u 
 dit 
 Fe 
 
 patty 
 SEPCSREPTT ICS FS 
 
 eetereree 
 vont Bt 
 St Ta 
 
 rae 
 
 —aF > 
 
 ily Hy i 
 
 
 
— Fe Maite & 
 
 
 
 George Perry, 
 
 
 
 .R8 1926 — 
 
 
 
 nae iy 
 “ 
 PRT 2 15 
 Rutledge, 
 
 m <> i t 
 = ‘a . - 
 eee ees & . 
 i = ae ) S . : 
 7s Cae, ot oe : 
 ee Pe Se ° 
 | . < > h 
 
 
 
 1 ay OS a ea ae o 3 Ae Es 
 A . c= 5 ” an "a 7 . * - ~<j 
 es Ban RR Oy PE TES 
 
 
 
 SP A Sap I Et : 
 
 a bal aah =e Sag oe ae Scie Ohne oe 
 . . < a a 
 

 
a 
 
 : we 
 
 ae % 
 at 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 if, Lees et 
 ihe 4! 
 Hg ae 
 
 ron ye aia” 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 dite wi ' bat 
 

 
 Rt ty 
 
 ih Ae 
 
 
 
 
TE MiICACEE 
 Oe THE AGES 
 
 ~’NOV Ly 1926 
 
 bap 
 SOL ogie44 eS 
 BY / 
 
 GEORGE P.,RUTLEDGE 
 
 Author of “The Pledge in Sermon,”’ ‘‘Pushing the World Alon," Ete. 
 
 ose 
 
 CINCINNATI 
 THE STANDARD PUBLISHING COMPANY 
 
ne 
 
 Wiha 
 wazi4 
 
 (7% 
 
 
 
TO 
 
 My youngest daughter, Carol, who 
 traveled with me three summers 
 and sang, ‘‘Rock of Ages’ at 
 the close of my lecture, 
 
 this book is lovin3- 
 ly dedicated. 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 in 2022 with funding from 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 htips://archive.org/details/miracleofagesOOrutl_0 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 BEC RODUCTION | s.cccueeee deen tines te 7 
 METHOD OF REASONING. coosssssscsccssnsescseeees she 
 PACTS ARE HW ACTSI serie ot ld 25 
 SE RSUS sb aT VED. 21 eee ee cee eens 30 
 UGE HW. | LH EOLOGY eae ee ol 
 PASCTROUPL OR WACTH oe eesti bats 62 
 Pe tLOBE wAROUNDIco ra, 68 
 PERN Ag ae dol do Pee tea 79 
 APT RIST MAG oy coat art ee ee te cen Ne 92 
 Moprrn LITERATURE . 98 
 ANTS act dee RENAE LE Tet Nba Silas 109 
 BYU wee ale tv aan Co Rg es ee 121 
 THE CHRISTIAN CALENDAR ...ccccccssssscsss 135 
 RN TTIOR SOUT Gogo eal eens eon ths Lae 141 
 11g 4 B25 gr ee ee ORES EL Wein ANS 153 
 
CONTENTS 
 
 AL UAVESTER Slee Ae eee eee 168 
 SUMMARY: 0002 yO ea ae 179 
 THE BIBLE. REOPENED Sache 186 
 THE WORLD'S: REDE MER cee 194 
 INCIDENTS AND OBSERVATIONS... 205 
 
 [6] 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 HY this book? 
 
 Some books are planned; oth- 
 ers just happen, if it may be said 
 that anything happens. The volume 
 hereby introduced is not the result of 
 sudden inspiration, nor is it the reali- 
 zation of a long-cherished dream. It is 
 a development, not originally antici- 
 pated. It was practically thought out 
 before it was thought of as a distinct 
 publication. 
 
 The subject herein treated was 
 briefly touched upon in a sermon de- 
 livered in 1914 from the pulpit of the 
 Broad Street Church of Christ, Colum- 
 bus, O. In 1916 that sermon appeared 
 as a chapter in the book entitled, 
 ‘*Pushing the World Along.’’ 
 
 In later years, the sermon, worked 
 over and changed into an ‘‘address,”’’ 
 was delivered on numerous occasions 
 
 [7] 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 
 
 
 
 —county and district church conven- 
 tions, church dedications, ete. 
 
 Several years ago, a gentleman at a 
 convention suggested that the address 
 should be put in lecture form and de- 
 livered throughout the country. No 
 special immediate consideration was 
 given the matter. Nevertheless, it lin- 
 gered and was an occasional flitting 
 dream. 
 
 In 1922, a meeting for men only was 
 announced for the Richmond Street 
 Christian Church, Cincinnati, O. The 
 old sermon-address was reconstructed 
 and delivered to an audience of some- 
 thing like seven hundred. The speech 
 upon that occasion received consider- 
 able local attention, and, for the first 
 time, it was referred to as a lecture. 
 
 Soon thereafter requests for the 
 ‘Deity of Jesus Lecture,’’ as it was 
 called, came from various places. The 
 lecture was then prepared for ‘‘gen- 
 eral delivery,’’ and arrangements were 
 made to itinerate it. During the three 
 years that followed, it was heard prac- 
 
 [8] 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 tically throughout the country east of 
 the Rocky Mountains—as far north as 
 South Dakota and Maine, and as far 
 south as Miami and San Antonio. 
 
 The lecture was delivered in churech- 
 es, court-houses, theaters, Y. M. C. A. 
 halls, tabernacles, chautauqua sheds 
 and tents, Masonic and Oddfellows and 
 Knights of Pythias halls, coliseums, 
 public-school and chamber of com- 
 merce auditoriums, and in the open air. 
 
 A number of the largest audito- 
 riums were secured for this lecture. 
 The Masonic Auditorium, Cleveland, 
 Q.; the Forum, Wichita, Kan.; Bee- 
 thoven Hall, San Antonio, Tex.; the 
 Coliseum, Toledo, O.; the Masonic 
 Temple, Trenton, N. J.; the Town 
 Hall, Canton, O.; the Coliseum, Dal- 
 las, Tex.; the Y. M. C. A. Auditorium, 
 Newark, N. J., and Ryman Hall, Nash- 
 ville, Tenn.—these assembly-places are 
 readily recalled. 
 
 The following are some of the 
 churches in which the lecture was de- 
 livered: People’s Auditorium (First 
 
 [9] 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 Baptist Church), St. Paul, Minn.; the 
 First Methodist Church, Racine, Wis. ; 
 the Capitol Hill Christian Church, Des 
 Moines, Ia.; the Central Christian 
 Chureh, Hammond, Ind.; the First 
 Presbyterian Church, Gary, Ind.; the 
 Central Methodist Church, Terre 
 Haute, Ind.; the First Baptist Church,. 
 Newark, O.; the First Methodist 
 Church, North Long Branch, N. J., and 
 the First Christian Church, Miami, Fla. 
 
 The dates were usually arranged 
 by a competent advance agent, and, 
 with but few exceptions, the audiences 
 were large. In many places I faced 
 capacity audiences—Wichita, Miami 
 and San Antonio, for examples. In 
 some cities people were turned away in 
 large numbers—it was reported that 
 at Castle Hall, Detroit, Mich., as many 
 were turned away as were admitted. 
 Some of the shed meetings were said 
 to have been the largest known in the 
 communities for many years—one of 
 these was held in the park at Wabash, 
 Ind. 
 
 [10] 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 The local press almost everywhere 
 was exceedingly cordial—announcing 
 the lecture generously and quoting it 
 liberally. A St. Paul paper gave its 
 readers almost the entire speech. (It 
 may be added that The Lookout, of 
 Cincinnati, O., reproduced the St. Paul 
 publication. ) 
 
 The lecture was not always received 
 in good humor by ministers. An oc- 
 casional minister, known for his liberal 
 tendencies, appeared to regard the 
 meeting in his town as a personal in- 
 sult—deliberately planned to interfere 
 with his pulpit work. Now and then 
 a minister refused to attend the meet- 
 ing. One was reported to have stated, 
 without mincing matters, that he did 
 not care to hear ‘‘such stuff’’ as he 
 had been told the lecture contained. 
 Another, who heard the lecture, was 
 reported to have referred to it as ‘‘a 
 conglomeration of unsophisticated riff- 
 raff.’’ It struck me then, and still 
 strikes me, that his estimate of my 
 mentality was not very flattering. 
 
 [11] 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 
 
 
 
 Also, a preacher who did not deem 
 it worth while to attend the meeting 
 went so far as to burden his sermon 
 with extended reference to it the fol- 
 lowing Sunday. The major part of his 
 criticism, however, was hurled at the 
 school board for having permitted the 
 lecture in the high-school auditorium. 
 I have often wondered whether or not 
 my lecture sent that unfortunate 
 school board to political limbo. Some- 
 times ministers presented themselves 
 ‘‘front’’ at the close of the meeting to 
 engage the tired, perspiring lecturer 
 in argument—and the argument usu- 
 ally ensued. It is no more than fair 
 to add that a large majority of the 
 ministers supported the lecture mag- 
 nanimously—announcing it from their 
 pulpits, and otherwise promoting it. 
 Frequently, especially in the towns, the 
 platform was filled with local ministers, 
 and they almost invariably expressed 
 satisfaction with the discourse. 
 
 The laity, generally, was enthusias- 
 tic in both greetings and expressions. 
 
 [12] 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 The hearty handshake and word of 
 commendation upon the part of hun- 
 dreds, whose names were not learned, © 
 linger as treasured memories. 
 
 A judge who presided at the New- 
 ark (N. J.) meeting stated that, in his 
 opinion, the lecture should be put into 
 book form. Moreover, this suggestion 
 was made repeatedly by sympathetic 
 ministers. Finally, a friend, who has 
 ever manifested an abiding interest in 
 things fundamental, made the publica- 
 tion possible. As a result of it all, the 
 sermon which became an address, and 
 then a lecture, is now a book. 
 
 Should some of my former auditors 
 read this volume, they will note that 
 each subject touched upon in the speech 
 has been elaborated into a chapter. 
 The book is the lecture enlarged. 
 
 The reader will discover, as did the 
 auditor, that in the discussion no at- 
 tempt has been made at a display of 
 scholarship. ‘There are two reasons 
 for this. First, I do not regard myself 
 as an academic expert along any line, 
 
 [13 ] 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 
 
 
 
 nor have I ever felt inclined to pose as 
 a scholar—either conservative or lib- 
 eral. Second, my reading—which has 
 been constant, and hence not extremely 
 limited—has led me to conclude that 
 many books, especially theological 
 works, are too much burdened with 
 ‘deep thinking’’ and with terms and 
 phrases not familiar to the public to 
 accomplish the greater mission. When 
 the average reader is driven to the ne- 
 cessity of consulting a reference library 
 every few minutes to find out what his 
 author is trying to say, he usually 
 loses interest and sleepily lays the book 
 aside. Jesus talked about the funda- 
 mentals. Yet He used the language 
 of common speech and illustrated the 
 truths He uttered with things com- 
 monly understood. Perhaps that was 
 one reason why the common people 
 heard Him gladly. 
 
 Nothing is'\ more important when 
 preparing sermons or lectures, or when 
 writing articles or books, than the 
 proper selection of terms—especially 
 
 pie) 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 names or designations. My embarrass- 
 ment upon numerous occasions has re- 
 sulted from eareless introductions. 
 Ministers, as well as laymen, have in- 
 troduced me to lecture on ‘‘The Deity 
 of Christ.’? At one place I was intro- 
 duced by a banker of local distinction 
 to lecture on ‘‘The Deity of the Son 
 of God’’! This looks absurd in print, 
 and it must have appeared absurd to 
 many in that audience. But the phrase, 
 “The Deity of the Son of God,’’ is no 
 more out of keeping with exactness 
 than is the phrase, ‘‘The Deity of 
 Christ’’—which is sometimes seen in 
 published article and in book, and 
 frequently heard in sermon. The crit- 
 ics have debated practically everything 
 between the lids of the Bible, and in 
 numerous particulars they have 
 changed the popular viewpoint. It is 
 generally conceded, however, and 
 doubtless will ever be, that the He- 
 brew word for Messiah corresponds 
 in the Greek of the New Testament 
 to the word translated Christ, or, 
 2 F 15 ] 
 
INTRODUCTION 
 
 
 
 
 
 more properly, the Christ. As does 
 Messiah, the Christ means the Anointed 
 of God. One would never say ‘‘The 
 Deity of God.’’ Exacting students 
 might object to this parallelism, and 
 by a process of needle-point reasoning 
 they might affirm with a slight degree 
 of plausibility that it is not academic- 
 ally put. Nevertheless, if by any 
 method of reasoning Jesus of Nazareth 
 is proven to be the Messiah, the Christ, 
 the Anointed of God, or more than man, 
 His oneness with God will have been 
 sufficiently established to force recog- 
 nition of His deity. Hence, in the 
 discussion that follows the name, 
 ‘*Jesus,’’ and never ‘‘Christ,’’ will be 
 employed to designate the One whom I 
 hope to prove was, and is, more than 
 man—the Christ, the Anointed of God, 
 the Deity once manifest in the flesh. 
 (It will be understood, of course, that 
 this rule can not apply when historic 
 reference or direct quotation is em- 
 ployed.) AUTHOR. 
 
 [16] 
 
METHOD OF REASONING 
 (Matt. 28: 18.) 
 
 All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth, 
 —Authorized Version. 
 
 All authority hath been given unto me in heaven and 
 on earth.—American Revised Version. 
 
 All authority in heaven and on earth hath been given 
 unto me.—LRotherham’s Translation. 
 
 Full authority in heaven and on the earth has been 
 given to me.—Goodspeed’s Translation. 
 
 Full authority has been given to me in heaven and 
 on earth—Moffatt’s Translation, 
 
 All power in heaven and over the earth has been 
 given to me.—Weymouth’s Translation. 
 
 All power is given to me in heaven and in earth, 
 —Douay Version, 
 
 HIS announcement, attributed to 
 one called Jesus of Nazareth, just 
 prior to His ascension, is quoted merely 
 as a starting-point. Owing to the char- 
 acter of the discussion this chapter 
 introduces, it can not be logically sub- 
 mitted as proof of anything. J have 
 said that the announcement quoted is 
 [17] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 
 
 
 
 ‘attributed to one called Jesus of Naz- 
 areth, just prior to His ascension,’’ be- 
 cause I can not now make a positive 
 statement about Jesus, His utterances 
 or His ascension. That Jesus lived 
 can not at present be taken for granted. 
 Hence, His ascension can not be taken 
 for granted, nor can any utterances at- 
 tributed to Him. The apparent irrev- 
 erence of this position will fade from 
 the reader’s mind as he proceeds. This 
 thesis proposes to prove that Jesus 
 lived, and still lives, and that He was, 
 and is, more than man. But until the 
 first part of the proposition shall have 
 been substantiated, it can not be as- 
 sumed that Jesus lived. 
 
 I never discuss, in public address 
 or in print, things I know nothing 
 about. And just here I am forced, by 
 the task I have set myself, to tempo- 
 rarily adopt the agnostic’s ‘‘if.’’ If 
 Jesus lived, and if there be a heaven, 
 and if Jesus ascended into heaven, I 
 know nothing about the authority He 
 exercises there. Hence, the first part of 
 
 [18 ] 
 
METHOD OF REASONING 
 
 the passage I have chosen for a start- 
 ing-point is at once eliminated. I 
 shall, however, contend that Jesus lived 
 and that He has authority on earth. 
 And in making this contention I shall 
 appeal exclusively to things I know 
 something about. 
 
 The usual sermon or lecture or book 
 on the historicity or deity of Jesus— 
 and especially His deity—appeals to, 
 and in great measure rests its case 
 upon, statements in the Bible. From 
 my viewpoint, this method, which in- 
 sists that the Bible contains the au- 
 thentic word of God, is in this day of 
 graded skepticism subject to adverse 
 eriticism—if not to censure and ridi- 
 cule. 
 
