of the traditional divine attributes. But from his point of view it is, nevertheless, as if those attributes are gone. Crisp , Ch. One concern that might be raised with respect to the doctrine of functional kenosis is that it is hard to see how a divine being could possibly simulate to himself, without outright pretense the loss of attributes like omniscience or omnipotence. But perhaps the resources for addressing this worry are to be found in what is now widely seen as the main rival to the traditional kenotic theory: Thomas V.
Morris develops the two minds view in two steps, one defensive, the other constructive. First, Morris claims that the incoherence charge against the incarnation rests on a mistake. The critic assumes that, for example, humans are essentially non-omniscient. But what are the grounds for this assertion? Unless we think that we have some special direct insight into the essential properties of human nature, our grounds are that all of the human beings we have encountered have that property.
But this merely suffices to show that the property is common to humans, not that it is essential. As Morris points out, it may be universally true that all human beings, for example, were born within ten miles of the surface of the earth, but this does not mean that this is an essential property of human beings. An offspring of human parents born on the international space station would still be human. If this is right, the defender of the incarnation can reject the critic's characterization of human nature, and thereby eliminate the conflict between divine attributes and human nature so characterized.
This merely provides a way to fend off the critic, however, without supplying any positive model for how the incarnation should be understood. In the second step, then, Morris proposes that we think about the incarnation as the realization of one person with two minds: a human mind and a divine mind.
During his earthly life, Morris proposes, Jesus Christ had two minds, with consciousness centered in the human mind. This human mind had partial access to the contents of the divine mind, while God the Son's divine mind had full access to the corresponding human mind. The chief difficulty this view faces concerns the threat of Nestorianism the view, formally condemned by the Church, that there are two persons in the incarnate Christ.
It is natural simply to identify persons with minds—or, at the very least, to assume that the number of minds equals the number of persons. If we go with such very natural assumptions, however, the two minds view leads directly to the view that the incarnation gives us two persons, contrary to orthodoxy. Moreover, one might wonder whether taking the two minds model seriously leads us to the view that Christ suffers from something like multiple personality disorder. In response to both objections, however, one might note that contemporary psychology seems to provide resources which support the viability of the two minds model.
As Morris points out elsewhere, the human mind is sometimes characterized as a system of somewhat autonomous subsystems. The normal human mind, for example, includes on these characterizations both a conscious mind the seat of awareness and an unconscious mind.
It does not really matter for present purposes whether this psychological story is correct ; the point is just that it seems coherent, and seems neither to involve multiple personality nor to imply that what seems to be a single subject is, in reality, two distinct persons. Morris proposes, then, that similar sorts of relations can be supposed to obtain between the divine and human mind of Christ.
First, a brief note about terminology. But it is not a neutral term. Rather, it already embodies a partial theory about what human salvation involves and about what the work of Christ accomplishes. In particular, it presupposes that saving human beings from death and separation from God primarily involves atoning for sin rather than say delivering human beings from some kind of bondage, repairing human nature, or something else.
Obviously these terms are not all synonymous; so part of the task of an overall theology of salvation—a soteriology—is to sort out the relations among these various terms and phrases is salvation simply to be identified with eternal life, for example? That said, however, we do not ourselves intend to advocate on behalf of any particular terminology. In what follows, we shall discuss only three of the most well-known and widely discussed theories or families of theories about what the work of Jesus accomplishes on behalf of human beings.
All take the suffering and death of Jesus to be an integral part of his work on our behalf; but the first theory holds Jesus' resurrection and ascension also to be absolutely central to that work, and the second theory holds his sinless life to be of near-equal importance. Discussing these theories under three separate headings as we do below may foster the illusion that what we have are three mutually exclusive views, each marking off a wholly distinct camp in the history of soteriological theorizing, and each aiming to provide a full accounting of what Jesus' work contributes to human salvation from death and separation from God.
As we have already indicated, however, a variety of terms and images are used in the Bible to characterize what Jesus accomplished and, in contrast with the doctrines of the trinity and incarnation, we do not have for the doctrine of salvation an ecumenical conciliar prononouncement i. Consequently, it is no surprise that many thinkers appropriate imagery from more than one of the theories described below or others besides to explain their understanding of the nature and efficacy of Jesus' work.
The ransom theory, also known as the Christus Victor theory is generally regarded as the dominant theory of the Patristic period, and has been attributed to such early Church Fathers as Origen, Athanasius, and especially Gregory of Nyssa. One might question, however, whether any of these theologians ever intended to offer the ransom story about to be described as a theory of the atonement, rather than simply an extended metaphor. What does seem clear, however, is that they at least intended to emphasize victory over sin, death, and so on as one of the principle salvific effects of the work of Christ.
The ransom theory takes as its point of departure the idea that human beings are in a kind of bondage to sin, death, and the Devil. The basic view, familiar enough now from literature and film, is that God and the Devil are in a sort of competition for souls, and the rules of the competition state that anyone stained by sin must die and then forever exist as the Devil's prisoner in hell. As the view is often developed, human sin gives the Devil a legitimate right to the possession of human souls.
