Talent, Oregon,
    February 1st, 1894.

    Prophecy, in the strictest sense of the term, is the accurate and truthful prediction of some future event under conditions which preclude the possibility of its being foreknown by the unaided finite mind.
    This condition must always exist to render prophecy of any value.
    To predict what we desire to come to pass, as we all so often do, is enthusiastic guesswork, based upon the fact that oftentimes the "wish is father to the thought."
    In many instances prophecy springs from human sagacity and is based upon the signs of the times--upon the fact that frequently "coming events cast their shadows before."
    Fourth of July orators annually predict the ever-continuing greatness and stability of this nation.
    They wish it to be so; the people wish it to be so; the signs of the times are favorable; the prediction accords with the popular desire, and all hands are pleased and the orator applauded. The writer, in a Fourth of July address on one occasion, predicted in grand sophomorical style that France would be a republic in less than five years. That was shortly before the Franco-Prussian War of 1870. My prediction proved correct, yet it is hardly likely that my Christian friends would in consequence credit me with prophetical powers.
    On the same occasion I predicted that England would follow closely upon France. Now I begin to be anxious about this last prophecy.
    Many predicted our late war. John C. Calhoun foretold, approximately, when and where it would commence.
    Some are very sagacious as weather prophets. Wiggins hit it so often that his reputation became worldwide, but unfortunately for his fame his greatest weather prediction proved a failure and Wiggins stepped down and out. During the past summer the famous scientific weather prophet, Professor Falb, launched forth a few predictions about earthquakes, storms etc., that were truly frightful to contemplate; but his great tidal wave came not, and New York City and San Francisco still stand. His prophecies were Falb-ulous indeed.
    Political predictions are too numerous to mention--the victorious party promising the grandest prosperity and the wiseacres of the defeated party holding up a gloomy picture of the future. As before mentioned, many predictions are made when the signs of the times indicate to sagacious minds some coming event, but more frequently on the hit-or-miss style--the misses and hits standing to each other in the relation of perhaps a million to one. The Irishman's gunning experience offers an illustration. Let him tell his own story:
    "I shot a dook three toimes; the furst toime I hit 'im I missed 'im; the next toime I hit 'im I missed roite where I hit 'im before, and the third toime I hit 'im I missed 'im altogether."
    In Burns' poem, "The Brigs of Ayr," the old bridge, being jealous of the new, predicts that it will stand long after the new shall have become a "shapeless mass." A few years after this was written, the new bridge fell into the river, a "shapeless mass" indeed. So the old bridge's prophecy:
    "I'll be a brig when ye're a shapeless mass" was fulfilled to the letter.
    In this case either Burns or the old bridge was a true prophet.
    Mother Shipton's remarkable prophecy is said to have been written in the 17th century, certainly before the discovery of the telegraph, before the steam engine, before iron ships etc., but it contains some wonderful hits. It is as follows:
    The last part of this prophecy seems to have been a failure, notwithstanding the Second Advent belief that it would come true. Of late a few scientists have entertained the old astrological idea that there are regular, ever-occurring periods in the careers of individuals and nations and when the "law of periodicity" is once known, predictions of events in the remote future would be easy. But even should this be true, which is extremely doubtful, and this "law" fully known, predictions based upon it would not be predictions at all, i.e., in the general acceptance of the term, any more than foretelling an eclipse would be considered a prediction.
    All nations have had prophets or persons who pretended to be endowed with superhuman powers, and to whom the gods made communications. The Jews were no exception. The main object of the Jewish, or Old Testament, prophecies was to prove the truth of God's revelation--to convince men of his wisdom and power; therefore they should have been so perfect and clear in the prediction and exact in the fulfillment as to forestall even the possibility of doubt. A failure in the least particular should stamp the whole as ungenuine.
    The plea of mistranslation etc., to account for errors in prophecy or any other error in a "divine" book is too unreasonable to be entertained for a moment. A divinely inspired prophet would be accurate, and a divine book could not err. Let us examine these prophecies in the light of free reason and ascertain, if possible, if they fulfill the necessary conditions. If they do, it were folly not to accept them; but if not--if we find ample evidence that they are in most instances faulty, in some cases mere guesswork and in others predicting events either already taken place or not beyond the power of human sagacity to foresee--let us treat them as such and no longer appeal to them as conclusive evidence that the scriptures are of divine origin.
    First, however, it will be in order to touch upon the general character of some of the Bible prophets as regards personal appearance, conduct and peculiar mental conditions at times.
    According to Greg "they seem, like the utterers of pagan oracles, to have been worked up before giving forth their prophecies into a species of religious frenzy, produced by various means, especially by music and dancing."