 It may be that the man with whom 
 one is reasoning regards the Bible as 
 a bundle of improbable stories, and 
 that to him it is, as a whole, a con- 
 temptible book which ought not to be 
 permitted circulation. This is his 
 privilege, and his sincerity, taken for 
 granted, should be respected. Robert 
 
 [19 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 
 
 
 
 G. Ingersoll’s sincerity was generally 
 respected, mainly because he sacrificed 
 much—ineluding political emolument 
 —upon what he called ‘‘the altar 
 of conviction.’”’? He not only declined 
 to accept the Bible as an inspired book, 
 but he contended that the Bible should 
 be either changed or suppressed. And 
 men of Ingersoll’s way of thinking are 
 more numerous than one might sup- 
 pose. Why quote the Bible to such 
 an one? Before he will accept Bible 
 statements as proof of anything, he 
 must be convinced that the Bible is 
 more than a human book. This would, 
 of course, introduce another subject 
 for discussion, and a tremendous one, 
 and the difficulties of one’s task would 
 be greatly multiplied. 
 
 Perhaps one’s auditor or reader 
 is a self-styled ‘‘progressive thinker’’ 
 who affirms, with an ‘‘I know-it-all’’ 
 air, that the inspiration which gave us 
 the Bible was what we now eall ‘‘hu- 
 man genius,’’ and that the Bible is 
 therefore inspired just, and only, as 
 
 [ 20 ] 
 
METHOD OF REASONING 
 
 Shakespeare and Milton are inspired. 
 It has been said, and I think truth- 
 fully, that modernists are ‘‘long on 
 affirmation, but short on argument.”’ 
 Women have been accused, doubtless 
 falsely, of saying ‘‘because.’’ The full- 
 orbed modernist is not likely to even 
 say ‘‘because’’—he is usually content 
 to say “‘it is.”’ As a rule, he is gen- 
 erously equipped with history, mem- 
 orized or surmised. Logic in his pres- 
 entation of matters debatable is gen- 
 erally quite scarce, and frequently it is 
 conspicuous for its entire absence. 
 Modernists have been known to smile 
 at and make witty remarks about the 
 logic of the ‘‘old-timers.’’ If the af- 
 firmation of a well-seasoned modernist 
 is questioned, or if his reasoning by 
 analogy does not convince one, his 
 placid ‘‘I’m surprised’’ expression 
 will, in all probability, plainly ask: 
 ‘‘Where have you been all these years 
 that you do not know the night of logic 
 has gone—never to return?’’ He does 
 not contend, as did Ingersoll, that the 
 [21] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 
 
 
 
 Bible ought to be scrapped. Instead, 
 he talks and writes about the ‘‘val- 
 uations’’ of the Bible, and professes 
 reverence for it. But to him the Bible 
 is not a book of authority, because it 
 is not inspired—and likewise because 
 the real seat of authority is one’s 
 ‘‘inner consciousness.’’ Why quote the 
 Bible to him to prove anything? His 
 supreme need is sufficient condescension 
 to hear or read, with an open mind, a 
 logical study on the integrity of the 
 Bible. 
 
 All who accept the Bible as God’s 
 revelation to man must necessarily ac- 
 cept Jesus as a fact and recognize His 
 deity. On the other hand, the man 
 who regards the Bible as an uninspired 
 book, and who doubts the historicity 
 of Jesus, will look askance at quotations 
 from the Bible to prove that Jesus 
 lived. And likewise will the modernist 
 who admits that Jesus lived, but denies 
 His deity. The Bible is of no value 
 in argument with the one upon the 
 historicity of Jesus, nor is it of value 
 
 [ 22 ] 
 
 
 
METHOD OF REASONING 
 
 in argument with the other upon the 
 deity of Jesus. 
 
 I do not think any man’s reverence 
 for the Bible is more profound than 
 mine. At first, with an open mind, and 
 later sympathetically, I considered the 
 modernistic position for a number of 
 years—Il even tried to preach it. And 
 down to the present time I have read 
 the modernistic books. I feel certain 
 that I know the modern viewpoint re- 
 specting religious fundamentals. And 
 the more I study the modernistic the- 
 ories the stronger becomes my convic- 
 tion that the Bible is God’s medium 
 of communication with man. What I 
 am now about to do ean not, therefore, 
 be interpreted as an act of irreverence. 
 
 As I close this chapter, I close the 
 Bible. As the discussion turns from 
 phase to phase of the subjects handled, 
 the Bible and the Gospels will, of 
 course, be occasionally mentioned. And 
 a bit of Scripture may, now and then, 
 appear in direct quotation. But no 
 appeal will be made to the Bible. So 
 
 [ 23 J 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 far as the argument is concerned, the 
 Bible is now pushed aside—and it will 
 be ignored as though it were not in 
 existence. 
 
 [ 24 ] 
 
“FACTS ARE FACTS” 
 
 OW that the Bible is closed and 
 
 can not be reopened until this 
 discussion is concluded, the reader must 
 not expect to do other than roam in the 
 woods and fields of the secular sphere. 
 He will, of course, find himself in cor- 
 ners that have been made religious by 
 men; but his journey will be down 
 through the modern centuries of the 
 world’s thought and life. Hence, my 
 employment of the term ‘‘secular’’ to 
 suggest the way on which he has 
 started. 
 
 The question is: Can he, while pur- 
 suing the most sacred study known to 
 man, find in the great secular world 
 the birds of rich plumage and golden 
 throat, the flowers of beautiful petal 
 and sweet fragrance and the gushing 
 springs his heart desires? I think he 
 ean. Otherwise, I would be guilty of 
 
 [ 25 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 extreme folly in volunteering my ser- 
 vice as a temporary guide. 
 
 I might add that I think we all too 
 frequently neglect the secular in our 
 quest of things high and ennobling. 
 The secular world has a bad side— 
 made up of dishonesty, immorality and 
 all things vulgar and crude. It also 
 has a good side—inlaid with honesty, 
 virtue and all things honorable and 
 eultural. Every principle of righteous- 
 ness has been planted in the secular 
 world, there to express itself in the 
 tree of life. The beauty of the ages 
 has all been stored for human appro- 
 priation, and it flashes every day in 
 the lives of people. The secular world 
 is likewise eloquent with reliable and 
 convincing testimony respecting Jesus 
 of Nazareth and the claims of deity 
 made for Him by His followers. 
 
 A guide frequently calls attention 
 to things that are in some way familiar 
 to those who follow him. Yet he some- 
 times points out features or charac- 
 teristics that have not been carefully 
 
 [ 26 ] 
 
“FACTS ARE FACTS” 
 
 studied by his company, and occasion- 
 ally he announces something altogether 
 new at least to some whom he con- 
 ducts. The journey upon which we 
 are starting is not exceeding long—I 
 have cut off many miles by condensing 
 the discussion to the fewest possible 
 paragraphs. It is, however, rather a 
 circuitous journey, but I think I know 
 the way. I have given careful at- 
 tention to the contents of each chap- 
 ter, and I feel sure that readers with 
 interrogation-points in their minds 
 respecting historic incident and facts 
 of art will find accuracy. It has been 
 a joy to arrange the itineracy, and now, 
 if I can in any way aid my company 
 of readers in seeing and appropriating 
 what is along the route, ‘‘the pleasure 
 will all be mine.’’ 
 
 I trust that the reader, as he enters 
 with me into this discussion, will not 
 anticipate tedious translations and 
 hair-splitting arguments. Should his 
 anticipations be thus, he will be disap- 
 pointed—and perhaps agreeably! 
 
 [ 27 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 The microscope is not my hobby. 
 I revel in the midst of things that can 
 be seen with the naked eye. I shall, 
 therefore, be content to point out 
 things that are on the surface—facts 
 with which all are more or less fa- 
 miliar, and which none can question. 
 
 Facts may remain undiscovered, 
 and they may be covered up; but they 
 ean be neither annihilated nor broken 
 to pieces. Facts are as eternal and 
 fixed as the stars. 
 
 Moreover, facts are stubborn things. 
 They never have the politeness to bow 
 themselves out when they are in the 
 way. And a fact is an awful thing 
 when it plants itself squarely in the 
 path of a pet theory. 
 
 One can argue with a theory and 
 enjoy it; but he can not argue with a 
 fact. He can argue with a theory of 
 light, but he can not argue with a ray 
 of light—it is a fact which he must 
 admit. He may have his own ideas 
 about a theory of gravitation, and pre- 
 sent them in a way fascinating to his 
 
 [ 28 ] 
 
“FACTS ARE FACTS” 
 own mind and confusing to the mind 
 of his listener; but the fact that an ob- 
 ject thrown up must come down is 
 outside the pale of debate. 
 
 I shall neither descend into the 
 bowels of the earth nor ascend the 
 pyramids of the skies in search of 
 facts for this discussion. The facts I 
 shall present to prove that Jesus lived 
 are, of course, in history. The facts I 
 need to support the proposition that 
 Jesus was, and is, more than man are 
 in the life of the world—seen with the 
 human eye, heard by the human ear, 
 felt in the human heart. And, bold 
 as it may appear to say it, these facts 
 are incontrovertible—no matter what 
 the reasoning to account for them. 
 
 [ 29 ] 
 
JESUS LIVED 
 
 HY discuss the historicity of 
 
 Jesus? This question may be in 
 the mind of a reader who does not 
 happen to know that Bauerism—a 
 school of thought in Germany three- 
 quarters of a century ago which re- 
 garded Jesus as a mythical figure, and 
 which, after attracting meager atten- 
 tion, apparently passed—is now being 
 revived in a way quite pronounced, 
 and with a subtlety that is cause for 
 alarm. I do not here intimate that 
 we should entertain fears as to the per- 
 manent future and ultimate triumph 
 of the Christian religion. However, 
 the program of Christianity has been 
 repeatedly retarded by the battles it 
 has had to wage with infidelity. And, 
 although we may not always be con- 
 scious of it, such a battle is now on 
 —a battle in which it is difficult to lo- 
 
 [ 30 ] 
 
JESUS LIVED 
 
 —_——— 
 
 cate many professing Christians, and 
 even some ministers of renown. 
 
 The New Theology, with which we 
 are generally acquainted, does not 
 deny the historicity of Jesus. But it 
 entirely separates Jesus from the 
 Christ. In its numerous discussions of 
 Christology, it represents the Christ as 
 purely a creation of human imagina- 
 tion. It is but a short step from the 
 denial of the historicity of the Christ 
 to the denial of the historicity of Jesus. 
 Bruno Bauer and David Friedrich 
 Strauss belonged originally to the 
 same school. Bauer participated in 
 the controversy occasioned by Strauss’ 
 “Life of Jesus,’’ and his investiga- 
 tions ultimately led him to deny the 
 historicity of Jesus. And thus great 
 men are drifting to-day—satisfying 
 themselves that the Christ is fictitious, 
 then arriving at the conclusion that 
 Jesus also is a fictitious product of 
 the Christian religion which they claim 
 Paul founded. Moreover, what we 
 eall ‘‘liberal theology’? and ‘‘radical 
 
 3 [31] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 theology’? are so closely related to 
 each other—they have so much in com- 
 mon—that they are like twins, and it 
 is often difficult to tell them apart. 
 Changing the figure, they are like ‘‘two 
 peas in a pod.’’ Nor are they sep- 
 arated by other peas—they are as close 
 together as two peas can be. Where 
 ‘‘liberalism’’ ends and ‘‘radicalism’’ 
 begins is a point so fine that a snappy 
 discussion of it by expert debaters 
 would make interesting reading. 
 
 There are two ways of handling a 
 matter in question—producing argu- 
 ment and resorting to bluff. The lat- 
 ter may succeed temporarily, but it 
 adds nothing to a cause—and it lacks 
 integrity. 
 
 I once heard a preacher of extra- 
 ordinary platform ability say to a 
 great interdenominational audience: 
 ‘‘When a man intimates to me that 
 Jesus did not live, I tell him to prove 
 that Jesus did not live, and I spike 
 his little popgun!’’ That was a bluff, 
 and its temporary success was quite 
 
 [ 32 ] 
 
JESUS LIVED 
 
 marked. The victorious attitude, the 
 high-pitched driving voice and _ the 
 facial earnestness with which the 
 speaker hurled the challenge sent it 
 home. The audience applauded long 
 enough for him to sip some water. 
 But was there anything worth while 
 in the utterance? Absolutely not. 
 
 The demand that the unbeliever 
 prove the non-historicity of Jesus or 
 keep silent is out of line with a law 
 —unwritten, but ancient and inflexible 
 —which applies in every sphere of 
 human activity, and which is essen- 
 tial to human progress. Here is a 
 present-day concrete illustration. <A 
 friend is trying to sell me life in- 
 surance, and I question the soundness 
 of the company he represents. He does 
 not say to me: ‘*Prove that my com- 
 pany is unsound.’’ Instead, he pre- 
 sents evidence to prove the soundness 
 of his company. I may doubt, and 
 verbally question, any proposition—it 
 is my privilege so to do. But the man 
 submitting it to me would depart from 
 
 [ 33 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 general custom—world custom, all-time 
 eustom—should he demand that I 
 prove its lack of merit. It is his 
 proposition; he is urging it upon me, 
 and it is his obligation to convince me 
 that it is good. Everything of value 
 must, in obedience to the spirit of the 
 ages which pushes the world forward, 
 establish itself in the minds of the 
 people it approaches. The Christian 
 religion is not, in any sense, an excep- 
 tion. It takes the initiative, it might 
 be called an aggression, and the bur- 
 den of establishing its own claims will 
 ever rest entirely upon its own shoul- 
 ders. 
 
 I overheard a conversation between 
 two gentlemen on a bus from Boston to 
 Worcester. One remarked: ‘‘There is 
 no history to prove that Jesus lived.”’ 
 The other replied: ‘‘There is an abun- 
 dance of history to prove that Jesus 
 lived.’’ Neither knew what he was 
 talking about. 
 
 There is history to prove that Jesus 
 lived, but it is not abundant. It must 
 
 [ 34 ] 
 
JESUS LIVED 
 
 be borne in mind that argument for the 
 historicity of Jesus is warned by biased 
 criticism to steer clear of everything 
 that bears the earmarks of tradition. 
 The big question-mark can not be ig- 
 nored in sound argument. Nor is it 
 wise to ignore anything that resembles 
 a real question-mark. If one’s oppo- 
 nent questions the validity of an argu- 
 ment, and has any ground on which to 
 stand, even if it be sand and shifting, it 
 is better to concede the point and turn 
 to some other phase of the discussion. I 
 am not debating with any one in par- 
 ticular, but the principle remains the 
 same. Hence, the concessions I shall 
 be forced to make in this discussion 
 may be disappointing to some of my 
 readers. 
 
 Were I an outside inquirer, I think 
 the Catacombs of Rome would convince 
 me that the Christ was not a fictitious 
 person. According to conclusions of re- 
 search, which have not been proven un- 
 reliable, some of the representations in 
 the Catacombs date back to a period so 
 
 [ 85 J 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 near the beginning that to cast them 
 aside seems wanton waste of good evi- 
 dence. But it must be done to pacify the 
 more exacting critics. Yet these same 
 critics appeal to Egyptian and other 
 archeology whenever it suits their pur- 
 pose to do so. The Standard Dictionary 
 defines ‘‘archeology”’ as ‘‘the science or 
 study of history from relics and re- 
 mains of antiquities.’’ Consistency is 
 anything but a jewel in the he of 
 modernistic critics. 
 
 J likewise value much of the tes- 
 timony of the Church Fathers. I see 
 in it a harmony and a continuity 
 which reveal strength that, in my own 
 mind, the eritics have not broken 
 down. At the close of the first cen- 
 tury and on into the second, there 
 were differences of opinion on doc- 
 trinal matters, but there was no con- 
 troversy about the historicity of Jesus. 
 To the Christians of that day, Jesus 
 was a fact—a fact so universally ac- 
 cepted that there was none to ques- 
 tion it. This the critics will not deny. 
 
 [ 36 ] 
 
JESUS LIVED 
 
 Yet they ring in ‘‘tradition’”’ again, 
 and the evidence of the Fathers must 
 be ignored also. 
 
