Part 1

Produced by David Widger

LUDICROUS ASPECTS OF CHRISTIANITY:

A Response To The Challenge Of The Bishop Of Manchester.

By Austin Holyoak

The Bishop of Manchester, in a speech delivered by him in Oldham in August, 1870, is reported to have said that "he could defy anyone to try to caricature the work, the character, or the person of the Lord Jesus Christ." He no doubt felt confident in throwing out such a challenge, as the attempt would be considered so atrociously impious that few men could be found with courage enough to incur the odium of such an act. We confess that we have not the temerity to wound the sensitiveness of the devoutly religious. What may be deemed of the nature of caricature in the following remarks the reader is requested to regard as merely the spontaneous utterance of one who is keenly alive to the ludicrous, and who is not awed by the belief that the Bible is an infallible volume. We find the New Testament, when read without the deceptive spectacles of _faith_ as amusing, as extravagant, and as contradictory in many places as most books.

A system of religion, to be a moral guide to men, should be perfect in all its parts. It should not consist of a few precepts which might be followed under certain circumstances, the rest being made up of impossibilities and contradictions; but should be so comprehensive as to embrace all orders of men under all circumstances. And a divine exemplar to mankind, if such a being can be imagined, should possess every human virtue in perfection, and be absolutely without fault. We are told daily and hourly that Jesus Christ possesses these transcendent qualities, and is worthy of the homage and admiration of the world. We ask where this divine image is to be found, and are referred to the four Gospels in the New Testament. All that is there written was written by inspiration of God, and God therefore is the painter of the lineaments of his own Son. We will take it as such, and see what aspect Jesus presents when viewed in the light we are able to bring to bear upon his portrait. We shall follow a somewhat different plan to that adopted by M. Renan. That great French writer has evidently gone to his task with the intention or anticipation of finding an almost perfect man, and he ends by believing he really sees one in Jesus. We have taken up the Gospels with the desire of finding what is actually there; and as it appears to us, so we will present it to the reader. We know that some will view the sayings and actions in a different light; but that is inevitable. No two persons ever see in the painted portrait of a friend or relative, precisely the same expression; yet they may be equally honest. Now we claim to be regarded as truthful in the following portraiture, though Jesus appears to us a very different man to what he appeared to M. Renan. Some may say we are flippant, but that we cannot help, though we may regret it. We must express ourselves in our own way, and we most be excused if we laugh at what seems ludicrous or absurd.

We may be accused of a want of reverence, but we cannot feel reverence for what does not excite that feeling in us.

These pages are not critical--they do not pretend to be learned--they do not seek to explain away anything on the score of "forgeries" or "interpolations." They are based upon the supposition that the _Four_ Gospels are each and collectively true, and without contradiction. No attempt is made to reconcile contradictions by rejecting all that does not harmonise. The Churches do not do so--they cling to all within the two covers of the "sacred book," and of course take the responsibility.

Nothing will be here set down that Jesus did not utter; no meaning will be put upon his words that they will not legitimately bear; we have judged of him as we find him in the general actions of his life. A devout believer will exclaim, with uplifted hands and eyes--"Oh, this is blasphemy; it is revolting to the moral sense; Christ was the Son of God, and therefore perfect. He could not be what you have represented him to be, or people long ago would have ceased to worship him. He is the one sublime character whose image fills the world, and before whom millions bow the head in reverent humility." Just so; that is where the delusion arises. Men have been taught that they must not think--that they must not doubt--that they must not examine the grounds of their faith--they must _believe_, and that the sin of unbelief is everlasting perdition. A halo of sanctity is thrown around this distorted image--there is a sacred mystery, a "holy of holies" into which common sense must not enter; and so devotees fall down at the threshold and worship, where they should stand erect in reliance on their own reason and judgment, and examine fearlessly for themselves into those doctrines on a belief in which their everlasting salvation is said to depend.

Jesus, the son of Mary, but not the son of Joseph, Mary's husband, was, according to his biographers, an illegitimate child--at least, his birth seems to have been brought about in a most illegitimate way. One Matthew, who pretends to know a great deal about this child, even before it was born, wishes his readers to infer that Jesus was descended in a direct line from that worthy man and favourite of God, King David, through exactly twenty-eight generations; that is, down to Joseph, who was not the father of Jesus at all. He was the son of the Holy Ghost, but who or what that was no man knows, and no one has been able to comprehend unto this day. Another biographer named Luke, more sensible than Matthew, like a modern Welshman traces Jesus's descent direct from Adam, who, being the first man, _was_ probably a very distant relative of his.

