RELIGIOUS ENCYCLOPEDIA
Atonement Atterbury
be inferred from the fact that the Day of Atonement is not mentioned in preexilic literature that it did not pass into the consciousness and life of the people, like the three great festivals, Passover, Pentecost, and Feast of Tabernacles. It was a festival connected mainly with the priesthood and sanctuary, hence it was more strictly observed at the center of the legitimate worship. There came a change in the postexilic time, in which the Temple at Jerusalem exercised greater influence upon the people . But even then we see that in spite of the prescribed self-mortification the people knew how to indulge in joyful recreation; from the Mishnah (Taanit iv, 8) we learn that on the Day of Atonement (no doubt in the evening, after the high priest had returned to his home), the maidens all went forth, arrayed in white garments, into the vineyards around Jerusalem, where they danced and sang, inviting the young men to select their brides (cf. Delitzsch, Zur Geschichte der jiidischen Poesie, Leipsic, 1836, 195-196). The Gemara finds such joy perfectly legitimate on a day when atonement was made for Israel. After the destruction of Jerusalem the celebration of the Day of Atonement was continued, although the sacrificial rites could no more be performed. The grand festival with its solemn earnestness had so deeply impressed itself upon the people, that it could not be wholly dispensed with. (For the later usages see Orach Chayim, translated by Lowe, 150 sqq.; Buxtorf, Synagoga Judaica, chaps, xxv-xxvi.) In general the penitential prayers in the synagogue have taken the place of the atoning temple-sacrifices. Nevertheless, the cessation of the sacrifice is deplored; in some places the house-father takes a cock, the mother a hen, which are killed as a substitute for the sacrifice.
C. von Orelli.
The late date of the origin of the festival would seem to be made certain by the following considerations: (1) Its absence from the list of feasts given in the earlier books can not be accidental, especially in view of the radical character of its practical prescriptions. (2) These prescriptions and their moral sanction were not in keeping with the spirit of the earlier laws, in which there is no suggestion of fasting and contrition. (3) Transition stages between the prophetic and the priestly legislation are indicated in the ideal conception of Ezekiel, the prophet-priest, with its two single days of atonement (xlv, 18-20), also in the intervening institution by Ezra of a general fast on the twenty-fourth day of the seventh month, with no mention of the tenth day of the priestly code. (4) The old festivals of the Hebrews were of a joyous character, while the Levitical Day of Atonement was one of great solemnity. J. F. M.
Bibliography: The Mishna tract Yoma, translated into Latin with notes by R. Sheringham, London, 1648; the same, ed. H. L. Strack, Leipsic, 1904; an Eng. transl. is in J. Barclay, The Talmud, London, 1878; the Tosephta on this tract and Jerusalem Gemara in Ugolini, Thesaurus, xviii, 153 Sqq ; Maimonides, Yad ha-Hazafcah, transl. by F. Delitzsch, Hebraerbrief, pp. 749 sqq., Leipsic, 1857; J. Lightfoot, Ministerium templi, chap, xv, in Opera, i, 671- 756, Rotterdam, 1686; J. G. Carpzov, Apparatus historico-criticus antiquitatum sacri codicis, pp. 433 sqq., Frankfort, 1748; J. Lund, Judische Heiligthumer, pp. 1161 sqq., Hamburg, 1738; J. H. Otho, Lexicon rabbinico-
philologicum, pp. 182 sqq., Geneva, 1675; J. Meyer, De temporibus sacris Hebrasorum, in Ugolini, Thesaurus, vol. i; C. W. F. Bahr, Symbolik des mosaischen Cultus, ii, 664 sqq., Heidelberg, 1839; M. Brueck, Pharisaische Volkssitten und Ritualien, Frankfort, 1840; H. Kurtz, Der alttestamentliche Opferkultus, pp. 335 sqq., Berlin, 1862; B. Wechsler, Zur Geschichte der Versohnungsfeier, in Judische Zeitschrift, ii (1863), 113-125; Nowack, Archaologie, ii, 183-194; Benzinger, Archaologie, pp. 200, 398, 401 , 427 ; the works on Old Testament theology, and the commentaries to Lev. xvi, particularly Driver's Leviticus, in SBOT, 1898. On the critical question consult Franz Delitzsch, in ZKW, i (1880), 173-183. For the later Judaism, consult J. F. Schroder, Satzungen und Gebrauche des talmudisch-rabbinischen Judenthums , 130 sqq. , Bremen, 1851; S. Adler, in ZATW, ii (1882), 178 sqq., 272; L. Dembitz, Jewish Services in Synagogue and Home, Philadelphia, 1898; M. Jastrow, in AJT, i (1898), 312 sqq.
ATRIUM: In the church architecture of the earlier centuries, an open space in front of the entrance to the church, surrounded by porticos, and provided with a fountain, or at least a large vessel containing water. Here the penitents who were not allowed to enter the church assembled, and begged the faithful to pray for them.
ATTERBURY, FRANCIS: English Jacobite bishop; b. at Milton or Middleton Keynes (about 45 m. n.w. of London), Buckinghamshire, England, March 6, 1662; d. at Paris Feb. 22, 1732. He studied at Christ Church, Oxford, and received holy orders about 1687. His brilliant success as a controversialist, and his powerful eloquence in the pulpit, soon attracted attention; he was made chaplain to William and Mary in 1692, dean of Carlisle in 1704, dean of Christ Church in 1711, and bishop of Rochester and dean of Westminster in 1713. He was a Tory in politics, and in ecclesiastical affairs his sympathies were with the Highchurchmen. The succession of George I at the death of Queen Anne was unfavorable to his ambition, and, as a Tory, being coldly received by the new king, he took his place in the foremost ranks of the opposition, refused in 1715 to sign the paper in which the bishops declared their attachment to the House of Brunswick, and began in 1717 to correspond directly with the Pretender, and carried on his intrigues so skilfully that his most intimate friends did not suspect him. But in 1722 his guilt was manifested; he was committed to the Tower, and by an act of Parliament was banished for life in March, 1723, and all British subjects were forbidden to hold communication with him except by the royal permission. He went to the continent, and lived most of the time in Paris, in more or less constant correspondence with the Pretender, for whose sake he had suffered so much. Ill health and the death of a devoted daughter added to his afflictions. Atterbury was a man of restless and pugnacious disposition, with many striking qualities, and one of the foremost preachers and orators of his time. He had little learning, however, his talents were superficial, and his judgment was rash. In private life he is said to have been winning and amiable, and he counted among his friends most of the literary men of the day as well as many influential personages. He had much popular sympathy in his banishment. At his death his body was carried
Atterbury Auburn