Who sent out theparafree?Or who hath loosed the bands of theorud?Whose dwelling I have made the wilderness,And the barren land (salt deserts) his resort:The range of open mountains are his pasture,And he searcheth after every green thing.
Who sent out theparafree?Or who hath loosed the bands of theorud?Whose dwelling I have made the wilderness,And the barren land (salt deserts) his resort:The range of open mountains are his pasture,And he searcheth after every green thing.
Who sent out theparafree?Or who hath loosed the bands of theorud?Whose dwelling I have made the wilderness,And the barren land (salt deserts) his resort:The range of open mountains are his pasture,And he searcheth after every green thing.
Who sent out theparafree?
Or who hath loosed the bands of theorud?
Whose dwelling I have made the wilderness,
And the barren land (salt deserts) his resort:
The range of open mountains are his pasture,
And he searcheth after every green thing.
Gmelin observes that theonageris very fond of salt. Whether the “deserts” of the above text were salt marshes, or salt deserts, is of very little consequence; the circumstance shows the correctness of the Hebrew poet. In Daniel we read that Nebuchadnezzar dwelt with theOREDIA. We need not suppose that he was banished to the deserts, but was at most kept safely in an enclosure of his own park, where curious animals were kept for state and pleasure. If this be correct, then theORUDwas somewhat, at least, of a rarity at Babylon; and it might be of a kind different from thePARA, as it is denoted by another name. May it not be theGicqueteiof Professor Pallas, the wild mule of Mongalia which surpasses theonagerin size, beauty, and perhaps in swiftness.
ASSIDEANS, by some named Chasideans, fromchasidim, “merciful, pious.” They were a kind of religious society among the Jews, whose chief and distinguishing character was, to maintain the honour of the temple, and observe punctually the traditions of the elders. They were therefore not only content to pay the usual tribute for the maintenance of the house of God, but charged themselves with farther expense upon that account; for every day, except that of the great expiation, they sacrificed a lamb, in addition to the daily oblation, which was called the sin offering of the Assideans. They practised greater hardships and mortifications than others; and their common oath was, “By the temple;” for which our Saviour reproves the Pharisees, who had learned that oath of them, Matt. xxiii, 16. From this sect the Pharisees sprung. The Assideans are represented as a numerous sect, distinguished by its valour, as well as by its zeal for the law, 1 Mac. ii, 42. A company of them resorted to Mattathias, to fight for the law of God, and the liberties of their country. This sect arose either during the captivity, or soon after the restoration, of the Jews; and were probably in the commencement, and long afterward, a truly pious part of the nation; but they at length became superstitious.
ASSURANCE. The sense in which this term is used theologically is that of a firm persuasion of our being in a state of salvation. The doctrine itself has been matter of dispute among divines, and when considered as implying not only that we are now accepted of God through Christ, but that we shall be finally saved, or when it is so taken as to deny a state of salvation to those who are not so assured as to be free from all doubt, it is in many viewsquestionable. Assurance of final salvation must stand or fall with the doctrine of personal unconditional election, and is chiefly held by divines of the Calvinistic school; and that nothing is an evidence of a state of present salvation but so entire a persuasion as amounts to assurance in the strongest sense, might be denied upon the ground that degrees of grace, of real saving grace, areundoubtedlyundoubtedlymentioned in Scripture. Assurance, however, is spoken of in the New Testament, and stands prominent as one of the leading doctrines of religious experience. We have “full assurance of understanding;” that is a perfect knowledge and entire persuasion of the truth of the doctrine of Christ. The “assurance of faith,” in Hebrews ix, 22, is an entire trust in the sacrifice and priestly office of Christ. The “assurance of hope,” mentioned in Hebrews vi, 11, relates to the heavenly inheritance, and must necessarily imply a full persuasion that we are “the children of God,” and therefore “heirs of his glory;” and from this passage it must certainly be concluded that such an assurance is what every Christian ought to aim at, and that it is attainable. This, however, does not exclude occasional doubt and weakness of faith, from the earlier stages of his experience.
A comforting and abiding persuasion of present acceptance by God, through Christ, we may therefore affirm, must in various degrees follow true faith. In support of this view, the following remarks may be offered:--
If it is the doctrine of the inspired records, that man is by nature prone to evil, and that in practice he violates that law under which as a creature he is placed, and is thereby exposed to punishment;--if also it is there stated, that an act of grace and pardon is promised on the conditions of repentance toward God, and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ;--if that repentance implies consideration of our ways, a sense of the displeasure of Almighty God, contrition of heart, and consequently trouble and grief of mind, mixed, however, with a hope inspired by the promise of forgiveness, and which leads to earnest supplication for the actual pardon of sin so promised, it will follow from these premises--either, 1. That forgiveness is not to be expected till after the termination of our course of probation, that is, in another life; and that, therefore, this trouble and apprehension of mind can only be assuaged by the hope we may have of a favourable final decision on our case;--or, 2. That sin is, in the present life, forgiven as often as it is thus repented of, and as often as we exercise the required and specific acts of trust in the merits of our Saviour; but that this forgiveness of our sins is not in any way made known unto us: so that we are left, as to our feelings, in precisely the same state as if sin were not forgiven till after death, namely, in grief and trouble of mind, relieved only by hope;--or, 3. The Scriptural view is, that when sin is forgiven by the mercy of God through Christ, we are, by some means, assured of it, and peace and satisfaction of mind take the place of anxiety and fear.
The first of these conclusions is sufficiently disproved by the authority of Scripture, which exhibits justification as a blessing attainable in this life, and represents it as actually experienced by true believers. “Therefore being justified by faith.” “There isnowno condemnation to them who are in Christ Jesus.” “Whosoever believeth is justified from all things,” &c. The quotations might be multiplied, but these are decisive. The notion that though an act of forgiveness may take place, we are unable to ascertain a fact so important to us, is also irreconcilable with many scriptures in which the writers of the New Testament speak of an experience, not confined personally to themselves, or to those Christians who were endowed with spiritual gifts, but common to all Christians. “Being justified by faith we havepeacewith God.” “We joy in God, by whom we have received thereconciliation.” “Being reconciled unto God by the death of his Son.” “We have not received the spirit of bondage again unto fear, but the spirit of adoption, by which we cry, Abba, Father.” To these may be added innumerable passages which express the comfort, the confidence, and the joy of Christians; their “friendship” with God; their “access” to him; their entire union and delightful intercourse with him; and their absolute confidence in the success of their prayers. All such passages are perfectly consistent with deep humility, and self-diffidence; but they are irreconcilable with a state of hostility between the parties, and with an unascertained and only hoped-for restoration of friendship and favour.
An assurance, therefore, that the sins which are felt to “be a burden intolerable” are forgiven, and that the ground of that apprehension of future punishment which causes the penitent to “bewailhis manifold sins,” is taken away by restoration to the favour of the offended God, must be allowed, or nothing would be more incongruous and impossible than the comfort, the peace, the rejoicing of spirit, which in the Scriptures are attributed to believers.
Few Christians of evangelical views have, therefore, denied the possibility of our becoming assured of the favour of God in a sufficient degree to give substantial comfort to the mind. Their differences have rather respected the means by which the contrite become assured of that change in their relation to Almighty God, whom they have offended, which in Scripture is expressed by the term justification. The question has been, (where the notion of an assurance of eternal salvation has not been under discussion,) by what means the assurance of the divine favour is conveyed to the mind. Some have concluded that we obtain it byinference, others by thedirect testimonyof the Holy Spirit to the mind. SeeHoly Spirit.
