Earlier text: THE PURPOSE OF HIS WORKSThe Industrial Conflict in the Light of Revelation.
By Geo. W. Rine
In the parlance of popular slang the terms “graft,” “boodle,” “rake-off,” “pull,” etc., have become substitutes for the old, malodorous word bribe. The connotation of bribe (or bribery) is so broad that it requires all the foregoing vulgarisms to express its varied and diverse aspects. These few words of explanation are given by way of justification for my using these vulgar but graphically expressive terms in this discussion. The very fact that one can not pick up a newspaper without one’s eyes repeatedly catching these unsavory terms is evidence that the practise of bribery pervades society to an unprecedented extent. The venality which obtains in the business and in the political world has become so nearly universal, so notoriously patent, that one can hardly talk or write about it without falling into platitudes and trite commonplaces. The only justification for my writing upon a subject so uninviting is the duty of disclosing to the reader the vital connection of present-day venality with present-day fulfilment of inspired prophecy. No one denies that the commercial spirit is the characteristic, the dominant, spirit of our day. Mr. Lincoln Steffens recently wrote: “The commercial spirit is the spirit of profit, not patriotism; of credit, not honor; of individual gain, not national prosperity; of trade and dickering, not principle. ‘My business is sacred,’ says the business man in his heart. ‘Whatever prospers my business is good; it must be. A bribe is bad, that is, it is a bad thing to take; but it is not so bad to give one, not if it is necessary to my business.’” That these words express the sentiment cherished and practised by a very large percentage of the business men and politicians of the present day, is proved, not by what they say, but by what they do; and doing, you remember, speaks louder than saying. Most of us have long believed that bribery was a noxious weed that could not thrive in any soil but that of politics; that the field of politics was its only congenial home. For a year or more, Mr. Steffens has been investigating the political machines in the principal cities of the United States. He has embodied the results of his investigations in a series of articles contributed to McClure’s Magazine. These articles have commanded national attention. They have been a veritable revelation to thousands of the American people. He shows clearly that bribery, or “graft,” has become a connecting link between business and politics. The following citation from his article entitled, “The Enemies of the Republic” is a startling summary of the results of his intelligent and painstaking observations:— Every time I attempted to trace to its source the political corruption of a city ring, the stream of pollution branched off in the most unexpected directions and spread out in a network of veins and arteries so complex that hardly any part of the body politic seemed clear of it. It flowed out of the majority party into the minority; out of politics into vice and crime; out of business into politics; and back into business; from the boss, down through its police to the prostitute, and up through the practise of law, into the courts; and big, throbbing arteries ran out through the country over the state to the nation—and back. No wonder cities can’t get municipal reform! No wonder Minneapolis, having cleaned out its police ring of vice grafters, now discovers boodle in the council! No wonder Chicago, with council-reform and boodle beaten, finds itself a Minneapolis of police and administrative graft! No wonder Pittsburg, when it broke out of its local ring, fell, amazed, into a state ring! No wonder New York, with good government, votes itself back into Tammany Hall! They are on the wrong track; we are, all of us, on the wrong track. You can’t reform a city by reforming part of it. You can’t reform a city alone. You can’t reform politics alone. And as for corruption and the understanding thereof, we can not run ’round and ’round in municipal rings and understand ring corruption; it isn’t a ring thing. We can not remain in one city, or ten, and comprehend municipal corruption; it isn’t a local thing. We can not “stick to a party,” and follow party corruption; it isn’t a partisan thing. And I have found that I can not confine myself to politics and grasp all the ramifications of political corruption; it isn’t political corruption. Its corruption. The corruption of our American politics is our American corruption, political, but financial and industrial, too. Miss Tarbell is showing it in the trust, Mr. Baker in the labor union, and my groping into the misgovernment of cities have drawn me everywhere, but, always, always out of politics into business, and out of the cities into the state. Business started the corruption of politics in Pittsburg; upholds it in Philadelphia; boomed with it in Chicago, and withered with its reform; and in New York, business financed the return of Tammany Hall. Here, then, is our guide out of the labyrinth. Not the political ring, but big business,—that is the crux of the situation. Our political corruption is a system, a regularly-established custom of the