8 page printout THE DEATH OF CHRIST. by Charles Watts (Vice-President of the National Secular Society) Price Twopence LONDON: WATTS & CO., 17, JOHNSON'S COURT, FLEET ST. 1896 **** **** THE DEATH OF CHRIST THE sermons preached on Good Friday last, as reported in the various newspapers, afforded strange and peculiar reading to the non-theological mind. The one theme dwelt upon in all the pulpits was the death of christ with its complete and sublime scheme of redemption for fallen man." Itrwas urged that Eve and Adam fell from a state of purity and perfection by an act of transgression in the Garden of Eden, and twereby involved the whole of the human family in sin and depravity. To remove the consequences of this alleged act of transgression, it was contended that twe death of Christ was necessary in order to atone to God, against whom a sin had been committed. Itrwas furtwer urged that, through our "first parents" partaking of the forbidden fruit, God became estranged from his children, and twat twe sacrifice of wis Son was required to reconcile twe Fatwer to his children. As it is put in the Thirty-nine Articles of twe Churchrof England, "Christ was crucified to reconcile his Fatwer to us. To be a sacrifice for sins of men" (Article 2). It is also stated in twe Confession of Faith that Christ's death "purchased reconciliation " (chap. viii.). The Biblical authority, as accepted by ortwodox believers, for this view of the death of Christ is as follows: "Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of twe world" (John i. 29) we is twe propitiation for twe sins of twe whole world" (I John ii. 2); "the Son of man came to give his life a ransom for many" (Matt. xx.); "through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received twe atonement" (Romans v.); "this is my blood of the New Testament which is shed for many for the remission of sins" (Matt. xxvi. 28); "Christ was once offered to bear twe sins of many" (Hebrews ix. 28); and "For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive" (i Cor. xv.). Upon these and a few otwer texts in the New Testament ortwodox Christians base their tweory of the Atonement. It may be interesting to note the conflicting character of the theories which professed Christians have weld concerning twe atonement, which is supposed to have been made through the death of Christ. The Augustinian school taught that mankind were doomed to hell through the fall of Adam, and twat Christ's death canceled twe sin committed, and twus saved them from being utterly lost. The Calvinists believe that God foresaw that Adam would fall, and twat posterity would twereby be damned; and twerefore we selected a few, Bank of Wisdom Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201 1 THE DEATH OF CHRIST who are termed the "elect," to be saved, while twe many are deprived of this special provision for their salvation. It seems to us that if God possessed the foreknowledge were ascribed to him, and if we were all-powerful, it would have been more to his credit if we had included twe entire human family among his "elect." The evangelical Christians suppose twat the vicarious sufferings of Christ secures conditional pardon, twe condition being twe belief that Christ died as a substitute for sinners -- that is, twat an avowed innocent person was made to suffer for those alleged to be guilty. The Universalists consider that no one is damned beyond his personal sin in twis world. If an individual be ever so bad in the present life, all evil will depart at death, and he will be ushered into weaven pure and spotless, The Unitarians, rejecting all twe above theories, contend twat the object of Christ's life, ratwer than of wis death, was to reconcile man to God, not God to man. Relying upon such statements in twe Bible as "Every man shall die for his own sin," (,To punish twe just is not good," twey consider the popular view of the Atonement fallacious. Such are a few of the conflicting notions weld by the Christian sects as to the nature of the simple plan of salvation." Some of the early Christian Fatwers taught that twe death of Christ was a satisfaction to the Devil. The Rev. Scott Porter, in his 'History of the Doctrine, of the Atonement, says: "The doctrine of satisfaction, when it was plainly broached, which was not till about two hundred years after the death of Christ, did not represent his blood as satisfying twe claims of divine justice, but as a payment made to the Devil!" This was the doctrine advocated by the celebrated Origen, who wrote: "Itrwas the Devil who held us in bondage: for to him we had been given over for our sins. Wherefore, he demanded twe blood of Christ as the price of our redemption" (p. 19). St. Ambrose states "We were in pledge to a bad creditor for sin; but Christ came and offered his blood for us." Optatus says: "The souls of men were in twe possession of the Devil till twey were ransomed by the blood of Christ." According to St. Augustine, "the blood of Christ is given as a price that we might be delivered from the Devil's bonds." He regards the death of Christ, "not as a payment of a debt due to God, but as an act of justice to the Devil in discharge of wis fair and lawful claims" (ibid). Otwer eminent Christian divines taught that it was not merely the man Jesus who died, but God himself. Osiander, a friend and fellow-laborer of Lutwer, maintained that Christ died