ASSYRIA, a kingdom of Asia, of the extent, origin, and duration of which very different accounts have been given by ancient writers. Ctesias and Diodorus Siculus affirm, that the Assyrian monarchy, under Ninus and Semiramis, comprehended the greater part of the known world: but, if this had been the case, it is not likely that Homer and Herodotuswould have omitted a fact so remarkable. The sacred records intimate that none of the ancient states or kingdoms were of considerable extent; for neither Chederlaomer, nor any of the neighbouring princes, were tributary or subject to Assyria; and “we find nothing,” says Playfair, “of the greatness or power of this kingdom in the history of the judges and succeeding kings of Israel, though the latter kingdom was oppressed and enslaved by many different powers in that period.” It is therefore highly probable that Assyria was originally of small extent. According to Ptolemy, this country was bounded on the north by part of Armenia and Mount Niphates; on the west by the Tigris; on the south by Susiana; and on the east by part of Media and the mountains Choatra and Zagros. Of the origin, revolutions, and termination of Assyria, properly so called, and distinguished from the grand monarchy which afterward bore this appellation, the following account is given by Mr. Playfair, as the most probable:--“The founder of it was Ashur, the second son of Shem, who departed from Shinar, upon the usurpation of Nimrod, at the head of a large body of adventurers, and laid the foundations of Nineveh, where he resided, and erected a new kingdom, called Assyria, after his name, Gen. x, 11. These events happened not long after Nimrod had established the Chaldean monarchy, and fixed his residence at Babylon; but it does not appear that Nimrod reigned in Assyria. The kingdoms of Assyria and Babylon were originally distinct and separate, Micah v, 6; and in this state they remained until Ninus conquered Babylon, and made it tributary to the Assyrian empire. Ninus, the successor of Ashur, Gen. x, 11, seized on Chaldea after the death of Nimrod, and united the kingdoms of Assyria and Babylon. This great prince is said to have subdued Asia, Persia, Media, Egypt, &c. If he did so, the effects of his conquests were of no long duration; for, in the days of Abraham, we do not find that any of the neighbouring kingdoms were subject to Assyria. Ninus was succeeded by Semiramis, a princess bold, enterprising, and fortunate; of whose adventures and exploits many fabulous relations have been recorded. Playfair is of opinion that there were two princesses of this name, who flourished at different periods: one, the consort of Ninus; and another, who lived five generations before Nitocris, queen of Nebuchadnezzar. Of the successors of Ninus and Semiramis nothing certain is recorded. The last of the ancient Assyrian kings was Sardanapalus, who was besieged in his capital by Arbaces, governor of Media, in concurrence with the Babylonians. These united forces defeated the Assyrian army, demolished the capital, and became masters of the empire, B. C. 821.
“After the death of Sardanapalus,” says Mr. Playfair, “the Assyrian empire was divided into three kingdoms; namely, the Median, Assyrian, and Babylonian. Arbaces retained the supreme authority, and nominated governors in Assyria and Babylon, who were honoured with the title of kings, while they remained subject and tributary to the Persian monarchs Belesis,” he says, “a Chaldean priest, who assisted Arbaces in the conquest of Sardanapalus, received the government of Babylon as the reward of his services; and Phul was intrusted with that of Assyria. The Assyrian governor gradually enlarged the boundaries of his kingdom, and was succeeded by Tiglath-pileser, Salmanasar, and Sennacherib, who asserted and maintained their independence. After the death of Assar-haddon, the brother and successor of Sennacherib, the kingdom of Assyria was split, and annexed to the kingdoms of Media and Babylon. Several tributary princes afterward reigned in Nineveh; but we hear no more of the kings of Assyria, but of those of Babylon. Cyaxares, king of Media, assisted Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, in the siege of Nineveh, which they took and destroyed, B. C. 606.”
The history of Assyria, deduced from Scripture, and acknowledged as the only authentic one by Sir Isaac Newton and many others, ascribes the foundation of the monarchy to Pul, or Phul, about the second year of Menahem, king of Israel, twenty-four years before the æra of Nabonassar, 1579 years after the flood, and, according to Blair, 769, or, according to Newton, 790, years before Christ. Menahem, having taken forcible possession of the throne of Israel by the murder of Shallum, 2 Kings xv, 10, was attacked by Pul, but prevented the hostilities meditated against him by presenting the invader with a thousand talents of silver. Pul, thus gratified, took the kingdom of Israel under his protection, returned to his own country, after having received voluntary homage from several nations in his march, as he had done from Israel, and became the founder of a great empire. As it was in the days of Pul that the Assyrians began to afflict the inhabitants of Palestine, 2 Kings xi, 9; 1 Chron. v, 26, this was the time, according to Sir Isaac Newton, when the Assyrian empire arose. Thus he interprets the words, “since the time of the kings of Assyria,” Nehem. ix, 32; that is, since the time of the kingdom of Assyria, or since the rise of that empire. But though this was the period in which the Assyrians afflicted Israel, it is not so evident that the time of the kings of Assyria must necessarily be understood of the rise of the Assyrian empire. However, Newton thus reasons; and observes, that “Pul and his successors afflicted Israel, and conquered the nations round about them; and upon the ruin of many small and ancient kingdoms erected their empire; conquering the Medes, as well as other nations.” It is farther argued, that God, by the Prophet Amos, in the reign of Jeroboam, about ten or twenty years before the reign of Pul, (see Amos vi, 13, 14,) threatened to raise up a nation against Israel; and that, as Pul reigned presently after the prophecy of Amos, and was the first upon record who began to fulfil it, he may be justly reckoned the first conqueror and founder of this empire. See 1 Chron. v, 26. Pul was succeeded on the throne of Assyria by his elder son Tiglath-pileser; and at thesame time he left Babylon to his younger son Nabonassar, B. C. 747. Of the conquests of this second king of Assyria against the kings of Israel and Syria, when he took Damascus, and subdued the Syrians, we have an account in 2 Kings xv, 29, 37; xvi, 5,9; 1 Chron. v, 26; by which the prophecy of Amos was fulfilled, and from which it appears that the empire of the Assyrians was now become great and powerful. The next king of Assyria was Shalmaneser, or Salmanassar, who succeeded Tiglath-pileser, B. C. 729, and invaded Phœnicia, took the city of Samaria, and, B. C. 721, carried the ten tribes into captivity, placing them in Chalach and Chabor, by the river Gazon, and in the cities of the Medes, 2 Kings xvii, 6. Shalmaneser was succeeded by Sennacherib, B. C. 719; and in the year B. C. 714, he was put to flight with great slaughter by the Ethiopians and Egyptians. In the year B. C. 711 the Medes revolted from the Assyrians; Sennacherib was slain; and he was succeeded by his son Esar-Haddon, Asserhaddon, Asordan, Assaradin, or Sarchedon, by which names he is called by different writers. He began his reign at Nineveh, in the year of Nabonassar 42; and in the year 68 extended it over Babylon. He then carried the remainder of the Samaritans into captivity, and peopled Samaria with captives brought from several parts of his kingdom; and in the year of Nabonassar 77 or 78 he seems to have put an end to the reign of the Ethiopians over Egypt. “In the reign of Sennacherib and Asser-Hadon,” says Sir I. Newton, “the Assyrian empire seems arrived at its greatness; being united under one monarch, and containing Assyria, Media, Apolloniatis, Susiana, Chaldea, Mesopotamia, Cilicia, Syria, Phœnicia, Egypt, Ethiopia, and part of Arabia; and reaching eastward into Elymais, and Parætæcene, a province of the Medes; and if Chalach and Chabor be Colchis and Iberia, as some think, and as may seem probable from the circumcision