If Moses had any interest in the mission of Jesus to the Jews, he could have been serviceable to him, as he had been their former leader, and therefore could give him useful hints concerning them. We may suppose he would introduce the subject of Jesus’s mission in the following manner:—“I am Moses, the former leader of the seed of Abram, and hearing that Jehovah had sent his son Jesus to convert them to the true worship of God, and the practice of justice and truth, I come to offer my services, as I am well acquainted with that disobedient race; and, in truth, I had a terrible time of it with them: only think of forty years in the wilderness, always murmuring, and worshipping strange gods, for which, at times, they were cruelly punished; Jehovah destroyed thousands of them for resisting my authority; but they were incurable. He would have, at one time, so great was his wrath, destroyed them all; but I told him what the Egyptians and the heathen in general would say, and he altered his mind, and killed off the worst of them: for, getting a little out of temper with them at one time, in consequence of their murmurings, Jehovah became angry with me, and I was prevented from enjoying full possession of the promised land. It always surprised me how it came about that Jehovah should select them from the rest of the human race, for in my lifetime nothing was ever made of them; they even disgraced the God who had made them his choice. I left them in thy hands of Joshua, as the most proper person to rule over them; but how he got along with them, I have not heard.” “Your offer, Moses, is duly appreciated; but the Jews, as a nation, are now a different people from what they were when you had to manage them. My course will be different altogether from what you pursued. Farewell! Moses and Elijah.” We may suppose that Jesus would say to Peter, “As for your purposing to erect three tabernacles in this place, one for myself, one for Moses, and another for Elijah, it is proof that you are entirely ignorant of my future dealings with my own nation; for, in a few months, such things will transpire, that even you, Peter, all zealous as you are, will swear off and deny any knowledge of me.”

Now, reader, nothing can be more extravagant than to suppose that such conversation took place between Jesus, Moses, and Elijah. But if those two old prophets did really descend, and converse with Jesus, then what I have supposed is no more extravagant than that two prophets, who had not been on earth for a thousand years, should pay a visit to Jesus, and hold converse with him. These miracles never occurred, and the world has been imposed upon and plundered by men, who, by telling such tales, have lived in idleness; and their quarrels about what Jesus said or somebody said, or did, have in every age been the cause of evils of every kind, and of rendering human beings ignorant and wretched.

Christians, in speaking of the divine mission of Jesus, urge is miracles as proofs that he came from God with full authority to give laws to, and finally to judge both quick and dead; but the proof is wanting that he ever performed one miracle. All the evidence we derive from the miracles said to have been performed is not, that we know they were wrought by Jesus, but that it is by somebody recorded that he did the mighty works attributed to him, and which to us is no evidence at all. To believe, then, what is written, without knowing by whom, or at what time and place it was written, is to believe without evidence, which would be a voluntary degradation of the noble faculties which have been conferred upon man.

[CHAPTER III.]

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.