1
10
1
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/ac0cb5bd7ca90eb4b08ec2903881bc78.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=sksE90JN2tYtKmjW%7EF57VylCUD1VyCYfYf4r7dIaQc9wfhg13nCHJ4GqSG3wRyCBPXKTgbasq7Ty%7EQZEFKatxFnqgelEPbIwsBCcTzFTNXSHXSFCtdJgUT6SMr99NAnSuqnkAwpGkBN6i8wf1-PPQVqF6PLzMnqVvjAexSs-%7ENdVAMFlOvTBoJMVoGi-zpT1P7mnhyq6IXsfktmvhRzCESSHB-O1lx-0TieYp6i-KvcbncNoLZ2QHuJHhVkxRGbKKxLf3d9fASEMJzDI28xulk3knzY8SGY9bhfqATzW4-no2OA6PB850kJRD8bwxHNtzAevz2CVRO%7EEgccsYda05w__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
8ccaac1aeebba61efa3a024293c9bc6b
PDF Text
Text
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 read
ing 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 ” (1 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
�4
THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
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” (1 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 con
cerning 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 cancelled 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, 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 suffer
ings of Christ secured 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
�THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
5
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 ” (fbidf
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 Cod.
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.
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 ?
�6
THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
The fact is, apart from all sectarian and forced inter
pretations, it appears to us that the Bible plan of redemp
tion 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 harmonise 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 un
�THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
7
necessary, 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 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 New 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. Flavel,
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 priestlyinvented 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
�8
THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
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
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 eternity 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 man
hood 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. More
over, 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 and Eve acted 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
�THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
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 know
ledge, is only 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
s Cross ” to secure an object which had already been achieved.
\ Besides, if the ignorance of the existence of this “ atoning
^jheme” will exempt a person from “punishment here
after,” 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
�10
THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
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 exultations of a disappointed and
fanatical people.
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 he 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 good
ness and discouraging guilt.” If this be a recognised
standard of right in human affairs, surely it should not be
ignored in dealing with “ divine ” actions. Suppose, there
fore, 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 con
sidered 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,
�THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
11
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 recognised 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. Eor 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 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 course 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 trans
mission would have been avoided 1 The two cases, how
ever, are not analogous, inasmuch as the .children referred
to do not suffer for, but through, the vices of their parents;
�12
THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
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 victims of the guilt
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 G-od for actual sins committed is so glaringly inconsistent
that it is really marvellous 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 j uice 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
�THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
13
is that the career of man has been one of ascent, not descent;
of progression, not retrogression.
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 j 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
recognise 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 1 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
�14
THE DEATH OF CHRIST.
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, 11 Whence comes salvation ?”
��WORKS BY CHARLES WATTS.
THE CLAIMS OF CHRISTIANITY EXAMINED FROM
A RATIONALIST STANDPOINT. 64 pp., 6d., by post 7d.
THE TEACHINGS
OF SECULARISM COMPARED
WITH ORTHODOX CHRISTIANITY. Is., by post Is. 2d.
CHRISTIANITY: ITS ORIGIN, NATURE, AND IN
FLUENCE. 4d., by post 5d.
SECULARISM: DESTRUCTIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.
3d., by post 4d.
AGNOSTICISM AND CHRISTIAN THEISM : WHICH
IS THE MORE REASONABLE ? 3d., by post 4d.
A REPLY TO FATHER LAMBERTS “TACTICS OF
INFIDELS.” 6d., by post 7d.
THEOLOGICAL PRESUMPTION.
An Open Letter to
the Rev. Dr. R. F. Burns, of Halifax, N.S. 2d., by post 2|d.
THE NATURAL AND THE SUPERNATURAL; OR,
BELIEF AND KNOWLEDGE. 3d., by post 4d.
EVOLUTION AND SPECIAL CREATION. 3d., by post
4d.
HAPPINESS IN HELL AND MISERY IN HEAVEN.
3d., by post 4d.
SCIENCE AND THE BIBLE. 4d., by post 5d.
BIBLE MORALITY: Its Teachings Shown to be Contra
dictory and Defective as an Ethical Guide. 3d., by post 3|d.
SECULARISM: IS IT FOUNDED ON REASON, AND
IS IT SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE WANTS OF MANKIND ?
Debate between the Editor of the Evening Mail (Halifax, N.S.) and
Charles Watts. With Prefatory Letters by G. J. Holyoake and
Colonel R. G. Ingersoll, and an Introduction by Helen H. Gardener.
Is., by post Is. 2d.
SECULARISM: ITS RELATION TO THE SOCIAL
PROBLEMS OF THE DAY. 2d., by post 2|d.
IS THERE A LIFE BEYOND THE GRAVE 1 Reply to
Dr. R. B. Westbrook. 3d., by post 4d.
SAINTS AND SINNERS : WHICH 1 3d., by post 4d.
EDUCATION : TRUE AND FALSE. 2d., by post 2|d.
THE SUPERSTITION OF THE CHRISTIAN SUNDAY.
A Plea for Liberty and Justice. 3d., by post 4d.
THE EXISTENCE OF GOD; OR, QUESTIONS FOR
THEISTS. 2d., by post 2|d.
CHRISTIANITY AND CIVILISATION. 3d., by post 4d.
THE BIBLE UP TO DATE. 2d., by post 2|d.
WHY DO RIGHT? A Secularist’s Answer. 3d., by post 4d.
WAS CHRIST A POLITICAL AND SOCIAL RE
FORMER? 4d., by post 5d.
MISCELLANEOUS PAMPHLETS, Cloth 2s., by post 2s. 3d.
London : Watts & Co., 17, Johnson’s-court, Fleet-street, E.C.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The death of Christ
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles [1836-1906]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 14, [1] p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Publisher's advertisements on unnumbered page at the end. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Watts & Co.
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
1896
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
RA1575
N663
Subject
The topic of the resource
Jesus Christ
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /><br /><span>This work (The death of Christ), identified by </span><span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk">Humanist Library and Archives</a></span><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Jesus Christ-Crucifixion
NSS