used by those nations till the days of Herodotus, we are also to add these two provinces, with the two Armenias, Pontus, and Cappadocia, as far as to the river Halys: for Herodotus tells us that the people of Cappadocia, as far as to that river, were called Syrians by the Greeks, both before and after the days of Cyrus; and that the Assyrians were also called Syrians by the Greeks.” Asser-Hadon was succeeded in the year B. C. 668 by Saosduchinus. At this time Manasseh was allowed to return home, and fortify Jerusalem; and the Egyptians also, after the Assyrians had harassed Egypt and Ethiopia three years, Isa. xx, 3, 4, were set at liberty. Saosduchinus, after a reign of twenty years, was succeeded at Babylon, and probably at Nineveh also, by Chyniladon, in the year B. C. 647. This Chyniladon is supposed by Newton to be the Nebuchadonosor mentioned in the book of Judith, i, 1–15, who made war upon Arphaxad, king of the Medes; and, though deserted by his auxiliaries of Cilicia, Damascus, Syria, Phœnicia, Moab, Ammon, and Egypt, routed the army of the Medes, and slew Arphaxad. This Arphaxad is supposed to be either Dejoces or his son Phraortes, mentioned by Herodotus. Soon after the death of Phraortes, in the year B. C. 635, the Scythians invaded the Medes and Persians; and in 625, Nabopolassar, the commander of the forces of Chyniladon in Chaldea, revolted from him, and became king of Babylon. Chyniladon was either then or soon after succeeded at Nineveh by the last king of Assyria, called Sarac by Polyhistor. The authors of the Universal History suppose Saosduchinus to have been the Nebuchadonosor of Scripture, and Chyniladon or Chynaladan to have been the Sarac of Polyhistor. At length Nebuchadnezzar, the son of Nabopolassar, married Amyit, the daughter of Astyages, king of the Medes, and sister of Cyaxares; and by this marriage the two families having contracted affinity, they conspired against the Assyrians. Nabopolassar being old, and Astyages dead, their sons Nebuchadnezzar and Cyaxares led the armies of the two nations against Nineveh, slew Sarac, destroyed the city, and shared the kingdom of the Assyrians. This victory the Jews refer to the Chaldeans; the Greeks, to the Medes; Tobit, xiv, 15, Polyhistor, and Ctesias, to both. With this victory commenced the great successes of Nebuchadnezzar and Cyaxares, and it laid the foundation of the two collateral empires of the Babylonians and Medes, which were branches of the Assyrian empire; and hence the time of the fall of the Assyrian empire is determined, the conquerors being then in their youth. In the reign of Josiah, when Zephaniah prophesied, Nineveh and the kingdom of Assyria were standing; and their fall was predicted by that Prophet, Zeph. i, 3; ii, 13. And in the end of his reign, Pharaoh-Necho, king of Egypt, the successor of Psammitichus, went up against the king of Assyria to the river Euphrates, to fight against Carchemish, or Circutium; and in his way thither slew Josiah, 2 Kings xxiii, 29; 2 Chron. xxxv, 20; and therefore the last king of Assyria was not yet slain. But in the third and fourth years of Jehoiakim, the successor of Josiah, the two conquerors having taken Nineveh, and finished their war in Assyria, prosecuted their conquests westward; and, leading their forces against the king of Egypt, as an invader of their right of conquest, they beat him at Carchemish, and took from him whatever he had recently taken from the Assyrians, 2 Kings xxiv, 7; Jer. xlvi, 2; “and therefore we cannot err,” says Sir Isaac Newton, “above a year or two, if we refer the destruction of Nineveh, and fall of the Assyrian empire, to the third year, of Jehoiakim,” or the hundred and fortieth, or, according to Blair, the hundred and forty-first year of Nabonassar; that is, the year B. C. 607.
Of the government, laws, religion, learning, customs, &c, of the ancient Assyrians, nothing absolutely certain is recorded. Their kingdom was at first small, and subsisted for several ages under hereditary chiefs; and their government was simple. Afterward, when they rose to the sublimity of empire, their government seems to have been despotic, and the empire hereditary. Their laws were probablyfew, and depended upon the mere will of the prince. To Ninus we may ascribe the division of the Assyrian empire into provinces and governments; for we find that this institution was fully established in the reigns of Semiramis and her successors. The people were distributed into a certain number of tribes; and their occupations or professions were hereditary. The Assyrians had several distinct councils, and several tribunals for the regulation of public affairs. Of councils there were three, which were created by the body of the people, and who governed the state in conjunction with the sovereign. The first consisted of officers who had retired from military employments; the second, of the nobility; and the third, of the old men. The sovereigns also had three tribunals, whose province it was to watch over the conduct of the people. The Assyrians have been competitors with the Egyptians for the honour of having invented alphabetic writing. It appears, from the few remains now extant of the writing of these ancient nations, that their letters had a great affinity with each other. They much resembled one another in shape; and they ranged them in the same manner, from right to left.
ASTROLOGY, the art of foretelling future events, from the aspects, positions, and influences of the heavenly bodies. The word is compounded of ἀϛὴρ star, and λόγος, discourse; whence, in the literal sense of the term, astrology should signify no more than the doctrine or science of the stars. Astrology judiciary, or judicial, is what we commonly call simple astrology, or that which pretends to foretel mortal events, even those which have a dependence on the free will and agency of man; as if they were directed by the stars. This art, which owed its origin to the practice of knavery on credulity, is now universally exploded by the intelligent part of mankind. Judicial astrology is commonly said to have been invented in Chaldea, and thence transmitted to the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans; though some will have it of Egyptian origin, and ascribe the invention to Cham. But we derive it from the Arabians. The Chaldeans, and the Egyptians, and indeed almost all the nations of antiquity, were infatuated with the chimæras of astrology. It originated in the notion, that the stars have an influence, either beneficial or malignant, upon the affairs of men, which may be discovered, and made the ground of certain prediction, in particular cases; and the whole art consisted in applying astronomical observations to this fanciful purpose. Diodorus Siculus relates, that the Chaldeans learned these arts from the Egyptians; and he would not have made this assertion, if there had not been at least a general tradition that they were practised from the earliest times in Egypt. The system was, in those remote ages, intimately connected with Sabaism, or the worship of the stars as divinities; but whether it emanates from idolatry or fatality, it denies God and his providence, and is therefore condemned in the Scriptures, and ranked with practices the most offensive and provoking to the Divine Majesty.
ASTYAGES, otherwise, Cyaxares, king of the Medes, and successor to Phraortes. He reigned forty years, and died A. M. 3409. He was father to Astyages, otherwise called Darius the Mede. He had two daughters, Mandane and Amyit: Mandane married Cambyses, the Persian, and was the mother of Cyrus; Amyit married Nebuchadnezzar, the son of Nabopolassar, and was the mother of Evilmerodach.
Astyages, otherwise called Ahasuerus in the Greek, Dan. ix, 1, or Cyaxares in Xenophon, or Apandus in Ctesias, was appointed by his father Cyaxares governor of Media, and sent with Nabopolassar, king of Babylon, against Saracus, otherwise called Chynaladanus, king of Assyria. These two princes besieged Saracus in Nineveh, took the city, and dismembered the Assyrian empire. Astyages was with Cyrus at the conquest of Babylon, and succeeded Belshazzar, king of the Chaldeans, as is expressly mentioned in Daniel, v, 30, 31, A. M. 3447. After his death Cyrus succeeded him, A. M. 3456.
ASUPPIM, a word which signifies gatherings, and the name of the treasury of the temple of Jerusalem, 1 Chron. xxvi, 15.
