wailed with the patriarch in his distress. Over the grand old Hebrew prophets, who now fulminated the awful threatenings of Jehovah against the rebellious Jews-now sung rapturously of the coming Messiah, the Day Star from on high-over these, I say, I have hung, charmed and half-entranced with the beauty and loftiness of their poesy. But do atheists generally do this ? I never met with one who did; I have been rebuked a hundred times for admitting the grandeur of the Bible. But the men of whom I speak are men for whom not only Isaiah, David, sung in vain; but also Homer, Milton, Dante, Virgil, Shakespeare. I know them, and I know it. Search their literature through for one poetic thought; if you find it don't despair of discovering the elixir of life, the philosopher's stone. W. Bebbington.

ATHEIST-Temerity of the.

The wonder turns on the great process by which a man could grow to the intelligence which can know that there is no God. What ages, and what lights are requisite for THIS attainment! This intelligence involves the very attributes of Divinity, while a God is denied; for, unless this man is omnipresent-unless he is at this moment in every place in the universe, he cannot know but there may be in some place manifestations of a Deity, by which even he would be overpowered. If he does not know absolutely every agent in the universe, the one that he does not know may be God. If he is not himself the chief agent in the universe, and does not know what is so, that which is so may be God. If he is not in absolute possession of all the propositions that constitute universal truth, the one which he wants may be, that there is a God. If he cannot with certainty assign the cause of all that he perceives to exist, that cause may be God. If he does not know everything that has been done in the immeasurable ages that are past, some things may have been done by a God. Thus, unless he knows all things —that is, precludes all other divine existence by being Deity himself-he cannot know that the Being whose existence he rejects does not exist; but he must know that he does not exist, else he deserves equal contempt and compassion for the temerity with which he firmly avows his rejection, and acts accordingly.

ATHEIST Three kinds of.

John Foster.

Of Atheists there are three classes: 1. Those who confessedly deny the being of any God; such as those who believe in an eternal succession of things as they are, or in a successive development of nature in virtue of inherent mechanical laws, e. g.,

Comte, &c. 2. Those who, while admitting God nominally, deny any of His essential constituent attributes. In this sense the Pantheist, who denies the personality of God, and who confounds Him with the universe, is really, though not nominally, an Atheist, since it makes little difference whether we say that the world is God, or that God is the world. 3. To the same end tends practically, and by logical though not by confessed consequence, all materialism, which makes intelligence the result, not the cause, of physical organisation; and all naturalism, which, while verbally admitting a distant God in the first inconceivably remote act of creation, denies Him altogether in all providence and supernatural revelation. A. A. Hodge.

ATHEIST-Wickedness of the.

They tell us, "It is better to be a living dog than a dead lion," which is true among beasts like themselves, but among men a dead beast is better than a living atheist. Like dogs they bark at heaven, but they cannot bite it; it is out of their circumference. Though they build up reasons and treasons like Babel, yet they prove but confusion. They would pull God out of His throne, if it were possible; but He is safe enough out of the reach of their malice, else it had gone ill with Him before this. Their song is, "Let us eat and drink (they think of no reckoning to pay), for tomorrow we die." They promise to-morrow, yet kill themselves to-day. This is their song, but the Holy Ghost adds the burden: "After death cometh the judgment."

T. Adams.

ATONEMENT-Explains Christ's Sufferings. We contend that the doctrine of the atonement, the doctrine that Christ died as a sin-offering and propitiation for the offences of the world, furnishes the only explanation of the anguish and the horrors of the sufferer. Regard Jesus only as a man, dying only to set an example of patience and to give authority to what He had taught, and we are bold to say that there is a

strangeness and an awfulness in His death, which might go far towards inducing a suspicion that He had not come from God, but had been imposing on the world. Is it perfect innocence which thus trembles as though an avenging conscience were busy? Is it the messenger, the approved and beloved of God, who bitterly complains to us that He is deserted of God? But admit the great truth that Christ "bare our sins in His own body on the tree," and the scenes of Gethsemane and Calvary are such as we might expect, though nevertheless inexpressibly solemn and mysterious. I know why the sufferer, though He had done ❝nc