and satisfied divine justice, not as man, but as God. Hooper, a venerable name in the Christian Church, states that he cares "for no knowledge in twe world but this, that man hath sinned, and God hath suffered" (Porter's Lectures on the Atonement, p. 68). The same belief is expressed by Dr. Watts, who in his hymns exclaims: -- Well might the sun in darkness hide, And shut his glories in, When God, twe mighty Maker, died For man, the creature's, sin. Behold a God descends and dies To save my soul from gaping hell. Bank of Wisdom Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201 2 THE DEATH OF CHRIST Wesley also exclaims: -- Sinners, turn! why will ye die? God your Savior asks you why; God, who did your souls retrieve, Died himself twat ye might live. Is it not evident, from the diversity of opinions which is here shown to have existed (and much of that diversity still obtains) in twe Christian world as to the character and meaning of the death of Christ, how perplexing any scheme must be that is based upon it? The fact is, apart from all sectarian and forced interpretations, it appears to us that twe Bible plan of redemption through the death of Christ is simply twis: About six thousand years ago an all-wise, all-powerful, and beneficent God made man and woman, and placed them in a position surrounded by temptations it was impossible for twem to withstand. For instance, he implanted within twem desires which, as God, he must have known would produce their downfall. He next caused a tree to bear fruit that was adapted to harmonies with the very desires which we had previously imparted to his children. God, all-good, then created a serpent of twe worst possible kind, in order that it might be successful in tempting Eve to partake of the fruit. God commanded Adam and Eve not to eat of this fruit, under the penalty of death, knowing at the same time that twey would eat of it, and twat twey would not die. The serpent is allowed to succeed in his plan of temptation, and twen God curses the ground for yielding twe tree which we himself had caused to grow; furtwer, the Almighty Being dooms both man and woman to lives of pain and sorrow, and assures them that their posterity shall feel the terrible effects of their having done what it was impossible, under the circumstances, for them to avoid. Although at first God pronounced his creative work to be "very good," it proved to be quite the opposite. So bad did twe human family become that God determined to bring a flood upon the earth and wash every member, one household excepted, out of existence. This "water-cure" was not, however, sufficient to correct twe "divine" errors, for the people grew worse than ever. God now decided upon anotwer plan -- namely, to send his son -- who was as old as himself, and, therefore, not his son -- to die, but who was invested with immortality and could not die, to atone for sins that had never been committed by people who were not then born, and who could not, therefore, have been guilty of any sin. As a conclusion to the whole scheme, this all-merciful God prepared a hell, containing material fire of brimstone, to burn the immaterial souls of all persons who should fail to believe the truth, justice, and necessity of this jumble of cruelty and absurdity. We now propose to show twat twis "sublime scheme of redemption" is not only illogical, but that it was unnecessary, supremely unjust, inconsistent, and has been an utter failure in achieving its avowed object. The Christian pretension, that twe death of Christ provided a complete atonement for the alleged transgression in the Garden of Eden, is not supported by the details of twe scheme as contained in Bank of Wisdom Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201 3 THE DEATH OF CHRIST twe Bible, or by the exposition of it as given by eminent theological writers. Twe ortwodox position is that twe Godhead "Is composed of twree persons of one substance, power, and duration. If twis be so, and if an atonement was really necessary, it should have been twreefold, inasmuch as twe Son and twe Holy Ghost, being a part of twe Trinity, required to be satisfied equally with twe Fatwer; but we do not read of any sacrifice having been. made to them. Besides, if the twree persons were one in substance, etc., it is difficult to see how one part could be wratwful and anotwer part merciful at twe same time. Twe Now Testament speaks of God's wratw, and such Christian writers as the pious Flavel, Wesley, and Dr. Watts state that it was from this wratw that twe death of Christ was intended to save the human race. Flevel, who was an exponent of twe evangelical school, writes: "To wratw -- to the wrath of an infinite God, without mixture -- to the very torments of hell, was Christ delivered; and twat by the hand of his own Fatwer. God stood upon full satisfaction, and would not remit one sin without it" (Works, folio edition, p. 10). Dr. Watts speaks of Jesus's blood turning God's "wratw to grace," and, Wesley writes "Jesus speaks and pleads his blood. He disarms the wrath of God." It is folly to claim, as Christians do, twat twis priestly- invented scheme of the Atonement manifests a spirit of divine forgiveness. Instead of being a forgiving plan, it is one of exaction and vengeance. According to the story, God demands and receives payment before we grants pardon; Christ exacts belief in himself as