2. CHARACTER AND ERRONEOUS DOCTRINES OF PETER.
In his practical life St. Peter was a singular and angular being. He presents us with the opposite extremes of virtue and vice. He appears to have been about as distinguished for wickedness as for piety. He told the same falsehood repeatedly, and backed it up with an oath (Matt, xxvi.): hence lying, cursing, and swearing are laid to his charge. And then, we are told, he was put in possession of the keys of the kingdom of heaven (Matt. xvi. 19). How a man, guilty of such moral derelictions, could have had a higher honor bestowed upon him than was ever bestowed upon any other human being, or how he could have been considered a safe custodian for such an important charge, it is difficult to see; and then it looks too much like a bribe for immoral conduct. It weakens the incentives to a virtuous life to reward the criminal, and shows imperfection in the moral system which he was allowed to represent. As for his doctrines, they are characterized by the same moral and scientific errors and defects as those of St. Paul, and embrace some of the same doctrines of heathen mythology.
1. He speaks of the earth as "standing out of the water and in the water" (2 Pet. iii. 5). Here is the old Hindoo tradition which taught that the earth floated on a sea of water, traces of which are also found in Genesis.
2. He tells us, also, that the earth has been once destroyed by water, and in the day of judgment will be destroyed by fire (2 Pet. iii. 6, 7). It has been from time immemorial a very prevalent tradition amongst the Oriental nations that the world had been, and would be again, alternately destroyed by water and fire. Peter and Josephus also seem to indorse this tradition.
3. Peter also indorses and teaches the absurd and unphilosophical doctrine of fore-ordination (1 Pet. i. 20).
4. He also enjoins "servants to be in subjection to their masters," not only the good, but the froward (1 Pet. ii. 18). This is absolute tyranny. There is to be no resistance to the bloody lash. The motto of Patrick Henry is much better,—"Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God."
5. Wives are to be in subjection to their husbands (1 Pet. iii. 1), even as Sarah obeyed Abraham (verse 6). There is nothing said about husbands obeying wives, probably because, as he says, woman is the weaker vessel (1 Pet. iii. 7). Wonderful logic! A sage conclusion for a Christian moralist. He thus places Christian morality below that of the ancient Druids, who placed women on a level with men in both Church and State.
6. Peter tells us, "Christ bore our sins in his own body on the tree" (1 Pet. ii. 24). This is the old Jewish idea of carrying away sins by scapegoats, and the Oriental heathen doctrine of putting innocent Gods to death as a punishment for the sins of the people,—a doctrine which posterity will condemn as barbarous. (See "The Sixteen Crucified Saviors," Chapter xxi.)
7. Peter says a "dumb ass spoke with man's voice" (2 Pet. ii. 16). He thus indorses the story of Balaam's ass becoming endowed with human speech.
8. Peter, like Paul and Christ, indorses the absurd story of Noah and the flood (1 Pet. iii. 20).
9. But space will not permit us to notice all the erroneous doctrines set forth by Peter. He teaches the doctrine of a general judgment (2 Pet. ii. 9), the doctrine of election and reprobation (2 Pet. i. 10), the doctrine of a general conflagration of all things terrestrial (2 Pet. iii. 12).
10. But the most remarkable incident in the life of Peter is his connection with the fate of Ananias and Sapphira. We find many logical absurdities and moral errors in this story recorded in Acts v. 1. It is very strange that Peter, who denied his Lord and master three times, and hence was repeatedly guilty of telling positive falsehoods, should be the chosen instrument under Christ's religion to pronounce sentence of death upon Ananias and Sapphira for the same sin. 2. Why should Ananias and Sapphira be punished with death for a crime that Peter, Abraham, and Isaac were all guilty of several times? 3. Is it not strange that Jehovah should be considered as being strongly opposed to lying, if he himself, as stated in 1 Kings xxii., converted four hundred of his prophets into liars, and then indorsed the lying Peter? 4. Is not the crime of Ananias and Sapphira—that of attempting to withhold a little money from the priests by lying—of less magnitude than that of ruining a whole nation by robbery, as we are told God's holy people did? They robbed and "spoiled the Egyptians" (Exod. xii. 36). 5. Is it not probable they needed it more than the priests did? The moral law teaches that it is necessity, and not might, that makes right. 6. Does it not look rather unreasonable that Sapphira should repeat the same falsehood for which her husband had just been struck dead, as it must have been known to her? Who can believe it? 7. And can we suppose that God would be so partial as to kill a man and woman for the first offense of lying, and let Abraham, Isaac, and Peter, and others, escape after committing the sin several times! These considerations seriously damage the credibility of the story.