713 



ATOMS. 



ATONEMENT. 



714 



C, H 10 O t , have respectively the atomic volumes 126'9 and 126'5. 

 Diethylauiline C^H^N, and Caprylamine C le H 19 N, respectively 190'5 

 and 190. 



The atomic volume of a compound appears to depend not so much 

 on the empirical formula but on the rational composition. The atomic 

 volumes of many elements have been calculated, in order to deduce 

 therefrom the atomic volumes of the compounds which they constitute. 

 It appears that to certain elements the same atomic volumes must be 

 always ascribed; thus, carbon is always 5'5, hydrogen also 5'5, chlorine 

 22'8, iodine 37'5, while other elements appear to have various atomic 

 volumes ; their atomic volume appearing to depend on the place which 

 the element occupies in the compound. Oxygen, for example, when it 

 is contained within a. compound radical has the atomic volume 6'l,and 

 when without a radical the volume 3'9. Sulphur also, according as it 

 is contained within or without a radical, possesses a different atomic 

 volume. 



For further information upon this subject the reader is referred to 

 ' Kopp's Researches on Atomic Volumes ' ([Annalen der Physik u. 

 Chemie, vols. xlvii., lii. ; and Annalen der Chemie u. Pharmacie, vol. 

 xxxvi) ; to Schroder on the same subject (Ann. der Physik u. Chemie, 

 yols. 1., lii.) ; to Filhol (Annales de Ch. et de Phys.. vol. xxi., third 

 series) ; and to Messrs. Playfair and Joules ' Memoirs ' ( Chemical 

 Memoirs, vols. ii., iii. ; and Quarterly Journal of the Chemical Society, 

 vol. i.). 



ATOMS (from the Greek &TO/IOI, which is from & and Tirana, to cut), 

 the ultimate and indivisible particles of matter. Some ascribe the 

 origin of the idea to Moschus, a philosopher who lived before the 

 Trojan war. Leucippua, a philosopher of Abdera, who flourished 

 B.C. 428, is generally regarded as the original propounder of what is 

 called the Atomic philosophy. It was adopted by Democritus, in his 

 ' Cosmogony,' about B.C. 380, and afterwards by Epicurus, who died 

 B.C. 270, to whom its celebrity is chiefly owing. Lucretius, who died 

 B.C. 54, unites the tenets of Epicurus and Empedocles (B.C. 444) with 

 the infinite of Anaximander (B.C. 550) and the atoms of Democritus. 

 Dr. Whewell remarks, that the atomic doctrine was one of the most 

 definite of the physical doctrines of the ancients, and was applied with 

 most perseverance and knowledge to the explanation of phenomena ; 

 and that, although it led to no success of any consequence in ancient 

 times, it served to transmit, through a long series of ages, a habit of 

 really physical inquiry. The atomic doctrine, which we have men- 

 tioned, was opposed by the ' Homoiomeria ' of Anaxagoras, who held 

 that material things consist of particles which are homogeneous in each 

 land of body, but various in different kinds : thus, for example, since 

 by food the flesh, bones, &c., of animals increase, there are in food 

 particles of flesh, bones, &c. As the theory of Leucippus points to the 

 corpuscular theories of modern tunes, so that of Anaxagoras may be 

 considered as a glimpse of the idea of chemical analysis. 



All matter may be conceived to be divisible ad injinitum, for we 

 must suppose every particle to have an upper and an under surface, 

 and these may be conceived as separated. Still, chemical analysis 

 seems evidently to show that there is a limit set by nature to division, 

 beyond which no natural powers can subdivide. [ATOMIC THEORY.] 

 Hence, in physics, an atom is called simple when it cannot be further 

 divided without separating its chemical elements. Thus, the dark spot 

 on a soap-bubble, just before it bursts, cannot exceed jaAsn^b. ^ an 

 inch in thickness ; yet even this is not composed of a single stratum of 

 atoms, for it must consist at least of one atom of soap and one of 

 water ; the former composed of soda, stearic, margaric, and oleic acids, 

 and the latter of at least one molecule of oxygen and one of hydrogen, 

 and each of these possessing the eaential properties of impenetrability, 

 extension, and figure. 



We proceed now very briefly to sketch the general theory, which we 

 have mentioned, of the atomic doctrine. According to Epicurus, every 

 visible form is made up from matter and space (corpui and inane), 

 which are equally infinite and unbounded, as well as eternal, and are 

 opposite to one another in every respect. Thus, the solid parts of 

 bodies are matter, and then- pores space. Before the formation of the 

 universe, in the state of chaos, these two principles were uncombined, 

 and atotm existed floating about in the immense void. These are per- 

 fectly solid, indivisible, infinitesimal, infinite in number, and eternal. 

 They possess however various shapes, as round, square, jagged, barbed, 

 &c., though the number of these figures is not infinite. All solids con- 

 tain more than one kind of figure, for they are formed by the impact 

 of atoms floating downwards and being driven against one another ; 

 for the atoms, being all possessed of weight, fall downwards, and being 

 by some cause diverted from their line of motion, impinge, and, accord- 

 ing to the force of impact, form dense or rare bodies. This motion is 

 eternal, and some do not impinge, but float about like specks in the 

 sunbeams. They are also supposed to be destitute of heat, cold, and 

 similar affections. These atoms, by their concurrence, produce all the 

 different forms which we see ; in fact, the world itself was formed by 

 this fortuitous concourse of atoms, and is continually sustained by 

 fresh tides of atoms flying through all space, and taking the posts of 

 those perpetually flying off. Yet nothing is eternal and immutable but 

 these seeds or atoms themselves. The world itself will be decomposed 

 into its ultimate atoms, and new worlds will arise from its destruction. 