country, by which our political leaders are hired, by bribery, by the license to loot, and by quiet moral support, to conduct the government of city, state, and nation, not for the common good, but for the special interests of private business. Not the politician, then, not the bribe-taker, but the bribe-giver, the man we are so proud of, our successful business man—he is the source and the sustenance of our bad government. The captain of industry is the man to catch. His is the trail to follow. Mr. Steffens has found that behind every political machine which deals in special privileges, selling them to the unscrupulous “captains of industry,” there is the “big business” machine. So behind the political “Boss” machine in New York and in Pennsylvania is the corporate wealth of those states. What Mr. Steffens asserts as to Missouri is true of a score of other states in which the “business interests” of the kind represented by the predatory trusts are dominant. One of the branches of the City Council of St. Louis is called the Municipal Assembly. This Assembly, the same writer informs us, was honeycombed with “graft” from center to circumference; the councilmen loaned the city’s money at interest, and the interest was converted into private bank accounts. City carriages were regularly used by the families of city officials. Supplies for public institutions found their way to private tables. The Assembly awarded the contract for city printing to one of its own members; to another member was awarded the exclusive right to furnish city dispensaries with drugs; and to a third was voted the sole privilege of supplying the poorhouse with groceries. It is said that men ran into debt to the extent of thousands of dollars for the sake of being elected to either branch of the Council. One evening, on a street-car going to the City Hall, a new member remarked that the nickel he had just handed the conductor was his last. The next day, as the result of a fat bribe, he deposited $5,000 in a savings’ bank. A member of the Assembly admitted to the Grand Jury that the “boodle” he had received from a certain combine netted him $25,000 a year. A councilman confessed that he had been paid $50,000 for his vote on a single measure. With these St. Louis officials, bribery had actually become a joke. One evening, in the corridor of the City Hall, a newspaper reporter overheard the following little colloquy:— “Ah there, my boodler!” said Mr. Delegate. “Stay there, my grafter!” replied Mr. Councilman. “Can you lend me a hundred for a day or two?” “Not at present. But I can spare it if the Z—— bill goes through to-night. Meet me at F——’s later.” “All right, my jailbird; I’ll be there.” Soon foreign corporations came into the city to share its spoils, and home corporations were banished by blackmail. Franchises with millions of dollars were granted to rich corporations in return for bribe money without the city’s realizing one cent in cash. Several companies refused to pay blackmail and had to leave the city. Pay-rolls were padded with fictitious names. Work on public improvements was neglected, as the money voted for such work “went to the boodlers.” The corruptionists were backed by men of wealth and high social standing, who, because of special privileges granted them, felt constrained to support and shield the looters. “Men whose integrity was never questioned, who held high positions of trust, who were church members and teachers of Bible classes, contributed to the support of the dynasty,—became blackmailers, in fact,—and their excuse was that others did the same, and that if they proved the exception it would work their ruin.” At one time the city was kept in unbroken darkness for weeks, pending the payment of $175,000 in bribes on the lighting contract, and, when disgusted citizens went and inquired of the mayor why they could not have the lighting conveniences for which they had paid, they were coolly advised to look to the moon for light. “Boodling was safe, and boodling was fat.” A serious and sober writer has actually affirmed that everything St. Louis owned was for sale by the officers elected by the people. The regularly-organized “grafters” who rule in that city have sold $50,000,000 worth of franchises and other valuable municipal assets. This estimate was made by an intelligent banker, who said that the official “boodlers” got less than one tenth of the actual value of the things they sold, but were satisfied because they got it all themselves. The political organization, in New York City, known as Tammany, has long ago become a synonym of “Graft.” The items representing the money that this gigantic cabal of political spoilsmen stole from the people of that city, “are so incredible,” says Mr. Steffens, “that I hesitate to print them.” A reputed Tammany leader himself told a friend that in one year the police “graft” netted more than $3,000,000. During a period of thirty-six months these “boodlers” appropriated $400,000 a month in the shape of “graft” from gambling resorts and poolrooms alone. “Saloon bribers, disorderly house blackmail, policy, etc., etc., bring this total up to amazing proportions.”5 The yearly budget of the Metropolis is about $100,000,000, and, tho the facilities for “looting” that