 Now that I am without appeal to 
 the Bible, the Catacombs and the Fa- 
 thers, I am left only secular history out 
 of which to gather evidence that Jesus 
 lived. I am not vain enough to think 
 that I am discovering for my readers 
 the bits of history now to be cited. 
 One could no more ‘‘find something’’ 
 in history—especially upon this sub- 
 ject—than he could manufacture his- 
 tory. All there is in history on the 
 subject under consideration has been 
 lifted up to view by the religious wri- 
 ters of the centuries. The ground we 
 must now go over has been covered a 
 thousand times, and then again. Now- 
 adays, the individuality of procedure 
 is an author’s only apology for invit- 
 ing his readers to journey with him 
 to the range-lines history has estab- 
 lished. And when I say, ‘‘Come with 
 me,’’? it is because I think that my 
 method of approach may be of a little 
 
 [37 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 value at least to a few of my studious 
 readers. 
 
 Secular history pays the larger at- 
 tention to men of state and war. This 
 is especially true of remote secular his- 
 tory. Then, there is the observation 
 that the early Roman writers appear to 
 have paid but small attention to relig- 
 ious sects. It is thought by careful 
 investigators that they did not give 
 ‘‘foreign’’ and ‘‘peculiar’’ religions 
 sufficient thought even to clearly un- 
 derstand the difference between Ju- 
 daism and Christianity. Therefore, 
 it should not be surprising to find early 
 secular history either giving Jesus 
 meager attention or ignoring Him al- 
 together. Nevertheless, Jesus was not 
 entirely left out of early-century sec- 
 ular history. And I shall now request 
 the reader to look carefully at the ref- 
 erences to Him in the history of that 
 period. | 
 
 Pliny, when governor of Bithynia, 
 wrote to Trajan the emperor about 
 the trouble he was having with the 
 
 [ 38 ] 
 
JESUS LIVED 
 Christians, and sought advice as to 
 future procedure. The date of his 
 letter was not later than 112 A. D. 
 In it he described the situation in 
 his jurisdiction and mentioned Christ. 
 Every method available to hostile ecrit- 
 icism has been employed, and over- 
 worked, to throw out Pliny’s testi- 
 mony; but that the prolonged effort 
 has not proven satisfactory is shown 
 ‘by the controversy relative to the letter 
 still conspicuously current. Pliny’s 
 letter remains to be wrestled with by 
 every critic who seeks to prove the 
 non-historicity of Jesus. It has been 
 urged that Pliny could not have had 
 first-hand knowledge of Jesus, and 
 that therefore his letter to Trajan can 
 not be accepted as reliable history. If 
 all history had to be composed of first- 
 hand knowledge, accepted history 
 would not bulk so large as it does. 
 Pliny had a situation on his hands, 
 a situation in which a great multitude 
 of Christians figured, and he knew the 
 name of the One they followed—it was 
 
 [39 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 the one great effort of his courts to 
 try to compel Christians to profane 
 that name. It appears that there were 
 no debates around Bithynia in those 
 days about the historicity of the man 
 whom the people honored with their 
 devotion. Some have written ‘‘for- 
 gery’’ across Pliny’s letter, but that 
 word has been written across so many 
 things that it does not scare folk any 
 more. Until something is proven a 
 forgery, so that the majority of the 
 leading investigators can see it, the 
 ‘‘forgery-provers’’ will not have ac- 
 complished their task. 
 
 Suetonius, writing about 120 A. D., 
 refers to Christians having been pun- 
 ished by Nero, and to Jews, who raised 
 a commotion at the instigation of one, 
 Chrestus, having been expelled from 
 Rome by Claudius. There is much 
 division of opinion over this, especially 
 because Chrestus, instead of Christus, 
 is the word employed. However, other 
 names have been twisted in history, 
 and this fact is not a major reason for 
 
 [ 40 ] 
 
JESUS LIVED 
 
 discarding the history. In my opinion, 
 Suetonius, in his lives of the Cesars 
 from Julius Cesar to Domitian, is by 
 no means an unimportant witness. But 
 I shall not insist upon starring him. 
 Tacitus, born in 55 A. D., testifies 
 that the Christians whom Nero pun- 
 ished were named from Christ, who 
 was put to death by Pontius Pilate in 
 the reign of Tiberius. Numerous ef- 
 forts have been made to drive Tacitus 
 out of court, but he persists in remain- 
 ing and occupying the witness-chair. 
 Hochart, a French critic, tried to prove 
 that Poggio Bracciolini produced this 
 testimony in the name of Tacitus as 
 late as the fifteenth century; but his 
 conjecture was so wild that even the 
 extreme liberalists have practically ig- 
 nored it. There seems no way to pro- 
 nounce Tacitus’ reference to Christ 
 unauthentic, and the best the opposi- 
 tion can do is to affirm that it was 
 based on tradition. I shall not argue 
 this matter further than to suggest 
 that Tacitus appears to have been a 
 [ 41 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 wise old writer who was not a ‘‘nod- 
 der’’ at his desk, and that he lived 
 far enough back in the first century 
 to have secured accurate information. 
 
 Flavius Josephus, a Jew, and a 
 scion of an eminent priestly family, 
 was born in Jerusalem in 37 or 38 
 A. D. When a boy in his teens, he 
 was regarded as a marvel—so_ per- 
 sistent was he in the investigation 
 of matters judicial. The historian in 
 him was evidently developed early. 
 Hence it is reasonable to suppose that 
 he left no stone unturned to secure 
 accurate information concerning things 
 he heard the older people talking about. 
 And be it remembered that he was 
 born only four or five years after the 
 year in which Jesus is said to have 
 been crucified. 
 
 Twice in his ‘‘ Antiquities’’ he men- 
 tions Jesus. In one passage he says 
 Jesus was the Christ, that He was a 
 doer of wonderful works, that He was 
 condemned to the cross by Pilate, and 
 that He appeared alive the third day. 
 
 [ 42] 
 
JESUS LIVED 
 
 In the other he states that James, who 
 was cited before the Sanhedrin judges, 
 was the brother of Jesus, who was 
 called Christ. 
 
 In vain have atheists, infidels, rad- 
 icals and liberals endeavored to explain 
 away the testimony of Josephus. And 
 many people think it has been done. I 
 have an idea that some of my readers 
 will pause about here, and, in their 
 minds, say to me: ‘‘Do you not know 
 that the passages in Josephus, refer- 
 ring to Jesus, have long since been 
 labeled ‘interpolations,’ and aban- 
 doned?’’ Frankly, I do not know this. 
 I will admit that those passages have 
 been labeled ‘‘interpolations,’’ espe- 
 cially the first. But I am not ready 
 to admit that they have been aban- 
 doned—not even by the liberal critics. 
 No one who reads even a little along 
 eritical lines will make such an admis- 
 sion—he knows that it simply is not 
 true. Moreover, the ‘‘interpolation’’ 
 scarecrow does not shoo me away from 
 Josephus. If there is anything in Jo- 
 
 [ 43 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 sephus that supports the historicity of 
 Jesus, I need and must have it—and 
 I shall hover near until I get it. 
 There are two conspicuous classes 
 in every school of thought—the ma- 
 jority who ‘‘catch things on the run”’ 
 and make sweeping, unqualified state- 
 ments, and the few who are controlled 
 by a desire to investigate and know the 
 reason why. In the New Theology 
 school, this classification is extraordi- 
 narily observable. The majority, in 
 sermon and printed article, seem con- 
 tent to dispose of things with a wave 
 of the hand—and there is seldom any- 
 thing left of what they smite. For 
 instance, it is quite common for them 
 to dispose of the references in Jose- 
 plus by saying, careless like, and with 
 a knowing look: “It is now well 
 known”’ or, ‘‘It is generally conceded 
 that the passages in Josephus are in- 
 terpolations.’? The few who actually 
 delve do not make such sweeping state- 
 ments—they sharpen their knives and 
 pare away as much as possible of the 
 [ 44 ] 
 
JESUS LIVED 
 
 Josephus passages, but usually leave 
 a little. I prefer the latter. They are, 
 of course, hard to deal with; but they 
 leave something for the consolation of 
 their opponents—they, at least, leave 
 the hook on which the interpolation 
 was hung! 
 
 Now, let us look at the Josephus 
 passages for a few moments and see 
 whether or not there is anything in 
 them that remains as testimony in 
 support of the historicity of Jesus. 
 We shall simply take a glance at the 
 process of cutting away the evidence. 
 There would be nothing gained by an 
 extended view of the operation, for the 
 reason that I do not need what they 
 pare off—I need only what they let 
 remain. In other words, I am, for my 
 present purpose, as well satisfied with 
 the conclusion of the liberal thinker 
 who knows what he is about as I would 
 be with that of the most devout, con- 
 servative student. 
 
 The exaggerations possible, and 
 probable, in the Slavonic version of 
 
 [ 45 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 Josephus are, of course, made a basis 
 of attack upon the passages in question. 
 The novice critic—and he is quite nu- 
 merous just now—usually thinks he has 
 won his point, and stops when he has 
 brandished the Slavonie additions. But 
 the riper student wanders back through 
 the centuries, pausing to catch the 
 drift of every controversy over the Jo- 
 sephus passages, nor does he stop until 
 he has at least interviewed Jerome, 
 Eusebius and Origen. Of course, Euse- 
 bius is not given a lengthy interview 
 —he appears to be on the wrong side 
 of the question. But Origen and 
 Jerome, who somewhat sides with 
 Origen, are starred to prove that the 
 references to the miraculous, and the 
 statement, ‘‘He was the Christ,’’ are 
 something other than what Josephus 
 wrote. Then begins the conjectural dis- 
 cussion about the impossibility of the 
 first passage because it is foreign to 
 the context, Josephus’ Jewish con- 
 nections and sentiments making the 
 possibility of his having in any way 
 [ 46 ] 
 
JESUS LIVED 
 
 recognized the Christian faith prepos- 
 terous, etc. 
 
 Inasmuch as all efforts to prove 
 that the references in Josephus to 
 Jesus are outright fabrications have 
 failed, the controversy rages about the 
 phraseology which associates Jesus 
 with the supernatural. But no matter 
 what direction the modernistic discus- 
 sion of this matter takes, if it be con- 
 ducted by a real investigator of the 
 school, it usually pulls up somewhere 
 with an admission that Josephus made 
 reference to Jesus. Many such admis- 
 sions could be cited, but space will be 
 given only to three. 
 
 The lengthy article on the Josephus 
 testimony in the Encyclopedia of Re- 
 lgion and Ethics, edited by Hastings, 
 attacks the miraculous—just as one 
 might expect—and disposes of it in a 
 very keen way. Its great battle is with 
 the first passage. However, that ar- 
 ticle runs against a stone wall in the 
 second and makes the following admis- 
 sion: 
 
 4 [ 47 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 
 
 
 
 ‘“‘This passage is altogether beyond suspl- 
 eion. . . . The manner in which Jesus is here 
 mentioned coincides exactly with what we should 
 expect from Josephus.’’ 
 
 In his book, ‘‘The Historicity of 
 Jesus,’? Prof. Shirley Jackson Case, 
 of the University of Chicago, discusses 
 the Josephus passages at considerable 
 length, and in his treatment the follow- 
 ing admission appears: 
 
 ‘‘Thus Josephus proves to be of only slight 
 value as a source of information about Jesus. 
 He appears to have known of Jesus’ existence, 
 yet he mentions him only casually and on but 
 one occasion.’’ 
 
 Prof. Arthur Drews, a radical of 
 the radicals, in his book, ‘‘The Christ 
 Myth,’’ wrestles laboriously with the 
 Josephus passages, and in a way ad- 
 mits that Josephus may have known of 
 ‘fa man of the name of Jesus who was 
 called Christ.”’ 
 
 The Jewish opinion would nat- 
 urally be hostile to retaining in Jose- 
 phus testimony of any sort concerning 
 Jesus. Hence, I think an admission 
 
 [ 48 ] 
 
JESUS LIVED 
 
 from the Jewish viewpoint will fit in 
 here quite snugly. The Jewish Ency- 
 clopedia says: 
 
 ‘‘Josephus mentions John the Baptist; 
 James, the brother of Jesus, and Jesus Him- 
 self.’’ 
 
 Both the Jewish scholars and the 
 modernistiec Christian scholars appear 
 willing for Josephus to testify that 
 Jesus lived; but to let Josephus tes- 
 tify that Jesus was the Christ and a 
 miracle-worker—never ! 
 
 All right. Let it go at that. Per- 
 sonally, I accept the miraculous attrib- 
 uted to Jesus by both Josephus and the 
 New Testament. However, I shall not 
 intrude miracles as evidence in this 
 discussion. J do not need them—not 
 even in subsequent chapters to raise 
 Jesus above mankind. If, when we 
 reach that part of the thesis, my con- 
 tention that Jesus of Nazareth was, 
 and is, more than man can not stand 
 without appeal to the virgin birth, the 
 feeding of the multitudes, the quelling 
 
 [ 49 | 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 of the storm, the healing of the sick 
 and the bodily resurrection, let it fall! 
 
 Therefore, let the references in 
 Josephus to Jesus be stripped of the 
 miraculous, and let the phrase, ‘‘the 
 Christ,’’ be cut out entirely. I neither 
 need nor wish to prove by Josephus 
 that Jesus was the Christ or that He 
 was in any sense divine. In the inter- 
 est of my proposition to establish the 
 fact that Jesus lived, without appeal to 
 the Bible, and inasmuch as I have 
 surrendered the testimony of the Cata- 
 combs and the Fathers, I am willing to 
 join hands with the modernists in 
 cutting the testimony of Josephus 
 down to one thing—the fact that Jesus 
 lived. 
 
 Pliny, Tacitus and Josephus have 
 been grilled unmercifully for nearly a 
 century—this, to say nothing of prior 
 ordeals through which they passed. 
 But to this day they stand unim- 
 peached as witnesses to the fact that 
 Jesus lived. Moreover, Suetonius could 
 yet be questioned—in an emergency! 
 
 [ 50 | 
 
THE NEW THEOLOGY 
 
 | pees phrase, ‘‘The New Theology,’’ 
 
 is current, and likewise are the 
 terms ‘‘liberalist,’? ‘‘modernist’’? and 
 ‘“progressive.’’ Hence, they must be 
 recognized. Besides, they are convenient 
 —they enable the writer or speaker to 
 differentiate and classify. However, 
 while the New Theology, which evolved 
 out of Higher and Lower Criticism, 
 is more modern than the theory of evo- 
 lution, it is by no means modern. Much 
 of its present structure obtained cen- 
 turies ago, and its entire structure was 
 practically completed before our pres- 
 ent-day new theologians were born. 
 Rabbi Ben Ezra, of the eleventh cen- 
 tury, performed hard labor on its 
 foundation, nor was he the first on the 
 job. Spinoza, another Jew, was a 
 foreman on the construction in the 
 seventeenth century. Lessing, Herder 
 
 [51] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 and Eichhorn worked on it in the eigh- 
 teenth century, and Bauer and Strauss 
 and numerous others in the nineteenth 
 century. The men whose names have 
 been prominently connected with the 
 New Theology during the past forty 
 years have put on furbelows and 
 painted, frescoed and otherwise touched 
 up the building, but they have not 
 wrought fundamental changes in it. 
 
 Some one may ask: ‘‘Why even a 
 brief chapter on the New Theology ?”’ 
 It is a necessary apology for succeed- 
 ing chapters. 
 
 In the preceding chapter it was 
 stated that the New Theology with 
 which we are generally acquainted does 
 not regard Jesus as a myth. In its 
 fundamental teaching, it eschews the 
 Christ, but it accepts Jesus as a fact. 
 Hence, it should be clearly borne in 
 mind that we are not here dealing with 
 what the moderate modernists call 
 **radicalism.’’ 
 
 In his lecture, ‘‘The Ethics of Jesus 
 of Nazareth,’’ to which I listened with 
 
 [ 52 J 
 
THE NEW THEOLOGY 
 
 note-book in hand a quarter of a cen- 
 tury ago, the late Dr. Lyman Abbott 
 affirmed that the young man from Naz- 
 areth, being familiar with Old Testa- 
 ment prophecy and the Jewish hope, 
 decided to be the Messiah. The mean- 
 ing of this is unmistakably clear. The 
 young Nazarene was not the Anointed 
 of God in any special sense—He was 
 only a man, and He followed a self-de- 
 veloped vision. With this sweeping 
 statement the distinguished editor of 
 the Outlook mirrored one of the three 
 major conclusions of the New Theology. 
 
