Atomical larging and enforcing the atomical doctrine, that his Philosophy warm admirer Lucretius claims for him the honour of the whole invention. The poet appears particularly grateful for the emancipation of the human mind from the influence of religion, which was completely effected according to the system of his master: Humana ante oculos fœdè cum vita jaceret Epicurus adopted the doctrines of the ancient atomists, to explain the organization and qualities of bodies; and in so far as he adheres to their principles, he advances many ingenious things in his speculations. But he deserts the paths of true science, and of sober thinking, when he attempts to account for the production of all things without the operation of an intelligent cause. According to him, atoms are the clements, from which all things are compounded, and into which they are ultimately resolved. Not only are they the materials, out of which bodies are made; but that energy or principle of motion, which essentially belongs to them, is the sole agent in all the ope rations of nature. Having assumed this principle, he then proceeds to show, that all the changes in the figure and properties of bodies consist in local motion. Heat is the influx of certain small, round corpuscles, which insinuate themselves into the pores of bodies in continual succession, till by their perpetual action, the parts are separated, and at length the body dissolved. Cold is the influx of certain irregular atoms, whose motion is slower than those which occasion heat. Production and dissolution are nothing more than a change of the position of atoms, or an increase or diminution of the particles of which bodies are composed. But the original formation of the world is the principal thing to be accounted for; and this Epicurus, with most other cosmogonists, makes a very easy process. Accordingly he tells us, without any hesitation, and without the semblance of proof, that a finite number of atoms, tumbling through the vacuum, were, in consequence of their innate motion, collected into one indigested mass. A small difficulty, however, occurs here; if these atoms fell perpendicularly, how did they ever happen to unite? They could not overtake each other: for in a vacuum all bodies fall with equal velocity, whatever may be the difference of their specific gravity in, other circumstances. The same objection holds, supposing them to fall obliquely : neither will it do to say that they fell tumultuously, in all different directions: because the principle of gravity, with which they are supposed to be endued, must act uniformly; and if there be any deflection of the atoms from one regular course, it must proceed from some external cause, which is altogether contrary to Epicurus's system, which ascribes every thing to the energy and activity of atoms. These difficulties were not unobserved; but they were easily obviated, so long as hypothesis could be substituted for argument. Accordingly an expedient was devised, to remove these objections: and it was asserted, that the atoms suffered a slight deflection in their course, They Atomical at different times and different places, by which means they effected a junction. At the same time, this de- Philosophy. flection was so small, as not to constitute obliquity; for Lucretius loudly protests against such heresy as this, and declares it to be contrary to common sense, that bodies should descend by their own weight, in an oblique direction. Nevertheless, to answer his purpose, he is forced to assign to the atoms a declination from the perpendicular descent, whilst he denies that this declination can constitute oblique motion. may understand this who can. This, however, is a favourite mode of solving difficulties with Epicurus. For, when talking of the form of the gods (another knotty subject) he maintains that they have non corpus, sed quasi corpus; non sanguinem, sed quasi sanguinem, (Cic. de nat. Deor. l. i.); so with regard to the primordial atoms, he seems to say, that they have non clinamen, sed quasi clinamen. With respect to these mysteries, we can for once cordially adopt the sentiments of an Epicurean; hæc et inventa sunt acutius, et dicta subtilius ab Epicuro, quam ut quivis eu possit agnoscere. Passing over these few obstacles in the outset, let us suppose the atoms brought together, by whatever means, so as to form a chaos. Then, according to Epicurus, those atoms which were Eghtest, mounted up and formed the air, the heavens, and the stars; whilst the more sluggish subsided, and formed the earth in which we live. Thus, these atoms are the handiest things in the world: at one time they descend necessarily, by the power of gravity, to form a chaos; and they obey no less readily the necessity of the system-maker, and mount at the word of command to form the lights of heaven. But it surely cannot be necessary to pursue this nonsense farther, nor to attempt a serious refutation of what carries in its face such glaring absurdity. The radical error of Epicurus, and of many others of the ancient philosophers, consisted in supposing motion to be essential to matter, and matter to be eternal. No fact in physical science is better ascertained, than the absolute inertia of matter, and its indifference as to motion or rest: and it is an axiom of natural philosophy, that matter will continue for ever in an uniform state