are afforded by the expenditure of that amount are enormous, and the opportunities for “take-offs” boundless, this sum does not represent one-half of the resources for “graft” when Tammany is in power. “If Tammany could be incorporated, and all its earnings, both legitimate and illegitimate, could be gathered up and paid over in dividends, the stockholders would get more than the New York Central bond and stock holders, more than the Standard Oil stockholders, and the controlling clique would wield a power equal to that of the United States Steel Corporation. Tammany, when in control in New York, takes out of the city unbelievable millions of dollars a year.” Is there any wonder that its leaders are all rich, and that Tammany is proverbially liberal in its division of the “graft”? In reference to Mr. Croker, the notorious Tammany leader of many years, Mr. Steffens writes: “He sold judgeships, taking his pay in the form of contributions to the Tammany campaign fund, of which he was treasurer, and he had the judges take from the regular real estate exchange all the enormous real estate business that passed through the courts, and give it to an exchange connected with the real estate business of his firm, Peter F. Meyer & Co. This alone would maintain a ducal estate in England.” Mr. Croker has the effrontery to admit unblushingly that he was in politics for the sole purpose of replenishing his own coffers “all the time.” The Department of Buildings is an adjunct of the municipal government of New York City. This department affords well-nigh unlimited possibilities for political “graft.” $100,000,000 a year goes into building operations in New York. All of this, from tool-shops to sky-scrapers, is subject to very precise legal regulations, some of which are impracticable. The enforcement of all these is in the hands of officials of the Building Department. They pass upon all construction, private and public, at all stages, from the making of the plans to actual completion. “Architects and builders had to stand in with the department. They called on the right man, and they settled on a scale which was not fixed, but which generally was on the basis of the department’s estimate of a fair share of the value of the saving in time or bad material. This brought at least a banker’s percentage on one hundred millions a year. Croker, so far as I can make out, took none of this! It was left out to subordinate leaders, and was their own ‘graft.’ The Dock Board, another department of the city government, has exclusive and private control of the expenditure of $10,000,000 a year. Of course, this vast fund belongs to the people. But their public servants (!), the political ‘grafters,’ never fail to exploit this fund, and, as a result, millions of the people’s money finds its way into the private coffers of the ‘public servants.’” “Official Grafting” is the title of an editorial article, in the San Francisco Chronicle, of June 2, 1904. It says in part:— That the city administration is infested with graft in every department which the boss is able to control is perfectly understood in the community. It follows, as a matter of course, from the character of the officials. There is no way of stealing directly from the treasury except by appointing heelers to subordinate positions, who do not do the work which they are appointed to do, and who may or may not divide what they get with those who enable them to get it. A more promising field is in bribing those who have business with the city officials entrusted with control of the police power. In all cities the police department is now the source of most of the illicit revenue obtained by officials, and presumably it is the case in San Francisco. The Police Commissioners appointed by the boss, being of a caliber so trifling that no form of graft would be beneath their notice, the public is quite ready to believe the stories which freely circulate as to the evident favor shown to certain individuals connected with these shady lines of industry which the laws subject to police surveillance. Such stories are hard to prove, but they are believed because they correspond with the known character of the officials. Embassador Choate, in a speech delivered in New York several years ago, declared that the root of the evil of municipal corruption is the respectable citizen, socially well connected, possibly a pillar of the church, or distinguished for benevolence and public service, who, in his corporate capacity, as the director of a gas, steam, or street-railroad company, or some similar corporation dealing with public franchises, secures special legislation, and peculiar privileges by corrupting the servants of the public. He argued that we would never secure a clean administration of the city until we brought home their guilt to those reputable gentlemen “by branding them as what they are,—thieves,—expelling them from our clubs, driving them out of society, and casting them out of our church boards and vestries. . . . Bad as is corruption in the police department,—partnership of the police with proprietors of bad houses, gambling hells, and the like,—worse and more dangerous is the corruption which proceeds from this exploitation of the public by the ‘respectable’ element