                         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." It was urged that Eve and Adam fell
from a state of purity and perfection by an act of transgression in
the Garden of Eden, and thereby 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 the death of
Christ was necessary in order to atone to God, against whom a sin
had been committed. It was further urged that, through our "first
parents" partaking of the forbidden fruit, God became estranged
from his children, and that the sacrifice of his Son was required
to reconcile the Father to his children. As it is put in the
Thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England, "Christ was
crucified to reconcile his Father to us. To be a sacrifice for sins
of men" (Article 2). It is also stated in the Confession of Faith
that Christ's death "purchased reconciliation " (chap. viii.). The
Biblical authority, as accepted by orthodox believers, for this
view of the death of Christ is as follows: "Behold the Lamb of God,
which taketh away the sins of the world" (John i. 29) he is the
propitiation for the sins of the 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 the
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 the 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 other texts in the
New Testament orthodox Christians base their theory of the
Atonement.

     It may be interesting to note the conflicting character of the
theories which professed Christians have held concerning the
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 that Christ's death canceled the
sin committed, and thus saved them from being utterly lost. The
Calvinists believe that God foresaw that Adam would fall, and that
posterity would thereby be damned; and therefore he 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 the many are
deprived of this special provision for their salvation. It seems to
us that if God possessed the foreknowledge here ascribed to him,
and if he were all-powerful, it would have been more to his credit
if he had included the entire human family among his "elect." The
evangelical Christians suppose that the vicarious sufferings of
Christ secures conditional pardon, the condition being the belief
that Christ died as a substitute for sinners -- that is, that 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 this world. If an individual be ever so bad in the
present life, all evil will depart at death, and he will be ushered
into heaven pure and spotless, The Unitarians, rejecting all the
above theories, contend that the object of Christ's life, rather
than of his death, was to reconcile man to God, not God to man.
Relying upon such statements in the Bible as "Every man shall die
for his own sin," (,To punish the just is not good," they consider
the popular view of the Atonement fallacious. Such are a few of the
conflicting notions held by the Christian sects as to the nature of
the simple plan of salvation."

     Some of the early Christian Fathers taught that the 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 the claims of divine justice, but
as a payment made to the Devil!" This was the doctrine advocated by
the celebrated Origen, who wrote: "It was the Devil who held us in
bondage: for to him we had been given over for our sins. Wherefore,
he demanded the 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 the possession of the Devil till they
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 his fair and lawful claims" (ibid).

     Other eminent Christian divines taught that it was not merely
the man Jesus who died, but God himself. Osiander, a friend and
fellow-laborer of Luther, 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 the
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, the 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 that 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 the 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 the Bible plan of redemption
through the death of Christ is simply this: 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 them to withstand. For instance, he implanted
within them 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 he had previously
imparted to his children. God, all-good, then created a serpent of
the 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 they would eat of it, and that they would not
die. The serpent is allowed to succeed in his plan of temptation,
and then God curses the ground for yielding the tree which he
himself had caused to grow; further, 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 the
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 the "divine" errors, for the people grew worse than ever.
God now decided upon another 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 that this "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 the death of Christ provided a
complete atonement for the alleged transgression in the Garden of
Eden, is not supported by the details of the scheme as contained in


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               3

                       THE DEATH OF CHRIST

the Bible, or by the exposition of it as given by eminent
theological writers. The orthodox position is that the Godhead "Is
composed of three persons of one substance, power, and duration. If
this be so, and if an atonement was really necessary, it should
have been threefold, inasmuch as the Son and the Holy Ghost, being
a part of the Trinity, required to be satisfied equally with the
Father; but we do not read of any sacrifice having been. made to
them. Besides, if the three persons were one in substance, etc., it
is difficult to see how one part could be wrathful and another part
merciful at the same time. The Now Testament speaks of God's wrath,
and such Christian writers as the pious Flavel, Wesley, and Dr.
Watts state that it was from this wrath that the death of Christ
was intended to save the human race. Flevel, who was an exponent of
the evangelical school, writes: "To wrath -- to the wrath of an
infinite God, without mixture -- to the very torments of hell, was
Christ delivered; and that by the hand of his own Father. 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 "wrath 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, that this 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 he grants pardon; Christ exacts belief in
himself as the condition of salvation; and he who sins against the
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 either paid the "debt" or he did
not. If he did pay it, that should settle the account, and we ought
not to be the bothered with it any further; whereas, if he did not
pay the "debt," the whole scheme is a sham and a delusion.