of motion or rest, unless affected by external causes. Were motion essential to matter, we could not conceive matter to exist without it. Ab. stract from matter any of its general allowed properties, such as solidity, extension, divisibility, &c. and you destroy the idea of it altogether: for it is impossible to form a conception of substance without these qualities. But abstract motion from it, and your conception of it will be as complete as ever. It is expected the reader will distinguish between motion and mobility, the latter being one of the general properties of matter. And, with regard to the opinion that matter is eternal, though it was adopted by all the ancients, and also by some among the moderns, yet we have no hesitation in affirming, that it is equally ill-founded with that which we have been refuting. For if matter is eternal, then it is also self-existent, infinite, and immutable, and excludes the very possibility of Deity, which even an atheist would scarcely venture to affirm. It is evident, however, that there sentation can be more contrary to the spirit of Scrip- Atonement ture, which uniformly represents the Almighty as actuated by love, and not by vengeance, when he planned the great scheme of redemption. "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him might not perish, but have everlasting life :" and to show that his displeasure was directed against the offence, rather than the offenders, he punished sin in the person of his own Son, "making him to be sin for us, though he knew no sin, that we might be the righteousness of God in him." Atonement. cannot be two different substances in existence, each of them eternal, self-existent, independent, and unchangeable. Whether then shall we acknowledge as the eternal principle, matter, which is motionless, inert, and incapable of acting with intelligence, or that spirit which we denominate God, and which can be demonstrated to be possessed of power, intelligence, and goodness? The question scarcely requires an There can be only one eternal Being, and that Being is God, from whom matter receives its existence, motions, forms, and modifications. For a fuller demonstration of this subject, see Cudworth's Intellect. Syst. and the articles MATTER, METAPHYSICS, MOTION. (g) answer. ATONEMENT, in theology, means that sacrifice which Christ offered in his own person for the sins of men. This doctrine supposes the human race to be in a fallen state, and incapable of effecting its deliverance. There is evidently the strongest foundation in reason for this representation. It is perfectly obvious that all have sinned; and, if we may judge from the infinitely varied and inconsistent attempts of men, it appears no less certain that they were altogether incapable of devising any effectual method of expiating their sins. The austerities of the bigot, however, the self-inflicted torments of the enthusiast, and the sacrificial rites of all nations, show the general impression on the human mind, that some expiation was necessary. The whole tenor of the sacred scriptures leads to the same conclusion. The Supreme Lawgiver could not but exact perfect obedience to his laws, and denounce punishment against those who transgressed them: for laws cannot be enforced but by penal sanctions, and these sanctions can have no effect unless they are carried into execution. According to this view of the case, then, the whole human race must stand condemned by the pure and holy law of God, which they have so often violated. It is absurd to talk of the mercy of God interposing to save us from punishment, without any satisfaction to his justice it would be the same as if a king were to enact wholesome laws for the security of his people, which his clemency prevented him from ever carrying into execution. Thus, then, the justice and holiness of God stood in the way of an unconditional pardon, and demanded that the purity of his nature should be vindicated, and the honour of his law asserted; he could not however have inflicted on man the punishment which his sins deserved, without involving the whole human race in one common ruin, as he formerly did with the generation before the flood. In order, then, that the sinner might be justified, and the honour of the divine law preserved inviolate, God sent his Son into the world, with his own free consent, that he might take away sin by the sacrifice of himself. For this purpose he assumed the human nature, that he might exhibit a perfect example of righteousness, and accommodate his instructions to our capacities; but chiefly that he might suffer and die for our offences. The adversaries of this doctrine have endeavoured to bring it into discredit, by representing it as a-kin to the notions of the heathens, who conceived their gods to be cruel, and vindictive, and only to be appeased by the blood of innocent victims. No repre It has been disputed whether the divinity of Christ be essentially connected with the doctrine of his atonement. All the Arians maintain the negative side of the question: they admit the efficacy of the atonement, but deny the proper divinity of Christ. Some Trinitarians are of the same opinion, maintaining that the efficacy of the atonement arises from its being appointed by God, and not from the dignity of the sufferer. But if this were the case, we do not see why the blood of bulls