of society.” The speaker denounced the iniquitous efforts that were then being made to carry through the legislature at Albany, bills of the most nefarious character, conveying public property, and valuable public privileges to certain great corporations, notoriously street railroad syndicates, for nothing—bills so iniquitous that their promoters felt it necessary to conceal their object by methods of legislative and legal trickery. Rev. J. P. Peters, commenting upon Mr. Choate’s address, expressed the following deplorable truth:— We place legislative, judicial, and executive corruption by these corporations, who are the great corruptors, on a different footing from the relatively petty corruption of liquor dealers, and treat the men who stand behind this corruption with a courtesy and consideration which we do not extend to the despised liquor dealer and his brethren. And it is precisely because of this attitude of our high-toned public men, of our reformers, of our religious and social leaders, and of the press; that the evil doing of these men is vastly more dangerous to the public welfare than the evil doing of the liquor dealer, or the keeper of the gambling house or brothel. It is necessary, if we would eradicate corruption, as you argue, and as Mr. Choate has argued, that these “respectable” directors of corporations should be held up to the public opprobrium and scorn as thieves, receivers of stolen goods, and, above all, as traitors to their country, who are ready to bribe and debauch the government for the sake of private gain. The publishing house of McClure, Phillips, and Company has recently issued a book entitled, “The Shame of the Cities,” by Lincoln Steffens. The very titles of the chapters which the book comprises attest the universality of business and political corruption by the corporate wealth of the country. Note the significance of these titles: “The Shame of Minneapolis,” “The Shamelessness of St. Louis,” “Pittsburg: A City Ashamed,” “Philadelphia: Corrupt and Contented,” “Chicago: Half Free and Fighting On,” and “New York: Good Government to the Test,” etc. Read this book if you would know how deep-seated, how all-pervasive, how hopelessly chronic is the sin and crime of “boodling”—of bribe-giving and bribe-taking. Again I am constrained to repeat: “In the last days . . . men shall be . . . lovers of money, . . . lovers of pleasure.”—Paul. Note again the words of the Apostle James: “Ye have heaped treasure together for the last days.” The prophet Isaiah, however, explicitly foresaw that the specific crime of which this paper treats would be terribly prevalent in the closing years of this “present evil world.” The very phraseology of the prophecy here cited shows it to be a last-day prophecy. I quote verses 14 and 15 of chapter 33:— “The sinners in Zion [in the church] are afraid; fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites. Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with the everlasting burnings? He that walketh righteously, and speaketh uprightly; he that despiseth the gain of oppressions, that shaketh his hands from holding of bribes, that stoppeth his ears from hearing of blood, and shutteth his eyes from seeing evil; He shall dwell on high.” Ah, it is the “sinners in Zion,” professed Christians, says the prophet, who shall lend themselves to money-getting by the use of “graft,” by systematic bribery. It is those “having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof,” who, Paul declares, will be lovers of money “more than lovers of God.” How strikingly relevant to this discussion are the following words from the prophet Micah, found in the third verse of the seventh chapter: “Their hands are upon that which is evil to do it diligently; the prince asketh, and the judge is ready for a reward; and the great man, he uttereth the evil desire of his soul; thus they weave it together.” A. R. V. Verse 7 of the same chapter makes it evident that the prophet speaks of the time when the people of God are looking for the coming of “the God of my [their] salvation.” Referring to the time when God shall gather His people, David prays: “Gather not my soul with sinners, nor my life with bloody men; in whose hand is mischief, and their right hand is full of bribes.” Ps. 26:9, 10. Even the children on the street talk glibly of “boodle,” of “graft,” of “swag,” of “rake-offs”—of bribery. We are living in an age of “graft.” “It is in the air,” declares a noted writer. The vital question with you and me, dear reader, is, Do I despise “the gain of oppression”? Do I shake my “hand from holding of bribes”? Only those who despise such gain shall safely “dwell with the devouring fire”—the fire that shall devour the works of the devil. Only those “shall dwell on high.” There is no better way of forgetting one's troubles than by attempting to relieve some one else who is in trouble. The more one thinks of his own troubles, the more power over him those troubles gain. When he is turned away for a time from himself in the effort to help another, personal troubles may perish from lack of attention and sustenance. Miss Havergal wisely says:— “Seldom can a heart be lonely
If it seeks a lonelier still;
Self-forgetting, seeking only
Emptier cups of love to fill.”