This extraordinary child Jesus, who in his own language was simply Joshua, came into the world to fulfil no end of prophecies. He was to be called Jesus, that he might save his people from their sins. But he did not do it, as the Jews have had amongst them since his time as great criminals as ever existed before. He was also to be named Emmanuel, "which, being interpreted, is God with us." But he never was called Emmanuel, so the second prophecy was fulfilled! He was born in a house in the first instance, and a star was seen to walk before certain wise men and direct them where he was. In the second instance he was born in a manger, in the stable of an inn where certain shepherds found Mary, and Joseph, and the babe lying. These were not wise men from the East, but poor ignorant shepherds from the neighbouring fields, and they were not led by a star, but had seen an angel of the Lord by night, who terrified them very much, and departed without telling them in which particular manger the Saviour was to be found. The angel appeared amid loud sounds of "Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, and good-will towards men." If those glad tidings of great joy _were_ heard then, they have never been heard since, for the advent of this child was the signal for war, and strife, and bloodshed among mankind, which have desolated every land where the Christian name has been spoken. After their fright was over, the shepherds consulted together, and resolved to go into Bethlehem, to look for "this thing which had come to pass." They alighted upon Joseph and his family all lying in a manger, much to the surprise of Mary, who evidently did not comprehend what the excitement was about, for we are told that "Mary kept all these things, and pondered them in her heart." So after all, who knows that they found the right babe at last? If such evidence as is here given were adduced in a court of law to prove the identity of a lost heir to an estate, it would never be allowed to go even to trial, but the grand jury would ignore the bill at once.

However, as Jesus was declared the rightful heir, we must accept that fact, and proceed to examine how far he administered the great estate to which he was born. Joseph was a very drowsy man, who had to be continually warned and roused by angels as to what he should do and the dangers which threatened him. Being made wide awake to the fact that Herod sought to kill the child, he suddenly fled into Egypt with his family, and there remained till the death of Herod, that another prophecy might be fulfilled, "Out of Egypt have I called my son." But he did not go into Egypt, but was taken back to Nazareth at eight days old, and there remained till he was a man. So the third prophecy was fulfilled!

Jesus is familiarly known by the name of the "meek and lowly," but this is a title which scarcely seems warranted by the narratives. From his youth upwards he gave signs of the possession of an imperious disposition and a vituperative tongue, and he on several occasions manifested a want of filial affection. His parents went to Jerusalem every year to the feast of the Passover, and at the age of twelve Jesus was taken. When the parents returned, the boy remained behind unknown to them, and they had got a day's journey on their way home before they missed him. They retraced their steps to Jerusalem in much trouble, and at last, after three days' search, found the truant comfortably seated in the temple in the midst of the doctors, holding a learned argument with them. When his mother saw him she asked him why he had caused them so much sorrow. Instead of showing any penitence, he pertly answered, "How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?" And Mary, though she knew he was the son of the Holy Ghost, had not the slightest idea what he meant.

When he "began to be about thirty years of age," he met with John Baptist, a strange sort of anchorite, who used to dress in camelshair and eat locusts and wild honey. From this cynic Jesus learnt much, especially the habit of calling names. When people presented themselves to John to be baptised, he greeted them in this loving way--"O generation of vipers, who hath warned _you_ to flee from the wrath to come?" Jesus was baptised, and afterwards retailed much that John had said, especially his abusive phrases. At this ceremony of immersion the heavens opened to Jesus, and the Spirit of God descended like a dove and alighted upon him. This Spirit assumes as many shapes as Satan himself, and altogether appears to be a very curious bird of passage. This baptism was not a happy thing to Jesus, for immediately afterwards he was led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the Devil, and he had to fast forty days and forty nights, and afterwards, we are gravely told, "he was an hungered," which is not a remarkable fact, seeing that he was a young man of very good appetite. We shall see, as we get farther on, that his love of eating and drinking was manifested on many carious occasions. The Old and New Testaments teem with accounts of feasts and carouses by the chosen of the Lord, and the Lord himself, to such a degree, that Christianity has not inaptly been termed the religion of gourmands. Jesus frequently manifests great readiness and smartness in reply, which is either an answer to the question addressed to him, or a very clever evasion of it. When the Devil had got Jesus, he said to him, "If thou be the Son of God, command that these stones be made bread." The Devil evidently thought that to make something to eat would be the greatest temptation he could offer him. But Jesus evaded the task by saying, "It is written that man shall not live by bread alone." The Devil tried again, and took him to the pinnacle of a temple, and asked him to cast himself down, saying--"For it is written He shall give his angels charge concerning thee." Jesus said unto him, "It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God." The Devil tried a third time, and took him up into an exceeding high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of this world, and the _glory_ of them, and promised him all if he would fall down and worship him. How could Jesus see from one spot all the kingdoms of the world? as no one looking straight before him can see round a globe; but if it was done by supernatural power, why take the trouble to go to the top of an exceeding high mountain? the _flat_ country would have been a more suitable spot. He also saw the _glory_ of them, which must have puzzled him greatly, for what is the glory of one place, is sometimes the shame of another, Jesus said, "Get thee hence, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve." The Devil deemed this conclusive, and thereupon took his departure.

