Having appropriated a portion of two chapters in "The World's Sixteen
Crucified Saviors" to an exposition of the doctrine of the atonement, we
shall treat the subject but briefly in this work.
1. It is shown in the work above mentioned, that the doctrine of the
atonement is of heathen origin, and that it is predicated upon the
assumption that no sin can be fully expiated without the shedding of
blood. In the language of Paul, "Without the shedding of blood, there
can be no remission for sin." A barbarous and bloody doctrine truly!
But this doctrine was almost universally prevalent amongst the Orientals
long before Paul's time.
2. Christians predicate the dogma of atonement for sin upon the
assumption that Christ's death and sufferings were a substitute for
Adam's death, incurred by the fall. But as Adam's sentence was death,
and he suffered that penalty, this assumption can not be true.
3. If the penalty for sin was death, as taught in Gen. iii., and Christ
suffered that penalty for man, then man should not die; but, as he does,
it makes the doctrine preposterous. It could not have meant spiritual
death, as some argue, because a part of the penalty was that of being
doomed to return to dust (Gen. r. 19).
4. If crucifixion was indispensably necessary as a penalty, then the
punishment should have been inflicted either upon the instigator or
perpetrator of the deed: either the serpent or Adam should have been
nailed to the cross.
5. We are told in reply, that, as an infinite sin was committed, it
required an infinite sacrifice. But Adam, being a finite being, could
not commit an infinite sin; and Christ's sacrifice and sufferings could
not be infinite, unless he had continued to suffer to all eternity.
Therefore the assumption is false.
6. An all-wise God would not let things get into such a condition as to
require the murder of his only son from any consideration whatever.
7. And no father, cherishing a proper regard and love for his son, could
have required him to be, or consented to have him, put to death in a
cruel manner; for the claims of mercy and paternal affection are as
imperative as justice.
8. To put an intelligent and innocent being to death for any purpose is
a violation of the moral law, and as great a sin as that for which he
died. Hecatombs of victims can not atone for the infraction of the moral
law which is engraven upon our souls.
9. If it were necessary for Christ to be put to death, then Judas is
entitled to one-half the merit of it for inaugurating the act, as it
could not have taken place without his aid; and no one who took part in
it should be censured, but praised.
10. It is evident, that, if everybody had been Quakers, no atonement
would have been made, as their religion is opposed to bloodshed.
11. The atonement is either one God putting another to death, or God
putting himself to death to appease his own wrath; but both assumptions
are monstrous absurdities, which no person distinguished for science or
reason can indorse.
12. Anger and murder are the two principal features in the doctrine of
the atonement; and both are repugnant to our moral sense and feelings of
refinement, and indicate a barbarous and heathen origin.
13. The atonement punishes the innocent for the guilty; which is a
double or twofold crime, and a reversal of the spirit of justice. If
a father should catch four of his children steeling, and the fifth one
standing by and remonstrating against the act, and should seize on the
innocent one and administer a severe flagellation, he would commit a
double crime: 1st, that of punishing an innocent child; 2d, that of
exonerating and encouraging the four guilty children in the commission
of crime. The atonement involves the same principle.
14. No person with true moral manhood would consent to be saved on any
such terms; but would prefer to suffer for his own sins, rather than
let an innocent being suffer for them. And the man who would accept
salvation upon such terms must be a sneak and a coward, with a soul not
worth saving.
15. Who that possesses any sense of justice would want to swim through
blood to get to the heavenly mansion? I want neither animals, men, nor
Gods murdered to save my soul.
16. If there is any virtue in the atonement in the way of expiating
crime, then there is now another atonement demanded by the principles of
moral justice to cancel the sin committed by the first atonement,--that
of murdering an innocent being, "in whose mouth was no guile;" and then
another atonement to wipe out the sin of this atonement, and so on. And
thus it would be atonement after atonement, murder after murder, _ad
infinitum_. What shocking consequences and absurdities are involved in
this ancient heathen superstition!
17. It seems strange that any person can cherish the thought for a
moment that the Infinite Father would require a sacrificial offering for
the trifling act of eating a little fruit, and require no atonement for
the infinitely greater sin of murdering "his only-begotten son." Another
monstrous absurdity!
18. The advocates of the atonement tell us that man stands toward his
Creator in the relation of a debtor; and the atonement cancels the debt.
To be sure! How does it do it? We will illustrate: A man says to his
neighbor, "I owe you a thousand dollars; but I won't pay it."--"Very
well," says the creditor, "I will tell you what I will do: I will
forgive the debt by seizing on my own son, strip him of all he has, and
then put him to death. The claims of justice will then be satisfied." A
monstrous idea of justice!
19. The Jewish and Chaldean law of atonement required the offender
to place his hand on the head of the beast while being consumed in
sacrifice; and this was accepted as an atonement for his transgressions.
Such a conception is both senseless and demoralizing. He was thereby
taught that he would escape the legitimate consequences of his crime.
And the Christian atonement is no better. The sin-atoning offering of
Christ furnishes an open door through which the sinner escapes the just
punishment of law. It is at least a partial liquidation of his sins.
When one being is punished for another, this is, to the latter, an
immunity from punishment; and the ends of justice are thus completely
thwarted, and the moral law broken and trampled under foot. If a culprit
were sentenced to the penalty of death for murder, and the punishment
of another man were accepted in his stead, every court in the civilized
world would decide that two wrongs were committed,--the punishment of
the innocent, and the pardon of the guilty. Such doctrines are repugnant
to ali ideas of justice, and are most certainly demoralizing.
20. The wrong-doer should be taught that he is just as guilty, and just
as certain of punishment for his crime, as if all the Gods in heaven
were put to death to atone for his sin; the penalty being inseparable
from the act.
21. What would be thought of the government that should punish the
law-maker instead of the law-breaker? This is exactly what the atonement
amounts to; so that the law-maker falls a victim to the penalty of his
own laws. It is God the law-maker dying for man the law-breaker. Such
ideas and such doctrines are monstrous, and completely overthrow every
principle of civil jurisprudence.
22. A God who could resort to such desperate expedients to appease his
anger, and satisfy the demands of justice, is not a God, but merely
an imaginary being which was conjured up in an age of ignorance and
superstition. The belief in such a God is, nevertheless, demoralizing.
We will here relate an anecdote, showing that such ideas of the Supreme
Being are repulsive even to the unenlightened heathen: In Smith's "Gulf
of Guinea" it is stated, that, as a Christian missionary was presenting
the doctrine of the Christian religion to Pepples, King of Bonny, and
told him that God gave his only-begotten son to die for us,--to be put
to death for our sins,--the king stopped him by saying, "Do you think me
a fool to believe such palaver as that,--that God would kill his own son
to please himself; get mad at man, and then kill his own son, instead of
killing him? Never! never can I believe such fool palaver as that, It
is a big fool lie." "I tried," says the missionary, "to impress upon his
mind that nothing would satisfy divine justice but such a sacrifice; but
he cut me short by exclaiming, 'That will do; that will do: I have
got enough of such fool palaver.'" Quite a sensible "heathen" was King
Pepples.