ATHALIAH, the daughter of Omri, king of Samaria, and wife to Jehoram, king of Judah. This princess, being informed that Jehu had slain her son Ahaziah, resolved to take the government upon herself, 2 Kings xi; which that she might effect without opposition, she destroyed all the children that Jehoram had by other wives, and all their offspring. But Jehosheba, the sister of Ahaziah, by the father’s side only, was at this time married to Jehoiada, the high priest; and while Athaliah’s executioners were murdering the rest, she conveyed Joash the son of Ahaziah away, and kept him and his nurse concealed in an apartment of the temple, during six years. In the seventh year, his uncle Jehoiada being determined to place him on the throne of his ancestors, and procure the destruction of Athaliah, he engaged the priests and Levites, and the leading men in all the parts of the kingdom in his interest, and in a public assembly produced him, and made them take an oath of secrecy and fidelity to him. He then distributed arms among the people, whom he divided into three bodies, one to guard the person of the king, and the other two to secure the gates of the temple. After this, he brought out the young prince, set the crown on his head, put the book of the law into his hand, and with sound of trumpet proclaimed him; which was seconded with the joyful shouts and acclamations of the people. Athaliah, hearing the noise, made all haste to the temple; but when, to her astonishment, she saw the young king seated on a throne, she rent her clothes and cried out, “Treason!” But, at the command of Jehoiada, the guards seized and carried her out of the temple, putting all to the sword who offered to rescue or assist her; and then taking her to the stable gate belonging to the palace, there put her to death, A. M. 3126.
ATHANASIANS, the orthodox followers of St. Athanasius, the great and able antagonistof Arius. The Athanasian Creed, though generally admitted not to be drawn up by this father, (but probably, as Doctor Waterland says, by Hilary, bishop of Arles, in the fifth century,) is universally allowed to contain a fair expression of his sentiments. This creed says, “The Catholic faith is this: that we worship One God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity: neither confounding the persons, nor dividing the substance. For there is one person of the Father, another of the Son, and another of the Holy Ghost. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, is all one; the glory equal, the majesty co-eternal. Such as the Father is, such is the Son, and such is the Holy Ghost;” namely, “uncreate, incomprehensible, eternal,” &c. The true key to the Athanasian Creed lies in the knowledge of the errors to which it was opposed. The Sabellians considered the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as one in person;--this was “confounding the persons:” the Arians considered them as differing in essence--three beings;--this was “dividing the substance:” and against these two hypotheses was the creed originally framed. And since every sect was willing to adopt the language of Scripture, it was thought necessary to adopt scholastic terms, in order to fix the sense of Scripture language. Many, however, hold the doctrine of the Athanasian Creed, and approve its terms, who object to its damnatory clauses. SeeArians.
ATHANASIUS, the celebrated patriarch of Alexandria, resisted Arius and his erroneous doctrines; and his sentiments as to the Trinity are embodied in the creed which bears his name, though not composed by him. At the Council of Nice, though then but a deacon of Alexandria, his reputation for skill in controversy gained him an honourable place in the council, and with great dexterity he exposed the sophistry of those who pleaded on the side of Arius. Notwithstanding the influence of the emperor, who had recalled Arius from banishment, and upon a plausible confession of his faith, in which he affected to be orthodox in his sentiments, directed that he should be received by the Alexandrian church, Athanasius refused to admit him to communion, and exposed his prevarication. The Arians upon this exerted themselves to raise tumults at Alexandria, and to injure the character of Athanasius with the emperor, who was prevailed upon to pronounce against him a sentence of banishment. In the beginning of the reign of Constantius he was recalled; but was again disturbed and deposed through the influence of the Arians. Accusations were also sent against him and other bishops from the east to the west, but they were acquitted by Pope Julius in full council. Athanasius was restored to his see upon the death of the Arian bishop, who had been placed in it. Arianism, however, being in favour at court, he was condemned by a council convened at Arles, and by another at Milan, and was obliged to fly into the deserts. He returned with the other bishops whom Julian the apostate recalled from banishment, and in A. D. 362, held a council at Alexandria, where the belief of a consubstantial Trinity was openly professed. Many now were recovered from Arianism, and brought to subscribe the Nicene Creed. During the reign of Jovian also Athanasius held another council, which declared its adherence to the Nicene faith; and with the exception of a short retirement under Valens he was permitted to sit down in quiet and govern his affectionate church of Alexandria. Athanasius was an eminent instrument of maintaining the truth in an age when errors affecting the great foundation of our faith were urged with great subtlety. He was by his acuteness able to trace the enemy through his most insidious modes of attack; and thus to preserve the simple and unwary from being misled by terms and distinctions, which, whilst they sounded in unison with the true faith of the Gospel, did in fact imply, or at least open the door to, the most deadly errors. The Scripture doctrine of the Trinity, as explained by him, at length triumphed over the heresies which at one time met with so much support and sanction; and the views of Athanasius have been received, in substance, by all orthodox churches to the present time.
ATHEIST, in the strict and proper sense of the word, is one who does not believe in the existence of a God, or who owns no being superior to nature. It is compounded of the two terms, α negative, and Θεὸς, God, signifyingwithout God. Atheists have been also known by the name infidels; but the word infidel is now commonly used to distinguish a more numerous party, and is become almost synonymous with Deist. He who disbelieves the existence of a God, as an infinite, intelligent, and a moral agent, is a direct or speculative Atheist; he who confesses a Deity and providence in words, but denies them in his life and actions, is a practical Atheist. That Atheism existed in some sense before the flood, may be suspected from what we read in Scripture, as well as from Heathen tradition; and it is not very unreasonable to suppose, that the deluge was partly intended to evince to the world a heavenly power, as Lord of the universe, and superior to the visible system of nature. This was at least a happy consequence of that fatal catastrophe; for, as it is observed by Dean Sherlock, “The universal deluge, and the confusion of languages, had so abundantly convinced mankind of a divine power and providence, that there was no such creature as an Atheist, till their ridiculous idolatries had tempted some men of wit and thought, rather to own no God than such as the Heathens worshipped.”
Atheistical principles were long nourished and cherished in Greece, and especially among the atomical, peripatetic, and skeptical philosophers; and hence some have ascribed the origin of Atheism to the philosophy of Greece. This is true, if they mean that species of refined Atheism, which contrives any impious scheme of principles to account for the origin of the world, without a divine being. For though there may have been in former ages, and in other countries, some persons irreligious in principle as well as in practice, yet we knowof none who, forming a philosophical scheme of impiety, became a sect, and erected colleges of Atheistical learning, till the arrogant and enterprising genius of Greece undertook that detestable work. Carrying their presumptuous and ungoverned speculations into the very essence of the divinity, at first they doubted, and at length denied, the existence of a first cause independent of nature and of a providence that superintends its laws, and governs the concerns of mankind. These principles, with the other improvements of Greece, were transferred to Rome; and, excepting in Italy, we hear little of Atheism, for many ages after the Christian æra. “For some ages before the Reformation,” says Archbishop Tillotson, “Atheism was confined to Italy, and had its chief residence at Rome. But, in this last age, Atheism has travelled over the Alps and infected France, and now of late it hath crossed the seas, and invaded our nation, and hath prevailed to amazement.” However, to Tillotson, and other able writers, we owe its suppression in this country; for they pressed it down with a weight of sound argument, from which it has never been able to raise itself. For although in our time, in France and Germany a subtle Atheism was revived, and spread its unhallowed and destructive influence for many years throughout the Continent, it made but little progress in this better-instructed nation.
Atheism, in its primary sense, comprehends, or at least goes beyond, every heresy in the world; for it professes to acknowledge no religion, true or false. The two leading hypotheses which have prevailed, among Atheists, respecting this world and its origin, are, that of Ocellus Lucanus, adopted and improved by Aristotle, that it was eternal; and that of Epicurus, that it was formed by a fortuitous concourse of atoms. “That the soul is material and mortal, Christianity an imposture, the Scripture a forgery, the worship of God superstition, hell a fable, and heaven a dream, our life without providence, and our death without hope, like that of asses and dogs, are part of the glorious gospel of our modern Atheists.”
The being of a God may be proved from the marks of design, and from the order and beauty visible in the world; from universal consent; from the relation of cause and effect; from internal consciousness; and from the necessity of a final as well as an efficient cause.