After John the Baptist was cast into prison, Jesus went to reside in Capernaum, and there commenced to preach from John's text--"Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand." At the outset of his public career he was a copyist, and he remained so to the end of his life. He simply repeated other men's sayings, or elaborated the traditions and prophecies which were so prevalent among the Jews of his day. This kingdom of heaven did not mean something in another world somewhere in the clouds, but simply a new order of things here, and that more especially among the Jews. At times, it must be confessed, it is difficult to understand what it meant if not an improved mental state, and not a material kingdom at all. Jesus belonged to the working class, and his followers were of the lower orders, and he constantly preached against riches, which was very popular. His followers now appreciate his sublime example so much, that they get rich as fast as they can, especially the successors of the Apostles, who are content if they can only get princely incomes, and a palace wherein to lay their heads!

Jesus wanted followers, so he walked out by the sea of Galilee, and saw Peter and Andrew casting their nets. If they had been only fishing for small fry, he could not have more contemptuously addressed them. "And he said unto them, Follow me, and I will make you fishers of men. And they straightway left their nets and followed him." A curious phenomenon strikes one here. Peter and Andrew have never seen Jesus before; he does not tell them who he is; he explains no principles to them by which to enlist their sympathies and awaken conviction--he merely says, "follow me, and I will make you fishers of men," and in prospect of that delightful occupation they abandon their home and calling to accompany a stranger on a doubtful mission, Whatever fish may have come to their net afterwards, they certainly could never have caught two greater flat-fish than themselves. A more striking instance of blind following is not to be found upon record. Peter afterwards became the greatest fanatic of all the Disciples, and caused his Master some trouble through his excess of zeal. And this is the man to whom are entrusted the keys of heaven. No wonder the ignorant fanatics find a ready admission, whilst sensible people are excluded. And he too is the great predecessor of the Pope of Rome, the head of a Church which preaches the efficacy of saints' relics, the liquefaction of blood, and the truth of winking virgins. Fanaticism was at the foundation, and delusion and ignorance very naturally result. Others followed Jesus, forsaking their nets and their parents, and they went about all Galilee, Jesus preaching and curing all sorts of disease and sickness--and curious indeed were some of his cures, such as are not mentioned in any modern pharmacopoeia. Having vanquished great Satan himself on three occasions, the minor devils had no chance with him, and woe betide all who came before him inhabiting human beings. All these cures were performed that a prophecy might be fulfilled, "which was spoken by Esaias the prophet, saying-, Himself took our infirmities, and bare our sicknesses." But then he did nothing of the kind. And so that prophecy was fulfilled! To cure a disease is not to take it upon ourselves; if it were, the Royal College of Surgeons would soon become an institution of the past. You might love your neighbour as yourself, but to be expected to have the measles tor him, would cool the warmest friendship.

One style of cure Jesus had which may have been very efficacious, but it certainly was not delicate. Once a deaf man, who had an impediment in his speech, was brought to him to be healed. Jesus took him aside from the multitude, and put his fingers into his ears, and spat and touched his tongue. And a blind man was brought to him, whom he took by the hand and led out of the town; and when he had spit on his eyes, and put his hands on him, asked him if he saw aught And the man was restored to sight This kind of lubrication could scarcely be deemed pleasant.

Neither do we find an incentive to cleanliness in this, for we are told, "as he spake, a certain Pharisee besought him to dine with him; and he went in, and sat down to meat And when the Pharisee saw it, he mar-yelled that he had not first washed before dinner. And the Lord said onto him, Now do ye Pharisees make clean the outside of the cup and the platter; but your inward part is full of ravening wickedness. Ye fools, did not he that made that which is _without_, make that which it _within_ also?" This may be very true, but it is also very dirty; and though it may satisfy the Son of God, would not be an excuse for any man who wished to be considered decent.