However hard our own case may be, there is some one near us whose case is harder. In ministering to him, or in trying to give him comfort, we are likely to lighten his burden and our own.—Sunday-school Times. Christian Power and Church Pride
“CHRISTIAN power does not depend on church pride.” FIRST-DAY OBSERVANCE.
By F. C. Gilbert
BY F. C. GILBERT (a Converted Jew). It is difficult to understand how people first conceived the idea that first-day observance was taught in the New Testament. It is evident that Christ did not and could not teach it; for, according to the flesh, He was of the seed of Abraham and the family of David (Matt. 1: 1; Gal. 3: 16; Rom. 1: 3); and to the Israelites was given the Sabbath “according to the commandment” which plainly says that the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. Luke 23: 56; Ex. 20: 8–11. It was, therefore, perfectly natural that it should be the Saviour’s custom to enter the synagog on the Sabbath day. Luke 4: 16. Since He was the Author of the Sabbath (because He was the Creator of the world) He could most emphatically assert that He was Lord of the Sabbath. John 1: 10; Mark 2: 27, 28. The twelve apostles could not have taught any other day than the seventh day as the Sabbath, for that was the day they were brought up to observe, and the Saviour told them to keep it at the time of the destruction of Jerusalem. Luke 23: 56; Matt. 24: 20. But it is said that when Saul of Tarsus was called of the Lord Jesus and was converted to the Gospel of Christ, he was raised up to teach the church that the Sabbath of the Lord and customs of the Jews were forever past, and that a new era and dispensation had dawned upon the world and upon the church. It certainly is sad that such ideas were ever advanced, and such beliefs entertained. It should be remembered that Paul was a Jew. He was born a Jew; he was reared a Jew; he was taught in Jewish schools and academies by Jewish teachers. All his friends and relatives were Jews; and one of the last testimonies he gave to the Jewish people before he left for his long voyage to Rome, was that he was still a Jew. 2 Cor. 11: 22; Phil. 3: 5, 6; Acts 22: 3. We must, therefore, study the life and teachings of Saul, after his conversion, from the standpoint of the Jew. Did Paul ever intimate in his teaching that he had done otherwise? Did he ever infer that he was raised up to do any other work than to teach and preach the truth of Christ as God revealed it to the Jews? Nay, never; for he plainly says that he taught none other things only what were written in the law of Moses, in the prophets, in the Psalms, and according to the customs of the people. Acts 24: 14; 26: 22; 25: 8; 28: 17. Therefore, there could be nothing in the Gospel of Jesus Christ whereby Paul could teach the church, save that which was manifest in the oracles of the Bible. It is sometimes claimed, nevertheless, that Paul observed the first day of the week; that he taught the Gentile churches to observe that day, and held religious services upon it. One of the chief texts used to prove these claims is 1 Cor. 16: 1, 2, which reads as follows: “Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye. Upon the first day of the week let every one of you lay by him in store, as God hath prospered him, that there be no gatherings when I come.” It should be remembered that these churches of Galatia, of Corinth, and of all other Gentile extractions, were based upon Jewish models. It is generally recognized that the first letters Paul wrote to any Gentiles were those to the Thessalonians. In the first epistle to that church he says: “For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judea are in Christ Jesus.” 1 Thess. 2: 14. Consequently, the Judean churches were the models after which the Gentile churches were patterned. There had arisen a custom among the Jews some time before Christ, to support poor Jews at Jerusalem, and on this wise: as is known from the Scriptures, some sixty thousand Jews returned from captivity to Jerusalem in the days of Ezra. During the next few centuries the numbers kept increasing so that there came to be hundreds, if not thousands, of Jews in Jerusalem who were dependent upon their brethren in other lands. In order to assist these Jews, the following systematic method for relief was adopted: Every first day morning the head of the household would lay aside a certain amount of his previous week’s earnings for these Jews, which would be gathered occasionally, and be sent up to Jerusalem by some special person