Of all the false doctrines and foolish opinions that ever infested the mind of man, nothing can possibly equal that of Atheism, which is such a monstrous contradiction of all evidence, to all the powers of understanding, and the dictates of common sense, that it may be well questioned whether any man can really fall into it by a deliberate use of his judgment. All nature so clearly points out, and so loudly proclaims, a Creator of infinite power, wisdom, and goodness, that whoever hears not its voice, and sees not its proofs, may well be thought wilfully deaf, and obstinately blind. If it be evident, self-evident to every man of thought, that there can be no effect without a cause, what shall we say of that manifold combination of effects, that series of operations, that system of wonders, which fill the universe, which present themselves to all our perceptions, and strike our minds and our senses on every side? Every faculty, every object of every faculty, demonstrates a Deity. The meanest insect we can see, the minutest and most contemptible weed we can tread upon, is really sufficient to confound Atheism, and baffle all its pretensions. How much more that astonishing variety and multiplicity of God’s works with which we are continually surrounded! Let any man survey the face of the earth, or lift up his eyes to the firmament; let him consider the nature and instincts of brute animals, and afterward look into the operations of his own mind, and will he presume to say or suppose that all the objects he meets with are nothing more than the result of unaccountable accidents and blind chance? Can he possibly conceive that such wonderful order should spring out of confusion? or that such perfect beauty should be ever formed by the fortuitous operations of unconscious, unactive particles of matter? As well, nay better, and more easily, might he suppose that an earthquake might happen to build towns and cities; or the materials carried down by a flood fit themselves up without hands into a regular fleet. For what are towns, cities, or fleets, in comparison of the vast and amazing fabric of the universe! In short, Atheism offers such violence to all our faculties, that it seems scarce credible it should ever really find any place in the human understanding. Atheism is unreasonable, because it gives no tolerable account of the existence of the world. This is one of the greatest difficulties with which the Atheist has to contend. For he must suppose either that the world is eternal, or that it was formed by chance and a fortuitous concourse of the parts of matter. That the world had a beginning, is evident from universal tradition, and the most ancient history that exists; from there being no memorials of any actions performed previously to the time assigned in that history as the æra of the creation; from the origin of learning and arts, and the liability of the parts of matter to decay. That the world was not produced by chance, is also evident. Nothing can be more unreasonable than to ascribe to chance an effect which appears with all the characters of a wise design and contrivance. Will chance fit means to ends, even in ten thousand instances, and not fail in a single one? How often might a man, after shaking a set of letters in a bag, throw them on the ground, before they would become an exact poem, or form a good discourse in prose? In short, the arguments in proof of Deity are so numerous, and at the same time so obvious to a thinking mind, that to waste time in disputing with an Atheist, is approaching too much toward that irrationality, which may be considered as one of the most striking characteristics of the sect.
The more noted Atheist, since the Reformation, are Machiavel, Spinoza, Hobbes, Blount, and Vanini. To these may be added Hume,and Voltaire the corypheus of the sect, and the great nursing father of that swarm of them which has appeared in these last days.
Dr. Samuel Clarke, in his “Demonstration of the Being of a God,” says, that Atheism arises either from stupid ignorance, or from corruption of principles and manners, or from the reasonings of false philosophy; and he adds, that the latter, who are the only Atheistical persons capable of being reasoned with at all, must of necessity own that, supposing it cannot be proved to be true, yet it is a thing very desirable, and which any wise man would wish to be true, for the great benefit and happiness of man, that there was a God, an intelligent and wise, a just and good Being, to govern the world. Whatever hypothesis these men can possibly frame, whatever argument they can invent, by which they would exclude God and providence out of the world; that very argument or hypothesis, will of necessity lead them to this concession. If they argue, that our notion of God arises not from nature and reason, but from the art and contrivance of politicians; that argument itself forces them to confess, that it is manifestly for the interest of human society, that it should be believed there is a God. If they suppose that the world was made by chance, and is every moment subject to be destroyed by chance again; no man can be so absurd as to contend, that it is as comfortable and desirable to live in such an uncertain state of things, and so continually liable to ruin, without any hope of renovation, as in a world that is under the preservation and conduct of a powerful, wise, and good God. If they argue against the being of God, from the faults and defects which they imagine they can find in the frame and constitution of the visible and material world; this supposition obliges them to acknowledge that it would have been better the world had been made by an intelligent and wise Being, who might have prevented all faults and imperfections. If they argue against providence, from the faultiness and inequality which they think they discover in the management of the moral world; this is a plain confession, that it is a thing more fit and desirable in itself, that the world should be governed by a just and good Being, than by mere chance or unintelligent necessity. Lastly, if they suppose the world to be eternally and necessarily self-existent, and consequently that every thing in it is established by a blind and eternal fatality; no rational man can at the same time deny, but that liberty and choice, or a free power of acting, is a more eligible state, than to be determined thus in all our actions, as a stone is to move, downward, by an absolute and inevitable fate. In a word, which way soever they turn themselves, and whatever hypothesis they make, concerning the original and frame of things, nothing is so certain and undeniable, as that man, considered without the protection and conduct of a superior Being, is in a far worse case than upon supposition of the being and government of God, and of men’s being under his peculiar conduct, protection, and favour.
ATHENS, a celebrated city of Greece, too well known to be here described. St. Paul’s celebrated sermon, Acts xvii, was preached on the Areopagus, or Hill of Mars, where a celebrated court was held which took cognizance of matters of religion, blasphemies against the gods, the building of temples, &c. (SeeAreopagus.) The inscription on the altar, “to the unknown God,” which St. Paul so appropriately made the text of his discourse, was adopted on the occasion of the city having been relieved from a pestilence; and they erected altars to “the God unknown,” either as not knowing to which of their divinities they were indebted for the favour, or, which is more probable, because there was something in the circumstances of this deliverance, which led them to refer it to a higher power than their own gods, even to the supreme God, who was not unfrequently styled, the “unknown,” by the wiser Heathens. The existence of such altars is expressly mentioned by Lucian. On the place where the great Apostle bore his noble testimony against idols, and declared to them the God whom they ignorantly worshipped, Dr. E. D. Clarke, the traveller, remarks, “It is not possible to conceive a situation of greater peril, or one more calculated to prove the sincerity of a preacher, than that in which the Apostle was here placed; and the truth of this, perhaps, will never be better felt than by a spectator, who from this eminence actually beholds the monuments of Pagan pomp and superstition by which he, whom the Athenians considered as thesetter forth of strange gods, was then surrounded: representing to the imagination the disciples of Socrates and of Plato, the dogmatist of the porch, and the skeptic of the academy, addressed by a poor and lowly man, who, ‘rude in speech,’ without the ‘enticing words of man’s wisdom,’ enjoined precepts contrary to their taste, and very hostile to their prejudices. One of the peculiar privileges of the Areopagitæ seems to have been set at defiance by the zeal of St. Paul on this occasion; namely, that of inflicting extreme and exemplary punishment upon any person who should slight the celebration of the holy mysteries, or blaspheme the gods of Greece. We ascended to the summit by means of steps cut in the natural stone. The sublime scene here exhibited is so striking, that a brief description of it may prove how truly it offers to us a commentary upon the Apostle’s words, as they were delivered upon the spot. He stood upon the top of the rock, and beneath the canopy of heaven. Before him there was spread a glorious prospect of mountains, islands, seas, and skies; behind him towered the lofty Acropolis, crowned with all its marble temples. Thus every object, whether in the face of nature, or among the works of art, conspired to elevate the mind, and to fill it with reverence toward that Being who made and governs the world, Acts xvii, 24, 28; who sitteth in that light which no mortal eye can approach, and yet is nigh unto the meanest of his creatures; in whom we live, and move, and have our being.”