 Until recent years, New Theology 
 writing was usually enigmatical. So 
 veiled were the ‘‘assured results’’ that 
 only members of the senior class clearly 
 comprehended them. Now it is differ- 
 ent. Notwithstanding the fact that the 
 major conclusions pressed upon us as 
 ‘‘new’’ and ‘‘shiny”’ are quite ancient, 
 modernism is to be congratulated upon 
 having ‘‘progressed’’ sufficiently to 
 make itself understood by people of or- 
 dinary intelligence. 
 
 [53 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 To get ‘‘the vision’? we hear so 
 much about, one must read the entire 
 circle of modernistic literature. While 
 ‘the vision’? can be comprehended 
 within three brief statements (and I 
 shall thus put it in the next para- 
 graph), modernism resorts to ver- 
 bosity without end to blaze it forth. 
 Specialty is the order of the day, and 
 each modernistic specialist must neces- 
 sarily write a book describing the span- 
 gle of ‘‘the vision’’ he has mastered. 
 
 In a final, logical analysis, New 
 Theology literature, taken as a whole, 
 ‘‘comforts’’ us with the following 
 ‘‘brand new’’ conclusions of the long 
 ago: 
 
 1. The Bible is a collection of un- 
 inspired literature which, owing to its 
 peculiar merit, has survived the on- 
 slaughts of the centuries. 
 
 2. God is a concept—‘‘an abstract 
 general notion or idea.’’ In other 
 words, instead of God having created 
 man in His own image, man created 
 God in his own imagination. 
 
 [ 54 J 
 
THE NEW THEOLOGY 
 
 3. Jesus was a man, and only a man, 
 who was built upon a big plan and 
 had far-reaching vision, and who 
 should, therefore, be classed with the 
 world’s great teachers. His original 
 and authoritative manner of restating 
 truth is valuable, but His supreme 
 value to mankind is the content of 
 His life. (It is not now uncommon 
 to find in modernistic literature an in- 
 timation that while Jesus was a good 
 man, probably the best of men, He was 
 not sinless in the strict sense of the 
 word. And modernistic literature is 
 quite explicit respecting the Christ. 
 He exists in the mind only—the linger- 
 ing of old-time superstition, belief in 
 dogma to which the unprogressive are 
 slaves. ) 
 
 This is an exemplification, par ex- 
 cellence, of ‘‘taking away the lame 
 man’s erutch and leaving him nothing 
 to lean upon.’’ 
 
 New Theology folk must be evo- 
 lutionists—otherwise they would not be 
 up to date. Evolution, as applied to 
 
 [ 55 J 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 origins, is about the most static thing 
 that troubles human thought. Never- 
 theless, the ‘‘progressive’’? man is of 
 necessity an evolutionist. He may 
 know nothing about evolution, but he 
 must pretend to advocate it—to keep 
 his place in the ‘‘progressive”’ line. 
 
 A small eompany of mutual friends, 
 in attendance upon a religious conven- 
 tion, were visiting in a hotel room. The 
 pastor of a prominent church an- 
 nounced that he was an evolutionist, 
 and that he hesitated not to let the 
 world know it. One of the company 
 innocently asked: ‘‘Why are you an 
 evolutionist?’’ The self-proclaimed 
 evolutionist was dumb as an oyster, 
 and the blankness in his face indicated 
 that there was probably a vacuum in 
 his head—at the place where a ready 
 answer for his faith should have been 
 stored. Not all evolutionists would 
 have been thus silenced. An evolution- 
 ist conversant with the subject would 
 at least have recited the ‘‘horse 
 foot’’ argument or given us the latest 
 
 [ 56 ] 
 
THE NEW THEOLOGY 
 
 news about “‘ Pithecanthropus erectus.’’ 
 That unfortunate evolutionist did not 
 appear to know that the horse had 
 changed its style of footwear. Nor did 
 he seem aware of the fact that for a 
 generation “‘ Pithecanthropus’’ has been 
 the bane of ambitious boys and girls at 
 spelling-bees. His helpless look in- 
 dicated that he could not even think 
 of ‘‘protoplasm.’”’ It is said that there 
 are half-baked evolutionists. But evi- 
 dently he had not been baked at all— 
 probably he had been rolled out, but 
 not yet put into the oven. 
 
 Is the evolutionary viewpoint mod- 
 ern? Had it been born when Darwin’s 
 ‘“‘Origin of Species’? was published, it 
 would now be sixty-seven years old. 
 But back of Charles Darwin were 
 such men as Erasmus Darwin, La- 
 marek, Linneus and Buffon of the 
 eighteenth century, and Aldrovandus 
 and Gesner of the sixteenth century, 
 proclaiming theories of evolution. And 
 even Greek philosophers presented 
 theories of evolution. Aristotle was an 
 
 [ 57 J 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 evolutionist. Two centuries before 
 Christ the reading part of Greece had 
 to digest thought food such as the fol- 
 lowing: 
 
 ‘There had been continuous succession of 
 animal forms, during which the elder and less 
 perfect had gradually given rise to the younger 
 and more perfect, themselves in process of giv- 
 ing rise to yet more perfect forms. Life itself 
 arose through the direct metamorphosis of in- 
 organic matter.’’ 
 
 Not quite like evolutionary reading 
 of to-day, but about as intelligible! 
 
 We speak of ‘‘the theory of evolu- 
 tion’’ for the sake of convenience. As 
 a matter of fact, from Aristotle’s day 
 to ours there have been theories of 
 evolution. And to-day the evolutionists 
 are split into schools that differ very 
 materially. This, of course, makes no 
 difference to numerous avowed evolu- 
 tionists—they do not know which 
 school they are in, but they are evo- 
 lutionists and ‘‘up to date.’’ 
 
 Evolution came rattling down 
 through the centuries looking for a 
 
 [58 ] 
 
THE NEW THEOLOGY 
 
 friend—to help it evolve. It found that 
 friend in the Higher Criticism, and now 
 it finds its soul mate in the New The- 
 ology. And so it turns out that the 
 New Theology, which is quite ancient, 
 is lending itself, body and soul, to the 
 advancement of the real modern view- 
 point—evolution, which is very ancient. 
 
 Jt appears that there is nothing an 
 informed evolutionist who occupies a 
 pulpit or a college position dreads so 
 much as questions about miracles. In 
 1920, the late Prof. Alfred Fairhurst 
 addressed a questionnaire to a selected 
 number of leading educators. The an- 
 swers to the question respecting New 
 Testament miracles would indicate that 
 those unfortunate men were the vic- 
 tims of a bolt from the clear sky. Their 
 answers to that question, now pre- 
 served in Professor Fairhurst’s book, 
 ‘¢ Atheism in Our Universities,’’ are too 
 pathetic to smile at. 
 
 Charles Darwin assumed a miracle 
 to start with. But every scientist 
 knows that if a single miracle stands 
 
 [ 59 | 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 the theory of evolution falls. Resort is 
 made by some, who try to maintain 
 their standing as both teachers of Chris- 
 tianity and advocates of evolution, to 
 what they eall ‘‘Theistic Evolution.”’ 
 But, in all the light of teaching from 
 the pens of authoritative evolution- 
 ists, ‘‘Theistic Evolution’’ is a mis- 
 nomer. The theory of evolution as a 
 whole can not in any way recognize 
 the miraculous. 
 
 The evolutionary theory, therefore, 
 can not logically recognize the in- 
 spiration or truthfulness of the Bible, 
 the deity of Jesus or God. The deity 
 of Jesus, the greatest of miracles, if 
 admitted by evolutionists, would wreck 
 their theory. But the general public 
 has ever persisted in just smiling at 
 the ‘‘modern’’ discovery of origins 
 which the ancients discussed and 
 handed down to our time. And how to 
 make evolution popular has been a 
 question—itself quite ancient. Now, 
 evolution has the right of way in press, 
 pulpit and college—and even in high 
 
 [ 60 ] 
 
THE NEW THEOLOGY 
 
 school. And for all this it is indebted 
 to the New Theology. The New Theol- 
 ogy—which pronounces the Bible just 
 one of the world’s sacred books, makes 
 God a concept and declares Jesus to 
 have been a man only—is evolution’s 
 best friend and closest agent to the 
 public. 
 
 It is claimed that the New Theology 
 has accomplished wonders in clearing 
 the religious atmosphere. ‘The achieve- 
 ments of the New Theology can be 
 stated in very small space. It has 
 wrecked the faith of unnumbered indi- 
 viduals, added greatly to the prestige 
 of atheism in college and university and 
 destroyed the harmony of practically 
 every religious communion. However, 
 it must be given credit for having 
 mightily aided ‘‘modern’’ progress—in 
 clearing the way for an ancient ‘‘hy- 
 pothesis’’! 
 
 [61 ] 
 
A GROUP OF FACTS 
 
 PNG a preliminary argument in sup- 
 
 port of the proposition that Jesus 
 of Nazareth was, and is, more than 
 man, I shall refer briefly to a group 
 of significant facts that are as appar- 
 ent as is the shining of the sun. 
 
 All our lives we have seen the sun 
 ascending and descending the skies 
 every day and the stars twinkling every 
 night. But, unless our interest in as- 
 tronomy is above normal, we pay but 
 little attention to those luminaries—it 
 is probable that we sometimes go for 
 days or weeks without giving them 
 thought of any kind. 
 
 Jesus is a fact in every-day human 
 life. But we are so used to Him that 
 we are inchned to take His ever-pres- 
 ence as a matter of course. Hence, 
 perhaps, we are not so tremendously 
 impressed with His fixedness as we 
 
 [ 62 ] 
 
A GROUP OF FACTS 
 
 should be. Jesus was in the life of 
 our communities when we were born, 
 and we have seen Him as fixed as the 
 sun all our lives. Yet we pursue our 
 daily tasks and pleasures without won- 
 dering much about it. Some special- 
 izing will be done in succeeding chap- 
 ters, but in this I shall simply make 
 running comment upon Jesus in every- 
 day life—pointing out things visible to 
 skeptics, infidels and atheists, as well 
 as to believers. 
 
 Much could be said about Sunday, 
 which, in one way or another, is set 
 apart not only as a day of rest, but in 
 honor of Jesus. Numerous books have 
 been written upon this subject, which 
 is so fraught with interest to humanity 
 that it will doubtless call forth many 
 more. JI shall not discuss it save to 
 say that a supposition of Sunday as it 
 is, had Jesus not lived, would be abso- 
 lutely without foundation. 
 
 Jesus stands before all the people 
 of every community in church build- 
 ings. In the larger towns and cities 
 
 5 [ 63 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 the public sees Him in hospitals, res- 
 cue missions and other institutions 
 that have taken on material form. In 
 every part of town, on all streets, along 
 country roads—everywhere—Jesus in 
 some way manifests Himself. He is 
 even seen in, and speaks out of, the cold 
 marble of the cemetery. 
 
 The hotels are not all owned or kept 
 by Christians—they are owned by 
 Christians, Jews, unbelievers and cor- 
 porations composed of moneyed men 
 and women of all religious persuasions 
 and of no religious persuasion. More- 
 over, if judged by what one sometimes 
 sees in hotels, and by raids on hotels, 
 all hotels are not centers of righteous- 
 ness. However, at what hotel can one 
 register where he does not find in his 
 room a copy of the Bible? Perhaps 
 some one answers: ‘‘Of course, the 
 hotel guest finds the Bible in his room 
 —the Gideons put it there.’? Admit- 
 ted. Nevertheless, the Bible is there. 
 And when the guest opens the Bible, 
 the first thing he sees is a page which 
 
 [ 64 ] 
 
A GROUP OF FACTS 
 
 presents the following cordial invi- 
 tation: 
 
 ‘‘Any man whose occupation is traveling 
 for commercial business, who believes in Jesus 
 Christ as the eternal Son of God, aecepts Him 
 as his personal Saviour, and endeavors to fol- 
 low Him in his daily life, and who has belonged 
 for three months or longer to some local church 
 that makes such belief and endeavor a condi- 
 tion of membership, may become a Gideon by 
 pledging himself to wear the Gideon emblem, 
 and complying with the by-laws governing ap- 
 plications. ”’ 
 
 And why the directory of churches, 
 which constantly calls the attention of 
 the traveling public to Jesus, in the 
 hotel lobby? ‘‘The church directory is 
 in the hotels because the churches pay 
 for it,’? some one volunteers. Admit- 
 ted also. I am pointing to a fact—the 
 chureh directory on the lobby wall. 
 
 The daily press is not owned or con- 
 trolled entirely by Christians. It has 
 been intimated again and again that 
 Jews have much to do with the control 
 of the secular press as a whole. It is 
 certain that daily papers are owned, 
 
 [ 65 | 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 and often edited, by Jews and by oth- 
 ers who do not believe in Jesus, as well 
 as by Christians. Yet what city could 
 one visit whose Saturday newspapers 
 do not regularly and systematically 
 announce the Sunday meetings to be 
 held in the name of Jesus? ‘‘But this 
 is a custom that started on a gratuitous 
 plan and was then commercialized,’’ it 
 may be urged. Admitted again. How- 
 ever, I still point to the fact that the 
 announcements are made regularly in 
 the daily press. 
 
 Not even the grossly irreverent can 
 completely forget Jesus—not for a sin- 
 ele day. No matter where they roam, 
 they see Him in stone, in the press, 
 on the sign-board—everywhere. I do 
 not say it irreverently, but Jesus is 
 conspicuous in even current profanity. 
 And it is commonly known that the av- 
 erage wicked man, when overtaken by 
 dire calamity, ceases profaning the 
 name of Jesus and mutters it in prayer. 
 ‘The power of superstition even in 
 our day’’—this may be the skeptic’s 
 
 [ 66 ] 
 
A GROUP OF FACTS 
 
 explanation. Call it ‘‘superstition”’ or 
 by some other name—it makes no dif- 
 ference. That men thus recognize Jesus 
 is a fact universally known. 
 
 Where may one live, where may one 
 go, where may one look, without com- 
 ing into some sort of contact with 
 Jesus? He is as inevitable in countries 
 that have been kissed by the sun of 
 civilization as is the trade upon which 
 they exist. And in the next chapter we 
 shall see Him in the nations that are 
 called heathen. 
 
 [ 67 ] 
 
THE GLOBE AROUND 
 
 JAX SCORE and five years after the 
 initial organization of the Young 
 People’s Society of Christian Hn- 
 deavor, its founder began delivering 
 his now famous lecture, ‘‘Christian 
 Endeavor the World Around.’’ This 
 movement passed mysteriously through 
 denominational walls and made itself 
 at home in practically all Protestant 
 communions. It established itself in 
 remote places—pausing not until it 
 made itself an inspiration to toilers in 
 the lumber and mining camps and to 
 sailors on the wide seas. It went 
 around the globe as if upon wings, and 
 in its meetings of testimony and hymns 
 of praise the tongues of earth joined. 
 What is the basis of its psychology? 
 A name—ZJesus. 
 The Young Men’s Christian Asso- 
 ciation and the Red Cross have like- 
 [ 68 ] 
 
THE GLOBE AROUND 
 
 wise circled the globe. ‘‘They render 
 a very material service and are there- 
 fore popular,’’ it may be said. True. 
 But in what name is their service ren- 
 dered? The name of Jesus. 
 
 Back of the present-day Christian 
 movements, which travel so fast and 
 gain membership and universal rec- 
 ognition so rapidly, is the history of 
 Christian missions. And it is a history 
 of heroism, romance, enthusiasm, fidel- 
 ity and persistence without parallel. 
 
 It would require a large volume to 
 record, in even substantial brief, this 
 tremendous history. Besides, I am 
 not attempting history—I am simply 
 pointing to some of the stupendous 
 things that have been inspired and per- 
 petuated by the name of Jesus. Hence, 
 my reference to Christian missionary 
 endeavor—for the sake of emphasis, 
 and nothing more—will be brief. 
 