The fame of Jesus spread rapidly, and great multitudes flocked to hear him. One day he went up into a mountain, and addressed the people, but his discourse was of rather an extravagant description. As we understand matters in these days, what is the amount of truth contained in the following sentences?--

"Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

"Blessed art they that mourn: for they shall be comforted.

"Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

"Blessed an the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.

"Blessed are the pure in heart for they shall see God.

"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.

"Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness' sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

"Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake."

This kingdom of heaven is past all comprehension. The poor in spirit have it, and the persecuted for righteousness' sake have it; and if these are the penalties to be paid for its possession, it is not worth the winning. Then is it possible or proper for any one to act in this way:--"If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out; if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off?" Who in his senses would think of doing so? Who would stand by and allow others to do it? And who lives according to this Christian principle, and who follows this precept:--"Resist not evil; but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also?" In the first place, it is grossly immoral _not_ to resist evil; and in the second, all the world repudiates the doctrine of non-resistance under such circumstances. If any one smites us on the right cheek, do we not quickly turn and hit him on the left? It is a natural instinct, and to act otherwise is cowardice. Do the proceedings of our law courts furnish many instances of the adoption of this recommendation:--"And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have thy cloak also?" One half humanity would very soon be stripped by the other half. "And whoever shall compel thee to go a mile, go with him twain. Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away." No one with any spirit or power of resistance would think of submitting to the _compulsion_ of walking a mile with a person, much less of going two in the company of one whose society might be a nuisance. And if we are to give to every one that asketh, what are our vagrancy laws but a flagrant violation of Christianity? The injunction is here given without the slightest qualification, and is an encouragement to mendicancy the world over.

There are one or two precepts specially binding on Christians of the present day! This, for instance, is very much obeyed:--"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are; for they love to pray standing in the synagogues, _and in the corners of the streets_, that they may be seen of men." This, we know, is universally observed by the followers of Jesus. It is obeyed by the ordained minister in his canonicals; the Primitive in his whitewashed tabernacle; the Methodist in his tub; the Revivalists in their delirious and epileptic gatherings; the Ranters in their camp meetings, and howling peregrinations through our country towns and villages; and above all, those highly gifted young men belonging to the Town Mission, who render the night hideous by their insane ravings at the corners of the streets and in the paths of public places. It is consoling to find the "salt of the earth" such consistent followers of their great Master. It is because _they_ are the salt of the earth, that the world has got into such a precious pickle.

Bishops especially, and pluralists in particular, nurse in their hearts this saying: "Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth." No, poor men, they think too much about their heavenly Father! A few thousand! a year are quite sufficient for them. And Christian bankers and millionaires equally regard the injunction.

This is a Christian country, and we are a Christian people, and our various provident and benefit societies and savings' banks tell how we esteem this command: "Take no thought for the morrow, saying, What shall we eat? or, what shall we drink? or, wherewithal shall we be clothed?" We don't think of the morrow merely, but of years to come, and he who is the most careful in providing for the future, is most honoured amongst men.

Now all these impracticable and extravagant commands are taken from the much-vaunted Sermon on the Mount, and Jesus said, whosoever heard them, and obeyed them, he would liken unto a _wise_ man; but whosoever obeyed them not, he would liken unto a foolish man. It may be an honour to be deemed foolish in such a case; but what shall we say of the professing Christian, who considers himself so much superior to the Freethinker, and who boasts of his principles being the checks which keep him moral, and says that if it had not been for his blessed Saviour the world would have been lost? Why, out of the mouth of Jesus himself he is proved to be a hypocrite and foolish, for he does what is solemnly condemned, and leaves undone what is strictly enjoined. "And it came to pass, when Jesus had ended these sayings, the people _were_ astonished at his doctrine." And can any rational inquirer be astonished at that? On reading over these Gospels calmly, and seeing what are attributed to Jesus as his sayings and doings, one is amazed at the credulity of the world in allowing such a stupendous delusion as the Christian religion to be palmed upon it as something divine derived direct from Deity.

After this startling sermon, great multitudes followed Jesus, and wherever he went he healed the sick and performed miracles, but he generally enjoined the convalescents not to mention to any one what he had done. The reason for this is not given, but if one may make a conjecture, it was either because he had really worked no cure at all, or else he was afraid of having too many demands made upon his time. We are told that when "Jesus saw great multitudes about him, he gave commandment to depart unto the other side" of the water, that he might get away from them. Before he departed, a disciple said unto him, "Lord, suffer me first to go and bury my father. But Jesus said unto him, Follow me, and let the dead bury their dead." Is this an instance of meekness?