A T H 



riven by Mofes to the Kiaelites, on account of its excellent 

 palhirage. Numb, xxxii. 34— Alfo, a town of Samaria, 

 in the tribe of Ephraim, four miles north of Sebafte or the 

 citv of Samaria ; called by Jerome, Atharus ; — and another 

 on 'the tVoiiticrs of Ephvaim, between Janohah and Jericlio, 

 Jofh. xvi. 7. probably the fame with Ataroth-AdJar, nien- 

 Jolh. xvi. 5. xviii. I ?. 

 , ATHARRHABIS, a town of Egypt. Steph. Byz. 



ATHBOY, in Geography, a market and poll town in the 

 county of Meath, and province of Leinfter, in Ireland, which, 

 before the union, fent two members to the Irith parliament. 

 At its weekly market, there has been a good deal of corn fold 

 of late years ; fome yarn and merchandife for the peaiantry. 

 It has alfo four fairs', chiefly for cattle. It is fuuate Lwentv- 

 eio-ht Iri.h miles N. W. of Dublin. Thompfon's Statiili- 

 cal Account of Meath. 



ATHEE, in Gcogrnphy, a town of France, in the de- 

 partment of the Mayennr, and chief place of a canton in 

 tlie dillricl of Craon', three miles north of Craon. 



ATHEIST, derived from the privative a, and ©jo;, 

 God, a perfon who does not believe the exiftence of a God, 

 nor a Providence ; and who has no religion, true or falfe. 



In general, a man is faid to be an atheift, who owns no 

 bcinn- fuperior to nature ; that is, to men, and the other fen- 

 fible beings in the world. 



In this fenfe, Spinoza may be faid to be an atheift, and 

 it is an impropriety to rank him, as the learned commonly 

 do, among deiils ; fince he allows of no other God befide 

 nature, or the univerfe, of which mankind makes a part ; 

 and there is no atheift but allows of the exiftence of the 

 world, and of his own exiftence in particular. See Spi- 

 noza. 



Plato diftinguidies three kinds of atheifts. Some, who 

 deny, abfolutely, that there are any gods ; others, who allow 

 the exiftence of gods, but maintain that they do not con- 

 cern themfelves with human afiairs, and fo deny a Providence; 

 and others, who behtve there are gods, but think they are 

 eafily appeafed, and that they may remit the greateft crimes 

 for the Iraalleft fupphcation. 



The learned Cudworth (Intellcftual Syftem,_b. i. c.3. 

 vol. i. p. 104 — 17S.) reduces the ancient atheilm of the 

 Greek philolbphers into four different forms, comprehend- 

 ing the two clafles of hylozoics or hyiopathii, and atomici 

 or atomifts, under the denominations of Anaximandrian, 

 Democritical, Stratonical, and Stoical. The Anaximan- 

 drians attempted to folve the phenomena of nature by 

 having recourfe to the unmeaning language of quahties and 

 forms. Thefe were contained acfually or potentially in 

 that iniinite chaos of matter, deftitute of all underftanding 

 and life, which was the firft principle or only real numen of 

 Anaximander; and by their fortuitous fecretioii and fcgre- 

 gation, they produced, iirft, the elements of earth, water, 

 air, and iire, and then the bodies of the fun, moon, and 

 ftars, and both the bodies and fouls of men and other ani- 

 mals ; and, laftly, innumerable or iniinite fuch worlds .as 

 thefe, as fo many fccondary or native gods. (Plato De Leg. 

 1. X. p. 666.^ See AxAxiMANDER, and Anaximandrians. 

 Some have called this fcheme of atheifm, which deduces all 

 things from matter by means of qualities and forms. Peri- 

 patetic or Ariftotelic, becaufe Ariftotle ufed this kind of 

 laniuaf^e in his phyfiology- But as Ariftotle cannot be 

 juftly denominated an atheift, Cudworth diftinguilhes this 

 form of atheifm by the appellation of Anaximandrian. 