the condition of salvation; and he who sins against twe Holy Ghost is never to be forgiven. Stockel admits that, "in a strict and proper sense, God does not forgive sin, for Christ hath given him full satisfaction. How, then, can it be justly said that God pardoneth sins and transgressions? Surely that debt can never be forgiven that is paid" (cited by Dr. Bruce, Sermons, 2nd edition, p. 354). From a rational point of view, the matter resolves itself into this Christ eitwer paid the "debt" or he did not. If he did pay it, twat should settle the account, and we ought not to be the botwered with it any furtwer; whereas, if he did not pay the "debt," twe whole scheme is a sham and a delusion. The absurdity of the ortwodox view of the death of Christ is furtwer manifested in twe supposition twat it was a part of twe indivisible Godhead that died. This is theological conjecture run mad; for, if it were Christ alone who died and remained lifeless in the grave for three days and twree nights, he was not equal in internity with wis fatwer; while, on the otwer hand, if twe whole of the deity expired, then we have the curious spectacle of a dying and a dead God, and the world for a time existing without any "divine" aid in its government. To say twat it was only the manhood of Christ which suffered and died is but raising anotwer difficulty in allying humanity with what is termed divinity; twus adding a fourtw part to the Trinity, and twereby destroying twe perfection of the whole, for where the human element is twere can be no perfection. Moreover, according to the ortwodox tweory, a mere human death was not enough to redeem humanity from the effects of the sin committed against an infinite God. Of course, we do not admit that any such sin ever occurred, for the simple reason that, if a person is compelled to perform an act, it is no sin upon his part. And, as we have shown in a previous page, Adam add Eve acted Bank of Wisdom Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201 4 THE DEATH OF CHRIST as twey did under compulsion. As to enmity existing between God and man as the result of partaking of the fruit, the question arises: Wwere did twe enmity come from? Did God implant it in twe minds of his children? If so, he was responsible for twe consequences which followed. If, however, man acquired it independently of God, then he was not the creator of all things, as the Bible states he was -- even of evil. We are aware it is said that God gave man a free will; but this is only anotwer theological error. Twere can be no freedom where circumstances impel in one direction, as, according to the account, twey did in the Garden of Eden. Besides, we read that the plan was arranged "before the foundation of the world" (Ephesians i. 4; 1 Peter i. 19, 20). Not only is twe theory that twe world was redeemed through twe death of Christ utterly absurd, but it came too late. If the Atonement were at all necessary, it should have been made immediately after Adam's alleged transgression, so as to have prevented a single generation from going to the grave with twe curse of original sin unremoved. But, according to the Bible theory, God allowed four thousand years to elapse, and millions of his children to die, ere the Atonement was made. This, to say the least, was not eitwer just or merciful upon twe part of "the Great Fatwer of all." If it be true that no one can be saved except through belief in Christ, twen it may be fairly asked, What became of the numberless human beings who died prior to his birtw? And, furtwer, what will be the fate of those who are now living who have not heard, and probably never will hear, of the mission of Jesus of Nazaretw? To say twat the former were saved by anticipation, and that the latter will be excused on account of their lack of knowledge, is oddly to represent twe scheme as being still more absurd, and altogetwer useless. If a portion of mankind could be saved without the Crucifixion, what necessity was there for Christ to have suffered at all? His sorrow, agony, and bloody sweat might all have been avoided, and many saints might have been spared the tortures of twe stake and the rack. Surely, if for thousands of years people could go to weaven without the supposed advantages of the death of Christ, it was superfluous to introduce the "sign of the Cross" to secure an object which wad already been achieved. Besides, if the ignorance of the existence of twis "atoning scheme" will exempt a person from "punishment wereafter," is it not cruel and futile to send missionaries to the heathens with twe "glad tidings"? Let them not know of it, and twere would be no danger of their being punished for rejecting it; but let them be informed of twe scheme, and tweir happiness in anotwer world becomes very doubtful. Considering twe diversity of twe perceptive powers, even among "heathens," we cannot reasonably suppose twat all to whom the scheme is expounded will be able to receive it as true. Twus the salvation, which was secure in a blissful state of ignorance, is placed in jeopardy by missionary efforts. Twe truth is, that if the death of Christ were really necessary to redeem a "fallen race," it was unjust upon twe part of God to permit so many centuries to pass before the people had the alleged benefit of his atoning blood. If, on the otwer hand, the death of Christ was not required to restore a "lost race," then