1
10
1
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/2b68de7643a3956982aa1680c761a8b7.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=EMgezTZAqn1I9Bs8VeN2uO-Iw67MmsQN3BO3hDufvRXb3IlG6fFd7-5EjXBZyioyOdTnDtmi0zmnTU8OTWgbYSxSFyHAE%7EtOiOJTy4rGIHVZPjodEpKN0XMbldKG6yJEP9W6MPP8QSRJBLi5OzkZJw%7EM0rg03aQbueAblAzs157J7RUam7ueRk%7Eq6cduorCKrqUzwygTfNbS%7ElKnKjYw7QkrsaBhELOY2tC1HGGCIWcIv8agDNOjN1z-E8wI5hf1KVqXxl-HSBi0dxjcfomCDnU2EyyUZXEWVM3HfPWZXn3t8GHWhNTSDfozR-Z4UW6X87V5T5uR-%7E0A59-2Zw4Ffg__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
cf7ffd363df5d249e2057c4d25713aa9
PDF Text
Text
CHRISTIAN SCHEME OF REDEMPTION.
By Charles Watts, Secretary of the National
Secular Society.
It is taught by believers in orthodox Christianity that about
6,000 years ago Adam and Eve fell from a state of purity and
perfection by an act of transgression. That act, it is urged, in
volved all races of men throughout all time in depravity and
punishment. It was thought necessary, therefore, that some plan
should be devised whereby “ fallen humanity ” should be redeemed
from the consequences of the disobedience said to have been com
mitted in the garden of Eden, To obtain this redemption the
Christian scheme of salvation was originated. What this scheme
is has been variously explained by different schools of theologians,
all of whom, however, have professed to base their explanations on
Bible teachings. The Augustinian school held 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 there
fore selected a few termed the elect, to be saved, while the many
will be lost. Before, however, this partial salvation could ob
tain, it was deemed necessary that Christ’s life should be sacri
ficed as a vicarious punishment for the misdoings of our “ first
parents.” This belief is so unjust and inhuman in its naked form,
that those who still retain it have to modify it considerably in
their advocacy. If it be true- that God foresaw that Adam would
fall, and that posterity would be damned, should he not as a bene
ficent, all-powerful being have prevented the calamity altogether ?
or, failing in this, have included the whole human race among the
“ elect ?” The Evangelical Christians suppose that the vicarious
sufferings of Christ obtained conditional pardon. In order, how
ever, for persons to partake of the advantages of those sufferings,
they must have faith that Christ died as a substitute, that is, that
the innocent was punished for the guilty. This is justice peculiar
to Christianity. The Roman Catholic, while teaching the fall of
man and his salvation through Christ, also teaches that none will
be saved unless they accept the authority of the Church and
observe her rites. This of course is priestcraft, but then what
religious sect is there which has not its priests p The difference
between Catholicism and Protestantism upon this point is, that
while the Catholic is honest and acknowledges the necessity of a
priesthood, the Protestant is dishonest in denying its right, and at
the same time practising its evils. The principle in both eases is
�the same, it differs only in degree. The Universalists consider
that no one is damned beyond his personal sin in this world. If
he be ever so vile, all evil at death departs, and he is ushered into
heaven, pure and spotless. It must be very gratifying to the
immoral and licentious hypocrite thus to believe that his career of
debauchery will be no barrier to his admission into the eelestial
city. The Unitarians, rejecting all the above theories, regard
the object of Christ’s life, rather than his death, to be the
reconciliation of man to God. Relying on such Biblical state
ments as “ Every man shall die for his own sin
“ To
punish the just is not good “ In burnt-offerings and sacrifices
for sin thou hast had no pleasure;” they consider the popuiar
views of the atonement fallacious. This diversity of opinion m
the Christian world as to the nature and object of the scheme of
redemption, indicates its perplexing character. Apart from sec
tarian interpretations, .the Bible plan of the atonement appears to
he that nearly 6,000 years ago, an all-wise, all-powerful, beneficent God created the world, and then set man in the midst of
a scene, surrounded bv temptations it was impossible for him to
withstand; God implanted in man’s breast certain desires which, as
God, he must have known would produce man’s ruin. A tree is then
placed by God near Adam, bearing the very fruit which God
must have been aware would meet those desires which he had
just planted in the mind of Adam. God, all good, then makes a
serpent of the worst possible kind, in order that it might be suc
cessful in tempting Adam to eat. After this, God commands
Adam not to eat of the fruit under the penalty of death, knowing
at the same time that Adam would eat of it and not die. God
allows the serpent to succeed in his plan, and then curses the very
ground for yielding the tree which he (God) had caused to grow.