    Philo is quoted (Mackay's Progress of the Intellect) as saying that "the mark of true prophecy is the rapture of its utterance; in order to attain divine wisdom the soul must go out of itself and become drunk with divine frenzy." The same word in Hebrew is said by Newman, in [A History of the] Hebrew Monarchy, to signify "to prophesy" and "to be mad." Indeed, among themselves they were in some instances regarded as madmen, i.e., insane. In 2nd Kings, 9th chapter, is an account of Elisha's sending a prophet to anoint Jehu king over Israel. The ceremony over, and the prophet having fled according to instructions, the king's attendants hasten to their master and anxiously inquire: "Is all well; wherefore came this mad fellow to thee?" From which we may infer that either the conduct of this particular prophet was such as to justify such an inquiry or that prophets in general were looked upon as mentally unsound. In Jeremiah 29:26 is another passage of similar import. Isaiah is considered the greatest of the Old Testament prophets, yet Isaiah "walked naked and barefoot three years for a sign and a wonder"--Isa. 20:3--which may be regarded as evidence that even the greatest prophet of all was mentally unbalanced.
    That music was brought into use as an incentive to prophecy see 1st Sam., 10th chapter, where Saul meets a company of prophets with different kinds of musical instruments, and, mingling with them, the spirit of the Lord came upon him and he prophesied. The people seeing Saul among the musicians, asked, "Is Saul also among the prophets?" the inference being that minstrels going through the country were known as prophets.
    In 1st Sam. 19, there is a lively account of an attempt on the part of Saul, actuated by jealousy, to take David's life; and also, of the very novel plans of Jonathan and Michal to save him. David escapes and places himself under the protection of Samuel in Ramah. Saul discovers David's retreat, however, and sends messengers to take him.
    These messengers meet a company of prophet-minstrels, and the spirit of God comes upon the messengers, and they also prophesy. This being told to Saul, he send other messengers who have the same experience. A third time messengers are sent, with like result. Then Saul goes himself, and gets under "control" and prophesies, and, as told in last verse of the chapter: "He stripped off his clothes also, and prophesied before Samuel in like manner (presumably as the messengers had done) and lay down naked all that day and all that night. Wherefore they say, 'Is Saul among the prophets?'"
    In 2nd Kings 3:15, Elisha seems to depend upon music for his prophetic inspiration, for "the hand of the Lord came upon him" when a minstrel played.
    In like manner modern spiritual "mediums" often resort to soft music as a means to enable them to "get under control," in which condition they are wont to prophesy, preach, pray, exhort, write and perform other strange "tricks before high heaven" which ought to "make the angels weep," and out-rivaling the prophets and miracle workers of old.
    The Bible prophets are believed to have been endowed with superhuman powers.
    Modern so-called spirit mediums bring forward the same claims for themselves. Magicians, mind readers, hypnotists, etc. perform equally wonderful feats. Asked the source of the powers, they will tell you that there is nothing superhuman or supernatural either about them or what they do; that their performances, no matter how strange, even miraculous, they appear to be, are all within the domain of mental and physical phenomena.
    In 1st Sam. 16:14-15, and also in [the] 18th chapter, we read that "An evil spirit from God came upon Saul and he prophesied." Here was a strange inspiration indeed--an evil spirit direct from the great giver of all good!
    For the general moral character of some of the prophets see Hosea 9:7-8, where the Lord threatens the Israelites with terrible punishment because of their impiety and idolatry, and arraigns the prophets as being no better than the rest by declaring that "the prophet is a fool, the spiritual man is made; * * * the prophet is a snare of a fowler in all his ways"--in other words, a tool in the hands of the wicked. Their unreliability is admitted in Lam. 2:14, where Jeremiah, in mourning for his people then in captivity, cries out: "Thy prophets have seen vain and foolish things for thee; and they have not discovered thine iniquity, to turn away thy captivity; but have seen for thee false burdens and causes of banishment." Then could such prophets have been inspired?
    Or were they true prophets and Jeremiah inspired by jealousy?
    In Isaiah 28:7 we learn that "the priest and the prophet have erred through strong drink; they are swallowed up of wine, they are out of the way through strong drink; they err in vision, they stumble in judgment." In Ezekiel 13:2, God commands that prophet to "prophesy against the prophets of Israel * * * that prophesy out of their own hearts." Also in verse 17 [he] commands him to set his "face against the daughters * * * which prophesy out of their own heart, "and to prophesy against them."
    It is evident that false prophets were very plentiful in those days.
    But the following passage may offer an explanation: In Jer. 29:7, we find Jeremiah mournfully exclaiming: "O Lord, thou hast deceived me and I was deceived: thou art stronger than I and hast prevailed: I am in derision daily, every one mocketh me;" and in Ezekiel 14:9, we read: "And if the prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet and I will stretch out my hand upon him, and will destroy him from the midst of my people." In other words God inspires a prophet to predict wrongly and then kills him for it. Yet somehow false prophets continued to flourish. In Jer. 23:11-14, there may be found a wholesale denunciation of prophets (and priests also) as follows: "For both prophet and priest are profane; yea in mine house have I found their wickedness, saith the Lord." "I have seen folly in the prophets of Samaria; they prophesied in Baal and caused my people to err. I have seen also in the prophets of Jerusalem a horrible thing: they commit adultery, and walk in lies: they strengthen also the hands of evil-doers, that none doth return from his wickedness: they are all of them unto me as Sodom, and the inhabitants thereof as Gomorrah." And the punishment, in 15th verse: "Behold, I will feed them with wormwood and gall: for from the prophets of Jerusalem is profaneness gone forth into all the land." In [the] 16th verse the Lord admonishes his people to "Hearken not unto the words of the prophets that prophesy unto you; they make you vain; they speak a vision of their own heart." And no exception seems to be made--not even Jeremiah who is doing the talking, for "all of them are unto me as Sodom" etc.
