INSPIRED book! However, while Jesus was praying, we are told that the fashion of his countenance was altered, and shone, Matthew says, like the sun; his raiment also became white as the light: "and, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias." Luke further informs us that the purport of this visit was to speak of his decease, the which he should accomplish at Jerusalem; a point upon which the other evangelists appear to be entirely ignorant, not having made the slightest allusion to it. "But Peter, and they that were with him, were heavy with sleep, and when they awoke, they saw his glory, and the two men that were with him."

Here we are told, that both James and John were with Peter, and saw these two men, and this strange phenomena; yet neither of them, in their writings, take the least notice of it. Perhaps you will say, that one historian is quite sufficient to relate a fact; then why should it be related by three, especially those three out of the four, in particular, who were not eye-witnesses of it, as was John? Other matters of much less importance, we find they all notice; such as the inscription upon the cross of Jesus; yet in this simple instance, they all differ one from the other, concerning the title. 6 However, we will admit that a circumstance is entitled to more credit by being related by those who did not see it, than by those who were eye-witnesses thereof; yet, how should Peter himself know what was their mission or confabulation, if he and they that were with him were heavy with sleep? Supposing that Jesus might have acquainted them with it, after they awoke, still, I think, it would have been more to his honour and credit, besides shewing more kindness to his disciples, if he had awakened them, as soon as the two illustrious personages made their appearance. He surely did not intend the meeting to be private, or he would never have taken Peter, James, and John with him up into the mount. Besides, the conversation of three such eminent characters as Jesus, Moses, and Elias, must have been such as would have ministered grace unto the hearers. It cannot be supposed that these two

messengers would be sent from their gay and heavenly city merely to inform Jesus of what he already knew, namely, his decease. Perhaps they spoke unspeakable words, as Paul says, that were not lawful for a man to hear or utter? If so, the Jews were justified, in suspecting Jesus of treasonable designs, as this private manner of receiving and holding consultations with the ambassadors of another world, in an unknown tongue, must have had a very suspicious look.

It may

be said that these two men were sent to encourage and strengthen Jesus, in order that he might meet his fate with becoming fortitude and resignation, because it is written, that "he made many prayers and supplications, with strong crying and tears, unto him that was able to save him from death;" (Whom could this mean, that is able to save the "Very God" from death?) and that "he was heard in that he feared." Then why should they seek such a solitary and obscure place for that purpose? Would it not have been far better, if they had made their appearance while he was surrounded by the Sadducees, who believed in neither angel, spirit, or resurrection? This would have convinced those unbelieving wretches, and so probably have saved them from damnation; as it is written that he that believeth not shall be damned. But it appears that they kept out of sight, purposely to keep them in ignorance and unbelief. I am fully persuaded that if those two men (Moses and Elias) had made their appearance when Jesus was carrying his cross, and assisted him with his burden, there would not have been an unbelieving Jew in existence, from that day to this. Moreover, it would have had a greater tendency to fill the earth with those glad tidings, which are so much and so highly spoken of, than all the teaching and preaching of Jesus, or any of his followers. It would have been acknowledged by all the historians of that age, and transmitted down to us with unquestionable authority.

Another thing which much surprises me, is, how Peter should know even before Jesus spake to him, that those two men were Moses and Elias? He had never seen them before; yet ere he was properly awake, he

could call them by their names! And why did they disappear as soon as Peter and the rest awoke? This behaviour was, surely, very unpolite. But, perhaps, you will say, that they were naked; consequently they were ashamed of being seen; for if they had any clothes, it is most likely, some one would give us a description of them, as well as of the garments of Jesus.