posed in the Scripture doctrine of Atonement, as the necessary means to the end. For if satisfaction was to be made to Divine justice for the sins of men, by vicarious obedience and vicarious sufferings, in such a way (and in no other way it could be consistent with Divine wisdom) as might attach the pardoned offender to God's service, upon a principle of love and gratitude, it was essential to this plan that God himself should take a principal part in all that His justice required to be done and suffered, to make room for His mercy; and the Divine nature itself being incapable of suffering, it was necessary to the scheme of pardon that the Godhead should condescend to unite to itself the nature capable. Bp. Horsley.

The incarnation of Christ was for a purpose which God only could accomplish, and God himself could accomplish in no other way it was for the execution of a plan which Divine wisdom could alone contrive, -Divine love and Almighty power could alone effect it was to rescue those from endless misery whom Divine justice (which, because it is mere and very justice, must be inflexible) demanded for its victims. Bp. Horsley.

:

ATONEMENT-above Law.

Atonement is not an expedient contrary to law, but above law. It is what law, as law, cannot contemplate. It is introduced into an administration, not to execute the letter of the law, but preserve "the spirit and the truth" of the constitution. The death of Christ is an atonement for sin committed, it is a public expression of God's regard for the law which has been transgressed; and it is an honorable ground of showing clemency to the transgressors. Dr. T. W. Jenkyn.

ATONEMENT-Meaning of.

The word atonement occurs but once in the English translation of the New Testament, Rom. v, 11; but the Greek word, of which in that case it is a translation, Karaλλayn, and the verb of the same origin and meaning, Karaλλáσow (“ to change, exchange, to reconcile") occur together ten times in the New Testament, viz., Rom. v, 10, twice; ver. 11; xi, 15; 1 Cor. vii, 11; 2 Cor. v, 18, twice; ver. 19, twice; and ver. 20. In every case the verb is translated "to reconcile;" and, except in Rom. v, 11, the noun is rendered "reconciliation;" the mode of this reconciliation being clearly indicated, Rom. v, 10, viz., "by the death of His Son."

Throughout the Old Testament the word atonement is constantly used to signify the reconciliation of God by means of bloody sacrifices, to men alienated from Him by

the guilt of sin. The priest made atonement for the transgressors of the law, by sacrifices, and it was forgiven them. Lev. iv, 20; v, 6; vi, 7; xii, 8; xiv, 18; Num. xv, 25. On the great "day of atonement," the high priest made atonement, first for his own sins, by the sacrifice of a bullock; and for the sins of all the people, by the sacrifice of a goat; and then the sins thus atoned for were confessed and laid upon the head of the live goat, and carried away by him into oblivion, Lev. xvi, 6-22.

A. A. Hodge.

ATONEMENT-Nature and Design of the.

An atonement is any provision that may be introduced into the administration of a government, instead of the infliction of a punishment due to an offender-any expedient that will justify a government in suspending the literal execution of the penalty threatened-any consideration that fills the place of punishment, and that answers the purposes of government as effectually as the infliction of the penalty on the offender himself would; and which thus supplies to the government just, safe and honorable grounds for offering and dispeasing pardon to the offender.

This definition or description may be more concisely expressed thus: ATONEMENT is an expedient substituted in the place of literal infliction of the threatened punishment, so as to supply to the government just and good grounds for dispensing favours to an offender.

In the administration of a government an atonement means, something that may justify the exercise of clemency and mercy, without relaxing the bands of just authority. The head of a commonwealth, or the supreme organ of government, is not a private person, but a public officer. As a private person he may be inclined to do many things which the honour of his public office forbid him to do. Of this we have an instance in the feelings of David towards his son Absalom in rebellion. Therefore, to reconcile the exercise of his personal disposition with that of his public function, some expedient must be found, which will preserve the honour of his government in the exhibition that he makes of his clemency and favour. For want of such an expedient, a public organ of government must often withhold his favours. This principle is practically adopted every day in the discipline of children in a family, as well as in the civil administration of public justice.