or persons. The custom was largely in vogue at the time of Christ and of Paul, and is still followed among orthodox Jews at the present time. In every strictly orthodox Jewish home there is found a small tin box with a slot at the top, in which money is deposited. On the outside of this box there are a number of Hebrew words which say in substance: “This box contains money, or alms, for the poor Jews in Jerusalem.” After the man of the house completes his week’s labors, he lays down his burdens and observes the Sabbath, the seventh day. After the Sabbath is past, the first item of business he does on first day morning is to take count of the amount of his prosperity for the past week. When this is finished, he will lay aside a certain amount of his earnings and place it in this box, and this for these reasons: (1) He recognizes that his prosperity came from God. (2) That he believes the Lord will continue to prosper him if he shows this benevolence. (3) Since the Lord has prospered him, he must divide his blessings with the poor brethren in Jerusalem who have no means to support themselves. This, I repeat, is, to this day, observed by strictly orthodox Jews the world over. This was and is the first item of business to be transacted on first day morning. Paul, knowing this, and knowing the need of the poor Jews in Jerusalem who would accept the truth of the Gospel, inaugurated this same method among the Gentile churches. When the Jews in Jerusalem accepted Christ they would no longer be supported by their Jewish brethren; hence, some means would have to be provided for their support. Especially was this true when the famine arose in the days of Claudius Cæsar. John 9: 22; Acts 11: 27, 29. So Paul, in giving instruction to the Gentile churches, told them that the custom the Jews had for supporting their poorer brethren was a good one for them to adopt and follow everywhere. That was what he desired to establish among them, not the observance of another day in place of the Sabbath. They were to remember these poor brethren by their alms, after they had begun to perform their usual weekly labor. It is evident that this is what Paul had in mind when writing to the church at Corinth. A little later, when he visited this church, as well as other churches, he gathered up this money, and took it with him when he went to Jerusalem. Acts 24: 17. God did not raise Paul up to do away with the divinely-ordained oracles, but He would have Paul teach the church the uselessness of the traditions that the Jews had heaped up. He would have them see the real spiritual meaning there was in the oracles that Israel had, when viewed in the light of the Gospel of Christ. This is what the church needs to see to-day. SEVEN WOMEN AND ONE MAN.
By L. C. H.
THE passage reads: “And seven women shall take hold of one man in that day, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name; take thou away our reproach.” A. R. V. We are told that the Book of Mormon forbids a woman to enter heaven alone, because of the reproach that for some reason attaches to womanhood. Men, more fortunate, may lead in as their wives any number of their less fortunate sisters. Hence polygamy and the “sealing” process. Polygamy among the Mohammedans is not voluntary on the part of woman; it is simply and undeniably compulsory. Nowhere on the face of the earth, except in polygamous Mormondom and the “sealing” process, did a plurality of women take hold of one man, saying, “We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach.” They do it there, poor creatures—born and bred in that horrible belief, and amid its polluting influences and associations. The writer has a vivid recollection of the time when, in the summer and autumn of 1848, the Mormons were crossing the “American Desert” with their wheelbarrows, and so many left their bones to whiten on the dreary wastes in the attempt. Looking adown the ages, our Lord gives warning (Matt. 24:26) which, had those deluded people heeded, they had saved their lives and property: “If they shall say unto you, Behold, He is in the desert; go not forth.” If they shall say, “Behold, He is in the secret chambers [Spiritualism with its circles]; believe it not.” Why, Lord?—“For as the lightning cometh out of the east, and shineth even unto the west; so shall also the coming of the Son of Man be.” Matt. 24:27. Our Lord’s coming is a very public occurrence. There will be no need to hunt for Him either in “desert” or “secret chamber.” Every one will know when He comes. EVER-PRESENT OBJECT LESSONS.