It is further stated, that after they had disappeared, a cloud covered them: whence proceeded a voice saying, "this is my beloved son, hear him." If the hill was so high as it is described, it certainly could not have been an uncommon thing for a cloud to overspread it. But, the voice; aye, whose voice was that? I have already noticed how artful some ventriloquists are in deceiving a byestander; and no doubt but there were men in those days, who possessed the same natural powers, as those in our own. If so, why may we not give the same

honour to Jesus as to another? But what did this voice say? Why-"Hear him!" Hear what? Jesus was not saying anything extraordinary; he only told them that they should tell no man of those things which they had seen. Surely, to hear this, did not require the aid of a supernatural injunction! If you conceive that the voice proceeded from a God, in order that Peter and the rest might be convinced, it must have had some good effect; as a celebrated writer once said, that IF GOD SPOKE, THE UNIVERSE WOULD BE CONVINCED. But neither Peter nor those that were with him seem to have paid any regard to this voice, or they would never have deserted and denied him, and afterwards treat the account of his resurrection as an "idle tale!"9

But, why should this change in his countenance be called a transfiguration? By looking into my dictionary, I find that the word transfiguration signifies a change of form or figure. We are not told that the form or figure of Jesus was ever changed. If he had been transformed into the shape of a baboon, a goat, a calf, or the likeness of any thing different from the human form, we may be assured they would not have failed to have made mention of it. Instead of which, they merely say that his face shone! I have seen your

face shine, even in a pulpit, when the sun shone upon it; yet I never considered that you were transfigured; and no doubt, if you had had a white surplice on, or some light coloured robe, instead of a black one, you also would have appeared equally transfigured!

This story of the transfiguration, as it is called, instead of being the brightest, as the priests would fain make us believe, appears to me, to be one of the darkest and blindest tales of the whole book. I can make neither head nor tail of any part of it. For what purpose was he so transfigured? What good effect had it, even upon those who were eye-witnesses to such an event? Peter afterwards denied him altogether! Where was the necessity of sending those two men out of their comfortable place, (for I suppose that you imagine they came all the way from heaven,) merely to inform Jesus of what he already knew? A most important message truly! But the story altogether is only on a par with the rest of the blundering_nonsense which designing men or ignorant dreamers have ever been noted for foisting upon the world.

There are not wanting those who contend that the appearance of these two men from heaven proves not only the existence of another world beyond the skies, but also the existence and immortality of the soul; and in order to frighten mankind into a belief of their abstruse doctrines, they have contrived to persuade almost every man that his soul will be punished in hell, or rewarded in heaven, according to the deeds done in the body and the tenacity wherewith he clings to the orthodox creeds of the day.

In addition, also, to this testimony of holy writ, there is no sophistry which the priests have left unused to maintain their assumption. When their stock of argument, such as it is, has been exhausted, the enquirer has generally been put off with the following supposition that if God, who made the world, and infused life into every animate being, thinks proper, he can continue that existence after we have departed from this state of being. Upon this point I offer you a little

:

comment.

Y

If we admit that an almighty and intelligent being fashions and frames our several bodies, and that in him we live, and move, and have our being, we certainly must acknowledge, that he may possess equal power, to re-animate these same bodies, if he thinks proper, after they have become defunct; just as easily as a man can renew the flame of a candle, immediately after the light has been blown out; provided the body remains entire, and free from disorganization. Or he might, if he thought proper, change this vile body, and mould and fashion it to whatever shape his fancy directed. But, if we find, by experimental knowledge, that this body, in process of time, constitutes many other human bodies, we leave him no power, however omnipotent he may be, of raising two or more bodies out of the materials with which one is formed. To prove this, let us consider the following observations, drawn from daily experience.

Other

When a body is bereft of life, some parts of it engender worms. These worms become food for fish and fowl; thereby forming a part of their bodies. parts of this body evaporate into the atmospheric air, by which all animals exist; and are afterwards intermingled with the waters of the great deep; which, also, is necessary to the production and support of all animals. While this transmigration is going forward, other parts of this body, the nature of which will not admit of animal production or evaporation, crumble to atoms; which, being converted to dust, produce that which is called the vegetable creation; which, likewise, is essential to the maintenance and conservation of the animal world.

If this peregrination of the human body terminated here, we might suppose, that if an almighty and ingenious being did exist, he might be able to resolve those animals and the elements, whence he might replace every individual atom to its primitive state, and fashion them again to whatever shape he pleased.14 Though, for my part, I should think that it would scarcely be worth his labour, to take so much trouble to collect the broken, battered, and scattered particles, out of the elements