Charles Taylor Bibliography
Thus, much as God loves us and would otherwise desire for us never to die and, furthermore, to enjoy life in heaven with him, the sad fact is that we, by our sins, have secured a much different destiny for ourselves. But here is where the work of Christ is supposed to come in. According to the ransom view, it would be unfitting for God simply to violate the pre-ordained rules of the competition and snatch our souls out of the Devil's grasp.
But it is not at all unfitting for God to pay the Devil a ransom in exchange for our freedom. Christ's death is that ransom. By living a sinless life and then dying like a sinner, Christ pays a price that, in the eyes of all parties to the competition, earns back for God the right to our souls, and thus effects a great triumph over the Devil, sin, and death.
The moral exemplar theory, pioneered by Peter Abelard, holds that the work of Christ is fundamentally aimed at bringing about moral and spiritual reform in the sinner—a kind of reform that is not fully possible apart from Christ's work. The Son of God became incarnate, on this view, in order to set this example and thus provide a necessary condition for the moral reform that is, in turn, necessary for the full restoration of the relationship between creature and Creator.
On this picture, Jesus' sinless life is as much a part of his soteriologically relevant work as his suffering and death on the cross. Thus far, it may sound as if the exemplar theory says that all there is to the efficacy of Jesus' life and death for salvation is the provision of a fine example for us to imitate. According to Philip L.
Quinn , however, to present the theory this way is simply to caricature it. According to Quinn, the dominant motif in Abelard's exemplar theory is one according to which human moral character is, in a very robust sense transformed by Christ's love. He writes:. In Quinn's hands, then, the exemplar theory is one according to which the life and death of Christ do indeed provide an example for us to imitate--and an example that plays an important role in effecting the transformation that will make us fit for fellowship with God.
But, in contrast to the usual caricature of that theory, the exemplary nature of Christ's love does not exhaust its transformative power. Satisfaction theories start from the idea that human sin constitutes a grave offense against God, the magnitude of which renders forgiveness and reconciliation morally impossible unless something is done either to satisfy the demands of justice or to compensate God for the wrong done to him. These theories go on to note that human beings are absolutely incapable on their own of compensating God for the wrong they have done to him, and that the only way for them to satisfy the demands of justice is to suffer death and eternal separation from God.
Thus, in order to avoid this fate, they are in dire need of help. Christ, through his death and, on some versions, through his sinless life as well has provided that help. The different versions of the satisfaction theory are differentiated by their claims about what sort of help the work of Christ has provided.
Here we'll discuss three versions: St. Anselm's debt-cancellation theory, the penal substitution theory defended by John Calvin and many others in the reformed tradition, and the penitential substitution theory, attributed to Thomas Aquinas and defended most recently by Eleonore Stump and Richard Swinburne. According to Anselm, our sin puts us in a kind of debt toward God. As our creator, God is entitled to our submission and obedience.
By sinning, we therefore fail to give God something that we owe him. Thus, we deserve to be punished until we do give God what we owe him. Indeed, on Anselm's view, not only is it just for God to punish us; it is, other things being equal, unfitting for him not to punish us.
For as long as we are not giving God his due, we are dishonoring him; and the dishonoring of God is maximally intolerable.
- Philosophy and Christian Theology.
- Incubus - Make Yourself.
- Daughter of the Strong.
By allowing us to get away with dishonoring him, then, God would be tolerating what is maximally intolerable. Moreover, he would be behaving in a way that leaves sinners and the sinless in substantially the same position before him, which, Anselm thinks, is unseemly. But, of course, once we have sinned, it is impossible for us to give God the perfect life that we owe him. So we are left in the position of a debtor who cannot, under any circumstances, repay his own debt and is therefore stuck in debtor's prison for the remainder of his existence.
- Japan’s Cultural Code Words: 233 Key Terms That Explain the Attitudes and Behavior of the Japanese?
- Masks and Mirrors: Generation X and the Chameleon Personality.
- Fear of Fifty: A Midlife Memoir.
- An Analysis of Josephus and 4 Ezra.
- Full Text for Book Reviews (Text)?
- Process Theism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).
By living a sinless life, however, Christ was in a different position before God. He was the one human being who gave God what God was owed. Thus, he deserved no punishment; he did not even deserve death. And yet he submitted to death anyway for the sake of obeying God.
ALL CAMPUS AUTHORS
In doing this, he gave God more than he owed God; and so, on Anselm's view, put God in the position of owing him something. According to Anselm, just as it would be unfitting for God not to punish us, so too it would be unfitting for God not to reward Jesus. But Jesus, as God incarnate, has already at his disposal everything he could possibly need or desire. So what reward could possibly be given to him? None, of course. But, Anselm argues, the reward can be transferred; and, under the circumstances, it would be unfitting for God not to transfer it.