Not content with this, the Almighty dooms both man and woman
to a life of pain and sorrow •, further, he assures them that their pos
terity shall feel the terrible effects of their doing what it was impos
sible for them to avoid. At length the unchangeable God change^
his mind, he will no longer commit wholesale injustice, tie determines to send his Son, who is as old as himeeli, and therefore
not his son, to die, but who is invested with immortality and
therefore cannot die, to atone for wrongs which had never been
committed, by people who had never been born, and who conse*
quently could not very conveniently commit anv error. As a
conclusion to the whole, this all-merciful being has prepared a
ma erial fire of brimstone, to burn the immaterial souls of ibose
who fail to see the necessity and justice of this jumble of cruelty
and ah.-urdity.
Such is the Cbrisitian scheme of redemption. And the first
objection to it is that it is opposed to the attributes Christians
ascribe to God. They believe, or think they believe, that the God
head is composed of three persons of one substance, power, and
�3
eternity. On this supposition, the first person could have no
virtue not possessed by the other two. Admitting, then, that
infinite justice demanded that an atonement should be made to
God rhe Father, a like plea could be urged for atonement to God
the Son, and atonement to God the Holy Ghost. For as the
three persons are indivisible, the‘‘transgression” was made against
all equally. But we do not read of any sacrifice being made to
the last two persons in the Trinity; the redemption is therefore
incomplete. Again, the three persons being one in substance,
could a part be wrathful and a part merciful? The Nev Testa
ment speaks of God’s wrath ; and it was from this that the atone
ment was to save us, according to the teachings of Christians, in
cluding sueh writers as Flavel, Wesley, and Dr. Watts. If God
and Christ, however, are not. distinct, the one eouid not be
vengeful and the other forgiving at the same time. Thus this
scheme robs the Trinity of the virtue of forgiveness. And really
this is so. The first person demands payment before granting
pardon ; the second exacts belief as the condition of salvation ; and
the third refuses forgiveness for sin against himself under any cir
cumstances. The same difficult’ is manifested in the dea'h of a
part of the indivisible Godhead. If Christ alone died and remained
lifeless in the grave for three days, he was not equal in eternity
to his father; if on the other hand the whole of the DGry expired,
then we have the spectacle of a dying and dead God, and the
world for a time subsisting without a God to govern it. To say
that it was only the manhood of Christ which suffered, is to advance
another difficulty by allying humanity with divinity, thus adding
a fourth part to the Trinity, and destroying the perfection of the
whole. For where the human element is, there cannot be perfec
tion. And, moreover, on the Christian theory, a mere human
death was not adequate to redeem all humanity; for this, the
suffering and death of a divine being were required.
It will be seen that there were two principal causes which
were supposed to render the scheme of redemption necessary.
First, the alleged sin on the part of Adam, and secondly the
enmity between God and man which is stated to have resulted
from the partaking of the fruit. Now, were these causes real?
Was there any sin in the case, and did enmiry exist ? Samuel
Taylor Coleridge says, " Sin must be a state origin ant in the will
of the actor, entirely independent of circumstances extrinsic of that
will.” Evidently there was no such sin as this on Adam’s part,
for the Bible shows that he was not independent of external
circumstances, but rather that it was by the force of those
circumstances that he was impelled to do what he did. Can it be
deemed sinful to do that which cannot be avoided ? As to enmity,
if God exists and he created man, he either created the enmity or
else man acquired it apart from him. God could not have created
it j for being infinitely good, how could he have implanted that
�4
which was bad in his children ? Man could not have acquired it
apart from God, inasmuch as there is nothing but what is from
God.