     The absurdity of the orthodox view of the death of Christ is
further manifested in the supposition that it was a part of the
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 three nights, he was not equal in
internity with his father; while, on the other hand, if the 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 that it was only the manhood
of Christ which suffered and died is but raising another difficulty
in allying humanity with what is termed divinity; thus adding a
fourth part to the Trinity, and thereby destroying the perfection
of the whole, for where the human element is there can be no
perfection. Moreover, according to the orthodox theory, 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 they did under compulsion. As to enmity existing between God and
man as the result of partaking of the fruit, the question arises:
Where did the enmity come from? Did God implant it in the minds of
his children? If so, he was responsible for the 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 another theological error. There can be no
freedom where circumstances impel in one direction, as, according
to the account, they 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 the theory that the world was redeemed through the
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 the
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 either just or merciful upon the part of "the Great
Father of all." If it be true that no one can be saved except
through belief in Christ, then it may be fairly asked, What became
of the numberless human beings who died prior to his birth? And,
further, 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
Nazareth? To say that the former were saved by anticipation, and
that the latter will be excused on account of their lack of
knowledge, is oddly to represent the scheme as being still more
absurd, and altogether 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 the stake and the rack. Surely, if for thousands of
years people could go to heaven without the supposed advantages of
the death of Christ, it was superfluous to introduce the "sign of
the Cross" to secure an object which had already been achieved.

     Besides, if the ignorance of the existence of this "atoning
scheme" will exempt a person from "punishment hereafter," is it not
cruel and futile to send missionaries to the heathens with the
"glad tidings"? Let them not know of it, and there would be no
danger of their being punished for rejecting it; but let them be
informed of the scheme, and their happiness in another world
becomes very doubtful. Considering the diversity of the perceptive
powers, even among "heathens," we cannot reasonably suppose that
all to whom the scheme is expounded will be able to receive it as
true. Thus the salvation, which was secure in a blissful state of
ignorance, is placed in jeopardy by missionary efforts. The truth
is, that if the death of Christ were really necessary to redeem a
"fallen race," it was unjust upon the part of God to permit so many
centuries to pass before the people had the alleged benefit of his
atoning blood. If, on the other hand, the death of Christ was not
required to restore a "lost race," then it was a reckless and an
unnatural act for a father to give his son to a wild mob, to be
executed amidst the 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 the part of God to send
his 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 the Jews, God's chosen people, had no knowledge that
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 heaven, for him to have remained on
earth, teaching practical truths, and showing by his 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 theology?

     The orthodox idea of the object of Christ's death involves the
committal of a gross act of injustice upon the part of God in
making the declared innocent suffer for the avowed guilty. Justice
has been defined to "consist in rendering to everyone according to
his moral deserts; good if he be good, and evil if evil -- for the
purpose of promoting goodness and discouraging guilt." If this be
a recognized standard of right in human affairs, surely it should
not be ignored in dealing with "divine" actions. Suppose,
therefore, that Christ was "without sin," as stated in the New
Testament (Hebrews iv. 15), was it not unjust to punish him for the
wrong-doing of others? Let us take the case of an earthly father,
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 the part of that father to punish the
one good child for the misdeeds of the 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 the judge's judicial position would in
all probability be forfeited. No Christian would think it just to
imprison and torture priests to-day simply because their
predecessors, under the influence of fanaticism, defiled portions
of the earth with human slaughter. Is it consistent for Christians
to ascribe an act to their God which good men would refuse to
perform? We think not.