 Professional missionaries were not 
 numerous in the early centuries. Daily 
 toilers, merchants, soldiers, sailors, and 
 even captives and slaves, preached 
 
 [ 69 J 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 Jesus whithersoever they went. Tray- 
 elers carried the name of Jesus to the 
 countries they visited, and it remained 
 in every country wherein it was pro- 
 claimed. Those preachers did not 
 conquer with the sword, they did not 
 move by rule, they had no system. 
 They were impelled by a mighty force, 
 and simply told the story of Jesus to 
 whomsoever would listen. 
 
 Yet the Christian religion spread 
 so rapidly and extensively during the 
 first two centuries and a half that 
 Origen thought it would soon supplant 
 the religions of the heathen. The 
 fourth century found the Christian 
 religion entrenched throughout a vast 
 area, and its influence upon the life of 
 that day was marvelous. It is also 
 thought by some investigators that by 
 the middle of the fourth century the 
 Christian religion had found its way to 
 southern India. 
 
 About the beginning of the fourth 
 century the laity was forbidden to 
 preach, and the church and state began 
 
 [ 70 ] 
 
THE GLOBE AROUND 
 
 ae 
 
 uniting. Then began the long night 
 of horrors, which became more densely 
 black and terrible as centuries dragged 
 past—a period of nauseating history 
 the world would like to forget. How- 
 ever, some were daring enough to do 
 missionary work on their own initiative 
 throughout the Dark Ages. Also, it 
 may be remarked that the organized 
 church did some missionary work— 
 in a very worldly way. But the mis- 
 sionary fervor had passed. 
 
 The skeptic has something here to 
 wonder at. Why did Jesus survive 
 those centuries of hell, whose lurid 
 flames licked the skies in His name, 
 and again stand before the world a 
 charming personality? Why was ro- 
 mantic and heroic missionary endeavor 
 resumed, and why did it succeed? 
 
 Moreover, periodicity in the history 
 of missions is quite pronounced from 
 the Reformation to the sailing of 
 Carey, and even since Carey’s day, 
 though greatly modified. But no pe- 
 riod of stress and storm, no period of 
 
 Bea 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 worldliness, no period of inactivity, has 
 discontinued the onward stride of 
 Jesus to the uttermost parts of the 
 earth. 
 
 The spread and effect of the Chris- 
 tian religion constitute the most out- 
 standing fact in the life of the world 
 —a fact inexplicable, no matter from 
 what philosophical or psychological 
 angle viewed. When the difficulties, 
 embarrassments and hardships that 
 have been linked with Christian mis- 
 sions from the beginning to the pres- 
 ent are considered, the fact that Jesus’ 
 name is held sacred by people in prac- 
 tically every spot on earth and that 
 it is lisped in prayer and praise by all 
 the tongues is the great modern mir- 
 acle. 
 
 Jesus in missionary enterprise has 
 defied the misunderstandings and divi- 
 sions and bickerings and lethargy of 
 His people in the home lands, wars 
 that have set world progress back and 
 retarded faith, storms at sea, wild ani- 
 mals of the jungle, native hostility, 
 
 [72] 
 
THE GLOBE AROUND 
 
 edicts of governments, brigandage, so- 
 cial ostracism, pestilence and priva- 
 tions indescribable. Yet His temples 
 of worship have arisen like magic in all 
 countries. 
 
 Religions other than His have at- 
 tempted to establish themselves the 
 world around, but the history of mod- 
 ern pagan missionary enterprise spells 
 ‘‘failure.’’ Pagan missions in the 
 more enlightened countries attract oc- 
 casional headlines, and they sometimes 
 endure for a period; but they exert no 
 influence upon governments, business 
 or society—they amount to nothing. 
 
 Christian missions endure, expand 
 and dictate policies of human living. 
 Their chapels stand fresh and inviting 
 amid heathen temples that are decay- 
 ing. Their hospitals relieve suffering 
 and win thousands from idolatry every 
 year, their colporters unceasingly dis- 
 tribute literature which changes the 
 worship and lives of other thousands, 
 and their evangelists turn still other 
 thousands to Jesus. 
 
 [73] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 The names of ancient deities lose 
 their power to attract and the names 
 of ancient teachers grow dim in Giv- 
 ilization’s advancing light; but the 
 name of Jesus remains, and shines, in 
 whatever land proclaimed. His name 
 is bright in the lands of darkness, and 
 it is brighter still in the lands of day. 
 
 I feel certain that the history of 
 Christian missions, if carefully studied, 
 would prove conclusively to any de- 
 veloped, unbiased mind that Jesus of 
 Nazareth has power in earth superior 
 to that of any other teacher or group of 
 teachers—and that this power is more 
 than the power of mere man. 
 
 Wee 
 
REFORM 
 
 TiS chapter, as also the one im- 
 mediately preceding it, might be 
 called ‘‘a general survey of a great 
 field.’? Each subject touched upon in 
 these chapters could be expanded into 
 a book, and then it would not be ex- 
 hausted. However, I think paragraph 
 references will suffice for my purpose. 
 The eight succeeding chapters will each 
 deal specifically with a given subject 
 —this for the greater emphasis. 
 Buddhism, Mohammedanism and 
 Confucianism in the general practice 
 of a people are not the teachings of 
 their founders in the absolute. ‘This 
 is patent to all who carefully examine 
 the fundamentals of these religions, 
 and likewise consider the daily living 
 of their adherents. However, it will 
 be admitted that wherever Buddhism, 
 Mohammedanism or Confucianism is 
 [ 75 J 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 the accepted religion, there Buddha, 
 Mohammed or Confucius is, in influ- 
 ence, operating in some degree upon 
 the minds and hearts and in the lives 
 of the people. (I have mentioned 
 Buddhism, Mohammedanism and Con- 
 fucianism to emphasize the proposi- 
 tion of the next paragraph, because 
 they are the major religions in battle 
 with the Christian religion.) 
 
 If it be said that the church of 
 history, Christian institutions and 
 Christians generally have all down 
 through the centuries failed to cor- 
 rectly interpret and faithfully apply 
 the teachings of Jesus, I can make no 
 reply. Until this thesis is finished, I 
 can neither discuss nor quote anything 
 in the New Testament. But I ean, 
 and shall, insist that, to the extent in 
 which Jesus’ teachings have been cor- 
 rectly interpreted and faithfully ap- 
 pled, He has, in influence, operated 
 among men. Moreover, I shall contend 
 that, nothwithstanding much inaccu- 
 racy of interpretation and faithlessness 
 
 [ 76 | 
 
REFORM 
 
 in application of the teachings of 
 Jesus, He has led, and is leading, 
 world progress. I am not here re- 
 ferring to discoveries and inventions 
 and such like, though I think the 
 white light of careful research would 
 reveal Jesus as the dynamic of modern 
 material progress. In this chapter I 
 am calling attention to the gradual as- 
 cent of the world out of its lowlands of 
 vice and wretchedness into its Alpines 
 of rich thinking and noble living. 
 
 Just here an occasional reader may 
 ask: ‘‘Why dignify the ascension of the 
 world with extended reference, when 
 every one knows that it is bad and 
 getting worse, and while we are still 
 weeping over the most terrible war 
 known to history?’’ I will admit that 
 the world is bad, but I can not admit 
 that it is getting worse. It is said that 
 men swear or use bywords because 
 their vocabulary is limited. I do not 
 know about this. but I do not think 
 I err when I say that the man or 
 woman who insists that the world is 
 
 Ta 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 headed for destruction lacks knowl- 
 edge of history. How any one can com- 
 pare the past with the present and say 
 the world used to be better than it is 
 now is beyond my comprehension. (I 
 shall make reference to war and wick- 
 edness in general in a later chapter, 
 when my permit to open the bible is 
 again in hand.) 
 
 The subject now before us clothes 
 itself with the word ‘‘reform.’’ Spe- 
 cific reforms, some of them far-reach- 
 ing, are now in progress. However, 
 they are not sufficiently advanced to be 
 called facts, and hence must be ignored 
 by this discussion. My proposition, to 
 be consistent, can cite only facts that 
 are full-orbed or that have passed be- 
 yond the experimental stage to the 
 point which assures permanency and 
 maturity. 
 
 I once heard a devout minister say 
 in a sermon: ‘‘If you are easily dis- 
 couraged, pray.’’ JI would never dis- 
 courage prayer. I do not think we 
 pray enough. However, I would say 
 
 [ 78 ] 
 
REFORM 
 
 to the easily discouraged—especially 
 with regard to general reform: Read 
 history. Men may reform in a day, 
 and so may families or small com- 
 munities, but they rarely so do. A re- 
 form of proportions is always slow. 
 There are multiplied complications and 
 reactions in connection with every 
 reform movement, and the ‘‘consumma- 
 tion devoutly wished’’ is usually long 
 deferred. The ill-informed and short- 
 sighted become impatient, discouraged 
 and pessimistic. The far-sighted—and 
 they are necessarily informed—look 
 back through the centuries then into 
 the distant future, and, reasoning out 
 of the philosophy of history, they are 
 content to toil and wait. To all such 
 of the past the present is grateful, and 
 to all such of the present the future 
 will be grateful. Vision is ever the 
 world’s supreme need. 
 
 I have selected only a few past re- 
 forms for brief mention, but they may 
 be considered major. It is my purpose 
 to show that Jesus of Nazareth, in His 
 
 6 [ 79 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 influence upon the world, has been the 
 urge of general reform. 
 
 There is still modified human sla- 
 very of one sort or another; but in 
 contrast with the slavery of the past it 
 is light, and negligible. We of the 
 United States usually think of the an- 
 tebellum days as the period of agitation 
 against slavery, and of Harriet Beecher 
 Stowe as perhaps the leading agitator. 
 But history reveals that Lincoln’s 
 emancipation proclamation drew the 
 last groan from an institution that had 
 been dying for centuries. If it should 
 be urged that some of the compre- 
 hensive sayings of great teachers in 
 ancient times rebuked slavery, and 
 that those teachers deserve the credit 
 for its abolition, it would be in order 
 to request proof as to when and where 
 the credit due them has been evidenced 
 by history. Men who think and talk in 
 the interrogative—and they are many 
 —would probably ask: ‘‘Might it not 
 have been that, had Jesus never lived, 
 slavery, through some righteous influ- 
 
 [ 80 ] 
 
REFORM 
 ence, would have disappeared?’’ We 
 have only history to consult, and his- 
 tory never tells us what might have 
 been. Again, if some one should try 
 to rule Jesus out by asserting that the 
 antislavery movement just happened 
 to be contemporaneous with Christi- 
 anity, his statement would be rebuked 
 by the history of multiplied centuries. 
 History informs us that the agitation 
 which gradually modified, and ulti- 
 mately abolished, slavery was begun by 
 Christians, and that it rolled down 
 through the centuries almost to our day 
 on the wheels of Christian sentiment. 
 Early in the Christian era, and as a 
 resultant of Christian protest, the ex- 
 treme hardships of slavery began yield- 
 ing to modification. As time went on, 
 the modifications became more numer- 
 ous and more alleviative. Naturally, 
 the freedom of slaves in a small way, 
 here and there and on one ground 
 or another, became common.  Ulti- 
 mately, the abolition of slavery as an 
 institution began to be thought of and 
 [81 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 discussed and urged, and gradually 
 that great Christian dream became a 
 reality. Jesus, in influence, started, 
 led and won the battle with human 
 slavery. This fact is far removed 
 from question marks. 
 
 When the Christian religion made 
 its advent, the public torture of human 
 beings—particularly of slaves and pris- 
 oners—was a custom of long standing. 
 People assembled by the thousands to 
 watch writhing human bodies and listen 
 to human shrieks, because human blood 
 and human pain afforded them pleas- 
 ure. Also, torture was resorted to for 
 the purpose of forcing confessions of 
 guilt—this sort of torture remained 
 long after that for pleasure had been 
 discontinued. The opposition to tor- 
 ture was started and carried on by 
 followers of Jesus. Constantine was 
 a human fiend who, prior to his con- 
 version to Christianity, subjected 
 prisoners to torture. Yet it was 
 Constantine who, in 325, issued the 
 decree: 
 
 [ 82 ] 
 
REFORM 
 
 ‘‘Bloody spectacles, in our present state of 
 civil tranquility and domestic peace, do not 
 please us, wherefore we order that all gladiators 
 be prohibited from carrying on their profes- 
 sion.”’ 
 
 And from Constantine’s day on, the 
 Christian protest against human tor- 
 ture was continued. I am aware of 
 the fact that the church, whose clergy 
 Constantine had in his zeal elevated to 
 the rank of state, became the arch in- 
 stitution of cruelty. But the fact that 
 the management of the church turned 
 out of the path of mercy into the jun- 
 gles of fiendish passion does not ob- 
 secure another—the fact that all through 
 those blighted centuries the real fol- 
 lowers of Jesus stood firmly by their 
 faith, which had in it the principle of 
 protection for the unfortunate. This 
 principle survived the midnight of 
 modern history, reasserted itself and 
 continued its aggressive opposition to 
 the torture implements—and always in 
 the name of Jesus. Study the history 
 of torture, as, in all the countries 
 
 [ 83 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 wherein it existed, it gradually became 
 less and less severe and finally ceased, 
 and one great fact will keep to the fore 
 —the fact that torture for pleasure, as 
 punishment for crime or to force con- 
 fessions was legislated out of existence 
 by the Christian urge. During the 
 entire long war with that awful, deep- 
 seated human depravity, Jesus of Naz- 
 areth was the Commander-in-chief. 
 There is still much adverse criti- 
 cism of the stage, and it must be ad- 
 mitted that the stage, taken as a whole, 
 does not promote the best morals. 
 However, the present-day stage is as 
 a snowbank sprinkled with soot when 
 compared with the mud and slime of 
 the old-time stage. If anything now 
 tolerated by a generous public has 
 been transformed, it is the stage. Now- 
 adays, the show ealled ‘‘indecent’’ is 
 in some secluded hall under lock and 
 key, and witnessed by only a selected 
 company of ‘‘trusted’’ men. The old- 
 time salacious show was staged in the 
 prominent playhouses and patronized 
 
 84 | 
 
REFORM 
 by the general public. And the most 
 licentious show of the season was the 
 most popular. <A description in En- 
 glish of the stage of two thousand years 
 ago would not be permitted circulation 
 to-day. Does some one rise to remark 
 that the ancient teachers urged high 
 thinking, and that their teaching may 
 have centered upon the stage to cleanse 
 it of its filth? Inasmuch as I can not 
 draw upon the Bible in this discussion, 
 I shall protest against the reader draw- 
 ing upon his imagination. The stage at 
 its worst was contemporaneous with 
 the beginnings of the Christian relig- 
 ion. The opposition to a licentious 
 stage was started, and it has ever been 
 carried on, by Christians. All legisla- 
 tion looking toward the purification of 
 the stage has been instigated by the 
 influence of Christianity—this is a 
 matter of plain, indisputable history. 
 And through Christian persistence leg- 
 islation regarding the stage is still in 
 progress. In other words, Jesus has 
 been sweeping the stage for nineteen 
 85 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 centuries, and He is still sweeping the 
 dust from its carpets. 
 
 Prior to the time when the univer- 
 sal effect of the Christian religion 
 began to be felt, defective and unwel- 
 come children were ‘‘exposed.’’ Also, 
 woman was .a chattel—originally to 
 do menial service, and later to be 
 an ornament. The cruelty perpetrated 
 upon innocent children gradually 
 passed, and woman now enjoys eman- 
 cipation. It could not be even inti- 
 mated that the teaching of ancient 
 moralists wrought these changes—espe- 
 cially the transfer of woman to her 
 logical place by man’s side. The 
 unfortunate child is now permitted to 
 live, and woman is as free as man. 
 These are facts which, in the light of 
 history, have resulted from the influ- 
 ence of Jesus upon our civilization. 
 
 Marriage is an institution yet ham- 
 pered by a conventionalism that is out 
 of harmony with the highest ideals, 
 and by a system of legislation that is 
 not in line with general progress. But 
 
 [ 86 ] 
 
REFORM 
 
 marriage is now more respected and 
 better guarded by far than it was two 
 thousand years ago. This is so because 
 early in the Christian era the true fol- 
 lowers of Jesus took a decided stand for 
 the ideal home, and because their suc- 
 cessors down through the centuries 
 have maintained that stand. 
 