 Democritus and Leucippus new-modelled atheifm from the 

 Anaximandrian and Hylopathian into the atomic form, 

 and derived the original and produftion of all things from 

 atoms, devoid of all forms and qualities, and poffefling only, 



A T H 



as firft principles, magnitude, figure, fite, and motion ; and 

 as they conceived tliat life and ui.dcrftanding, and other 

 qualities,' could be only accidental and feconda-.y refults 

 from certain fortuitous concretions and contexture aof atoms, 

 they excluded a deity, and every thing like counfcl and 

 defign from the formation of the univerfe. The Epicureans 

 borrowed many of their notions from Dcmocntus, and 

 framed a fyltem very much refeuiuling the atomical or 

 Democritical. See Democritus, and Epjcurus. The 

 Stratonical atheifm was of the hylozoic kind; and was fo 

 called from Strato Lampfacenus, who acknowledged no 

 other deity than a certain ftupid and plaftic life, belonging 

 to all the parts of matter, by means ot which they arranged 

 and framed themfelves, w'ithout reflexion. See Strato. 

 The Stoical, or Pfeudo-Stoical, or cofmoplaftic atheifm, 

 adopted by Icveral of the Stoics, fuppofed a certain kind 

 of plaftic and fpermatic, or methodical and artificial nature, 

 without fenl'e or confcious underftanding, to prefide over 

 the whole world, and to difpofe and prelerve all things in 

 that regular order which they alfumc and maintain. Some 

 of the Stoics conceived that this plaftic nature, or fper- 

 matic principle, was fubordinate to a fentient and intel- 

 ledf ual nature, or corporeal foul and mind of the univerfe, 

 that prcfided over it; and this feems to have been the 

 genuine doiflrine of Heraclitus andZeuo; whillt others re- 

 jected the latter principle, and maintained, that the plaftic 

 or fpermatic nature, devoid of all animality or confcious in- 

 telligence, was the higheft principle in the univerfe. All 

 the ancient atheifts agreed in this, viz. that there was 

 nothing but matter or body in the univerfe; whilft fome 

 thought it animate, and were called hylozoics; and others 

 thought it inanimate, and were denominated atomici. Hobbes 

 feems to have inchned to the opinion of the Stratonici; 

 for he fuppofes (Phyf. c. 25. § 5.) that all matter, as matter, 

 is endued not only with figure and a capacity of motion, 

 but alfo with an aftual fenfe or perception, and wants only 

 the organs and memory of animals to exprefs its fenfation. 

 Sir William Temple, according to the account given of him 

 by biihop Burnet (Hift. Time. vol. i. p. 531, 8vo.) thought 

 that the prelent fyftcm of things is neceflary and eternal. 

 The Chinele have been repreftnted as a nation of atheifts. 

 Accordingly Burnet (ubi fupra) ftates it as the opinion of 

 li'r W. Temple, that Confucius and his followers are to be 

 reckoned among thofe who were atheifts themfelves, and left 

 religion to the people. But Couplet maintains, that Con- 

 fucius and the earlier teachers among the Chinefe, were 

 votaries to pure religion. Confucius, however, fays Httle of 

 thofe duties that relate immediately to God; and thouo-h 

 he ipeaks of the great fpirits in heaven and earth, what 

 he fays coincides merely with the notion of a plaftic 

 power, fimilar to that maintained by fome of the Grecian 

 philoiophers. 



Some diftingui(h_/5>fcu/a/ife atheifts, or thofe who are fo 

 from principle and theory — from fraSicai atheifts, whofe 

 wicked lives lead them to believe, or rather to wifti, that 

 there were no God. 



Dr. Clarke (Demonftration of the Being of a God, p. 2. 

 8vo.) fays, that atheilm arifes either from ftupid ignorance, 

 or from corruption of principles and manners, or from the 

 reafonings of ialfe philofophy ; and he adds, that the latter, 

 who are the only atheiftical perfons capable of being rea- 

 foned with at all, muft of ncceffity own, that, fuppoting it 

 cannot be proved to be true, yet it is a thing very delirable, 

 and which any wife m.an would wifti to be true, for the great 

 benefit and happinefs of man, that there was a God, an 

 intelligent and wife, a juft and good being, to govern the 

 world. Whatever hypothefia thefe men can poffibly frame, 



whatever 