    Indeed the Lord seems to have had no end of trouble with the prophets.
    He was also terribly angry at times with the people because they could not, or would not, discriminate between the true and the false prophets; yet it would seem to an unbiased reader that a good share of the blame might rightfully rest with the Lord himself. Scores of passages could be adduced in support of this view, and which evidence would not tend to heighten our reverence for the Almighty, considered as a being of infinite mercy, justice and power. I ask a careful reading of the 13th and 14th chapters of Jeremiah, where God tells Jeremiah to say unto the people: "Thus saith the Lord, behold I will fill all the inhabitants of this land, even the kings that sit upon David's throne, and the priests, and the prophets, and all the inhabitants of Jerusalem, with drunkenness. And I will dash them one against another. * * * I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them."
    Then in 13:23, the Lord gravely informs them that they can no more change from their evil ways (that he had for some inscrutable purpose brought upon them), than the "Ethiopian can change his skin, or the leopard his spots." Yet he will visit upon them, old and young, the guilty and the innocent alike, the most direful afflictions. Then follows a famine, and the Lord commands Jeremiah to "Pray not for this people for their good;" that when they fast he "will not hear their cry;" that he will "consume them by sword and famine and pestilence." Then, because the prophets other than Jeremiah had taken a hopeful view of the situation the Lord threatens them with terrible sufferings, together with the people to whom they prophesied.        But the main object of this essay is to treat of the prophecies, rather than the prophets. Were the Scripture prophecies fulfilled? If so, it really matters little whether the utterers of these prophecies were good or bad, sane or insane, wise or otherwise.

    The New Testament writers frequently refer to passages in the Old Testament as prophecies of Christ, or of some events or circumstances connected with the Christian dispensation. Matthew has the most numerous of these references. The first is in relation to the Immaculate Conception and is found in Isa. 7:14-16; but a careful reading of the context will show that it has no more reference to the virgin Mary and Christ than it has to Queen Victoria and Grover Cleveland.
    The adduced prophecy is simply an assurance to Ahaz, king of Judah, that before a certain event should take place, i.e., before a child soon to be born should be old enough to know good from evil, the conspiracy of Syria and Israel against him should be dissolved.
    The next chapter explains it. The language does not profess to be prophetic beyond sixty-five years, and the reference to Assyria is of such a nature as to preclude the possibility that it could refer to any event that took place 700 years after, when the Assyrian had long since passed away.
    Furthermore the prophecy seems to have been a failure all around, for from 2nd Chron. 28:5 we learn that Ahaz got the worst of the war, notwithstanding the Lord had assured Ahaz (7:7) to the contrary
    In Matt. 2:4-6, that writer gives what, we are asked to believe, is a striking instance of fulfillment of prophecy concerning the birthplace of Christ. The prophecy there referred to may be found in Micah 5.
    Read carefully and note the many points of failure; for instance, that Christ shall "deliver us from the Assyrian when he cometh into our land." This will not do, for the Assyrian there referred to had passed from the world's stage hundreds of years before Christ came. Had the prophecy said Romans it would have been just a little more accurate, for it was they that "trod in their palaces" during the whole time that Christ was on earth. And so far from Christ's driving the Romans out, they ordered, or gave permission for, his execution. Then the person spoken of in the prophecy was, or was to be (for the tense is badly mixed) a great military leader.
    Imagine the "humble Nazarene," decked out with all the glittering trappings of a mighty general, and riding furiously at the head of a vast army!
    Matthew's next is in reference to Christ's being taken down into Egypt, and probably refers to Hosea 11:1; but the second verse should be read in connection with the first.
    They are as follows:
    "When Israel was a child, then I loved him and called my son out of Egypt. As they called him, so they went from them; they sacrificed unto Baalim, and burned incense to graven images."
    Could that refer to Christ? Did Joseph and Mary and Christ become idolaters? The simple truth seems to be that the writer of Matthew has the child taken to Egypt that this prophecy "might be fulfilled," which is no prophecy at all, for it is in the past tense. The passage has reference to Israel, or the Israelites, as may be seen by consulting Ex. 4:22-23. Besides, the going down into Egypt is fully contradicted in Luke 2:41, unless we assume that the family's sojourn in Egypt was less than one year, for Luke has Christ's parents go every year to the feast of the passover at Jerusalem.