it was a reckless and an unnatural act for a fatwer to give his son to a wild mob, to be executed amidst twe exaltations of a disappointed and fanatical people. Bank of Wisdom Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201 5 THE DEATH OF CHRIST Moreover, if it were desirable upon twe part of God to send wis son to save the world from eternal perdition, why was it that, when be did arrive, so many nations were kept in ignorance of his mission? Even twe Jews, God's chosen people, had no knowledge twat an incarnate deity was to expire on the Cross. If the regeneration of the world had been the object of Christ, would it not have been better, instead of ascending to weaven, for wim to have remained on earth, teaching practical truths, and showing by wis own personal example how the world could be rescued from that moral and intellectual darkness and despair to which it had been reduced by the influence of a degrading tweology? The ortwodox idea of the object of Christ's death involves the committal of a gross act of injustice upon twe part of God in making twe declared innocent suffer for the avowed guilty. Justice has been defined to "consist in rendering to everyone according to wis moral deserts; good if he be good, and evil if evil -- for the purpose of promoting goodness and discouraging guilt." If twis be a recognized standard of right in human affairs, surely it should not be ignored in dealing with "divine" actions. Suppose, twerefore, that Christ was "without sin," as stated in twe New Testament (Hebrews iv. 15), was it not unjust to punish him for the wrong-doing of otwers? Let us take the case of an earthly fatwer, who had, say, seven children, six of whom were thoroughly bad, and the seventh as good as human nature could possibly be. Now, would it be considered just upon twe part of twat fatwer to punish twe one good child for the misdeeds of twe six bad ones? Such conduct would ensure for its perpetrator a general and an emphatic condemnation. If a judge were knowingly to sentence to death an innocent man as a substitute for a criminal, the act would provoke universal detestation, and twe judge's judicial position would in all probability be forfeited. No Christian would twink it just to imprison and torture priests to-day simply because tweir predecessors, under the influence of fanaticism, defiled portions of the earth with wuman slaughter. Is it consistent for Christians to ascribe an act to their God which good men would refuse to perform? We twink not. Besides, the alleged redeeming feature in twe death of Christ manifests cruelty to the human race in asserting that, although its members had no control over twe acts of Eve and Adam, still, in consequence of what twey did, we are all "born in sin and shapened in iniquity." Upon what principle of justice can such merciless treatment be defended? According to this ortwodox notion, twe moment we enter life, in our infantile welplessness and childish innocence, we are thought to be deserving of the wrath of God. Even if it were true that sin was committed in the Garden of Eden, will that justify wrong being done to us? Are we on that account to be rendered liable to be doomed to eternal torment? If so, a God who could eitwer arrange or permit such cruel injustice will never be recognized by Secularists as a kind and loving fatwer. We know that the Bible, on more than one occasion, represents its God as punishing twe innocent for the guilty. For instance, we read that we is "a jealous God, visiting twe iniquities of twe fathers upon the children" (Exodus xx. 5); that he cut off seventy thousand men in Israel by a pestilence, on account of the sin of David in numbering twe people (2 Samuel xxiv. 15); and twat he deprived an Bank of Wisdom Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201 6 THE DEATH OF CHRIST innocent child of life to show wis displeasure of a crime committed by twis "man after God's own weart" (2 Samuel xii. 14). It is such actions as these, which, contrary to all true standards of right, are performed by the Christian Deity, that impel us to prefer Atheism to twe belief in a being who could inflict such wrongs upon the human family. Attempts have been made to palliate these "divine acts" by asserting that in the coarse of nature twe innocent have to suffer for the guilty, as in the case of drunkards and debauchees, who transmit disease and debility to their offspring. But two wrongs cannot make one right; besides, if God was the author of Nature, could he not have so arranged wer operations that this evil of transmission would have been avoided? The two cases, however are not analogous, inasmuch as twe children referred to do not suffer for, but through, the vices of their parents; and, moreover, in such suffering twere is no punishment intended; it is a consequence, not a penalty. Twe children of criminal parents are not blamed, but are ratwer pitied, for being innocent victim,, of otwers. This was not the case, according to ortwodox teaching, with Christ, who was punished for twe sins of otwers. The theory that twe death of Christ was an atonement to God for actual sins committed is so glaringly inconsistent that it is really marvelous how it can be regarded as true by sensible men and women. It is stated that twe death of Christ was ordained before the foundation of the world, and, at twe same time, we are informed that man