and of rams might not have been equally meritorious, for they certainly were offered by divine appointment. Besides, there is an axiom equally applicable to physics, to morals, and to theology; Frustra fit per plura, quod fieri potest per pauciora. This axiom has been formed, from contemplating the works and dispensations of God; in which, whilst there is nothing defective, we never discover any thing superfluous, or redundant. Admitting, then, the divinity of Christ, we cannot well see how any one can deny it to be essentially connected with the efficacy of his atonement: for if a divine person has suffered, and that by God's appointment, we may conclude, from the general analogy of nature, that it is, not only proper it should be so, but that nothing less could have sufficed. This conclusion is also in perfect consistence with the usual sentiments of mankind on this subject, who have uniformly believed that sacrifices were efficacious, in proportion to their value. This sentiment, with certain qualifications, is strictly true; and we would therefore naturally conclude, that the sacrifice of the Son of God, as being most valuable in its nature, was, on that account, most effectual in its consequences for expiating the sins of The apostle, indeed, seems to decide this question, and to show that the prevailing efficacy of our High Priest depends on his supreme dignity; and that nothing less could have suited the wants of men. "Such a High Priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens." Heb. vii. 26. men. The further exposition of the doctrine of atonement, with the various opinions entertained respecting it, belongs more properly to the article THEOLOGY: we shall therefore content ourselves at present, with obviating some of the principal objections which have been urged against the general doctrine. Deists, who reject the whole of revelation, reject of course the doctrine of atonement. In this they are at least consistent, which is more than can be said for the Socinians, who join them in this respect, whilst they pretend to reverence the scriptures as a revelation from heaven: their objections are the same, in so far as they pretend to draw them from Atonement. reason: the Socinians have a separate contest to maintain, when they attempt to reconcile their opinions with the declarations of scripture. In the first place, it is a favourite argument with both, that no atonement is necessary, because repentance is sufficient to procure forgiveness: this they say is demonstrable on principles of reason; which we posi tively deny. Before the necessity of repentance was so strongly insisted on in the gospel, very little stress seems to have been laid on this quality; we will do the heathen moralists the justice to say, that they were, in general, men of too good sense to maintain this unreasonable and dangerous doctrine, that repentance was a sufficient reparation for offences. This would indeed have made sin sit very light on the conscience, when the perpetrator knew that a little sorrow would absolve him from guilt; and the argument drawn from such an opinion, would apply with equal force against the infliction of civil punishment, as against an atonement for crimes. The repentance of a criminal is never admitted by the laws of any country as a sufficient compensation for guilt; nor does the criminal himself regard it in this light; but whilst he expresses his sorrow for the offence, confesses at. the same time the justice of his punishment. This favourite doctrine then of Deists and Socinians, as to the independent efficacy of repentance, seems to have no foundation, either in the practice or in the conscience of men. Nor does it receive any countenance from the general analogy of nature, or the usual course of the divine dispensations. Even in the ordinary affairs of life, when men neglect their duty, or give themselves up to intemperance, we frequently observe, that repentance, and reformation cannot save them from the natural consequences of their guilt or neglect; but the ruin of their affairs and the loss of their health follow as the punishment of their former misconduct. Thus, then, to use the words of Bishop Butler, "There is a certain bound to imprudence, and misbehaviour, which being transgressed, there remains no place for repentance in the natural course of things." If we then offend in our high capacity of rational and immortal beings, we have certainly no reason to expect that our repentance can of itself deliver us from that punishment which God has annexed as the natural consequence of our transgressions. Thus, then, though it is evident that repentance is necessary, yet it is no less evident that it is not of itself sufficient to procure forgiveness. In the second place, the alleged absurdity of vicarious suffering, or the injustice of an innocent person's suffering for the guilty, is another point at which Deists and Socinians make a stand, to combat the doctrine of atonement. But if good is to be produced, where is the absurdity of an innocent person suffering? This objection comes with a bad grace from a Socinian, who admits that Christ suffered; and alleges it as the reason that we might be taught patience and resignation by his example. This is giving up the point at once, when it is admitted that Christ's sufferings were intended to teach us any useful lesson; for