    Matthew has Herod slay every child under two years old throughout the country, that a certain prophecy "might be fulfilled." The prophecy referred to is in Jer. 31:15, and evidently relates to the grief of Judea in consequence of the captivity of her people, accompanied by a promise, or prediction that they "shall come again from the land of the enemy." "Children" here means the people of Israel, then in bondage, not infants. Then how could the children that Herod slew return again to their own country?
    Note too that the first part of the passage is in the past tense. Believers are supposed to hold this as a true prophecy and fulfilled as stated by Matthew; but is it not a little strange that no other evangelist, nor any history of the time, not even Josephus, mentions so remarkable an event as the "slaughter of the innocents?"
    In Matt. 2:23, we read:
    "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet: He shall be called a Nazarene."
    There is no such prophecy in the Bible. Nazareth is not mentioned in the Old Testament, neither is the word Nazarene found there. Matthew no doubt refers to Judges 13:5, but it is as plain as language can make it that that passage refers to Samson. According to the account, the Israelites were in subjection to the hated Philistines, and, of course longed for deliverance. An angel comes down from heaven and assures Manoah's wife, who was barren, that she would have a son and that he should deliver her people from the hands of the enemy, and that he should be a Nazarite, i.e., one who should not shave his head nor drink intoxicating liquors, not a Nazarene, an inhabitant of Nazareth. If Christ is meant in this prophecy, then his parents lived 1100 years before he was born.
    When Matthew makes such wild references, are we in duty bound to believe him inspired by the Almighty?
    Again this dashing writer, in the 27th chapter, has Jeremy prophesy concerning Judas. There was no such prophet as Jeremy, but let us not quibble and admit that Jeremiah was meant. But there is no such prophecy in the latter. The nearest to it is in Zechariah 11:10-14, but Zechariah is not Jeremiah. A man writing under inspiration should be more careful. But that the staffs, "Beauty and Bands," there spoken of, have any reference to Judas or to Christ; or that it was any prophecy at all, requires a tremendous stretch of the imagination.
    Note also that Matthew and Peter differ materially in their accounts of the death of Judas. Matthew says that Judas committed suicide by hanging himself; Peter, in Acts 1:18, tells us that the traitor "fell headlong, burst asunder in the midst and all his bowels gushed out."
    Perhaps the two accounts can be made to harmonize by supposing that Judas hung himself in a high tree but made a miscalculation on the strength of the rope. Note again that in Peter's account, Judas himself "purchased a field with the reward of his iniquity," while Matthew has it that he "cast down the pieces of silver in the temple and went and hanged himself." Then the chief priests "took counsel, and bought with the pieces of silver the potter's field, to bury strangers in," not wishing to put the money into the treasury because it was the "price of blood." And again, Matthew has Jeremy prophesy concerning the giving of the thirty pieces of silver for a potter's field, whereas in the passage referred to, the money was "cast unto a potter," there being no hint about a field. Bearing upon this matter, I would cite Acts 1:16, where Peter informs us that David prophesied concerning Judas, but David nowhere mentions Judas.
    Matthew, in 27:35, relates how the soldiers cast lots for Jesus' raiment, "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet," and referring to the 22nd psalm.
    But what an imposition! David, or whoever was the writer of that psalm, seems to be lamenting over his own hard lot. He calls upon God to save him from all sorts of evils with which he is contending, complaining that his enemies even rob him of his garments, which they divide among them by casting lots.
    It is mostly in the present tense, and there is not a word to indicate that it was intended to apply to any event in the far future. Note, too, that while all four of the gospel writers relate the incident of casting lots for Christ's garments, only Matthew and John apply prophecy to it.
    So much for the prophecies of Christ referred to by Matthew, and these references for the most part include those found in Mark and Luke. John has Jesus say, in 5:45, "Had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me, for he wrote of me." There are several passages in the Pentateuch, or books of Moses, which devout Sunday school teachers would have us believe apply to Christ. That in Gen. 3:15, so often quoted, certainly has no such application. A very simple fact is stated, though in an awkward manner, that perpetual enmity exists between man and snakes--that man will stamp upon and kill snakes, and snakes seem to delight in biting the heels of man. No intelligent person believes today that serpents ever walked upright, or that the devil and snakes were ever in partnership. The prophecy in Gen. 49:10 was a decided failure, as every careful Bible reader must admit, for there was not a continuous line of lawgivers among the Jews until Christ came. The other passages in Genesis are mainly extravagant promises to Abraham that his prosperity should prosper, etc.
    The passage in Deut. 13:15 plainly refers to Joshua, for proof of which see Numbers 17:15-23.
    To turn this into a prophecy of Christ is absurd. If that passage in Deut. refers to Christ, I would ask if all the people that did not accept him were put to death according to the prediction in the 19th verse? It is as follows:
    "And it shall come to pass that whosoever will not hearken unto my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him."
    I am aware that many commentators did not accept this meaning, but the apostle Peter ought to be a good authority, and he quotes the passage as follows, in Acts 3:23:
    "And it shall come to pass that every soul which will not hear that prophet shall be destroyed from among the people."
