If so, the second Epistle of Peter is clearly spurious .-- Whether this was certain, I could not make up my mind: but it was manifest that where such doubts may be honestly entertained, no basis exists to found a belief of a great and significant miracle.
On the other hand, both the Transfiguration itself, and the fiery destruction of Heaven and Earth prophesied in the third chapter of this epistle, are open to objections so serious, as mythical imaginations, that the name of Peter will hardly guarantee them to those with whom the general evidence for the miracles in the gospels has thoroughly broken down.
On the whole, one thing only was clear concerning Peter's faith;--that he, like Paul, was satisfied with a kind of evidence for the resurrection of Jesus which fell exceedingly short of the demands of modern logic: and that it is absurd in us to believe, barely _because_ they believed.
[Footnote 1: Matt.xii.39, xvi.

4.] [Footnote 2: John xx.

29.] [Footnote 3: John xiv, 11.

In x.

37, 38, the same idea seems to be intended.