ATONEMENT, the satisfaction offered to divine justice by the death of Christ for the sins of mankind, by virtue of which all true penitents who believe in Christ are personally reconciled to God, are freed from the penalty of their sins, and entitled to eternal life. The atonement for sin made by the death of Christ, is represented in the Christian system as the means by which mankind may be delivered from the awful catastrophe of eternal death; from judicial inflictions of the displeasure of a Governor, whose authority has been contemned, and whose will has been resisted, which shall know no mitigation in their degree, nor bound to their duration. This end it professes to accomplish by means which, with respect to the Supreme Governor himself, preserve his character from mistake, and maintain the authority of his government; and with respect to man, give him the strongest possible reason for hope, and render more favourable the condition of his earthly probation. These are considerations which so manifestly show, from its own internal constitution, the superlative importance and excellence of Christianity, that it would be exceedingly criminal to overlook them.
How sin may be forgiven without leading to such misconceptions of the divine character as would encourage disobedience, and thereby weaken the influence of the divine government, must be considered as a problem of very difficult solution. A government which admitted no forgiveness, would sink the guilty to despair; a government which never punishes offence, is a contradiction,--it cannot exist. Not to punish the guilty, is to dissolve authority; to punish without mercy, is to destroy, and where all are guilty, to make the destruction universal. That we cannot sin with impunity, is a matter determined. The Ruler of the world is not careless of the conduct of his creatures; for that penal consequences are attached to the offence, is not a subject of argument, but is matter of fact evident by daily observation of the events and circumstances of the present life. It is a principle therefore already laid down, that the authority of God must be preserved; but it ought to be remarked, that in that kind of administration which restrains evil by penalty, and encourages obedience by favour and hope, we and all moral creatures are the interested parties, and not the divine Governor himself, whom, because of his independent and all-sufficient nature, our transgressions cannot injure. The reasons, therefore, which compel him to maintain his authority do not terminate in himself. If he treats offenders with severity, it is for our sake, and for the sake of the moral order of the universe, to which sin, if encouraged by a negligent administration, or by entire or frequent impunity, would be the source of endless disorder and misery; and if the granting of pardon to offence be strongly and even severely guarded, so that no less a satisfaction could be accepted than the death of God’s own Son, we are to refer this to the moral necessity of the case as arising out of the general welfare of accountable creatures, liable to the deep evil of sin, and not to any reluctance on the part of our Maker to forgive, much less to any thing vindictive in his nature,--charges which have been most inconsiderately and unfairly said to be implied in the doctrine of Christ’s vicarious sufferings. If it then be true, that the release of offending man from future punishment, and his restoration to the divine favour, ought, for the interests of mankind themselves, and for the instruction and caution of other beings, to be so bestowed, that no license shall be given to offence;--that God himself, whilst he manifests his compassion, should not appear less just, less holy, than he really is;--that his authority should be felt to be as compelling, and that disobedience should as truly, though not unconditionally, subject us to the deserved penalty, as though no hope of forgiveness had been exhibited;--we ask, On what scheme, save that which is developed in the New Testament, are these necessary conditions provided for? Necessary they are, unless we contend for a license and an impunity which shall annul all good government in the universe, a point for which no reasonable man will contend; and if so, then we must allow that there is strong internal evidence of the truth of the doctrine of Scripture, when it makes the offer of pardon consequent only upon the securities we have before mentioned. If it be said, that sin may be pardoned in the exercise of the divine prerogative, the reply is, that if this prerogative were exercised toward a part of mankind only, the passing by of the rest would be with difficulty reconciled to the divine character; and if the benefit were extended to all, government would be at an end. This scheme of bringing men within the exercise of a merciful prerogative, does not therefore meet the obvious difficulty of the case; nor is it improved by confining the act of grace only to repentant criminals. For in the immediate view of danger, what offender, surrounded with the wreck of former enjoyments, feeling the vanity of guilty pleasures, now past for ever, and beholding the approach of the delayed penal visitation, but would repent? Were the principle of granting pardon to repentance to regulate human governments, every criminal would escape, and judicial forms would become a subject for ridicule. Nor is it recognised by the divine Being in his conduct to men in the present state, although in this world punishments are not final and absolute. Repentance does not restore health injured by intemperance; property, wasted by profusion; or character, once stained by dishonourable practices. If repentance alone could secure pardon, then all must be pardoned, and government dissolved, as in the case of forgiveness by the exercise of mere prerogative; but if an arbitrary selection be made, then different and discordant principles of government are introduced into the divine administration, which is a derogatory supposition.
The question proposed abstractedly, How may mercy be extended to offending creatures, the subjects of the divine government, withoutencouraging vice, by lowering the righteous and holy character of God, and the authority of his government, in the maintenance of which the whole universe of beings are interested? is, therefore, at once one of the most important and one of the most difficult that can employ the human mind. None of the theories which have been opposed to Christianity affords a satisfactory solution of the problem. They assume principles either destructive of moral government, or which cannot, in the circumstances of man, be acted upon. The only answer is found in the Holy Scriptures. They alone show, and, indeed, they alone profess to show, how God may be “just,” and yet the “justifier” of the ungodly. Other schemes show how he may be merciful; but the difficulty does not lie there. The Gospel meets it, by declaring “the righteousness of God,” at the same time that it proclaims his mercy. The voluntary sufferings of the Divine Son of God “for us,” that is, in our room and stead, magnify the justice of God; display his hatred to sin; proclaim “the exceeding sinfulness” of transgression, by the deep and painful manner in which they were inflicted upon the Substitute; warn the persevering offender of the terribleness, as well as the certainty, of his punishment; and open the gates of salvation to every penitent. It is a part of the same divine plan also to engage the influence of the Holy Spirit, to awaken penitence in man, and to lead the wanderer back to himself; to renew our fallen nature in righteousness, at the moment we are justified through faith, and to place us in circumstances in which we may henceforth “walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” All the ends of government are here answered--no license is given to offence,--the moral law is unrepealed,--a day of judgment is still appointed,--future and eternal punishments still display their awful sanctions,--a new and singular display of the awful purity of the divine character is afforded,--yet pardon is offered to all who seek it; and the whole world may be saved.
With such evidence of suitableness to the case of mankind, under such lofty views of connection with the principles and ends of moral government, does the doctrine of the atonement present itself. But other important considerations are not wanting to mark the united wisdom and goodness of that method of extending mercy to the guilty, which Christianity teaches us to have been actually and exclusively adopted. It is rendered, indeed, “worthy of all acceptation,” by the circumstance of its meeting the difficulties we have just dwelt upon,--difficulties which could not otherwise have failed to make a gloomy impression upon every offender awakened to a sense of his spiritual danger; but it must be very inattentively considered, if it does not farther commend itself to us, by not only removing the apprehensions we might feel as to the severity of the divine Lawgiver, but as exalting him in our esteem as “the righteous Lord, who loveth righteousness,” who surrendered his beloved Son to suffering and death, that the influence of moral goodness might not be weakened in the hearts of his creatures; and as a God of love, affording in this instance a view of the tenderness and benignity of his nature infinitely more impressive and affecting than any abstract description could convey, or than any act of creating and providential power and grace could exhibit, and, therefore, most suitable to subdue that enmity which had unnaturally grown up in the hearts of his creatures, and which, when corrupt, they so easily transfer from a law which restrains their inclination to the Lawgiver himself. If it be important to us to know the extent and reality of our danger, by the death of Christ it is displayed, not in description, but in the most impressive action; if it be important that we should have an assurance of the divine placability toward us, it here receives a demonstration incapable of being heightened; if gratitude be the most powerful motive of future obedience, and one which renders command on the one part, and active service on the other, “not grievous but joyous,” the recollection of such obligations as those which the “love of Christ” has laid us under, is a perpetual spring to this energetic affection, and will be the means of raising it to higher and more delightful activity for ever. All that can most powerfully illustrate the united tenderness and awful majesty of God, and the odiousness of sin; all that can win back the heart of man to his Maker and Lord, and render future obedience a matter of affection and delight as well as duty; all that can extinguish the angry and malignant passions of man to man; all that can inspire a mutual benevolence, and dispose to a self-denying charity for the benefit of others; all that can arouse by hope, or tranquillize by faith; is to be found in the vicarious death of Christ, and the principles and purposes for which it was endured.