    Was that fulfilled, or is it yet to be fulfilled? John in his account of the death of Jesus says in 19:32-36 that, though the soldiers broke the legs of the thieves that were executed with Jesus, they did not break his legs--"that the scriptures should be fulfilled: A bone of him shall not be broken." This is often adduced as one of the many prophesies that were fulfilled to the letter. It may be found in Ex. 12:46. Anyone, however, who will take the pains to read that chapter through carefully, and can find anywhere in it a passage that has any reference or application, even circumstantially to Jesus Christ, certainly has an imagination too elastic for anything.
    That chapter simply gives an account of the institution of the passover, with all the directions and instructions of the Lord regarding it. On a certain day every household shall kill a lamb "taken out from the sheep or from the goats."
    Then follows directions in minute detail how it shall be cooked, how it shall be eaten, and even what those who eat of it shall wear during the repast. The prophetic passage is the following:
    "And the Lord said unto Moses and Aaron, This is the ordinance of the passover: There shall no stranger eat thereof: But every man's servant that is bought for money, when thou has circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof.
    "A foreigner and a hired servant shall not eat thereof. In one house shall it be eaten; thou shalt not carry forth aught of the flesh abroad out of the house; neither shall ye break a bone thereof."
    Note that John finds it to his purpose to misquote so as to make the passage apply to a person. Simply a part of the ceremony; nothing more, nothing less. Why should this passage have reference to Jesus any more than any other part of the strange ordinance? By the way, it is hard to refrain from commenting at length on many passages, not considered prophetic, in this chapter, as the seeming preference for owned rather than hired servants, the Lord's slaying the first-born of all cattle, his aiding the Israelites to "borrow" jewels and clothing of the Egyptians, etc.
    In Isaiah 53:9 is a so-called prophecy of Christ's suffering and death on the cross and also his burial. I find, however, that modern critics are not agreed as to whether this prophecy, if anything written in the past tense may be called a prophecy, was intended to refer to Christ at all. It is as follows:
    "And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death; because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit in his mouth."
    In verse 7, we are told that during his terrible sufferings "he opened not his mouth." Could the above apply to Christ? Was Christ buried with the wicked? Were there any wicked persons about at the time of his burial or entombment? Did he make his grave with the rich? The account has it that his body was deposited in a sepulcher that a certain rich man named Joseph had prepared for himself "wherein never man before was laid." So it cannot be truthfully said that he made his grave with the rich. Is it true that he opened not his mouth? Luke 23:46 says that he cried out with a loud voice: "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit," and Matthew and Mark both testify that he cried with a loud voice: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?"
    In Isa. 2:3-4 is an alleged prophecy that a mighty kingdom shall arise in the last days with Christ at its head:
    "For out of Zion shall go forth the law, and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem,
    "And he shall judge among the nations and shall rebuke many people; and they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more."
    Nothing is more evident than that this passage could not have referred to Christ, for he was far from being "judge among the nations."
    Neither is there any evidence that "swords were beaten into plowshares," etc., during that warlike age. The reverse would be nearer the truth. And the prediction that wars shall cease, etc., is somewhat slow of fulfillment. Perhaps that prophecy refers to the second coming of Christ.
    In Mark 1:2, and also in Luke 7:27, we read:
    "Behold I send my messenger before thy face, which shall prepare thy way before thee."
    This probably refers to Malachi 3:1, where we may find:
    "Behold I will send my messenger and he shall prepare the way before me."
    In Malachi the "way" is to be prepared before the person speaking; in Mark before the person spoken to. An explanation here would be in order.
    Matthew also says that Isaiah prophesied the coming of John the Baptist and must refer to Isa. 40:3, where it says:
    "Prepare ye the way of the Lord; make straight in the desert a highway for our God."
    The words are similar to those in Matt. 3:3, but let us read the next two verses, which will show that the prediction is not yet fulfilled, if it had reference to Christ:
    "Every valley shall be exalted; every mountain and hill shall be made low; and the crooked shall be made straight and the rough places plain. And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed and all flesh shall see it together, for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it."
    It is evident that such a millennial state of affairs has not yet come.
    How improbable the account that Peter carried a sword with which he cut off the ear of the servant of the high priest. The Jewish people were in vassalage under the Romans at that time, and the latter would not have allowed an obscure person like Peter to carry such a warlike implement; yet the evangelists, in order to multiply instances of prophetic proof of their master's messiahship, has Peter carry a sword and use it as above mentioned that a prophecy might be fulfilled.
    See Matthew 26:51-56 and Mark 14:47-49.
    But will someone kindly locate that prophecy for me? I doubt that there is any passage in the Old Testament that applies, even circumstantially, to that act of Peter's.
    It may be found in some apocryphal book, but what right had the gospel writers to make such reference to books not genuine?