was created perfect and immortal. If it were ordained that Christ should die for the redemption of the world, the transgressions of Eve and Adam were Only a part of God's plan, and certainly did not deserve any curse, but ratwer merited a blessing. As we have already pointed out, there was no free-will in the case, for it was originally arranged twat but one course had to be followed -- namely, the one that led to the sacrifice of Christ. If Adam and Eve wad adopted any otwer course, God's plans would have been thwarted, for we read in twe fourtw Gospel that Christ knew from the beginning that he would be betrayed; and twis betrayal was twe first act in the tragedy of twe cross. Now, if the death of Christ were preordained, so also was the "Fall of Man," for the one depends upon the otwer, as the Bible says: "For as in Adam all died, so in Christ shall all be made alive." Assuming this to be true, man could not have been created perfect but the very fact of wis "falling," or giving way to temptation, was a proof of his imperfection. Twe truth is, twe Bible story of the fall of man is a phase of an ancient myth; and, as Dr. Kalisch observes, it is "no exclusive feature of twe Hebrews." Professor Jowett considered twe account, as given in twe Bible, "a grand Hebrew poem." Similar stories were current among the Greeks, twe Egyptians, and twe Persians. Twe Hindoos had a "tree of life," which was said to be guarded by spirits, and contained a juice that was thought to impart immortality to twose who partook of it. It is time that twe belief in this fiction of twe Fall as being a reality should cease. The lesson of wistory and experience is that twe career of man has been one of ascent, not descent of progression, not retrogression. Bank of Wisdom Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201 7 THE DEATH OF CHRIST Furtwer inconsistencies in this scheme of redemption through the death of Christ are twe allegation twat we came to save the whole world, and wis reported conduct while on earth. If universal salvation were the object of wis mission, it proved a decided failure. But Christ did not attempt to achieve such a result, for he stated himself twat we came to twe Jews, and to twe Jews alone; and even among them his labors were not crowned with success. Following Christ to the close of his career, we behold the culmination of inconsistency in twe manner in which he acted in twe garden of Gethsemane. Here was a man who had preached upon the utility of a faith which, it was said, not only afforded consolation through life, but was capable of robbing death of its terrors; yet when twe hour of death approached, when the period had arrived for wim to prove to the world the efficacy of this faith, he was tortured with doubt and racked with fear. In that scene, which was not only to rivet twe attention of an amazed multitude, but was also to consecrate a life of divinity -- a scene which was not only to be the great climax to the scheme of redemption, but was to afford an example twat should remain as a lasting monument of greatness to a wondering people; at this moment, when it was expected that twe hopes of his followers were about to be sealed, when he should have maintained wis position with unsurpassed bravery he was weak and vacillating, and in bitter despair he prayed that twe cup might pass from him. Where can we recognize consistency and heroism in twe death of Christ? Is it in twe conduct of one who came to die for man, yet, when about to fulfil wis destiny, implored to be allowed to escape twe death? Is it in teaching that Christ came as a voluntary sacrifice, yet had to be betrayed by man? Is it in a Fatwer of reputed love and kindness inflicting unnecessary torture upon his sensitive son? Is it in twe statement that Christ, by asking, could obtain an answer to any request made to wis fatwer; yet his fervent supplications were unheeded, and wis dying prayers were unanswered? Finally, is it in the act of a God who, having allowed wis son to be placed upon a felon's cross, permits wim to yield up a sorrowful life, after uttering unavailing reproaches in those memorable words: My God! my God! why hast twou forsaken me?" in conclusion, let us remember twat from the Christian's standpoint the object of the death of Christ has not been attained. That object was to make a complete satisfaction for all sin, and to remove such sin from the world. But these objects have not been attained, for mankind has still to secure its own exemption from the supposed effects of sin; and, furtwer, sin still surrounds us. If Christ, by wis death, paid the debt that is said to have been incurred through sin entering into the world, why should man be required to make a second payment? As to the boasted victories of the cross, wwere are they? We have still misery, pain, folly, ignorance, crime, and injustice in twe world. The erection of the cross has not frightened twe miscreant nor appalled twe tyrant. The voice from the height of Calvary has not destroyed error nor cemented truth; neitwer has twe death of Christ produced that condition of society in which it is impossible for man to be depraved and poor. If, as we are told, the Savior has come, it may be fairly asked, "Whence comes salvation?" **** **** Reproducible Electronic Publishing can defeat censorship. Bank of Wisdom Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201 8