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. Rénan. 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