    But it is not necessary to call attention to all of the thirty or more passages in the Old Testament that are said to refer to Christ. Those generally adduced as such have been noticed, sufficient, I think, to show the utter worthlessness of the so-called Messianic prophecies. I assume to voice the sentiments of thousands upon thousands of free thinkers, in declaring that I do not care to stake my hope of salvation upon a belief in the messiahship of Jesus if I am to depend upon these prophecies as the principal proof of his divine attributes. The evidence is utterly weak.
    Indeed there are good grounds for believing that even the disciples themselves had a vague understanding of the so-called prophecies, at least [they] did not attach literal meanings to them. As narrated in the Gospels, Jesus, in addition to his own predictions, frequently calls their attention to the Old Testament prophecies concerning himself, particularly those supposed to relate to his suffering and death. In Matt. 20:17-19, he takes the disciples to one side and informs them, we may presume very impressively, that he would soon be betrayed, tried, condemned, mocked, scourged and crucified, and that on the third day he would rise again. His language is definite and explicit and should have made a deep impression upon them. They should have known from Jesus' explanation of the prophecies what to expect, yet not a word is there to show that they had any conception of the approaching death of their master. They were utterly shocked and confounded by his death and exceedingly slow to believe that he rose again on the third day.
    For further evidence corroborative of this view, see [the] last chapter of Luke where it is related that several women who had visited the tomb were "perplexed" at finding it empty. Neither did they comprehend the situation until reminded by the two angels that Christ had told them that he would fall "into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." Then
    "They remembered his words and returned from the sepulcher, and told all these things unto the eleven and to all the rest. And their words seemed to them as IDLE TALES AND THEY BELIEVED THEM NOT."--8:11.
    More proof than the testimony of those women was required to convince the disciples that their master had risen. They did not even recognize Jesus himself, who soon appears on the scene and mingles with them, but [they] were "terrified and affrighted and supposed they had seen a spirit." Jesus, with seeming impatience, declares:
    "O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken."
    Indeed, he found it necessary to show them his "hands and feet," to let them "handle" him, and to eat in their presence to convince them that he was Jesus. Upon seeing him eat broiled fish and honey they concluded that he was not a "spirit." Then he tells them:
    "These are the words which I spake unto you while I was yet with you, that all things must be fulfilled, which were written in the law of Moses, and in the prophets, and in the psalms concerning me. Then opened he their understanding that they might understand the scriptures."
    Somewhat strange, all this, in connection with the following:
    "From that time forth began Jesus to show unto his disciples how he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed and be raised again the third day."--Matt. 16:21.
    And this was in the early part of his ministry. Could more proof be needed that Christ's immediate followers, those who heard him daily, were slow to comprehend that there were prophecies in the Old Testament concerning Christ, or that his own predictions were predictions at all? And may we not, in this case, respect their lack of comprehension?
    Indeed, it is a standing puzzle to the independent thinker--he who can see no valid reason why plain, practical common sense should be set aside in the investigation of anything, even scripture prophecy, how even a cursory examination of the subject could lead to the conclusion that Jesus--the "humble Galilean"--was the person that the so-called messianic prophecies referred to.
    The Israelites were greatly annoyed by surrounding nations. They were constantly in war. Believing themselves to be under the direct guidance of the Almighty, nothing was more natural than that their temporal rulers, priests and prophets, should console and encourage them with pretended promises from God that a deliverer should arise who would subdue all their enemies. The deliverer predicted was to come in royal state. He was to be an earthly potentate with unlimited powers. He was to be of the house of David and was to sit upon the throne of David. Immediately following the advent of this deliverer, Jerusalem was to be rebuilt and at once become the capital of the world.
    Now Jesus was not of the house of David but was the son of an obscure Jewish maiden. He was poor and lived upon alms. He even taught the blessings of poverty--the more his followers denied themselves the good things of this world, the greater would be their glory in the next. He was hated and persecuted by the Jews, who ought to have known the character of the messiah predicted, and was finally condemned as a malefactor and put to death. So if the prophecies called messianic are correct, the "Deliverer" has not yet appeared, which the Jews believe.
    It is nowhere declared in the Bible that Jesus' mother was descended from David, and it is expressly declared--Matt. 1:18-25--that Mary's husband, Joseph, was not the father of Jesus; yet through Joseph the genealogy of Jesus is traced to David.
    It is plainly stated in verses cited above that Jesus was the son of the Holy Ghost, but in the genealogy no ghost is mentioned.
    And here, by the way, some plain, honest seeker after truth might ask: What constitutes the proof that the Holy Ghost was the father of Jesus?
    Why, a dream of Joseph--Matt. 1:20--and a vision of Mary--Luke 1:26-35. This is all the evidence we have of an alleged occurrence so improbable.
    Suppose a witness in a modern court should take the stand and gravely proceed to testify to what appeared to him in a dream or vision. He would be ruled out instantly, perhaps fined for contempt of court.
