PETER, of all the twelve apostles, seems to have been more in the
confidence of Jesus than the rest; since when he and Peter were alone,
his inquiry of Peter was as to what the people thought of him. For he
said to Peter, "_Whom do the people say that I, the son of man, am-?_"
Peter answered him, that different opinions were abroad concerning him.
Some said one thing, and some another; but the general opinion was, that
one of the old prophets had returned. Jesus then turned to Peter and
asked him as to his own conviction, and received for answer, "_Thou art
the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto
him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona, for flesh and blood hath not
revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven._" In
consequence of this declaration of Peter, Jesus then grants him
superhuman power. To Peter, he says--"_Upon this rock will I build my
church. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and
whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven; and
whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven. Then
charged he his disciples, that they should tell no man that he was Jesus
the Christ._" (Matthew xvi., 18, 19.. 20.)
From the subsequent conduct of Peter, it is not possible for him to have
witnessed the astonishing miracles said to have been performed in his
presence. Peter was present when Moses and Elijah conversed with Jesus;
and while Peter was speaking to his Divine Master, "_Behold, a bright
cloud overshadowed them, and, behold, a voice out of the cloud, which
said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him._"
Now, if there were such a demonstration as this, (and many such proofs
Peter had been favored with,) how is it possible for us to account for
Peter's denying that he even knew Jesus at all? This ought to be
sufficient for us to conclude that the accounts of those wonders
performed in the lifetime of Jesus, are false statements, written after
the reputed resurrection of Jesus, and the death of Peter, and that
neither of them saw nor believed any thing of the kind whatever.
In the present chapter, I shall notice the mode adopted by Jesus to
prove his Messiahship. In this investigation, we shall discover a want
of openness and plain-dealing as it relates to the communication of his
objects as the expected _hope and deliverer of Israel._ The reader must
ever keep in mind, that the object of Christ's coming, so far as the
Jews were interested, was, first, to prove, beyond the shadow of a
doubt, that the true and only Messiah had arrived among them. Until this
was settled, nothing which Jesus said or taught would be of any avail,
because, unless this point was established, none would admit his
authority to enforce any thing that appeared in opposition to Jewish
theology, or to the ceremonies of the laws of Moses, the observance of
which, the Jews could not be prevailed upon to neglect; for it clearly
appears that the Jewish priests and rulers never showed any disposition
to resist, or in any way to treat with disrespect, the _holy one of
Israel_. The Jews, then, were in a favorable state of mind to receive
him whom they had so long and so earnestly expected and desired. But, as
that nation had before been deceived, a double degree of caution became
necessary to detect deception and expose imposture; for, until Jesus had
proved, beyond the possibility of a doubt, that he had the sanction of
Heaven for all which he taught, the Jews could place no reliance on his
pretensions.
It will now be proper to notice the introduction of the mission of Jesus
to the Jews. If he came by the divine command of the Governor of the
Universe, we ought to expect that his mission would be clearly made
known to all those who were interested. Nothing of such vast importance
must be guess-work; and the first and most important of all inquiries
would be, who are you, and by whom are you sent? for, until these
inquiries were 'finally settled, his sayings could not have their full
effect; since, as it has before been remarked, the moral state of the
Jews was not the point at issue, until his mission was made known, and
each party came to a right understanding. When, therefore, the Jews
understood who Jesus was, and the high authority under which he taught,
to correct their moral defects would make a part of his teaching, and
their minds would have been free from the obstacles that stood in the
way of attending to his precepts.
The erratic method resorted to by Jesus, in his converse with his
nation, as recorded in the history of his life, seems very singular. So
high a personage as the _only Son of God_ to be sent on a mission of
peace and reconciliation to his chosen people, it certainly must be
expected that his steps would have been directed to the most learned men
of his nation, and that all offensive language would have been withheld,
even admitting that the Jews were immoral to a very great degree. But
the acquaintances of Jesus were the most ignorant and unlearned of the
Jews, and were, from the nature of their employment, incapable of
judging correctly of those signs and wonders which Jesus produced as
proofs of his divine authority. The learned priests and scribes were the
proper persons to have resorted to, as being alone competent to examine
and explain all those predictions which related to Christ's coming, as
foretold by the prophets of the Old Testament. What would be thought of
a Minister Extraordinary, who, being sent from Washington to London on
business of the first importance, should he, instead of repairing to
London, make known his mission, by hints and indirect sayings, to some
untaught fishermen, and, at the same time, abuse, and also make use of
the most threatening expressions towards the heads of the government to
whom he was sent? Could it be expected that such conduct would be
productive of any thing but failure? This is exactly similar to the
conduct pursued by Jesus in his intercourse with the Jewish rulers. Can
we, for a moment, admit that Infinite Wisdom could have sent such an
ambassador on the all-important subject of the salvation of the human
race? Jesus repeatedly reproaches the Jews in general, and his disciples
in particular, for their want of faith in his divine authority: at the
same time, he makes use of sayings that it was impossible for them to
understand.