The first declaration, on this subject, after the appearance of Christ, is that of John the Baptist, when he saw Jesus coming unto him, “Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sin of the world;” where it is obvious, that when John called our Lord, “the Lamb of God,” he spoke of him under a sacrificial character, and of the effect of that sacrifice as an atonement for the sins of mankind. This was said of our Lord, even before he entered on his public office; but if any doubt should exist respecting the meaning of the Baptist’s expression, it is removed by other passages, in which a similar allusion is adopted, and in which it is specifically applied to the death of Christ, as an atonement for sin. In the Acts of the Apostles, the following words of Isaiah are, by Philip the evangelist, distinctly applied to Christ, and to his death: “He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth. in his humiliation his judgment was taken away: and who shall declare his generation? for his life is taken from the earth.” This particular part of the prophecy being applied to our Lord’s death, the whole must relate to thesame subject; for it is undoubtedly one entire prophecy, and the other expressions in it are still stronger: “He was wounded for our transgressions; he was bruised for our iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed: the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.” In the First Epistle of Peter, is also a strong and very apposite text, in which the application of the term “lamb” to our Lord, and the sense in which it is applied, can admit of no doubt: “Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, but with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot,” 1 Peter i, 18, 19. It is therefore evident that the Prophet Isaiah, six hundred years before the birth of Jesus; that John the Baptist, on the commencement of his ministry; and that St. Peter, his friend, companion and Apostle, subsequent to the transaction; speak of Christ’s death as an atonement for sin, under the figure of a lamb sacrificed.
The passages that follow, plainly and distinctly declare the atoning efficacy of Christ’s death: “Now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.” “Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation,” Heb. ix, 26, 28. “This man, after he had offered one sacrifice for sin, for ever sat down on the right hand of God; for by one offering he hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified,” Heb. x, 12. It is observable, that nothing similar is said of the death of any other person, and that no such efficacy is imputed to any other martyrdom. “While we were yet sinners Christ died for us; much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him: for if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life,” Rom. v, 8–10. The words, “reconciled to God by the death of his Son,” show that his death had an efficacy in our reconciliation; but reconciliation is only preparatory to salvation. “He has reconciled us to his Father in his cross, and in the body of his flesh through death,” Col. i, 20, 22. What is said of reconciliation in these texts, is in some others spoken of sanctification, which is also preparatory to salvation. “We are sanctified,”--how? “by the offering of the body of Christ once for all,” Heb. x, 10. In the same epistle, the blood of Jesus is called “the blood of the covenant by which we are sanctified.” In these and many other passages that occur in different parts of the New Testament, it is therefore asserted that the death of Christ had an efficacy in the procuring of human salvation. Such expressions are used concerning no other person, and the death of no other person; and it is therefore evident, that Christ’s death included something more than a confirmation of his preaching; something more than a pattern of a holy and patient martyrdom; something more than a necessary antecedent to his resurrection, by which he gave a grand and clear proof of our resurrection from the dead. Christ’s death was all these, but it was something more. It was an atonement for the sins of mankind; and in this way only it became the accomplishment of our eternal redemption. SeeDay of Expiation.
AUGSBURGH, or AUGUSTAN CONFESSION. In 1530, a diet of the German princes was convened by the emperor Charles V, to meet at Augsburgh, for the express purpose of composing the religious troubles which then distracted Germany. On this occasion Melancthon was employed to draw up this famous confession of faith which may be considered as the creed of the German reformers, especially of the more temperate among them. It consisted of twenty-one articles, including the following points:--The Trinity, original sin, the incarnation, justification by faith, the word and sacraments, necessity of good works, the perpetuity of the church, infant baptism, the Lord’s Supper, repentance and confession, the proper use of the sacraments, church order, rites and ceremonies, the magistracy, a future judgment, free will, the worship of saints, &c. It then proceeds to state the abuses of which the reformers chiefly complained, as the denial of the sacramental cup to the laity, the celibacy of the clergy, the mass, auricular confession, forced abstinence from meats, monastic vows, and the enormous power of the church of Rome. The confession was read at a full meeting of the diet, and signed by the elector of Saxony, and three other princes of the German empire.
John Faber, afterward archbishop of Vienna, and two other Catholic divines, were employed to draw up an answer to this confession, which was replied to by Melancthon in his “Apology for the Augsburgh Confession” in 1531. This confession and defence; the articles of Smalcald, drawn up by Luther; his catechisms, &c, form the symbolical books of the Lutheran church; and it must be owned that they contain concessions in favour of some parts of popery, particularly the real presence, that few Protestants in this country would admit.
AUGUSTINE, or, as he is sometimes called in the court style of the middle ages,St. Austin, one of the ancient fathers of the church, whose writings for many centuries had almost as potent an influence on the religious opinions of Christendom as those of Aristotle exercised over philosophy. Indeed, it has often been mentioned as a fact, with expressions of regret, that the writings of no man, those of the Stagirite excepted, contributed more than those of St. Augustine to encourage that spirit of subtle disquisition which subsequently distinguished the era of the Schoolmen. He was born, November 13th, A. D. 354, at Tagasta, an episcopal city of Numidia in Africa. His parents, Patricius and Monica, were Christians of respectable rank in life, who afforded their son all the means of instruction which his excellent genius and wonderful aptitude for learning seemed to require. He studied grammar and rhetoric at Madura, until he was sixteen years old; andafterward removed to Carthage, to complete his studies. In both these cities, in all the fervour of unregenerate youth, he entered eagerly into the seducing scenes of dissipation and folly with which he was surrounded, and became not only depraved but infamous in his conduct. In this respect he was not improved by his subsequent connection with the Manichees, whose unhallowed principles afforded an excuse for his immorality, and threw a veil over the vilest of his actions. The simplicity and minuteness with which he has narrated the numerous incidents of his childhood, youth, and mature age, in his celebrated book of “Confessions,” have afforded abundant matter of ridicule to the profane and infidel wits of this and the last age. The reflections, however, which accompany his narrative, are generally important and judicious, and furnish to the moral philosopher copious materials for a history of the varieties of the human heart, and are of superior value to the humble Christian for the investigation and better knowledge of his own. With a strange though not uncommon inconsistency, few books have been more frequently quoted as authority on matters relating to general literature and philosophy by infidels themselves, than St. Augustine’s otherwise despised “Confessions,” and his “City of God.” But, whatever else is taught in this remarkable piece of autobiography, every pious reader will be delighted with the additional proofs which it contains of the ultimate prevalence of faithful prayer, especially on the part of Christian parents. Monica’s importunate prayers to heaven followed the aberrations of her graceless son,--when he settled at Carthage as a teacher of rhetoric; when he removed to Rome, and lodged with a Manichee;--and when he finally settled at Milan as professor of rhetoric. St. Ambrose was at that time, A. D. 384, bishop of Milan, and to his public discourses Augustine began to pay much attention. His heart became gradually prepared for the reception of divine truth, and for that important change of heart and principles which constitutes “conversion.” The circumstances attending this change, though often related, are not unworthy of being repeated, if only to show that the mode of the Holy Spirit’s operations was in substance the same in those early days as they are now; and time was when some of the soundest divines and most worthy dignitaries of the church of England were in the habit ofreferringreferringwith approbation to this well attested instance of change of heart. One of his Christian countrymen, Pontinius, who held a high situation at court, having perceived a copy of St. Paul’s Epistles lying on the table, entered one day into conversation with him and his friend Alipius about the nature of faith and the happiness of those who lived in the enjoyment of religion. Augustine was deeply affected at the close of this visit; and when Pontinius had retired, giving vent to his feelings he addressed Alipius in a most animated strain: “How is this? What shall we do? Ignorant people come, and seize upon heaven; and we, with our learning, (senseless wretches that we are!) behold we are immersed in flesh and blood! Are we ashamed to follow them? Yet is it not a still greater shame, not even to be able to follow them?” Full of remorse and contrition Augustine left the house and retired to a secret part of the garden, followed by his friend, who seemed on this occasion to be a partaker of his grief only because he saw him grieved in spirit. Unwilling to unman himself, as he accounted it, before Alipius, he left him; and throwing himself down under the branches of a large fig tree he poured out a torrent of tears which he was unable any longer to restrain, and exclaimed in bitterness of soul, “When, O Lord, when will thy anger cease? Why tomorrow? Why not at this time?” He instantly heard what he considered to be the voice of a child, sayingTolle, lege, “Take and read.” These two Latin words were repeated several times; Augustine reflected upon them, checked his tears, received them as the voice of God, and running into the house, opened, according to the divine direction, the Epistles of St. Paul which he had left on the table, and attentively read the first passage which he found. It was Romans xiii, 13, 14; a passage peculiarly applicable to him, in reference to his former habits and present state of mind: “Not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying: but put ye onthe Lord Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh to fulfil the lusts thereof.” He shut up the book, and was amazed that all his doubts and fears had vanished. Alipius was speedily informed of this wonderful change in his feelings and views; and after having desired to see the two verses, in the spirit of a true seeker he pointed out to Augustine the passage which immediately follows, and which he considered as peculiarly adapted to his own case: “Him that is weak in the faith receive ye,” &c, Rom. xiv, 1. The two friends then ran to acquaint Monica with these circumstances, the knowledge of which transported her with joy.