    Yet we are asked to admit just such testimony, given nineteen centuries ago, and not under oath either, in confirmation of an alleged matter of fact, to establish even the probability of which would require a vast amount of circumstantial evidence and the concurrent testimony of not two only, but thousands, millions of disinterested witnesses--witnesses, bear in mind--in their normal senses. In law there is, I believe, a rule something like this: that when the testimony is weak the evidence must be strong; when the evidence is weak the testimony must be strong, but there may be cases in which the evidence is utterly weak that the testimony of a legion of witnesses should not convince.
    I regard the alleged "Immaculate Conception" as very properly coming under this head.
    Either Jesus was a divine being or he was not. The truth about the matter is what we desire. The truth once known we can accommodate ourselves to. It does not conduce to the advancement of the race, morally or intellectually, to perpetuate a myth as a reality, or a falsehood as a truth. Hard it is for children to give up the delightful belief that Santa Claus is a real personage, who makes his yearly rounds in a beautiful sleigh drawn by fleet reindeer, yet such cherished fantasies are not allowed to linger beyond early childhood. Why? Because we prefer to have our children's education founded upon truth.
    If Jesus was what he is represented to have been, a divine character, a "Mediator between God and man," and if, through a belief that he was such, the people of earth can secure eternal bliss in heaven, and if a failure to so believe will as surely result in eternal misery in hell, it becomes an exceedingly important matter. If true, the evidence should have come down to us in such a way as to preclude even the possibility of doubt. And every human being should be endowed with power to read the record aright. No interpreter should be needed. Accounts of visions and dreams and miracles, filtering down through the centuries, and written no one knows when, where, nor by whom, do not and cannot satisfy those who are free to think.
    But it may be asked, How did it come about that a being was worshiped as Jesus was worshiped in his own time by his personal followers, who were eyewitnesses of his superhuman works, and by constantly increasing numbers until, in this iconoclastic age when every thing mythical is cast side, his name is held in sacred reverence by millions of intelligent human beings, if the object of such worship was not endowed with more than human powers? By what manner of reasoning can unbelievers account for such an unchecked spread of Christian doctrines, reaching over a period of nineteen centuries, on the assumption that the founder was an impostor?
    Somewhat of a problem, truly, but there are other problems in the same line just as difficult, perhaps more difficult, of solution.
    Mohammedanism boasts also of a divine origin, and spread rapidly until now it numbers 200,000,000 ardent followers and extends over as large an area as does Christianity, yet its founder is declared by all Christian believers as an impostor, and the Koran, the bible of that faith, as a purely human production, reflecting no credit upon the literary or reasoning powers of its author or authors.
    Mormonism originated during the lifetime of many now living and has for the corresponding period of its existence distanced, a hundred to one, the spread of Christianity, that strange doctrine now affording religious consolation to nearly 200,000 people. But was Jo Smith or Brigham Young divinely inspired?
    Yet as regards the agencies or aids for the establishment and spread of the three doctrines, there is much in common. Each freely employed miracles, prophecies and direct revelation as indispensable factors in the propagation of its teachings.
    In a visit to Salt Lake City during the building of the great Mormon temple, the writer, while standing with Elder Pinnock [William Pinnock, 1822-1890] upon the unfinished wall of that now-famous structure and looking down upon the busy workmen, was informed by that leading church official that miracles and special revelations were common among the Mormons, citing to several which had particular application to the temple. The writer ventured a doubt that the building would ever be fully completed, which brought out a quick response from the elder: "Certainly, sir, it will be completed," said he, "We Mormons generally accomplish what we undertake. It was prophesied centuries ago," he added, "that the temple would be built. It is in the hands of God, and he will carry out his purpose."
    The temple was completed, the Mormons say, exactly according to the prophecy, but I do not believe, neither do any of my Christian friends believe, that such a prophecy was ever made, or that any miracles took place there, or anywhere else, during the building of the Mormon temple, or that direct or indirect revelations from the Almighty came to Brigham Young, or anyone else, concerning that temple. Neither does any Christian in the land entertain the slightest belief that any miracles, divine revelations or genuine prophecies can be rightfully brought forward by the Mohammedans as evidence of the truth of their religion.
    Now comes the question: Why should I, or anyone else, be asked to give credence to the records of miracles, prophecies, etc., concerning the Christian religion and to condemn all others as spurious?
    Viewing the matter from a Freethinker's up-a-tree standpoint, all religions that have ever consoled or perplexed mankind have had the same origin. Each is a product of human thought and action.
    Does the Christian religion differ essentially from all others? The messianic prophecies, we have seen, are not trustworthy; miracles are not believed in for a moment by scientific thinkers outside of the church, and indeed are rapidly giving way before the "higher criticism" in the church. I doubt that an intelligent clergyman can be found, whose early education has not been neglected, that really believes that a genuine miracle ever took place.
    Indeed the consensus of modern scholarly opinion today declares that miracles are now, always have been, and always will be impossible.
    But theologians have a genius for interpretation, and ere long miracles will be conveniently interpreted as having a "symbolic" or "figurative" meaning. Valuable words these to the theologian.