ATONEMENT, a certain mode of appeasing anger, and obtaining 

 pardon for an offence. In the act of atonement there is commonly 



understood to be a substitution of something offered, or of some 

 personal suffering, for a penalty which would otherwise be exacted. 

 The word is, indeed, applied colloquially to any circumstance of 

 suffering, voluntary or involuntary, consequent upon criminal conduct 

 or error of judgment. Thus even the spendthrift is said to have 

 atoned for his folly by the hardships endured in consequence of it, and 

 the murderer for his crime by a public death. But this use of the 

 word is altogether indefensible. In theology, it has respect to offences 

 committed against the Deity ; it is in the theological acceptation of the 

 term that it will be considered in the present article. The subject in 

 this view of it is partly connected with that of sacrifice [SACRIFICE] ; 

 but it is not identical with it. For it is not certain that all sacrifices 

 had atonement for their object ; and sacrifice, as commonly understood, 

 was only one amongst other methods of atonement. 



The practice of atonement is remarkable for its antiquity and 

 universality, proved by the earliest records that have come down to us 

 of all nations, and by the testimony of ancient and modern travellers. 

 In the oldest books of the Hebrew Scriptures, without noticing those 

 earlier sacrifices the object of which may be considered doubtful, we 

 have numerous instances of expiatory rites where atonement is the 

 prominent feature, occupying, in fact, a large portion of the four last 

 books of the Pentateuch. In some cases the atonement was made for 

 a specific offence (Levit. iv., Numb. xvi. 46) ; in others it had reference 

 to a state of transgression, as especially in the case of the scape-goat, 

 on the day of expiation. (Levit. xvi.) The orthodox Jews of modern 

 times have substituted a cock, which is killed and eaten with certain 

 ceremonies. The offender again either atoned by his own personal 

 act, or received the benefit of atonement by the act of another. 

 (Levit. iv.) The Hebrew records contain also notices of the practice 

 of atonement, independent of the Mosaic institutions, and unconnected 

 with the religious opinions of the Hebrew people. The barbarous 

 offerings to Moloch appear in the light of atonements when interpreted 

 by the indignant expostulation of Micah (vi. 7) "Shall I give my 

 first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my 

 soul ? " When Job is described (i. 5) as offering burnt offerings 

 according to the number of his sons, and accompanying the act with 

 the explanation, " It may be that my sons have sinned, and cursed God 

 in their hearts," we are sure that the author of the book, and those for 

 whom he wrote, were familiar with the notion of atonement. 



But the atonement of Christianity is of a different character from 

 any of these. It presupposes a state of sin or transgression, but it does 

 not transfer the sin to an involuntary or unwitting substitute. In the 

 Mosaic directions for atonement the means were generally symbolical 

 of Christ, upon whose coming the former methods wholly ceased, and 

 He became a self -sacrificed and willing means and the only means 

 for the atonement of mankind with an offended creator. We can here 

 do little more than state what is understood by the Christian when he 

 speaks of the atonement. He does not consider man, according to the 

 heathen notion mentioned below, to be the object of a capricious and 

 vengeful enmity, but through a sinful nature, and practices and 

 affections conformable to that nature, to have come into a state of 

 alienation from God ; in other words, he believes that God is just and 

 holy, that man has sinned, and must therefore be punished. This 

 being his condition, he further believes that the Divine Being, revealed 

 to us under the title of the Son of God, interposed between the sentence 

 and its execution, suffered in our stead, and atoned by His death for 

 our sin ; that the immediate consequences were, remission of the 

 original sentence, and restoration to a state which is still probationary, 

 but in which man is made capable of a permanent reunion with his 

 Maker. The believer in the doctrine of the atonement supposes that 

 the sacrifice was necessary according to a law fixed in the counsels of 

 God (which law he also supposes to be revealed to us) that sin must be 

 atoned for before it can be pardoned ; but he distinguishes between 

 the necessity of the sacrifice itself, and the further purpose of God in 

 causing it to be publicly made,and providing that it should be universally 

 known. He supposes the knowledge of the fact to be necessary to the 

 formation of the Christian character, and its moral consequences to be, 

 a deeper sense of the turpitude of sin ; whereas there might otherwise 

 be danger lest that should be lightly accounted of which appeared to 

 have been lightly forgiven ; and also a new and powerful motive to a 

 love of the Supreme Being, supplying a remedy for that selfish principle 

 which might prevail, if the only motives to obedience were the hope of 

 reward and the fear of punishment. 



We have endeavoured to state the doctrine of the Atonement in 

 such terms as would be accepted by all, who accepted the doctrine 

 itself on the authority of Scripture. It is well known, however, that 

 among those who would concur in the general statement, there would 

 be found minor differences of opinion, particularly as to the univer- 

 sality of the benefit conferred by the sacrifice. [CALVIN, in Bioo. Div.] 

 We have also without qualification called the doctrine in question a 

 doctrine of the Christian religion ; though we are well aware that there 

 are some whose views of the gospel dispensation and whose interpre- 

 tation of scripture have led them, whilst fully admitting the divine 

 origin of our religion, to reject as unscriptural the doctrine of the 

 atonement. But these would themselves readily acknowledge, we 

 believe, that they are comparatively few in number. 



To atone, according to the vulgar etymology, is to set at one, that is, 

 to reconcile ; and hence atonement is etymologically explained at-one- 