Jesus often referred to his treatment and death. How was it possible for
them to understand this prediction? It never could have entered the
minds of the descendants of Abram, Isaac, and Jacob, that the true
Messiah must suffer death before he could begin to restore the Jews to
their former greatness. Instead of calling together the most talented
and the most influential of the Jewish nation, and openly making known
to them the object of his delegation, he associated with that portion of
society whose knowledge of Jewish history was very limited; and, as if
he dreaded publicity, often charged them to "tell no man that he was the
Christ"--the very opposite course to what appears to be consistent with
the important object of his coming. Taking the history of Christ's life,
and also, more particularly, that of his teaching, he seems to have no
settled plan whatever. At times, he seems to be in the strictest sense a
Jew, not only as it regards his nation, but, also, most strictly
following the law of Moses, submitting even to all its ceremonies. At
other times, he opposes his sayings to those of the law of Moses, and
openly forgives sins, without having any recourse to the offering of
sacrifice according to the Mosaic law. Sometimes, he speaks of being not
only "_Lord of all,_" but that they would "_see him coming down in the
clouds, in power and glory, to judge both quick and dead_"; and then,
again, speaking of his poverty, as "not having where to lay his head."
His living a life of wandering and mendicity, at times making a great
excitement in one place, and suddenly departing to another,--these
strange movements (admitting they occurred) entirely took off the
attention of the heads of the Jewish people, and caused him to be
considered as any thing but the promised _restorer of Israel_. In
addition to his unsettled state, his repeated attacks on the rulers,
holding them up to the scorn and contempt of the people, had generated
such feelings in the minds of the priests and scribes, that they
considered him as a pretender to the Messiahship. Besides the hostility
he showed to rich men, in speaking of the almost impossibility of their
entering that kingdom which was included in all his teachings, namely,
"_The kingdom of heaven is at hand,_" when a rich man asked him "what he
was to do to inherit eternal life?" the answer of Jesus to him was, in
addition to what the rich man had done, "Go and sell all, and give to
the poor, and follow me." We are told that the rich man refused to do
that, and Jesus then said of the rich, "how difficult it was for a rich
man to enter the kingdom of heaven." This is the wild and levelling
doctrine taught by modern prophets. Nothing can be more unreasonable and
unjust. If such doctrines as these had, in in the time of Jesus, been
practised, he would have drawn a host of idlers after him. Besides, to
teach such an unqualified practice as the one proposed to the rich man,
must, at that time, have convinced every well-informed man how very
unfit Jesus was to regulate society. I well know that Christians will
consider this mode of examination of the sayings and doings of Jesus, as
wicked and horrible; as opposing the weak judgment of man to the
infinite wisdom of God. In reply to this, I would say, it is by
investigating the teachings of Jesus as recorded in the New Testament,
that we can perceive its defects, and thereby fully discover that the
wise Ruler and Governor of all never sanctioned doctrines such as those
said to have proceeded from Jesus.
In taking a candid survey of the teaching, manner, and life of Jesus as
it is written in the evangelists, we find that both he and his apostles
lived a wandering life. How they raised funds, we know not, but it seems
that Judas Iscariot was treasurer; and that he loved money better than
he did his master, his betraying him to the rulers for thirty pieces of
silver, fully proved. His having no fixed home, and following no regular
and permanent employment, will throw some light on the system of morals
which Jesus inculcated. Although some of his moral precepts were
undoubtedly good, and calculated to make those happy who reduced them to
practice, still others there were, which, if practised, would create
disorder---such as that which repudiates the taking any thought for the
morrow. There is a vast difference in taking prudential thought for the
morrow, and always looking at the gloomy side of what may possibly
happen. Jesus makes no distinction; but in his explanation he leaves the
subject more obscure than if he had not left any comment at all. Jesus
says, "_Consider the lilies of the field; they toil not, neither do they
spin, yet Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these."
And again, "Take no thought for the morrow, what ye shall eat or what ye
shall drink, nor wherewithal ye shall be clothed, for your heavenly
father knoweth ye have need of all these. But seek ye first the kingdom
of heaven, and its righteousness, and all these things shall be added
unto you." Again, "If a man sue you at law and take your coat, let him
have your cloak also:_" and many more precepts of the same nature, which
are impracticable, and which must be left to prudence and common sense
to carry into practice.
But this very imperfect code of morals could be practised better by
Jesus and his followers, considering their mode of life, than by others
who had fixed homes. How Jesus and his apostles lived, as to their means
to buy food or clothing, is unknown,--unless they lived the lives of
mendicants, or, to speak more plainly, by what they could pick up, which
is implied in the saying of Christ: "for," says he, "_foxes have holes,
and the birds of the air have nests, but the son of man has not where to
lay his head,_" To persons so situated, the taking thought for the
morrow would be but of little use; but by those persons who had homes,
and who, by labor, had to provide for a family, such morality could not
be practised. We will give but one instance.