I will endeavour to illustrate this definition of an atonement by two remarkable instances, one borrowed from holy Scripture and the other from profane history.

The first instance is that of Darius and Daniel, in Dan. vi, 14, 15, 16. King

Darius had established a royal statute, and made a firm decree, and signed the writing, that whosoever should ask a petition of any god or man for thirty days, save of the king himself, should be cast into the den of lions. Daniel, one of the children of the captivity of Judah, was found to be the first offender. "Then the king, when he heard these words, was sore displeased with himself, and set his heart on Daniel to deliver him; and he laboured till the going down of the sun to deliver him. Then these men assembled unto the king, and said unto the king, Know, O king, that the law of the Medes and the Persians is, that no decree or statute which the king establisheth may be changed. Then the king commanded, and they brought Daniel, and cast bim into the lions' den."

Here is an instance of an absolute Sovereign setting his heart on the deliverance of an offender, and labouring to obtain it; and yet prevented from exercising his elemency, by a due sense of the honour of his government. Could not Darius at once have pardoned Daniel? Yes; Darius could, as a private person, forgive any private injury; but he could not, as a public officer, privately forgive a public offence committed against the authority of his office. Could not Darius have repealed the law which he himself had made? Yes; but not with honour to the Medes and Persians. Such a repeal would have shown egregious fickleness in him; and such fickleness and uncertainty in the administration of his government might encourage any disaffection or treason among the presidents, princes, and satraps of the provinces. Could not Darius have banished or silenced all the abettors of the law and enemies of Daniel? Yes; but such a deed would have published his folly, imbecility, and injustice, in every province of his empire; his folly, in enacting a law which be found it unreasonable to execute; imbecility, in want of due authority in his own council, and of due firmness to enforce his cwn edict; and his injustice, in protecting and favouring an offender at the expense of the loyal supporters of the law and the throne.

What, then, is to be done? Cannot some means be found which will enable the king to keep the honour of his public character, and yet save Daniel? No: the king laboured till the going down of the sun to deliver him. He pondered, and thought, and devised, about a way to deliver him honorably, but failed. Consequently, the very personage who had set his heart to deliver him, "commanded" with his own lips that Daniel be brought forth and thrown into the den of lions.

Why was this done? Not because the king had no mercy in him, but simply and

only, because no expedient could be found, which would at once preserve the honour of the government and allow the exercise of clemency towards the offender. Daniel, then, was cast into the lions' den, merely because no atonement was found to vindicate and to show forth "the public justice" of the governor in his deliverance. Here, then, is an instance of mercy being withheld, merely from the want of an honorable ground or medium for expressing it; i. e. the want of an atonement.

The other instance to which I alluded, is from profane history. In this instance, also, there was a strong disposition to save the offender, and yet there was a difficulty, almost insurmountable in the way of his honorable acquittal. His deliverance, however, was devised by a wise expedient introduced by the governor himself. I allude to the case of the son of Zaleucus.

ZALEUCUS, the king of the Locrians, had established a law against adultery, the penalty of which was, that the offender should lose both eyes. The first person found guilty of this offence, was the king's own son. Zaleucus felt as a father toward his son, but he felt likewise as a king towards his government. If he, from blind indulgence, forgive his son, with what reason can he expect the law to be respected by the rest of his subjects? and how will his public character appear in punishing any future offender? If he repeal the law, he will brand his character with dishonour

for selfishness, in sacrificing the public good of a whole community to his private feelings; for weakness, in publishing a law whose penalty he never could inflict; and for foolishness, in introducing a law the bearings of which he had never contemplated. This would make his authority for the future a mere name.

The case was a difficult one. Though he was an offended governor, yet he had the compassion of a tender father. At the suggestion of his unbribed mercy, he employed his mind and wisdom to devise a measure, an expedient, through the medium of which he could save his son, and yet magnify his law and make it honorable. The expedient was thus:-the king himself would lose one eye, and the offender should lose another. By this means the honour of his law was preserved unsullied, and the clemency of his heart was extended to the offender. Every subject in the kingdom, when he heard of the king's conduct, would feel assured that the king esteemed his law very highly; and though the offender did not suffer the entire penalty, yet the clemency shown him was exercised in such a way, that no adulterer would ever think of escaping with impunity. Every reporter or historian of the fact would say that the king spared not his own eye, that he might

his son, and was a just and honorable ground for pardoning him.