 The duel, for so long a blight upon 
 civilization, is no more. Why? There 
 is but one answer: The followers of 
 Jesus opposed it and ultimately abol- 
 ished it. Legislation against that evil 
 was slow, but it was sure and final— 
 and it was engineered, from beginning 
 to end, by Christian sentiment. It 
 must be said to the credit of the Roman 
 Catholic Church that she always op- 
 posed dueling. Her councils and popes 
 back in the centuries were outspoken 
 against it. And Protestantism, from 
 its beginning, resisted the duel. The 
 rise and reign and fall of the duel, like 
 the other subjects I am briefly touch- 
 ing upon, would make an interesting 
 book. But lengthy reference to it is 
 
 [ 87 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 not here necessary. That Christian 
 sentiment in legislation against dueling 
 may be clearly seen, I shall submit 
 only a bit of history in detail. In 1841, 
 a petition for legislation against duel- 
 ing in England, presented to the House 
 of Lords, began thus: 
 
 “Tf society is to be preserved, it must be 
 Christianized. Your lordships have acknowl- 
 
 edged this great truth by your exertions to pre- 
 serve the Christian principles in education.’’ 
 
 Shortly after the tragic death of 
 Alexander Hamilton, which shocked 
 the American public and quickened 
 its conscience, General Pinckney ap- 
 pealed to the South Carolina Assembly 
 to pass a law abolishing the duel, and 
 in his memorial he stressed the prin- 
 ciples of the Christian religion. In 
 1838, when the bill to prohibit dueling 
 in the District of Columbia was before 
 Congress, Henry Clay concluded his 
 powerful address as follows: 
 
 ‘When public opinion is renovated and 
 chastened by religion, reason and humanity, the 
 practice of dueling will be at once discontinued.’’ 
 
 [ 88 ] 
 
REFORM 
 
 Mr. Clay undoubtedly referred to 
 the Christian religion—no other relig- 
 ion had place in his life. His appeal 
 was to the influence ot Jesus in the 
 world, which ultimately silenced the 
 duelist’s gun. 
 
 No comprehensive discussion in this 
 day would be complete with ‘‘democ- 
 racy’’ left out. The word is not new, 
 nor have the American people ever 
 been so dull as to misunderstand its 
 meaning. Nevertheless, when, during 
 the war, President Wilson swung it up 
 into the sky of the greater public think- 
 ing, it appeared as a star we had not 
 hitherto fully observed. It at once 
 became the universal word, without 
 which magazine articles, newspaper 
 editorials and public addresses would 
 have been minus luster. Nor has this 
 word yet lost its attraction. Speakers 
 and writers never weary of it. The re- 
 cent books and pamphlets and articles 
 on one phase or another of democ- 
 racy are legion. However, I wonder if 
 the average writer, and especially the 
 
 [ 89 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 skeptical writer, has paused to ask who 
 started, and has guided, democracy 
 down through the centuries—to liber- 
 alize governments and make them more 
 tolerable and efficient, and to even play 
 an international role. ‘‘Democracy’’ is 
 but another word for reform, but it is 
 a greater word. The term ‘‘reform,”’ 
 in general usage, attaches principally 
 to specific things. The term ‘‘democ- 
 racy’’ has larger embrace—the princi- 
 ple it represents is underneath all re- 
 form, and it will ultimately accomplish 
 all reform. And from the time it 
 passed out of the abstract into the con- 
 erete, democracy has matured and 
 spread and accomplished universal re- 
 sults directly under the influence of the 
 Christian religion. I do not think any 
 unbiased student of the history of de- 
 mocracy could possibly disagree with 
 William Pierson Merrill, who, in his 
 book, ‘‘Christian Internationalism,”’ 
 Says: 
 
 ‘‘The early Christian churches were the first 
 truly democratic communities in the world.’’ 
 
 [ 90 ] 
 
REFORM 
 
 Following up the history of de- 
 mocracy from its beginning to the 
 present day, it could be shown that all 
 the governments of earth have been, in 
 one way or another, influenced more or 
 less by principles of the Christian 
 religion. This being true, it 1s not 
 far-fetched to conclude that Jesus to- 
 day has place of some sort in every 
 sphere of world advancement. 
 
 [91 ] 
 
CHRISTMAS 
 
 | Oe es the origin of Christ- 
 
 mas, there is divergence of opinion. 
 Moreover, the date of Jesus’ birth has 
 been debated for centuries. Again, 
 there is widespread criticism of the 
 general observance of Christmas, the 
 custom of exchanging gifts, ete. 
 
 I shall not argue about either the 
 origin of Christmas or the date of 
 Jesus’ birth, nor shall I attempt a de- 
 fense of the manner in which the hol- 
 iday season is observed. These are 
 matters of no concern in the present 
 discussion. 
 
 After all has been said about the 
 vague origin of Christmas, its Roman 
 Catholic authorization and its adop- 
 tion by Protestantism, the doubt re- 
 Sspecting its exactness as to date, the 
 spirit of revelry with which it is dese- 
 erated and the hardships its demand 
 
 [ 92] 
 
 % 
 
CHRISTMAS 
 
 for the exchange of presents imposes 
 upon the poor, the indisputable fact 
 remains that Christmas 7s. Each year 
 Jesus stretches forth His imperial 
 hand and demands attention, and with 
 the voice of authority He commands 
 the civilized world to celebrate His 
 birth. And the world hears and obeys. 
 
 We celebrate the natal days of 
 Washington, Lincoln and other Ameri- 
 can statesmen, and the citizens of other 
 countries set apart days that recall the 
 advent of the most outstanding men in 
 their national history. ‘The celebration 
 of Jesus’ birth is in nowise national—it 
 is universal. 
 
 Perhaps some of my readers have 
 nad the experience on a national holi- 
 day of approaching a bank door and 
 being brought up with a sudden jolt by 
 the sign ‘‘Closed.’’ I will confess that 
 such experience has been mine. And 
 where is the man who does not occa- 
 sionally fail to think of his own birthday 
 until the ‘‘big dinner’’ awaiting him at 
 home in the evening reminds him of it! 
 
 [93 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 No one forgets the birthday of Jesus. 
 In the average home, it is the main 
 subject of conversation for days before 
 its approach—even the tiny ones of the 
 household prattle about it. 
 
 In our own country, and in every 
 other, preparation for a national cele- 
 bration is exceedingly meager com- 
 pared with the preparation for the 
 celebration of Jesus’ birth. Immedi- 
 ately after the holidays, world-wide 
 preparation for the next Christmas sea- 
 son begins. Manufacturers and mer- 
 chants must think and plan and work 
 far ahead of time to be ready for the 
 ‘“‘Christmas rush.’? The money the 
 Christmas trade involves every year 
 runs into astounding figures. 
 
 A few weeks prior to Christmas the 
 department stores, the postal depart- 
 ment and the transportation companies 
 take on extra help to avoid congestion. 
 But it appears that congestion 1s never 
 successfully avoided. Shopping or 
 sending packages just before Christ- 
 mas is a task dreaded by all men, and 
 
 [ 94 ] 
 
CHRISTMAS 
 
 ce 
 
 by most women. Every year people 
 say, ‘‘It gets worse and worse.’’ An 
 officer of a transportation company 
 said: ‘‘T'ry as hard as we may, we are 
 never prepared for Christmas.’’ And 
 { presume the postal authorities and 
 department-store managers could truth- 
 fully say the same. ‘‘Do Your Christ- 
 mas Shopping Early.’’ This is the 
 warning swung before the public about 
 the first of December, and those who 
 heed it not are always ‘‘caught in the 
 jam.”’ 
 
 A week before Christmas the post- 
 man’s slackened pace is neighborhood 
 gossip. The people tell one another 
 that each day he is later than on the 
 day before. We await his coming, and 
 become restless. And when, at last, he 
 arrives, we observe that, no matter 
 what the weather, he is perspiring 
 beneath his burdens. 
 
 When Christmas dawns, the wheels 
 of industry are still—business every- 
 where has temporarily ceased, and 
 there is a universal hush. Even the 
 
 7 [95] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 Jew has closed his store, and the 
 atheist’s office door is locked. The 
 greetings are exchanged, the presents 
 are distributed, and the oncoming 
 great dinner is much in evidence. 
 Many who participate in the festal 
 spirit may not know exactly what it 
 is all about, and others may not give it 
 serious thought. Nevertheless, it is a 
 great time and all enter rapturously 
 into the joys of the day. 
 
 The wreath or sprig of green is 
 everywhere—in the mansion of afflu- 
 ence and in the home of poverty, in the 
 woodman’s hut far away from the cen- 
 ters of life and aboard the ship tossed 
 by rolling seas. Prior to prohibition, 
 the gilded saloon was wreathed in holly 
 during the Christmas season. Even 
 into the city brothel the spirit of 
 Christmas penetrates. Doubtless, in 
 many a house ealled ‘‘the abode of 
 depravity’? a sorrowful outcast on 
 Christmas morning looks, with tear- 
 filled eyes, at a cheap wreath on a 
 window or a sprig of holly in a vase, 
 
 [96 ] 
 
CHRISTMAS 
 
 when memory wings its way back to 
 home and childhood and mother’s 
 knee, where a golden-haired girl—as 
 beautiful as an angel, and as pure as 
 the swirling flakes of snow without— 
 knelt and lisped: 
 
 ‘Now I lay me down to sleep; 
 I pray the Lord my soul to keep; 
 If I should die before I wake, 
 I pray the Lord my soul to take.’’ 
 
 Christmas as it is—a world fact 
 which we may criticize, but can neither 
 discontinue nor change—proclaims the 
 authority of Jesus on earth. 
 
 [97 ] 
 
MODERN LITERATURE 
 
 lie phrase, ‘‘modern literature,’’ in 
 
 current speech does not necessarily 
 include all types of even recent Ori- 
 ental writing. I here refer to the lt- 
 erature usually in mind when the 
 phrase is employed—the Western world 
 literature of modern centuries. 
 
 Modern literature is a subject too 
 vast to figure in detailed manner, as 
 a whole or in small part, in a discussion 
 such as this. Nor is even a classifica- 
 tion of modern literature necessary. 
 Moreover, I doubt if that man lives 
 whose familiarity with modern litera- 
 ture has sufficient sweep to compre- 
 hend the subject as a whole, and to 
 put it forth in minutely classified and 
 detailed discussion. Men may pose, 
 or be spoken of, as general literary 
 critics; but, owing to human lumita- 
 tions, there are none such. 
 
 [98 J 
 
MODERN LITERATURE 
 
 However, there have been, and are, 
 competent literary critics—people who 
 have specialized in one sort of ltera- 
 ture or another. Hence, we must look 
 to men and women of special reading 
 for accurate studies in literature. 
 
 Like the average preacher, journal- 
 ist or teacher, J have done some general 
 reading. But I am not a literary critic 
 in any sense. Nevertheless, like every 
 one else acquainted with books, I know 
 how to find what is necessary in the 
 discussion of any subject my judgment 
 tells me I should attempt to handle. 
 In my quest of information on the 
 subject now entering this discussion, I 
 have devoted considerable attention to 
 critical treatments of various branches 
 of literature—just glancing through 
 many books and reading a number 
 carefully. And I have found that 
 Jesus is in modern literature in a way 
 more pronounced than I had hitherto 
 thought. It appears that He is more 
 generally conspicuous in literature 
 than in music or pictured art, 
 
 [99 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 It is not necessary to more than 
 mention the fact that the Church Fa- 
 thers and all the Christian writers from 
 their day to ours built their theories 
 and exhortations and stories around 
 the name of Jesus. Moreover, the pres- 
 ent annual output of such books is 
 enormous. An enumeration of the 
 books—past and  present—exalting 
 Jesus and His religion would involve 
 a task so stupendous that I doubt the 
 possibility of its performance by any 
 man. In one small volume, ‘‘Modern 
 Religious Verse and Prose,’’ by Fred 
 Merrifield, 248 authors are quoted. 
 Were all the volumes, old and new, of 
 the class to which I am referring 
 shelved in a single library, the collec- 
 tion would be so vast that the man of 
 ordinary reading would, upon behold- 
 ing it, doubtless exclaim: ‘‘I had no 
 idea that there were so many books in 
 the world!’’ 
 
 Put alongside this colossal library 
 another. Shelve in it all the books, 
 old and recent, that, in one way or an- 
 
 [ 100 ] 
 
MODERN LITERATURE 
 
 other, oppose Jesus or His religion. 
 Add all the published debates concern- 
 ing Jesus and the numerous subjects 
 His religion has fixed in the human 
 mind. And add also the publications 
 that attempt to explain Jesus and the 
 Christian religion on rational bases. 
 This collection likewise would be so 
 enormous that it would astonish even 
 the aged book-lover. 
 
 A third building must be erected in 
 our imagination to accommodate all 
 general encyclopedias of the past and 
 present, and all reference-books of 
 practically every character. Not even 
 a general dictionary can be left out of 
 this collection. As every one knows, 
 all such books contain references to 
 Jesus or to His direct influence or to 
 things that would not have been just 
 as they were or are had He not lived. 
 Not even the history of mathematics or 
 astronomy could be traced without in 
 some way touching upon conditions that 
 resulted from the world’s contact with 
 the Christian religion. It may have been 
 
 [101 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 that many conditions obtained because 
 of misunderstandings or misapplica- 
 tions of Christian principles. This does 
 not destroy the argument. I am 
 stressing the fact that, whether mis- 
 understood or correctly valued, Jesus 
 has so touched the life and activities of 
 the Christian era that He can not be 
 entirely ignored by any historian—no 
 matter what his subject. 
 
 A fourth building is necessary, nor 
 ean its dimensions be narrow. For 
 we have yet to shelve all the writings 
 on patriotic themes, all the essays on 
 a thousand and one subjects, all the fic- 
 tion and all the poetry in which Jesus 
 either directly or indirectly figures. 
 
 _ Now, what have we left? Not much. 
 This library is composed of a little 
 poetry, a little essay and a little fiction, 
 plus some books of rule along mechan- 
 ical and educational lines. To be sure, 
 this would be a huge library to observe. 
 But, compared with the other four, it is 
 as a toy-house. And it is probable that 
 not many, if any, of the books in this 
 
 [ 102 ] 
 
MODERN LITERATURE 
 library are entirely without the touch 
 of Christian influence. I shall ven- 
 ture the assertion that a keen eye would 
 not fail to find Jesus in some sort of 
 influence throughout the collection. 
 And it is certain that these books 
 would recognize Jesus in copyright and 
 publication. 
 
 A protesting spirit which afflicts our 
 age cries out: ‘‘Hold on there! What 
 about Shakespeare?’’?’ The same skep- 
 tical spirit sometimes insists that 
 there was no Shakespeare, or that if 
 a man of that name lived in the latter 
 part of the sixteenth and the early part 
 of the seventeenth centuries he did not 
 write Shakespeare. I am old-fashioned 
 enough to believe that there was a 
 Shakespeare and that he wrote Shake- 
 speare. However, this is not the place 
 to debate that question. Whether 
 Shakespeare wrote Shakespeare or 
 Bacon wrote Shakespeare or some 
 other man or set of men wrote Shake- 
 peare, we have a colossal work enti- 
 tled, ‘‘Shakespeare.’? I am ealling 
 
 [ 103 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 special attention to the English master- 
 piece because it affords opportunity 
 to answer the protesting spirit which, 
 with victorious bearing, gleefully an- 
 nounces that this author and _ that 
 omits personal reference to Jesus of 
 Nazareth. 
 
 A number of theories regarding the 
 apparent omission of references to 
 Jesus in Shakespeare are current. The 
 position taken by some critics that the 
 early English Puritanism would have 
 regarded bold, personal .reference to 
 Jesus in playhouse literature as a prof- 
 anation is plausible. However, this 
 is one of the things we can only guess 
 at. Another question is much more 
 important: Is Jesus left out of Shake- 
 speare ? 
 