Suppose a person had business from home for some weeks, and had given
his wife orders to provide his linen, with other things, for his
journey; and when the time arrived for him to leave home, his wife had,
agreeable to the precepts of Jesus, taken no thought for the
morrow,--would such an excuse satisfy the husband? No. Prudent
forethought is connected with every thing moral; and without it, society
would be entirely broken up. But to persons living a wandering life, and
not knowing from one day to another how they should fare; and rising in
the morning ignorant how it might turn out as to where they could lie
down at night--to such, the sayings of Jesus would better apply. But to
those who were settled and had fixed homes, the _taking no thought for
the morrow_ would break up every family who should attempt it. Had we
been of the Jewish nation, and lived in the time of Jesus, in all
probability we should have considered the conduct of Christ very
strange. Sometimes, he upbraided the Jews for their unbelief; and at
others, charged his own apostles to keep as a secret that he was the
Christ.
The only way to understand this strange history of the Messiah is, to
reject the account of his preaching altogether; and to consider the
whole of his ministry as being written by unknown persons from hearsay
only. And it is nearly proof positive that no such person as Jesus
existed, who said and did those things ascribed to him; for it is
utterly impossible by his history, admitting it to be correct, to
gather, from the evangelists' account of it, for what he came, and also
what end was answered to the Jews. They we're left in a worse state than
if Jesus had not been among them: for, as the Jews mistook the object of
his mission in consequence of the obscurity of his preaching, so the
different sects, to this day, have not decided what is Christianity.
The history of the life and preaching of Jesus, is such a confusion of
opposite doctrines, that, after eighteen hundred years' investigation,
by men the most learned; and after thousands and tens of thousands of
volumes have been written, and commentators have endeavored to settle
the different and conflicting accounts of what he taught, it still
remains unsettled whether Christ is part God and part man, or whether he
had a natural father, and is to be considered as nothing but a man, but
of superior holiness of life. It is not settled whether Christ died for
all, or only a part of the human race. Again, it is not yet agreed on by
Christian sects whether baptism should be extended to infants, or be
administered exclusively to adults. These, and many more subjects, are
by different parties viewed differently; at the same time all and each
appeal to the New Testament in support of their respective creeds.
I will now appeal to the reader whether a God of infinite wisdom and
power would be the author of a religion which could give rise to so many
contradictory doctrines? which in the life-time of the propagator was
not understood? and for eighteen hundred years has been a fruitful field
of discord, war, and murder, instead of producing "peace on earth and
good-will towards men?" It has never failed to be a source of war,
hatred, malice, and ill-will towards men; and nothing but the extension
of Infidel Principles can secure the human race against a recurrence of
those dreadful scenes, which, for ages, converted this otherwise happy
world into a slaughter house of human victims. To my brother Infidels,
then, I say, "Ye are the salt of the earth." If you cease from your
noble exertions, the human race may again exhibit one mass of
theological putrefaction. If Infinite wisdom and power had ever
undertaken to give a revelation to man, we should not have witnessed any
blunders or mistakes. A revelation coming from such a being, would have
been directed to some beneficial end, and, like the eternal laws of the
universe, the means made use of would not have failed to bring about the
glorious end intended. But the Bible, including the Old and New
Testaments, is not only unworthy of its pretended high authority; but it
portrays the all-wise Governor and Director of all worlds as a being
changeable, cruel, and unjust.
In addition to the obscure manner resorted to by Jesus in his speeches,
he seldom conversed with any of his countrymen of any distinction. It
was always the lower ranks of society to whom he directed his sayings;
so that, to the most learned and opulent of the Jews, he was little
known; for when the higher powers were about to take him into custody,
to them he was unknown. It then became expedient to offer a reward to
some one to point him out to the officers appointed to arrest him. Judas
Iscariot was the man who seemed willing as well as competent, to conduct
this ungrateful business. Jesus had often said that _one of his apostles
would betray him_. There is something very strange in the saying of
Jesus, that _he had chosen twelve apostles and one would betray him_. If
Jesus came to the Jews as the promised and expected Messiah, the very
idea of betraying him implies that he did not intend that the Jews
should ever know him as _the sent of God_. At all events, Jesus, at the
time Judas made him personally known to the chief priest and rulers,
complained of the deceitfulness of Judas, which is full proof that he
did not wish at that time to be put on his trial.
But in what did this betraying consist? The Jewish rulers wished to have
the man pointed out to them who had made so much noise and stir among
the lower order of the people. Judas took the reward, and if Jesus were
really sent by the Lord of all to his nation, this betraying was only
giving him an opportunity of openly avowing his Messiahship. Here then
was the time for him to show such signs and wonders as to prevent any
doubts as to who he was, and of the important object of his coming; for
if _he came into the world to die for the sins of mankind_, Judas then
was of vast importance in bringing about that which was before ordained
by the _determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God_. But if he (Jesus)
did not intend to suffer death, then, and only then, had he cause to
complain of Judas as a traitor. Jesus, in speaking of Judas, says, "_it
had been good for that man if he had never been born:_" but if the
salvation of mankind depended on the death of Christ, a more important
person than Judas was never born of woman. Whether such a man as Jesus
ever lived or not, it is impossible to determine; but admitting that
such a man as he is said to have been, did exist, it does appear that
his life was a scene of incongruities bordering on insanity. And the
whole of his public ministry was so erratic, that it seems as if he had
no specific object in view.