It may here be suggested that if this act of redemption was
necessary, it should have been made immediately after Adam’s
transgression, so as to have prevented a single generation going
to the grave with the curse of original sin unremoved. B it
according to Bible chronology, God was not disposed to show his
fatherly care too soon. He allowed 4,000 years to elapse, and
numbers of generations not only to live and die, but to run riot in
all descriptions of ignorance and iniquity, ere the tardy reparation
was made. Why was this ? Did it take God—to whom consi
deration of time is said to be as nothing - 4,000 years to dete. mine
how to get out of the difficulty which he himself had created?
This Cannot be, for according to the Bible, God had the whole
plan of the atonement arranged before Adam’s fall. Was it that
Christ hesitated to obey his Father’s decree ? If no man could
be saved except those who believed in Christ, what has become of
those millions of human beings who passed away prior to his
birth? and what will be the fate of those now living, who have
never heard and never will hear the name of Jesus of Nazareth ?
Were the former saved by anticipation, and will the latter be
excused on account of their ignorance? If so, where was the
necessity of the atonement at all ? If men could enter heaven
without the crucifixion, then Christ need not have suffered at any
period. His sorrow, agony, and bloody sweat, might all have been
avoided, and numbers of saints might have died quietly in their
beds, instead of enduring tortures at the stake or on the rack.
Besides, if ignorance of this scheme will save from damnation, is
it not useless and cruel to send missionaries to the heathens with
the “glad tidings?” Let them not know of it, and they cannot
be punished for rejecting it; inform them of it, and their eternal
happiness becomes at least doubtful, for their diversity of organi
sation and education ensures that not all can accept it as true. As
already stated, if the death of Christ was absolutely necessary to
redeem the world, it was unjust upon the part of God to permit
4,000 years to elapse before the people had the benefit of his
atoning blood. If on the other hand, the crucifixion of the Saviour
was not required to restore a lost race, then it was a most cruel
and unnatural act for a father to give his son to a rabble mob to
be tortured and executed, amidst the exultation of a disappointed
and fanatical people. Again, if it was desirable and praiseworthy
upon the part of God to send his Son to save the world from
eternal damnation, how is it that when he did arrive, so many
nations were kept in ignorance of his mission and purpose ? Even
the Jews, God’s peculiar people, had no knowledge whatever that
incarnate deity was about to expire on the cross. If the regenera
tion of the world was really the object of Christ, how much better
�5
would it have been if, instead of ascending to heaven to sit at the
right hand of his Father, he had remained on earth, preaching
practical truths, and showing by constant personal example how
the world could be rescued from that moral and intellectual
darkness and despair, to which 4,000 years of a corrupted theology
had reduced it. This would have been the true salvation, the best
redemption, and the only atonement necessary for the welfare and
progress of mankind.
The scheme of redemption is also objectionable, because of its
essential injustice in teaching that the innocent was made to suffer
for the guilty. Justice has been defined to “ consist in rendering
to every one according to his moral deserts; good if he be good,
and evil if evil; for the purpose of promoting goodness and dis
couraging guilt ” If Christ, therefore, was without sin, as stated
in the New Testament, was it not unjust to punish him for the
misdoings of others? Suppose a parent who has seven children,
six of whom are bad, and the seventh good. Would it be deemed
right on the part of this parent to punish his innocent child be
cause the other children were disobedient ? Such injustice would
ensure for its perpetrator emphatic condemnation. If a judge,
knowingly, were to sentence to death an innocent man as the sub8vitute for a criminal, his judicial position would be forfeited and
his conduct regarded with horror and detestation. No govern
ment would retain the confidence of the people of this country, if
it were to introduce a measure enacting that all priests should
die a lingering death in prison, simply because their predecessors,
in outbursts of religious fury, violated the law of right and equality,
and defiled the earth with human slaughter. Recognising this indig
nant condemnation by human nature of one of the leading principles
of the atonement doctrine, can we consist ently ascribe an act to
God which his creatures would blush to perform ? Besides, the
doctrine manifests cruelty in proclaiming that, although we had no
control over the deeds of Adam, still we are all “ born in siu and
shapened in iniquity.” The moment we enter this life, in our in
fantile helplessness, our childish simplicity, our youthful innocence,
we are the victims of the wrath of God. Granting that in the
earliest period of the world’s history a sin was committed, will that
justify a wrong being wrought upon us ? are we on that account
to be banished from eternal bliss, to be condemned to eternal
agony ? If so, the conduct of God to man is fiendishly cruel and
unjust; and we, though unable to resist his power, must rightly
scorn and detest his evil nature.