In a frame of mind not unfamiliar to those who have themselves had “much forgiven,” Augustine wished to retire at once from so wicked a world as that in which he had passed the first thirty-two years of his dissolute life. His secession, however, was only a temporary one; for he and Alipius were, a few months afterward, received by baptism into the Christian church. After having composed several religious treatises in his retreat near Tagasta, especially against the errors of the Manichees, from which he had been so recently reclaimed, he was, in the year 392, ordained priest by Valerius, bishop of Hippo, now a part of the Barbary States on the coast of Africa. He there held a public disputation with Fortunatus, a celebrated priest among the Manichees, and acquitted himself with great spirit and success, he also wrote and preached largely and to great effect against the Donatists and Manichees. His reputation as a divine increased; and he was, at the close of the year 395, ordained bishop of Hippo, in which high station he continued with great advantage to wage war against various orders of heretics.
Augustine had hitherto directed his theological artillery principally against the predestinarian errors of the Manichees; but he was soon called upon to change his weapons and his mode of warfare, in attacking a new and not less dangerous class of heretics. In the year 412 he began to write against the injurious doctrines of Pelagias, a native of Britain, who had resided for a considerable time at Rome, and acquired universal esteem by the purity of his manners, his piety, and his erudition. Alarmed at the consequences which seemed to him obviously to result from allowing that Adam’s sin is transmitted to all his posterity, and fortified in his sentiments on this subject by those of Origen and Ruffinus, with the latter of whom he had associated, he boldly denied tenets which he did not believe. In the defence of his opinions, Pelagius, was seconded by Celestius, a man equally eminent for his talents and his virtues. Their principles were propagated at first rather by hints and intimations, than by open avowal and plain declarations; but this reserve was laid aside when they perceived the ready reception which their doctrines obtained; and Celestius began zealously to disseminate them in Africa, while Pelagius sowed the same tares in Palestine, whence they were speedily transplanted to almost every corner of Christendom. If the brief notices, which have come down to us respecting their tenets, in the writings of their adversaries, be correct, they affirmed, “It is notfreewill if it requires the aid of God; because every one has it within the power of his own will to do any thing, or not to do it. Our victory over sin and Satan proceeds not from the help which God affords, but is owing to our own free will. The prayers which the church offers up either for the conversion of unbelievers and other sinners, or for the perseverance of believers, are poured forth in vain. The unrestricted capability of men’s own free will is amply sufficient for all these things, and therefore no necessity exists for asking of God those things which we are able of ourselves to obtain; the gifts of grace being only necessary to enable men to do that more easily and completely which yet they could do themselves though more slowly and with greater difficulty; and that they are perfectly free creatures,” in opposition to all the current notions of predestination and reprobation. These novel opinions were refuted by St. Augustine and St. Jerom, as well as by Orosius a Spanish presbyter, and they were condemned as heresies in the council of Carthage and in that of Milevum. The discussions which then arose have been warmly agitated in various subsequent periods of the Christian church, though little new light has been thrown upon them from that age to the present. In his eagerness to confute these opponents St. Augustine employed language so strong as made it susceptible of an interpretation wholly at variance with the accountability of man. This led to farther explanations and modifications of his sentiments, which were multiplied when the Semi-Pelagians arose, who thought that the truth lay between his doctrines and those of the Pelagians. Concerning original sin, he maintained that it was derived from our first parents; and he believed he had ascertained in what the original sin conveyed by Adam to his posterity consisted. In his sentiments, however, upon the latter point he was rather inconsistent, at one time asserting that the essence of original sin was concupiscence, and at another expressing doubts respecting his own position. This subject was bequeathed as a legacy to the schoolmen of a subsequent age, who exercised their subtle wits upon all its ramifications down to the period of the council of Trent. On the consequences of the fall of our first parents, St. Augustine taught that by it human nature was totally corrupted, and deprived of all inclination and ability to do good. Before the age in which he lived, the early fathers held what, in the language of systematic theology, is termed the synergestic system, or the needfulness of human coöperation in the works of holiness; but though the freedom of the will was not considered by them as excluding or rendering unnecessary the grace of God, yet much vagueness is perceptible in the manner in which they express themselves, because they had not examined the subject with the same attention as the theologians by whom they were succeeded. Those early divines generally used the language of Scripture, the fertile invention of controversial writers, not having as yet displayed itself, except on the divine nature of Jesus Christ, and subsidiary terms and learned distinctions not being then required by any great differences of opinion. But as soon as Pelagius broached his errors, the attention of Christians was naturally turned to the investigation of the doctrine of grace. The opinions of St. Augustine on this subject, which soon became those of the great body of the Christian church, admitted the necessity of divine grace, or the influence of the Holy Spirit, for our obedience to the law of God. He ascribed the renovation of our moral constitution wholly to this grace, denied all coöperation of man with it for answering the end to be accomplished, and represented it as irresistible. He farther affirmed that it was given only to a certain portion of the human race, to those who showed the fruits of it in their sanctification, and that it secured the perseverance of all upon whom it was bestowed. Plaifere in his “Appello Evangelium” has given the following as the substance of that opinion of the order of predestination of which “many do say that St. Austin was the first author: 1. That God from all eternity decreed to create mankind holy and good. 2. That he foresaw man, being tempted by Satan, would fall into sin, if God did not hinder it; he decreed not to hinder. 3. That out of mankind, seen fallen into sin and misery, he chose a certain number to raise to righteousness and to eternal life, and rejected the rest, leaving them in their sins. 4. That for these his chosen he decreed to send his Son to redeem them, and his Spirit to call them and sanctify them; the rest he decreed to forsake, leaving them to Satan and themselves, and to punish them for their sins.”