 Tacitus did not mention the name of 
 Josephus in his writings. Yet the erit- 
 ics of Tacitus admit that the old Roman 
 writer drew upon Josephus quite 
 heavily. It is not necessary to use 
 the word ‘‘sun’’? when discussing or 
 referring to light or things which 
 
 [104] 
 
MODERN LITERATURE 
 
 would never have been had the sun 
 not existed. Many books and _ pas- 
 sages in books and articles in maga- 
 zines that do not mention Jesus’ name 
 refer to Him indirectly, and to things 
 and conditions that would not have 
 been had He not lived. There are 
 some things in Shakespeare that one 
 ean not help deploring. Yet it is a 
 monumental work, out of which great 
 good goes into the life of the world. 
 And much of the good in Shakespeare 
 is undoubtedly the result of Christian 
 influence upon its author’s day. 
 When a boy, my little study of 
 Shakespeare revealed to me the fact 
 that the work is shot through with 
 Christian principles. Moreover, I 
 found passages in Shakespeare that 
 made me think of Jesus, and Jesus only. 
 Nor have I as a man found occasion to 
 see it otherwise when reading Shake- 
 speare. And my consultation of Shake- 
 speare’s critics has augmented my con- 
 viction that Shakespeare frequently 
 wrote out of Christian sentiment, 
 [105 | 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 Churton Collins, in ‘‘Studies in 
 Shakespeare,’’ avers that Montaigne 
 and Shakespeare reverenced Christi- 
 anity. And John H. Morrison, in ‘‘The 
 Great Poets as Religious Teachers,’’ 
 Says: 
 
 ‘*T doubt whether there is a single essential 
 doctrine or precept of the Gospels which is not 
 directly or indirectly recognized and enforced 
 by Shakespeare.’’ 
 
 Thus quotations from the com- 
 ments of Shakespearean critics might 
 be multiplied indefinitely. 
 
 Shelley was an avowed atheist. But 
 it is my opinion that he just thought 
 himself an atheist. He could not ac- 
 cept the God represented by the church 
 of his day—that was all. He likewise 
 doubtless regarded Jesus as only a 
 man. Nevertheless, Jesus figured in 
 his writings. And in some of his 
 private correspondence he expressed 
 personal admiration for Jesus. Also 
 William Blake, the ‘‘queer _ poet,”’ 
 whom no one seemed to understand, 
 denounced the creedal Christ, but ex- 
 
 [ 106 | 
 
MODERN LITERATURE 
 
 alted the man Jesus. If the entire 
 circle of modern writers who have 
 opposed organized religion should be 
 made in quest of an author who has 
 altogether ignored Jesus and man- 
 aged to steer entirely clear of His 
 influence in our ever-advancing civil- 
 zation, I am certain that he could not 
 be found. 
 
 Richard Roberts, in ‘‘That One 
 Face,’’ says: 
 
 ‘‘Tf we could send a man, who has no pre- 
 vious knowledge, to examine the literature of 
 the last twenty-five centuries, his strongest im- 
 pression would be that, at a certain point, a 
 personality altogether unique in wealth and 
 power impinged on the life of man, gradually 
 
 changing the tone and stress of literature and 
 exerting a permanent influence upon it.’’ 
 
 And he adds: 
 
 ‘‘The absolute pre-eminence of Jesus Christ 
 in the essential art and literature of nineteen 
 centuries is beyond serious question.’’ 
 
 If all the books in which Jesus is 
 mentioned or figures, and all the books 
 
 that lean upon Him in one way or an- 
 [ 107 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 other, and all the books that contain 
 things resultant upon His influence in 
 civilization, were destroyed, the great li- 
 braries of the world would be wrecked. 
 
 [ 108 ] 
 
ART 
 
 HE field of fine arts by no means 
 
 narrows itself down to one subject. 
 Nor is there a reason why any of the 
 arts should be denied a place in this 
 discussion—the history and analysis of 
 every art in modern hands would show 
 the finger-prints of Jesus. For ex- 
 ample, when recently looking through 
 a book entitled, ‘‘Famous Sculpture,’’ 
 I was surprised at the space devoted to 
 Christian symbolism in the sculpture 
 of the Christian era. Another book—a 
 history of sculpture—makes extensive 
 reference to the impress of the Chris- 
 tian religion on the Hellenistic and 
 other styles of sculpture that have, in 
 the main, been retained. I find, also, 
 that a study of architecture would 
 reveal additions and subtractions and 
 settings traceable to none other than 
 Christian sources. And thus the entire 
 
 [109 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 round of art might be made. Music 
 will be treated as a special subject in 
 the next chapter. When we hear or see 
 the word ‘‘art,’’ we usually think first 
 of pictures. Hence, the single word, 
 ‘fart,’? instead of an _ explanatory 
 phrase, introduces this chapter. 
 
 Eusebius could not be a witness in 
 the discussion of the historicity of 
 Jesus, for the reason that testimony 
 labeled ‘‘traditional’’ was not permit- 
 ted. However, he may now be ealled 
 to testify that he saw paintings of the 
 Christ and Peter and Paul. This ref- 
 erence to Eusebius is to show that the 
 artistic temperament yielded itself to 
 the magnetism of Jesus early in our 
 era. 
 
 The discussion of the subject now in 
 hand must necessarily be introduced by 
 reference to the old-time burial-vaults 
 about Rome. The Catacombs could not 
 be used as direct testimony to prove 
 that Jesus lived. But the present dis- 
 cussion can not ignore the Catacombs. 
 It is in a catacomb that the earliest 
 
 [110 ] 
 
ART 
 
 extant painting of the Christ is found 
 —now so faded and marred that it is 
 searcely discernible. 
 
 The reader will clearly understand 
 that in the Catacombs ‘‘the Christ of 
 dogma,’’ as the New Theology insists, 
 looms large. But this does not invali- 
 date our appeal to the Catacombs. The 
 historicity of Jesus is admitted by the 
 advocates of the New Theology. Nor 
 ean they do other than admit that the 
 artists who wrought in the Catacombs 
 must have believed that Jesus lived. It 
 could not have been otherwise than 
 that in the minds of those artists Jesus 
 and the Christ were one and the same 
 person. The exaltation of the Christ 
 in the Catacombs was the exaltation of 
 Jesus. Those artists could have had 
 no other person in mind. 
 
 It must be admitted that in consid- 
 erable of the display of the Cata- 
 combs can be found characteristics of 
 pagan art. A specific observation by 
 art critics is the similarity between 
 representations of Hermes Kriophoros 
 
 8 [111] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 bearing a ram and the representations 
 in the Catacombs of the Good Shep- 
 herd. Instead of diminishing the force 
 of the present argument, this fact en- 
 haneces it. The main purpose of this 
 book is to stress the universally obser- 
 vable fact that Jesus of Nazareth is 
 gradually taking possession of the 
 world—eliminating bad and unimpor- 
 tant things and conditions and retain- 
 ing and appropriating all that is good 
 and worth while. There was grace in 
 pagan art, and why should it not have 
 been made to serve in the creation of 
 Christian conceptions? (In a subse- 
 quent chapter, when the argument shall 
 have been completed and the Bible can 
 be reopened, my thought respecting 
 Jesus’ method of procedure will find ex- 
 pression. But during the argument a 
 distinct reference to it, or anything 
 resembling New Testament preaching, 
 would be a violation of my contract 
 with the reader). 
 
 The art of the Catacombs expanded 
 as time went on, and its expansion 
 
 Mahe 
 
ART 
 
 clearly reveals tragic periods through 
 which the Christian religion passed. 
 In a eatacomb, which, according to 
 De Rossi, was started either in the 
 days of the apostles or of their imme- 
 diate successors, a fresco of Christ’s 
 face appears. There is, likewise, a 
 fresco of Christ as Orpheus taming the 
 wild beasts—the wild beasts, in the 
 light of art criticism, represent the un- 
 ruly human passions. Also, in an early 
 erypt is a representation of Christ’s 
 baptism. These and other pictures 
 clearly indicate that in the beginning 
 the artists of the Catacombs had in 
 mind only the One they worshiped. 
 Later the art of the Catacombs sug- 
 gests the persecutions and vicissitudes 
 of the Christian faith—an apparent 
 effort to record history. Neither does 
 this detract from the proposition that 
 in the art of the Catacombs the Christ 
 is predominant. No matter what the 
 picture, the Christ, in some capacity, is 
 the center—over all, in all and con- 
 trolling all. 
 Puish 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 Were I competent to discuss art 
 from a eritic’s viewpoint, and should I 
 devote many chapters to what is known 
 as Christian art—in all the Catacombs 
 and museums that contain it, in all 
 the periods that have produced it and 
 in all the countries where it is found— 
 nothing would be gained for the pur- 
 pose of this thesis. The sole aim of 
 this chapter is that of emphasizing the 
 fact that Jesus has been, and is, the 
 one great subject of art on canvas. 
 I shall, therefore, hastily mention a few 
 other matters which I think logically 
 find place in the proposition. 
 
 Much ado has been made of the fact 
 —and it is a significant fact—that the 
 artists have differed so widely in their 
 conceptions of the Christ. For exam- 
 ple, a German artist gives the Christ 
 a German face, clothes Him in velvet 
 and adorns Him with jewels, whereas 
 an Italian artist gives Him a dreamy 
 face, clothes Him cheaply and leaves 
 off the sparkle. It has been said that 
 to the German artist the Christ is a 
 
 [ 114 ] 
 
ART 
 German and that to the English artist 
 Heis an Englishman. Why not? There 
 is nothing in this to occasion wonder. 
 Human nature has ever to be reck- 
 oned with. And human nature has in 
 it an element which insists upon tribal, 
 racial or national superiority of some 
 sort. The characteristics of a people 
 are handed down from generation to 
 generation, and they are manifest in 
 individual effort and accomplishment. 
 Why, therefore, should not the German 
 artist’s Christ be stern of countenance 
 and aggressive in bearing? And why 
 should not the French artist’s Christ 
 be graceful in attitude and sociable 
 in appearance? Instead of detracting 
 from the contention that Jesus is the 
 center of art, all this adds mightily 
 to it. Varied as are the conceptions, 
 overshadowed by the nationality of ar- 
 tists, the pictures are designed to rep- 
 resent the Nazarene. It is to Him 
 that modern art has ever turned for its 
 major subject. In this my argument 
 is entrenched. 
 P15) 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 The Renaissance gave civilization a 
 long, tremendous push forward. And 
 it wrought marked changes in art, as 
 in everything else. It liberated art in 
 many ways, and, of course, liberalized 
 it. That the Renaissance gave individ- 
 uality, and license, sway in art can 
 not be questioned. But there was one 
 thing the Renaissance did not do—it 
 did not change the artist’s favorite sub- 
 ject. The man who was the Christ in 
 people’s minds before the dawn of the 
 Renaissance remained the Christ to the 
 people of that expanding day, and the 
 artists vied with one another in por- 
 traying Him on canvas. 
 
 Nor has our modern day trans- 
 ferred the emphasis to another subject. 
 The masters of modern times have 
 immortalized themselves by placing 
 their conceptions of Jesus before the 
 world. Yet it appears that, in the eyes 
 of artists, the task of producing the 
 most worthy conception of Jesus pos- 
 sible has not been completed. Pictures 
 of Jesus are yet in the making—the 
 
 [ 116 ] 
 
ART 
 
 world around. Sir Wyke Bayliss ran 
 no risk when, in ‘‘Rex Regum,’’ he 
 prophesied that ‘‘the face of Christ 
 shall never fade from our eyes as have 
 the faces of the old gods.’’ 
 
 Moreover, modern art has eclipsed 
 the ancient particularly in its success- 
 ful presentation of Jesus without at- 
 tempting to endow Him with person- 
 ality. Millet’s ‘‘Angelus’’ is an ex- 
 ample. Were Jesus not somehow vis- 
 ible in that painting, which has been 
 exhibited throughout various countries, 
 it would never have attracted attention. 
 The peasants are the personalities. 
 Yet who could look upon that picture 
 and not visualize Jesus? The eyes of 
 flesh see the painted objects; the eyes 
 of the mind, whether it be the mind of 
 Christian, Jew, atheist, infidel or agnos- 
 tic, see Jesus—this is the miracle of 
 the ‘‘ Angelus.’’ 
 
 P. T. Forsyth, a keen art critic, in- 
 timates that religion is visible in secu- 
 lar art. The modern secular picture 
 that attracts attention emits as part of 
 
 Baletyed 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 its atmosphere an indefinable some- 
 thing which does not suggest either 
 a pagan deity or the pantheism of the 
 ‘fadvanced thinker,’’ but a spiritual in- 
 fluence which emanates from the age- 
 long soul-conception of Jesus. The 
 man who with brush and paint succeeds 
 in winning and holding the eyes of the 
 world can not leave Jesus entirely 
 out of his production. Whether or not 
 he be a Christian, something that, in 
 his studies, has emanated from Jesus 
 is in his artist’s soul, and it gets 
 into his picture. The casual observer 
 may not be able to designate anything 
 in a renowned picture that suggests 
 Jesus, but the expert art critic will 
 point out in it a touch that would not 
 have been there had Jesus not lived. 
 Perhaps there is a thought worth get- 
 ting in Forsyth’s observation: ‘‘The 
 romantic spirit is the specially Chris- 
 tian element in art.” 
 
 Joseph Lewis French, in ‘‘Christ 
 in Art,’’ says: ‘‘The subject of the 
 Christ is undoubtedly the greatest that 
 
 [ 118 ] 
 
ART 
 
 has ever entered into the domain of 
 art.’’ 
 
 The masters have been impelled, by 
 silent public demand or something 
 within their own souls, or both, to hang 
 up their pictures of the Christ—this, 
 to say nothing of the innumerable 
 paintings that leave out the personal 
 Jesus, but that in some manner reflect 
 His influence upon communities, occa- 
 slons and individuals. 
 
 What class of pictures has the 
 greatest drawing power? And what 
 type of picture fascinates people most? 
 These questions can be the better an- 
 swered by another: Where do men who 
 visit the centers of art stand and wor- 
 ship ? 
 
 “The Last Judgment,’’ by Michael 
 Angelo; ‘‘The Transfiguration’? and 
 ‘‘Heed My Sheep,’’ by Raphael; ‘‘The 
 Descent from the Cross,’’ by Volterra; 
 ‘‘Christ and Disciples,’’ by Fra Angel- 
 ico; ‘‘The Last Supper,’’ by Andrea 
 del Sarto; the ‘‘Head of Christ’’ and 
 “The Last Supper,’’ by Leonardo da 
 
 [ 119 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 Vinci; ‘‘Touch Me Not,’’ by Correg-. 
 gio; ‘‘The Descent from the Cross,”’ 
 by Rubens; ‘‘Christ in the Peasant’s 
 Hut,’’ by Von Uhde—these are the sort 
 of pictures people travel long distances 
 to observe, and before which they bow 
 their heads in profound reverence. 
 
 Remove Jesus—His personality and 
 influence—from the picture galleries, 
 and their attractions will be swept 
 away. 
 
 [ 120 ] 
 
MUSIC 
 
 ERE elassification our rule of 
 
 procedure, the contents of this 
 chapter would have been incorporated 
 in the preceding chapter, or this would 
 be one of at least two chapters under 
 the title ‘‘Art.’’ 
 
 I regard music as the finest of fine 
 arts. I do not minimize the value of 
 painting, sculpture, architecture or 
 anything else that might be called an 
 art. A production of mastership that 
 accomplishes good, whatever its char- 
 acter, is a contribution to human prog- 
 ress which must be admired. How- 
 ever, in my estimation, music tran- 
 scends the other arts in at least one 
 particular. It makes its approach 
 through the ear, and is transient. Yet 
 it lingers as an influence, and accom- 
 plishes permanent results. One looks 
 at a picture or statue or cathedral, and 
 
 [ 121 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 it is photographed on his mind. He 
 can neither see music when under its 
 spell nor visualize it after it has taken 
 flight. Nevertheless, it fills his soul 
 with an indefinable joy in the present 
 and leaves something majestic in his 
 heart for the future. 
 