It is frequently asserted by defenders of the atonement doctrine,
that in this world, in the course of nature, the innocent suffer for
the guilty. As for instance, in the case of drunkards and debau
chees, who transmit disease and debility to their offspring. The
assertion, however, is groundless. The children referred to do not
suffer Jor, but through the vices of their parent^. Moreover, in
�6
such suffering, there is no punishment. The children of criminal
parents are not charged with guilt simply on account of their birth.
But, according to orthodoxy. Christ was punished for the sins of
the world, which were expressly imputed to him.
The inconsistency of this scheme of redemption is as palpable as
are its cruelty and injustice. We are told that the death of Christ
was ordained before the foundation of the world; and we are like
wise told that man was created perfect and immortal. The incon
sistency here is so glaring, that it is really marvellous how it can
pass undetected. If it was ordained that the Son of God should
die for the redemption of the world, the transgressions of Adam
and Eve were only a part of God’s plan, and certainly did not
merit any curse but rather a blessing. To urge that man had a
free will does not remove the difficulty. If man had any choice
in the matter, and supposing he had chosen differently, God’s plans
would have been thwarted. The scheme implies that man was so
made, that he could follow but one course, the course which should
ultimately lead to the sacrifice of Christ. Thus the fourth Gospel
tells us that Christ, knew from the beginning that Judas would
betray him. Further, if the mission of Christ on earth would have
been fruitless unless he was crucified, then, instead of denouncing
unfortunate Judas, he should be considered by Christians as a hero
worthy of having a monument erected to his memory. Now, if the
death of Christ was pre-ordained, so also was “ the fall of man ”
for the one depends upon the other. “ For as in Adam all died,
so in Christ shall all be made alive.” If this be true, it was im
possible for man to be created perfect. But the very fact of man’s
“ falling,” or giving way to temptation, must be a proof of his
imperfection. Again, notwithstanding that Christ is represented'
as having made a full and complete satisfaction for all sin, that we
may secure a share of what Christ died for, we are to lead a life of
sacrifice and penitence,whether it agrees with our honest opinion or
not. If Christ did pay the debt for our sin,why should we be called
upon to make a second payment ? Another inconsistency is to be
found between the statement that God sent his Son to save the whole
world, and the conduct of Christ while on earth. If universal
salvation was the object of Christ’s advent among men, his mission
has been a decided failure. Christ, however, never attempted to
achieve this result. While thousands were dying without the
knowledge of the Messiah, he, instead of going among the vast
heathen nations, imparting what information he had, remained
hurling bitter reproaches at the Pharisees in his own insignificant
country. But Christ did not come to save the whole world ; his
oyyn words clearly and unmistakably deny the supposition. His
mission was to the Jews and the Jews alone. And even among
them his labours were not crowned with success. Following Christ
to the close of his career, have we not a “sorry sight ” in behold
ing the culmination of inconsistency as manifested in the garden
�7
of Gethsemane p Here we see a man, who all his life had preached
•the utility of a faith, which it was said not only afforded consola
tion through life, but was also 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,
we find him tortured with agony and racked with fear. In that
acene, which was not only to rivet the attention of an amazed mul
titude, but also to consecrate a life of divinity—a scene which was
?»ot only to be the great climax to the scheme of redemption, but
was also to remain a lasting monument of love to a wondering
peapie ; at this moment when the hopes of his believers were about
to be sealed, when he should have maintained his position bravely
and nobly, we find him weak, vacillating, and in bitter despair
praying that the cup might pass from him. Where do we find
consistency in this doctrine of atonement ? Is it in the conduct
of its hero, who came to die for man, yet when about to fulfil his
destiny, implored to be allowed to evade the task ? Is it in the
assertion that finite man had committed an infinite offence against
an infinite God, and that therefore an infinite atonement was
necessary, while we nevertheless learn that it was only the
manhood of Christ that suffered ? If this be correct, it was after
all but a finite atonement. Is it in teaching 'hat. Christ came as a
voluntary sacrifice, yet was betrayed by man p Is it in condemn
ing the majority of mankind because they are fulfilling 'he decree
of their God ? Is it in beholding a God of love and kindness in
flicting unnecessary torture upon his sensitive Son? Is it in our
being informed by the voice of Christ that by asking he could
obtain any amount of assi.-tance from his rather, while yet we find
that his fervent supplications were unheeded and his dying prayers
unanswered p Finally, is it in contemplating the m^rcv of a God,
Who having placed his Son on a felon’s cross, allows that Son to
yield rjp a sorrowful life, after uttering unavailing reproaches in
those memorable words,l' My God 1 my God! why hast thou
forsaken me ?”