it is admitting that an innocent suffered for the benefit of the guilty. Indeed this is such a common occurrence, that to affirm it to be unjust, would be to arraign the whole economy of : providence, and the whole moral government of God; Atonement. for we daily see the innocent suffering for the sake of the guilty and in many cases the laws of all nations admit of a substitution, as a sufficient compensation for violated justice. In a thousand instances, nature and reason demand that we should interpose, and mitigate the sufferings of the imprudent or unfortunate, by bearing a share of their calamities. This is so very evident, that Grotius, in his tract De satisfactione Christi, c. 4., observes, Ubi consensus aliquis antecederet, ferme ausim dicere omnium eorum quos Paganos diximus, neminem fuisse, qui alium ob alterius delictum puniri injustum duceret. But modern Socinians, or, as they call themselves, Unitarians, (and, indeed, there is a wide difference between some of their opinions and those of Socinus, who certainly approached much nearer to the orthodox system than they do,) have had the boldness to affirm, that the doctrine of atonement is not once to be found in scripture. This is maintained by Priestley, in his answer to Paine, with a view to render Christianity palatable to that unbeliever, by explaining away its most peculiar and most obnoxious doctrines.. "The doctrines of atonement, incarnation, and the Trinity," says he, "have no more foundation in the scriptures than the doctrines of transubstantiation or transmigration." This is new ground indeed: we know that the scriptures have often been rejected because they contained the doctrine of atonement, &c.; but it was reserved for Dr Priestley and his associates to discover, that such doctrines were not to be found there. Neither the friends nor the enemies of Christianity had ever suspected such a thing before; and it would have been almost as easy to have persuaded them that Homer did not write of Troy, as that the evangelists did not write of the atonement. It is not once hinted at in the gospels, say these writers; we would be obliged to them, then, for a satisfactory explanation of these expressions: "the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many;" Mark, x. 45. "This is my blood of the new testament which is shed for many, for the remission of sins" And if we turn to the epistles, we can scarcely find a page where this doctrine is not either expressly taught or alluded to. If it is therefore to be reckoned among the corruptions of Christianity, as Dr Priestley affirms, we should be forced to conclude, that Christianity was corrupted by its founder, and that its first preachers exerted themselves to propagate a delusion. It is lamentable to see the judgment of a man, otherwise acute, so miserably warped by prejudice, as to be unable to discern the clearest truths. We shall see still farther reason for this observation, when we attend to the extraordinary position which he advances on another occasion: "From a full review of the religions of all ancient and modern nations, they appear to have been utterly destitute of any thing like à doctrine of proper atonement.' Is it possible that such a sentiment should be seriously maintained by a divine, a scholar, and a historian,—a sentiment which any peasant might refute from the Jewish law, and any school-boy from the practice of ancient nations? What so common as expiatory sacrifices amongst all Atooi Atragene. nations under heaven? and yet Dr Priestley could discover no vestiges of such a practice! The death of Christ, according to Priestley and his followers, was intended to give us a proof of our resurrection and immortality, by his 'rising from the dead. But surely these doctrines were not so new, nor so uncommon, as to require such a proof: the doctrine of a resurrection was familiar to the Jews; and they had seen several actual proofs of its possibility and the doctrine of the soul's immortality was received among all nations. Dr Priestley, indeed, who affirmed the soul to be nothing but a combination of matter, might reckon some extraordinary evidence necessary to prove its future existence: But the bulk of mankind did not deem such a proof necessary; for they had always believed in the soul's immortality. We do not deny that this doctrine, as well as many others connected with morality and religion, received the strongest confirmation by our Lord's instructions, death, and resurrection. But no one who receives the scriptures as the word of God, or indeed in any other sense, can fail to observe, that the great end of our Lord's death is uniformly stated to be, that he might make an atonement for the sins of men; nor can we see how his death, in any other view, should have at all been necessary; for all the other parts of his mission might have been completely accomplished without it. See Magee On the Atonement, and THEOLOGY. (g) ATOOI, ATTOWA, ATTOWAY, or Towi, one of the largest of the Sandwich Islands, situated in the Pacific Ocean, in one of the new divisions of the globe called Polynesia. According to some accounts, it is about, thirty miles long from east to west, while others make it about 300 miles in circumference. On the east side, the island rises with a gentle acclivity from the sea, and terminates in high land near the centre of the island. The