     Besides, the alleged redeeming feature in the death of Christ
manifests cruelty to the human race in asserting that, although its
members had no control over the acts of Eve and Adam, still, in
consequence of what they 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 orthodox notion, the
moment we enter life, in our infantile helplessness 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 either arrange or permit such cruel injustice will never be
recognized by Secularists as a kind and loving father. We know that
the Bible, on more than one occasion, represents its God as
punishing the innocent for the guilty. For instance, we read that
he is "a jealous God, visiting the iniquities of the 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 the people (2 Samuel xxiv. 15); and that he deprived an 


                         Bank of Wisdom
                  Box 926, Louisville, KY 40201
                               6

                       THE DEATH OF CHRIST

innocent child of life to show his displeasure of a crime committed
by this "man after God's own heart" (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 the 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 the 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 her operations that this evil of
transmission would have been avoided? The two cases, however are
not analogous, inasmuch as the children referred to do not suffer
for, but through, the vices of their parents; and, moreover, in
such suffering there is no punishment intended; it is a
consequence, not a penalty. The children of criminal parents are
not blamed, but are rather pitied, for being innocent victim,, of
others. This was not the case, according to orthodox teaching, with
Christ, who was punished for the sins of others.

     The theory that the 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 the death of Christ was ordained before
the foundation of the world, and, at the 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 rather merited a blessing.
As we have already pointed out, there was no free-will in the case,
for it was originally arranged that but one course had to be
followed -- namely, the one that led to the sacrifice of Christ. If
Adam and Eve had adopted any other course, God's plans would have
been thwarted, for we read in the fourth Gospel that Christ knew
from the beginning that he would be betrayed; and this betrayal was
the first act in the tragedy of the cross. Now, if the death of
Christ were preordained, so also was the "Fall of Man," for the one
depends upon the other, 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
his "falling," or giving way to temptation, was a proof of his
imperfection. The truth is, the 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 the Hebrews." Professor Jowett considered the
account, as given in the Bible, "a grand Hebrew poem." Similar
stories were current among the Greeks, the Egyptians, and the
Persians. The 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 those who partook of it. It is time that the
belief in this fiction of the Fall as being a reality should cease.
The lesson of history and experience is that the 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

     Further inconsistencies in this scheme of redemption through
the death of Christ are the allegation that he came to save the 
whole world, and his reported conduct while on earth. If universal
salvation were the object of his mission, it proved a decided
failure. But Christ did not attempt to achieve such a result, for
he stated himself that he came to the Jews, and to the 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 the manner in which he acted in the
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 the hour of death approached, when the period had
arrived for him 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 the 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 that should remain as a lasting monument
of greatness to a wondering people; at this moment, when it was
expected that the hopes of his followers were about to be sealed,
when he should have maintained his position with unsurpassed
bravery he was weak and vacillating, and in bitter despair he
prayed that the cup might pass from him. Where can we recognize
consistency and heroism in the death of Christ? Is it in the
conduct of one who came to die for man, yet, when about to fulfil
his destiny, implored to be allowed to escape the death? Is it in
teaching that Christ came as a voluntary sacrifice, yet had to be
betrayed by man? Is it in a Father of reputed love and kindness
inflicting unnecessary torture upon his sensitive son? Is it in the
statement that Christ, by asking, could obtain an answer to any
request made to his father; yet his fervent supplications were
unheeded, and his dying prayers were unanswered? Finally, is it in
the act of a God who, having allowed his son to be placed upon a
felon's cross, permits him to yield up a sorrowful life, after
uttering unavailing reproaches in those memorable words: My God! my
God! why hast thou forsaken me?"

     in conclusion, let us remember that 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, further, sin still surrounds us.
If Christ, by his 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, where are they? We have still misery, pain, folly,
ignorance, crime, and injustice in the world. The erection of the
cross has not frightened the miscreant nor appalled the tyrant. The
voice from the height of Calvary has not destroyed error nor
cemented truth; neither has the 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