You can find fault with the church, but let me say that there stands One supreme—and that is the character of the Son of God. His name shall be called “Wonderful,” because no man has ever dared to point his finger at the character of Christ and find any fault with Him. Every time I see a rock I remember that He is the Rock of Ages. I walk out under the stars—I remember that He is the Morning Star of Eternal Day. I walk in the sunlight, and I remember that He is the Light of the World. When I sit down to my table, I remember that He is the Bread of Life. When I come into one of God’s temples, I remember that He is the Chief Corner Stone. When I walk the streets, I remember that He is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. When I see the birds of the air, I remember that He said: “Not one sparrow falleth to the ground without your Father.” The flowers tell me that He is the Rose of Sharon, the Lily of the Valley. Wherever I go, and wherever I look, in every land and in every city, the name of Jesus is wonderful. No man ever spake as He did. Best of all, His name shall be called “Wonderful.”—Watchword and Truth. Prophecy means to foretell. Prophecy is something foretold. But the word in the Scriptures covers a broader field than this; it includes instruction on plain, practical, everyday duty. It also calls to remembrance forgotten or neglected truth. But invariably prophecy is given by inspiration of God—it is “God-breathed;” “for no prophecy ever came by the will of man; but men spake from God, being moved by the Holy Spirit.” 2 Peter 1:21. It is in the more limited, definite, technical meaning of prophecy, that of foretelling, predicting, what is to come, that this and following articles will have to do. In God’s plan prophecy has two great purposes. There may be others, doubtless there are, but these two are primary. The first object of prophecy is to reveal the true God to those who are seeking to know; nay, more than this, to compel attention of the careless, and to convince the honest-hearted even among the indifferent ones. That Being who made man, who loves him with an everlasting love, would give him sufficient ground of evidence on which to base his faith. Other gods—and they have waxed and waned in multitudes since sin entered—have been forced to rest their claims on unproved words, or in the corrupt and selfish nature of man. It is a characteristic of false prophets that they demand recognition on their own claim or the asseveration of their dupes. It is “I am John,” or “I am Elijah,” or “I am Christ,” and the only confirmation of their word is the testimony of deceived followers, suggesting collusion, conscious of deception or unconscious in deception. Not so is the evidence which God offers for our basis of faith. His law is that “in the mouth of two or three witnesses shall every word be established.” That is the Bible law of true testimony. The testimony of these witnesses must agree, and between the witnesses there must be no possibility of collusion. In other words, God writes, records, at least twice all His revelation to man; once in prediction, promise, and precept in His Word; again in the various forms and phases of fulfilment recorded in history and experience. Note this twofold witness in God’s purposes in giving the “more sure word of prophecy.” In appealing to His wandering people the Omniscient Father recalls the utter powerlessness and vanity of heathen gods, and thus sets forth a characteristic of His own divinity: “Remember the former things of old; for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like Me; declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done; saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure. . . . I have purposed, I also will do it.” Isa. 46:9–11. Men may guess and conjecture, and in a limited way, based on limited knowledge of producing forces and modifiers, declare the effects of causes, the consequences of certain courses, the harvest of certain seed-sowing. This kind of prediction is based on historical analogy and precedent, and on experience. But God knows, knows instinctively, inherently, all laws, all forces, at work, all modifiers of these forces, and all the consequences and effects to follow. They are all written before Him in the inevitable logic of their sequence as tho they had already occurred. He sees the reaping in the sowing. He has given us many evidences of His omniscience, His all-knowledge. He has predicted with a particularity that carries with it conviction. Note a few of the instances:— Before great Babylon reached the summit of her glory, God predicted her fall, in which the utter, final desolation of the glory of the Chaldees’ excellency is vividly portrayed. Isa. 13:19–22. How definitely is the doom of Babylon declared hundreds of years before it was fulfilled! More than one hundred years before Cyrus overthrew Babylon and delivered God’s children, the Most High mentioned him by name. Isa. 44:24 to 45:5. A different fate awaited the proud, opulent city of Tyre from that of Babylon. She was to be utterly taken away till her site should be “a bare rock,” “a place for the spreading of nets; thou shalt be built no more.” Eze. 26:4, 5, 14. When Egypt was a flourishing nation, long before the prosperous reign of the Ptolemies, the same prophet predicted that Egypt should become “a base kingdom; it shall be the basest of the kingdoms; neither shall it any more lift itself up above the nations.” And for centuries the predictions of God’s prophets have been written before all the world in the abject condition of Egypt. One other prediction among many. An anecdote is related of the skeptical Frederick the Great. He asked the court minister for one proof that the Bible was of God. The laconic answer of the preacher was, “Sire, the Jews.” The answer was emphatically sufficient. A volume might be written on God’s promises, warnings, admonitions, predictions, to that people, their scattering, their persecution, their isolation among all peoples, are all revealed in the Word of God, with such definiteness as to command conviction of their truth. God is. His Word is true. No word shall return unto Him void, or be void of power. “Hath He said it, and shall He not do it?” “Prophecy a Light to the Wayfarer,” will be considered next week.