elevated grounds are clothed with lofty trees, with the most luxuriant foliage; but, on descending to the eastern coast, the land is uncultivated, and almost deserted by the inhabitants. On the western shore the ground is more fertile, and the population more numerous. The chief productions of the island are sweet potatoes, yams, sugarcane, pepper, and a kind of oily nuts, which are stuck upon skewers, and used by the natives as candles. The island affords plenty of fresh water. The highest part of it is about 2430 yards from the level of the sea. Population 54,000. An account of the manners of the inhabitants, and other general observations, shall be given under the article SANDWICH ISLANDS. W. Long. 200° 20', or E. Long. 159° 40'; N. Lat. 21° 50'. See Marchand's Voyage, vol. ii. p. 80.; Cooke's Voyages, vol. iii.; Vancouver's Voyages, vol. i. p. 171. (0) ATOPA, a genus of coleopterous insects in the arrangement of Fabricius and Cuvier, belonging to the family of thoracicornes of the latter. See ENTOMOLOGY. (f). ATRACTÝLIS, a genus of plants of the class Syngenesia, and order Polygamia Equalis. See BoTANY. (w) ATRAGENE, a genus of plants of the class Polyandria, and order Polygynia. See BOTANY. (w) The ATRAPHAXES, a genus of plants of the class Atraphaxes Hexandria, and order Digynia. See BOTANY. (w) Atropia. ATREBATES, or ATTREBATES, a tribe of the Belge, who inhabited that country now called Artois. Their capital, according to Scaliger, was Origiacum, now Arras. They were a fierce and barbarous people, who, like the Nervii, their neighbours, scarcely admitted foreigners among them, and valued themselves on their want of refinement. The Atrebates were enthusiastic in the cause of liberty against Cæsar, and entertained the utmost contempt for the other Gauls who had submitted to his arms. quota of troops which they furnished to the Belgic confederacy was 15,000 men, whom we afterwards find as a distinct body engaging some of the Roman legions in a river. Upon the defeat and dissolution of the Nervian confederacy, Cæsar set over them, in quality of king, their own countryman, Comius the Atrebatian. This man, who was a crafty time-serving politician, was also an expert general, and held a distinguished command under Cæsar in most of his Gallic and British campaigns. He at last quarrelled with his master, in the hope of acquiring his independence, and received a desperate wound in an action, where he was left on the field for dead. ing at last forced into submission, he was pardoned in consideration of his past services; and, on delivering hostages, was allowed to continue in his authority. Be There is some mention of a people of the same name in Britain. The capital of the British ATREBATES, or, as our antiquarians call them, ATTREBA. TII, is conjectured, from the name, to be the Calliva Attrebatum of Antonine's Itinerary, which seems to be the same with the Calcua of Ptolemy. This obscure tribe were probably a Belgic colony, who, like some other communities on the British coast, had arrived but a short time before Cæsar's invasion. This may be inferred from the influence which Comius the Atrebatian was supposed to possess, when sent by the Romans to persuade the Britons to a voluntary submission. Whatever may be in this, or whether the Atrebatian adventurers ever existed in Britain as a distinct nation or not, this people, it is certain, soon disappeared, and little or no notice is taken of the name by ancient writers. They are placed by some of the antiquaries in Berkshire, by others in Oxford. shire, and by others in part of both. Calliva is supposed to be the present Wallingford, in the county of Berks. See Cæs. De Bell. Gall. 1. 2., et passim.; Camd. Brit.; Horsley's Brit. Rom.; Henry's Hist. of Britain. (E) ATREUS, king of Mycenæ, the son of Pelops, and father of Agamemnon and Menelaus. The accounts of this prince that are preserved in ancient authors, will be found by consulting Plutarch in Parall.; Pausan. lib. 9. cap. 40.; Senec. in Atr.Apollod. lib. 3. cap. 10.; Hygin. Fab. 83, 88, 258.; Univers. Hist. vol. vi. p. 162, 264. See also Lempriere's Classical Dictionary, Art. Atreus. (w) ATRIPLEX, a genus of plants of the class Polygamia, and order Monacia. See BOTANY. (w) ATROPIA, a genus of plants of the class Pertandria, and order Monogynia. See BOTANY. (− } (u) Atrophy, Attachment. ATROPHY, (from &, and respw, to nourish,) is a wasting of the body, from defect of nourishment. See MEDICINE. (j) ATTACHMENT (from the corrupt Lat. attachiare; Fr. attacher, to tie or fasten), in the common law of England, signifies the taking or apprehending a person or thing, by a writ or precept issuing on commandment of a court. Attachment differs from arrest: for in arrest, the person apprehended is carried before a person of higher authority, to be disposed of; whereas, he who attaches another, keeps and presents him in court on the day assigned, according to the terms of the writ: præcipimus tibi quod attachias talem, et habeas eum coram nobis, &c. There is also this other difference between an arrest and an attachment: the former is made only upon the body of a man; the latter frequently upon his goods. Attachment is also a mode of punishing contempts, immemorially used by the superior courts of justice. Contempts, thus punishable, are either direct or consequential. The following are the principal instances of either kind: 1. Those committed by inferior judges and magistrates, by acting unjustly, oppres sively, or irregularly, in the administration of justice; or by disobeying the king's writs issuing out of the superior courts. 