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.