Such an expedient, in the moral government of God, the apostles asserted the death of Christ to be. They preached that all men were "condemned already," that God had "thoughts of peace, and not of evil" towards all men,-that these thoughts were to be exercised in such a manner, as not to "destroy the law," and that the medium or expedient for doing this was the sacrifice of His ONLY SON, as an atonement or satisfaction to public justice for the sins of men.

The sufferings of the Son of God were substituted in the room of the execution of the penalty threatened to the offender. The atonement in the death of Christ is not the literal enduring of the identical penalty due to the sinner; but it is a provision, or an expedient, introduced instead of the literal course of suffering, which will answer the same purposes, in the Divine administrations, as the literal execution of the penalty on the offender himself would accomplish.

Had Darius found any person willing to be thrown into the lions' den instead of Daniel, and literally to bear the penalty threatened, this could never have been deemed an atonement to the laws of the Medes and the Persians. These laws had never contemplated that the offender should have the option of bearing the penalty, either in person or by substitute. It would have been a much more likely atonement of the laws, if one of the presidents of the provinces, one high in the esteem of the king, one concerned for the honour of the government, and one much interested in Daniel, had consented, either to lose his right hand on a public scaffold, or to fight with a lion in an amphitheatre, for the sake of honorably saving Daniel. In that case one class of suffering would have been substituted instead of inflicting another class. Dr. T. W. Jenkyn.

ATONEMENT AND SATISFACTION.

Satisfaction is the more specific term; atonement is the reconciliation of God to man by the death of His Son. Satisfaction expresses the relation which the work of Christ sustains to the demands of God's law and justice. A. A. Hodge.

verse and the holy God, deadens the sensibilities to the highest joys, and shuts the soul up in its own dark self, the victim of a thousand miserable suspicions, and the subject of attributes that every generous heart must loathe.

AVARICE-Examples of.

Dr. Thomas.

My Lord Hardwich, the late Lord Chancellor, who is said to be worth £800,000, sets the same value on half a crown now as he did when he was worth only £100. That great captain, the Duke of Marlborough, when he was in the last stage of life, and very infirm, would walk from the public room in Bath to his lodgings, on a cold dark night, to save a sixpence in chair hire. If the duke, who left at his death more than a million and a half sterling, could have foreseen that all his wealth and honours were to be inherited by a grandson of my Lord Trevor's, who had been one of his enemies, would he have always saved a sixpence ?

Sir James Lowther, after changing a piece of silver in George's Coffee House, and paying for his dish of coffee, was helped into his chariot (for he was lame and infirm) and went home; some time after, he returned to the same coffee-house on purpose to acquaint the woman who kept it, that she had given him a bad halfpenny, and demanded another in exchange for it. Sir James had about £48,000 per annum, and was at a loss whom to appoint his heir.

I know one Sir Thomas Colby, who lived in Kensington, and was, I think, in the Victualling Office; he killed himself by rising in the middle of the night, when he was in a profuse sweat, the effect of a medicine which he had taken for that purpose, and walking down stairs to look for the key of his cellar, which he had inad. vertently left on a table in his parlour; he was apprehensive that his servant might seize the key and rob him of a bottle of port wine. This man died intestate, and left more than £1,200,000 in the funds, which were shared among five or six day labourers, who were his nearest relations.

Sir William Smythe, of Bedfordshire, was my own kinsman. When he was near seventy, he was wholly deprived of sight; he was persuaded to be couched by Taylor, the oculist, who, by agreement, was to have sixty guineas if he restored his patient to any degree of sight. Taylor succeeded in his operation, and Sir William was able to read and write without the use of spectacles during the rest of his life; but as soon as the operation was performed, and Sir William saw the good effect of it, in