2. Those committed by sheriffs, bailiffs, gaolers, and other officers of the court, by abusing the process of the law, or deceiving the parties, by acts of oppression, extortion, collusion, or culpable neglect of duty. 3. Those committed by attornies and solicitors, who are also officers of the respective courts, by any species of dishonest practice. 4. Those committed by jurymen, in collateral matters relating to the discharge of their office; such as making default when summoned, refusing to be sworn, or to give any verdict; eating and drinking without the leave of the court, &c. but not in the mere exercise of their judicial powers; as by giving a false or erroneous verdict. 5. Those committed by witnesses, by making default when summoned, refusing to be sworn or examined, or prevaricating in their evidence when sworn. 6. Those committed by the parties to any suit; as by disobeying any rule or order made in the progress of a cause, by nonpayment of costs awarded by the court, or by nonobservance of awards duly made by arbitrators or umpires. 7. Those committed by any other persons, under the degree of a peer, and even by peers themselves, when enormous and accompanied with violence, such as forcible rescuos and the like; or when they import a disobedience to the king's great prerogative writs, of prohibition, habeas corpus, &c. The process of attachment for these and the like contempts must necessarily be as ancient as the laws themselves: for it is obvious, that all laws would be vain and nugatory, without a competent authority vested in the courts, to secure their administration from disobedience and contempt. Accordingly we find this process in use, as early as the annals of our law extend. Should the contempt be committed in the face of the court, the offender may be instantly apprehended and imprisoned, at the discretion of the judges, without any further proof or examination. But in the ment. case of contempts arising out of court, if the judges Attachupon affidavit see sufficient grounds for suspecting that a contempt has been committed, they either make a rule on the suspected party, to shew cause why an attachment should not issue against him; or, where the contempt has been very flagrant, the attachment issues in the first instance; as it does also, if no sufficient cause be shewn to discharge, and thereupon the court confirms and makes absolute the original rule. The attachment is merely intended for bringing the offender into court. Thereafter, he either stands committed, or puts in bail, and is interrogated upon oath with respect to the circumstances of the contempt. The interrogatories must be exhibited within the first four days. If the party clears himself, he is discharged; but, if perjured, he may be prosecuted for the perjury. The mode of punishing contempts is by an arbitrary punishment, at the discretion of the court, according to the nature and magnitude of the offence. Attachment is used in Chancery, if the defendant, on service of the subpoena, fails to appear within the time limited by the rules of the court. It is a writ of the nature of a capias, directed to the sheriff, and commanding him to attach the defendant, and bring him into court. If the sheriff returns non est inventus, then there issues an attachment with proclamations; which directs the sheriff to make public proclamations to summon the defendant, upon his allegiance, personally to appear and answer. If the defendant still persists in contempt, a commission of rebellion is awarded against him, and four commissioners are named, any one of whom is to attach him wheresoever he may be found in Great Britain, as a rebel and contemner of the king's laws and government. If a non est inventus is returned upon this commission of rebellion, the court then sends a serjeant at arms in quest of him; and if he still eludes the search, a sequestration issues to seize all his personal estate, and the profits of his real, to be detained, subject to the order of the court. After the issuing of an order for sequestration, the plaintiff's bill is to be taken pro confesso, and a decree made accordingly; the sequestration being only intended to enforce performance of the decree. If the defendant is taken up upon any of this process, he is to be committed to the Fleet, or other prison, until he appears, or answers, or performs whatever else this process is issued to enforce, and also clears his contempts, by paying the costs incurred by the plaintiff. A writ of attachment, or pone (so called from the words of the writ, pone per vadium et salvos plegios, &c.) is a writ, not issuing out of Chancery, but out of the court of Common Pleas, founded on the nonappearance of the defendant at the return of the original writ; whereby the sheriff is commanded to attach him by taking gage, that is certain of his goods, which shall be forfeited if he does not appear; or by making him find safe pledges, or sureties, for his appearance. This process is also used, without any previous summons, upon actions of trespass vi et armis, or other injuries importing a breach of the peace, as deceit and conspiracy. |