As to his conduct about the matter of Elias, it was as follows.  It is said, in the 17th chapter of Matthew, that at his transfiguration, as it is called, Moses, and Elias appeared to his disciples on the mount, talking with Jesus.  Upon coming down from the mount, the disciples asked Jesus, “how say the scribes that Elias must come first, (that is, before the Messiah.) Jesus answered, Elias truly cometh first, and restoreth all things; but I say unto you, that Elias has come already and they have done unto him what they would;” meaning John the Baptist, who was beheaded by Herod. (See the parallel place in Mark.) And he says concerning John, (Mat. vi. 14,) “And if ye will receive it, this is Elias which was for to come.”

Now certainly no one will pretend that John was the Elias prophecied of by Malachi, as to come before “the great, and terrible day of the Lord,” which has not yet taken place.  And besides, that he was not Elias is testified of, and confirmed by, John himself, who in the gospel of John, chapter 1, to the question of the Scribes, asking him, “if he was Elias?” answers “I am not.”  It is pretty clear that Jesus was embarrassed by the question of the Apostles, “how say the Scribes, that Elias must come first?” for his answer is confused; for he allows the truth of the observation of the Scribes, and then refers them to John, and insinuates that he was “the Elias to come.”  However, it must be acknowledged, that he does it with an air of hesitation, “If you will receive it,” &c.

But are these all the accusations you have to bring against him? may be said by some of my readers.  Do you account as nothing, his claiming to forgive sins? his speeches wherein ho claims to be considered as an object of religious homage, if not to be God himself?  Do you consider these impieties as nothing?  I answer by asking—­the following questions:  What would you think of a man who, in our times, should set up those extraordinary claims? and who should assert, that “eating his flesh, and drinking his blood” were necessary to secure eternal life?  Who should say, that “he and God were one?” and should affirm (as Jesus does in the last chapters of John) that “God was inside of him, and dwelt in him; and that “he who had seen him, had seen God?” What should we think of this?  Should we consider such a man an object of wrath, or of pity?  Should we not directly, and without hesitation, attribute such extravagancies to hallucination of mind?  Yes, certainly! and therefore the Jews were to blame for crucifying Jesus.  If Christians had put to death every unfortunate, who after being frenzied by religious fasting and contemplation, became wild enough to assert, that he was Christ, or God the Father, or the Virgin Mary, or even the Holy Trinity, they would have been guilty of more than fifty murders; for I have read of at least as many instances of this nature; and believe that more than two hundred such might be reckoned up from the hospital records of Europe alone.