    The doctrine of divine revelation depends almost wholly for its support upon proofs furnished by miracles and prophecies. If these pillars are removed by the iconoclastic Samson of modern thought, the superstructure will surely totter.

    While Freethought declares that miracles are impossible, it does not say that a prophecy must be untrue.
    So many arrows have been shot from the bow of prophecy that it is not at all strange that now and then one should hit. But one hit in a million shots should hardly establish the claims of infallibility or inspiration. The messianic prophecies were, I hold, a complete failure--either fell short or overreached. It is now in order to examine other prophecies in the Old Testament. It is strenuously held by old-style theologians that the predictions concerning the destruction of Jerusalem, Babylon, etc., were fulfilled to the letter. These prophecies will now take up our attention.

    Isaiah 17:1 prophesies the complete destruction of Damascus:
    "Behold Damascus is taken away from being a city, and it shall be a ruinous heap."
    This, according to the marginal date, was after Tiglath-Pileser, king of Assyria, had taken Damascus and carried its people away captive.
    As was the custom in those days, however, the captivity of these people meant simply an exchange, for Damascus was at once filled with colonies from Assyria and became a dependency of that empire. So far from becoming a "ruinous heap," it continued to flourish. It is probably the most ancient city on the globe. In Gen. 15:2, we read that Abraham's chief steward, Eliezer, was a native of Damascus.
    Indeed, there is ample evidence that the city has had a continuous existence from long before Abraham's time to this day. It is now one of the most beautiful and populous of oriental cities, the Arabs boasting of it as the "Paradise of Earth." Indeed, the Moslems have a tradition that Jesus will descend into Damascus on the day of judgment. So Isaiah's prophecy concerning Damascus was a failure.

    The most complete and terrible destruction of Babylon is prophesied by Jeremiah in the 50th and 51st chapters and by Isaiah in [the] 13th chapter.
    "Therefore the wild beasts of the desert and the wild beasts of the island shall dwell therein; and it shall be no more inhabited forever."--Jer. 50:39
    "And Babylon shall become heaps, a dwelling place for dragons, an astonishment, and a hissing, without an inhabitant."--51:37
    "And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms, the beauty of the Chaldees' excellency, shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah. It shall never be inhabited, neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation; neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there. . . . But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there. . . . And her time is near to come and her days shall not be prolonged."--Isa. 13:19-22.
    It is hardly necessary to state that these prophecies were not fulfilled, as any reliable history will show. The town of Hillah of 10,000 inhabitants now stands upon the site of the ancient city of Babylon.
    Layard and many other travelers have camped on the site and tell us that it is a common thing for Arabs to pitch their tents there.
    But were the above properly prophecies at all? Eminent modern critics find that the author of Jeremiah must have written several years later than the marginal dates indicate. Ezekiel himself was a captive and went along with the 10,000; so it was easy for him to "predict" the situation he was already in. Indeed, most of the book is more like history than prophecy.
    Jeremiah did, however, prophesy the return of the ten tribes together with the Judaites, but defenders of prophecy are as silent about this failure as revivalists are about unanswered prayers. Scholarly critics are also agreed that chapters 50-52 were written by another hand and as late as the middle of the captivity, when the downfall of Nebuchadnezzar and the overthrow of Babylon were likely soon to take place.
    Even old-school theologians are forced to admit, and up-to-date ecclesiastical critics declare, that the book of Isaiah was written by at least two persons; that one portion was written about the time indicated by the marginal dates, but that from the 9th verse of the 13th chapter to the 23rd verse of the 14th, and chapters 24-27, inclusive, and the whole of the book after the 33rd chapter, was not written by Isaiah, and that the 34th and last 26 chapters were written, probably at Babylon, during the latter part of the captivity. Chadwick in "Bible of Today" says that modern scholarship is agreed on this. Indeed, anyone who will take the trouble to carefully read the whole book cannot fail to notice the difference in style and aims.
    The theme of the later writer is the deliverance of the Israelites from captivity, while the other has nothing to say about it. So it required no inspiration for the later writer of Isaiah to predict the fall of Babylon and the return of the Israelites.
    Can it be supposed for a moment that the last part of the passage just quoted: "And her time is near to come, and her days shall not be prolonged," was written over 200 years before the event?
    How evident it is that, with the writer of this prophecy, the "wish was father to the thought," for he prophesies the return of the ten tribes, even going so far as to predict that their oppressors would in turn become servants of the Israelites--see Isa. 14:1-3. Of course no one claims that the Israelites, or ten tribes, ever returned, but let us excuse the enthusiasm of this writer in view of the fact that he discerned in the signs of the times some hope of deliverance for his people.

    The prediction in Ezek. 26th and 27th chapters, that Tyre should be totally destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar's army, was a failure. In 26:12 that prophet says: "And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise," but in chapter 29:18 we learn that
    "Though every head was made bald and every shoulder was peeled, yet had he no wages, nor his army for the service that he had served against it."