Of what use has the Christian scheme of Redemption been to
man ? Has it abolished the supposed effects of Adam’s fall p Has
it improved the condition of the people? Have we lesspain and
misery, less folly and ignorance, less crime and injustice through
the advent of Christ? Are Christians more valiant and virtuous
than were the ancient Romans ? Has the erec’ion of the Cross
frightened the miscreant or appalled the tyrant? Has the voice
from the height of Calvary reached the cap’ive, and set fhe slaye
free? Has it destroyed error and cemented truth? Has it de
throned wrong and established right ? In short, has it abolished
ignorance, crime, and oppression, and made knowledge, virtue, and
justice permanent ? Has it produce.) such conditions of society
as render it impossible for man t® be depraved or poor ? In
the powerful words of the great Frenchman: “Two thousand
�years have passed, during which entire nations have knelt before
a gibbet, adoring in the sufferer who gave himself up to death—
the Saviour of mankind. And yet what slavery still! What
lepers m our moral world! What unfortunate beings in the
visible and feeling world! What triumphant iniquity, what
tyranny enjoying at its ease the scandal of its own impunity I
The Saviour has come—whence comes salvation ?”
Once impress the minds of the people with the idea that this
scheme of Redemption is true, and they are then made ready
recipients for a gloomy faith. If we lament the poverty and
wretchedness we behold, we are told that Deity has pronounced
that “ the poor shall never cease out of the land.” If we seek to
remove the sorrow and despair existing around us, we are reminded
that they were “ appointed curses to the sons of Adam.” If we
work to improve our condition, we are taught that we should
learn to be content, to remain “ in that state of life in which it
has pleased God to call us.” When we endeavour to improve our
minds, to cultivate our intellects, we come in contact with the
statement, that we are of ourselves unable to do any good
thing.” If we seek to promote the happiness of others, we are
assured that faith in Christ is of more importance than labour
for man. Talk of redemption !—what can redeem us from all this
wrong, all this misappropriation, and all this folly? For nearlv
1 800 years have Christians preached “ Christ and him crucified ’’
to a misguided and wronged world. We of the nineteenth cen
tury have but a vague idea of the extent of the influence this
doctrine once exercised over the minds of its believers. Although
this erroneous faith is now giving way, there are still thousands
and myriads who, despite all its inconsistency and injustice, sin
cerely believe that man’s eternal happiness depends upon the
belief in the efficacy of the blood said to have been shed on Mount
Calvary. This is the doctrine which has so permeated the minds
of orthodox Christians, stifling their reason and perverting their
judgment, till they cherish the forlorn delusion that the reasonings
of philosophers, the enchantments of poets, and the struggles of
patriots, are all worse than useless unless purified by the “ atoning
blood of the Lamb.” It is against such delusions that we protest.
It is this doctrine which fosters the erroneous and retarding belief,
that every thought which does not aspire to the throne of Christ,
every action which is not sanctioned by his “ scheme of salvation,”
every motive which does not proceed from a love to the “ Saviour
of the world,” should be discouraged as antagonistic to our real
progress in life.
PRICE ONE PENNY.
London : Printed and Published by C . W A T T s, 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 Christian scheme of redemption
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Watts, Charles [1836-1906]
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: [London]
Collation: 8 p. ; 19 cm.
Notes: Date of publication from KVK (OCLC WorldCat). Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
[C. Watts]
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1868]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N659
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The Christian scheme of redemption), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><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
Christianity
NSS
Redemption