Thus, the reward that Jesus claims is the cancellation of the collective debt of his friends. This allows God to pay what he owes, and it allows him to suffer no dishonor in failing to collect what is due him from us. As should be clear, the notion of substitution isn't really a part of Anselm's theory of the atonement. Contrary to the more common view in the liteature, Richard Cross doesn't even take satisfaction to be part of Anselm's theory. Perhaps he is right—the question seems to turn on whether part of what God the Father receives in the overall transaction with Jesus is a kind of compensation for the harm done by human sin.
Nevertheless, substitution is a central part of other satisfaction theories. Thus, consider the penal substitution theory. According to this theory, the just punishment for sin is death and separation from God. Moreover, on this view, though God strongly desires for us not to receive this punishment it would be unfitting for God simply to waive our punishment.
But, as in the case of monetary fines, the punishment can be paid by a willing substitute. Thus, out of love for us, God the Father sent the willing Son to be our substitute and to satisfy the demands of justice on our behalf. Richard Swinburne's , version of the satisfaction theory also includes a substitutionary element. See also Stump The views defended by Stump and Swinburne are quite similar, and both attribute the same basic view to Aquinas. Here we focus on Swinburne's development of the view.
According to Swinburne, in human relationships, the process of making atonement for one's sin has four parts: apology, repentance, reparation where possible , and in case of serious wrongs penance. Thus, suppose you angrily throw a brick through the window of a friend's house. Later, you come to seek forgiveness. In order to receive forgiveness, you will surely have to apologize and repent—i. You ought also to agree to fix the broken window. Depending on the circumstance, however, even this might not be enough.
It might be that, in addition to apologizing, repenting, and making reparations, you ought to do something further to show that you are quite serious about your apology and repentance. Perhaps, for example, you will send flowers every day for a week; perhaps you will stand outside your friend's window with a portable stereo playing a meaningful song; perhaps you will offer some other sort of gift or sacrifice. This something further is penance.
Importantly, penance isn't punishment: it's not a bit of suffering that you deserve to have inflicted upon you by someone else for the purpose of retribution, rehabilitation, deterrence, or compensation. Rather, it's a bit of suffering that you voluntarily undergo or a sacrifice that you voluntarily make in order to repair your relationship with someone. According to Swinburne, the same four components are involved in our reconciliation with God. Apology and repentance we can do on our own, but reparation and penance we cannot.
We owe God a life of perfect obedience. By sinning we have made it impossible for God to get that from us. If, upon apologizing to God and repenting of our sins we were thereafter to live a life of perfect obedience, we would only be giving God what we already owe him; we would not thereby be giving back to him anything that we have taken away. Thus, our very best efforts would not suffice even to make reparations for what we have done. There is nothing we can give God to compsensate him for his loss, and there is no extra gift we can give or extra sacrifice we can make in order to do penance.
According to Swinburne, it would be unfitting for God simply to overlook our sins, ignoring the need for reparation and penance. It would also be unfitting for God to leave us in the helpless situation of being unable to reconcile ourselves to him. Thus, on his view, God sent Christ to earth so that Christ might willingly offer his own sinless life and death as restitution and penance for the sin of the world.
In this way, then, God helps us to make restitution and penance. We must apologize and repent on our own; we must also recognize our own helplessness to make up for what we have done. But then we can look to the life and death of Christ and offer that up to God on our own behalf as reparation and penance. Although the Christus Victor theory is of historical importance and has exerted a great deal of literary influence, it has been widely rejected since the middle ages, in no small part because it is hard to take seriously the idea that God might be in competition with or have obligations toward another being much less a being like the Devil in the ways described above.
Critics object to the idea, which is typically part of this view, that salvation involves a sort of transaction between God and the Devil; they object to the idea, present particularly in Gregory of Nyssa's version of the view, that Christ's victory over the Devil comes partly through divine deception with Christ's divinity being hidden from the Devil until after Christ's death, when he triumphantly rises from the grave ; and they sometimes also object to the reification and personification of the forces of sin, death, and evil.
For this reason, the Abelardian and Anselmian views have been far and away the more popular theories for the past millenium. But each of these remaining theories faces its share of difficulties as well. Penal substitutionary theories, for example, maintain that it is morally impossible for God simply to forgive our sins without exacting reparation or punishment. Some have argued that this entails that God does not forgive sin at all.
Stump, 61—5 Forgiveness involves a refusal to demand full reparation and a willingness to let an offense go without punishment. Moreover, the penal substitution theory faces the challenge of explaining how it could possibly be just to allow a substitute to bear someone else's punishment.
As David Lewis notes, we do allow for penal substitution in the case of serious fines. But the idea of allowing a substitute to bear someone else's death sentence or similarly serious punishment seems, on the face of it, to be morally repugnant. Indeed, the penal substitution model is seen by critics to be morally offensive on multiple counts.