 I shall not contend that Jesus of 
 Nazareth was a musician, or that mu- 
 sic especially appealed to Him. I 
 might think, and affirm, that He was 
 without defect or dormancy in sensibil- 
 ity, as well as in character and vision. 
 But this would be stepping out of the 
 field of fact into that of conjecture, and 
 conjecture can have no place in my 
 thesis. I shall stress the fact, how- 
 ever, that Jesus is predominant in the 
 realm of music. 
 
 The air of ‘‘America’’ can not be 
 definitely traced beyond its adoption by 
 the British national hymn. But there 
 are strong indications that its source 
 was Christian. If Handel composed 
 it, and some so think, it was, without 
 doubt, sent forth as a conveyer of 
 
 [ 122 ] 
 
MUSIC 
 
 
 
 Christian sentiment. Whatever its ori- 
 gin, that inspiring tune gives one the 
 impression that it has for its soul the 
 vibrations started and perpetuated by 
 the militant tread of the young Naza- 
 rene down through the centuries. It 
 is thought by some devout students that 
 the air of all secular music that en- 
 dures is caught from the influence of 
 Jesus upon our civilization. I do not 
 present these conclusions, which are 
 inferential, as facts. I mention them 
 to pave the way for a more sweeping 
 proposition. All secular music, as we 
 shall see later on, is in Jesus’ grasp. In 
 other words, the influence He started 
 down the highway of time gave the 
 world its musical grammar and rhet- 
 orie. 
 
 It would require long and tedious 
 research to catalogue the songs that 
 either bear the name of Jesus or are 
 based upon Christian sentiment or 
 hope. <A study of hymnology would 
 embrace so many periods and countries 
 and tongues that to complete it one 
 
 [ 123 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 would be compelled to spend large 
 money and to devote probably his en- 
 tire life to the task. 
 
 Opera and symphony have immor- 
 talized names, but oratorio has blazed 
 forth the stars of magnitude. 
 
 Such masters as Beethoven, Haydn, 
 Bach, Arnold, Macfarren, Stainer, 
 Schutz, Parry, Gounod, Sullivan and 
 Schneider each soared higher in his 
 oratorio exalting the Christ than im 
 any other production. 
 
 Mendelssohn’s two great produc- 
 tions were ‘‘St. Paul’? and ‘‘Elijah.”’ 
 However, when we contemplate the 
 fact that Mendelssohn was a devout 
 student of the Bible, we could readily 
 surmise that had he lived longer he 
 would have crowned his great reputa- 
 tion by lifting Jesus of Nazareth up 
 in perhaps the greatest of oratorios. 
 But it is not necessary to draw upon 
 the imagination regarding what might 
 have been had that high-minded Chris- 
 tian Jew not passed on in his thirty- 
 ninth year. Among his effects was 
 
 [ 124 ] 
 
MUSIC 
 
 found a manuscript, ‘‘Christus,’’ incom- 
 plete because the stroke of apoplexy 
 had dashed from his hand the gifted, 
 consecrated pen. 
 
 Anna W. Patterson, in ‘‘The Story 
 of Oratorio,’’ refers thus to Handel’s 
 major contribution: 
 
 ‘‘Were all musical masterpieces, save one, 
 doomed to destruction, perhaps that most salu- 
 
 tary for preservation would be Handel’s great 
 oratorio, ‘The Messiah.’ ”’ 
 
 Again she says: 
 
 ‘‘Handel found in the Messiah a theme 
 above every theme whereon to base the greatest 
 oratorio of his own and subsequent times—for 
 the day seems yet far distant when we can 
 point to a tone-cathedral more magnificent and 
 sublime than that which the great Saxon has 
 erected in honor of the Son of God.”’ 
 
 The historian can neither add, sub- 
 tract nor evade. He must do two 
 things—pass along the highway of his 
 subject with his eyes wide open, and 
 faithfully record what he sees. Hence, 
 Jesus shines in the history of music 
 as does the sun in the universe. No 
 
 [ 125 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 matter how long the list of authors one 
 consults, he will not find an attempt 
 at a history of music with the influence 
 of Jesus eliminated. Moreover, should 
 one try to find a history of music 
 containing only meager reference to 
 the spell of the Christian religion over 
 this art, his quest would be without 
 avail. Every historian dealing with 
 music, as a general subject, must de- 
 vote large space to the part the Chris- 
 tian religion has played in its develop- 
 ment. I could quote from many 
 authors, and what each has said con- 
 cerning the upward urge the Christian 
 religion has given to music would be 
 convincing and fascinating. But space 
 can be accorded only a few. 
 
 Prof. Edmond Dickinson, of Ober- 
 lin College, is on record as follows: 
 
 ‘‘In the very nature of the case, a new en- 
 ergy must enter the art of music when enlisted 
 in the ministry of Christ. A new motive, a 
 new spirit, unknown to Greek or Roman or 
 even Hebrew, had taken possession of the re- 
 ligious consciousness. To the adoration of the 
 
 [ 126 ] 
 
MUSIC 
 
 same Supreme Power, before whom the Jew 
 bowed in awe-stricken reverence, was added the 
 recognition of a gift which the Jew still dimly 
 hoped for; and this gift brought with it an 
 assurance, and hence a felicity, which was never 
 granted to the religionist of the old dispensa- 
 tion.’’ 
 
 We attribute the crigin of nature’s 
 melodies to the Creator, and think but 
 little about it. But the beginning of 
 music among men is a subject which 
 mightily interests the historian. How- 
 ever, each ambitious chronicler of mu- 
 sical progress reaches the point where 
 his research must end. When, where 
 and how human music began is, and 
 perhaps will ever be, a matter of un- 
 satisfactory conjecture. Various the- 
 ories have been advanced, but no one 
 has supported his theory with facts. 
 Nevertheless, the history of music has 
 been successfully traced through na- 
 tions and races and tribes back to a 
 time very remote. 
 
 This does not mean, though, that 
 music as an art existed in the long ago. 
 
 9 SPAN, 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 
 
 It might be called one of the later arts. 
 Music in the abstract came down 
 through the ages to meet One who 
 would put it into the concrete. It 
 was not until Jesus began, through 
 His religion, to lay His hands upon 
 and appropriate and organize the great 
 worth-while things that science entered 
 music and made it the finest of arts. 
 The process was, of course, necessarily 
 slow. Men with power in their hands 
 and men of musical talent were nec- 
 essary, but such could be used only 
 as they voluntarily yielded themselves 
 to this service. 
 
 Gregory the Great, at about the 
 close of the sixth century, was vitally 
 interested in music, and through him 
 an elementary system his day had in- 
 herited was partially developed. Char- 
 lemagne, in the latter part of the eighth 
 and the early part of the ninth centur- 
 les, saw to it that the Gregorian system 
 was widely used. And, as a matter of 
 course, men of genius, here and there, 
 saw its defects and thought of ways 
 
 [ 128 ] 
 
MUSIC 
 
 to remedy them. Thus, as the centuries 
 passed, music slowly progressed toward 
 a satisfactory basis. In other words, 
 it gradually became scientifically or- 
 ganized. And when this was accom- 
 plished, its basic structure was finished. 
 The art of music still responds to the 
 touch of constructive genius, but its 
 fundamental rules have been fixed for 
 centuries. 
 
 Recently, I was sitting on the mez- 
 zanine floor of a leading hotel—listen- 
 ing to the orchestra during the noon 
 lunch hour. <A violinist displeased the 
 director. At the conclusion of the se- 
 lection an argument ensued—the vio- 
 linist maintaining that he had played 
 his part accurately. The director ter- 
 minated the dispute by saying: ‘‘The 
 rules were fixed before you and I were 
 born, and I shall hold you to them.’’ 
 I do not know what it was to which the 
 director referred, but it was ‘‘fixed’’ 
 and could not be changed. It reminded 
 me of, and doubtless respected, state- 
 
 ments made in histories of music. 
 [ 129 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 In his book, ‘‘The Art of Musie,’’ 
 C. Hubert Parry discusses at length 
 what he terms ‘‘the system,’’ which 
 ‘four ancestors gradually evolved for 
 our advantage,’’ and asserts that it 
 will probably be many centuries before 
 it will give place to a new system. 'T'o 
 whom did he refer? As a musician, 
 and writing for the benefit of musicians, 
 he had in mind the professional ances- 
 tors of musicians—men who somewhere 
 back in the centuries established the 
 present-day basis of music. 
 
 Frederick Louis Ritter, in a small 
 book, ‘‘Manual of Music,’’ throws some 
 light on the matter: 
 
 ‘Music, being assigned such an important 
 office in connection with liturgical service, be- 
 came the subject of continual study; a musical 
 erammar, giving the necessary rules for the 
 mastery of the system of the ecclesiastical modes, 
 the reading of the notes, the tradition of singing 
 the cantus planus and the chants, gradually 
 established itself.’’ 
 
 Prof. Waldo Seldon Pratt, of Hart- 
 ford Theological Seminary, who is the 
 [ 130 | 
 
MUSIC 
 
 author of several books on music, de- 
 parts from the usual method of the his- 
 torian and sums up the whole matter 
 in a chapter. In his ‘‘Musical Minis- 
 tries in the Church,’’ he says: 
 
 ‘*TIt is worth remembering, in the first place, 
 that the art of music is what it is to-day largely 
 in consequence of what religion has done for it. 
 The demands that religion has put upon music, 
 the opportunities and incentives for its develop- 
 ment that religion has afforded, and the basis 
 of knowledge and character that religion has 
 supplied for musical culture—I mean that these 
 have furnished to music the necessary occasion 
 and atmosphere and nutriment for its growth 
 to the stature of a great and famous art. Musie 
 is to a striking degree the creation or child of 
 the church. Many of its most ordinary tech- 
 nical ways and resources were discovered or in- 
 vented because the church needed them.’’ 
 
 The following significant statement 
 concludes Professor Pratt’s narration 
 of musical accomplishments which have 
 remained unaitered to our day: 
 
 ‘“‘The important fact for us here is that 
 every step in this process was taken by eccle- 
 siastics, and primarily for the upbuilding of 
 
 [131 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 echureh musie. Nowhere but in the ehurch was 
 there an adequate opening or a sufficient mo- 
 tive.’’ 
 
 With reference to the period in 
 which music found its center, and the 
 accomplishments which permanently 
 established it as an art, he says: 
 
 “This point will bear illustration, though 
 necessitating reference to a few musical tech- 
 nicalities. It is well known that all orderly mu- 
 sical procedure in composition rests upon three 
 constructive doctrines: Harmony, dealing with 
 chords and tonality ; Counterpoint, dealing with 
 voice parts and their interweaving, and Form, 
 including every grade of the rhythmical dis- 
 position of tone materials. In our modern the- 
 ories we usually put Harmony first, but his- 
 torically Counterpoint was developed first. The 
 altogether extraordinary elaboration of Counter- 
 point in the later Middle Ages was the first 
 systematic effort to deliver music from its an- 
 cient bondage to mere practical recitation, and 
 to give it laws of internal structure and organ- 
 ization somewhat analogous to those of archi- 
 tecture. For some three centuries—say, from 
 1200 to 1500—almost the entire energy of those 
 who made music a real study was put upon the 
 solution of this problem, whose difficulty is but 
 
 [ 132 | 
 
MUSIC 
 
 slightly appreciated by those who have not them- 
 selves wrestled with it. The result was the for- 
 mation of certain laws of musical grammar and 
 rhetoric that have never since been abrogated, 
 though their applications have been extended 
 and multiplied. Every composer to-day must 
 follow the lines of procedure once for all estab- 
 lished rudimentarily by tedious experiment and 
 toil some five hundred years ago.’’ 
 
 Thus it appears—it is emphatically 
 declared by eminent authorities—that 
 the Christian religion has wrought out 
 and established a system of music 
 which the world has accepted, and from 
 which none may deviate. ‘T'o put it 
 succinctly, Jesus of Nazareth presides 
 in every studio of music to-day, His 
 hand is on the pen of every composer, 
 whether religious or secular, and, in 
 substance, He says to them one and 
 all: ‘‘I am Master here. Use my gram- 
 mar and rhetoric. Follow my instruc- 
 tions.’? And they obey Him. Where 
 is the composer who would dare to rad- 
 ically depart from the fundamental 
 rules of music established in the school 
 
 of experience which was overshadow- 
 [ 133 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 ed by the Christian religion? Even the 
 composer of jazz must observe the 
 rules, or there would be no demand 
 for his sheets. 
 
 To sum it up: Jesus, in name and 
 influence, is the heart-throb of our 
 hymnology and of renowned oratorio, 
 He is the soul of tunes to great secular 
 songs, and He is the Master in the 
 universal studio. Were Jesus removed 
 from the realm of music, the melody of 
 the world, in so far as human instru- 
 mentality is concerned, would be 
 hushed. 
 
 [ 134 ] 
 
THE CHRISTIAN CALENDAR 
 
 HRONOLOGY is not a subject of 
 
 general study—apparently not one 
 of general interest. It may be that 
 we pay but httle attention to chro- 
 nology because it is so dry and tedious 
 and laborious to contemplate. Or per- 
 haps the Calendar, like numerous other 
 great things, is so commonplace that, 
 while using it continuously, we never 
 pause to give it serious thought. 
 
 It is doubtful if anything in history 
 has been the cause of so much brain 
 worry as has the problem of reckoning 
 time. The peoples of earth began ad- 
 dressing themselves to this stupendous 
 task in the early years, and on down 
 to our own day religious systems, gov- 
 ernments and individuals of inquiring 
 mind have wrestled with it. 
 
 The Gregorian Calendar has grad- 
 ually taken precedence over all others, 
 
 [ 135 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 and it is destined to entirely supplant 
 them the world around. In 1577 Greg- 
 ory XIII. appointed a commission of 
 mathematicians and chronologers to 
 consider a readjustment of the Calen- 
 dar, and in 1582 he issued a bull 
 authorizing the new Calendar. This 
 Calendar, owing to his initiative in 
 evolving it out of the Julian Calendar, 
 bears his name. But it is generally 
 known as the Christian Calendar— 
 and justly so. 
 
 Kiverything must begin with some- 
 thing, even though it be only an as- 
 sumption. Jesus as an historical fact 
 has not been questioned by modern Cal- 
 endar specialists. Nor has there been 
 serious contention among them as to 
 whether or not the Calendar should 
 start with Jesus. The contentions have 
 respected the date of Jesus’ birth and 
 Easter—especially Easter. The birth 
 date, however, has been assumed and 
 settled. The Easter question still per- 
 plexes—even within recent years, Par- 
 hament has discussed it at length. 
 
 [ 136 ] 
 
THE CHRISTIAN CALENDAR 
 
 The finer readjustments, still de- 
 sired and being wrought upon, matter 
 not so far as the objective of this chap- 
 ter is concerned. One thing has been 
 definitely settled upon, and it is as 
 fixed as are the planets the chronol- 
 ogers study. It is the CENTER. 
 Jesus of Nazareth divides time, as 
 men know it. Time, ancient and mod- 
 ern, leans upon Him, and upon Him 
 only—**B. C.’’ and ‘‘A. D.’’ 
 
 The more enlightened nations pro- 
 ceed entirely by the Christian Calen- 
 dar. England has taken it to all her 
 possessions. And modern business, as 
 well as missionary endeavor, is estab- 
 lishing it in the remotest parts of earth. 
 In a few countries the native instinct 
 still clings, in a way, to ancient meth- 
 ods of reckoning time. But these 
 methods are everywhere receding. In- 
 ternational business is transacted on 
 the Christian Calendar. There are cal- 
 endars many, mostly religious; but 
 there is only one aggressive Calendar 
 that is entrenching itself the world 
 
 [ 137 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 over—the Calendar that centers in 
 Jesus of Nazareth. 
 
 The Christian Calendar is more 
 powerful than the Constitution of the 
 United States or the constitution of 
 any other country. The constitution 
 of a nation rules only in the lives of a 
 citizenry. The Christian Calendar 
 rules in the activity of nations, and in 
 diplomatic relationship it rules in the 
 affairs of the world. The Christian 
 Calendar, as an instrument of present- 
 day authority, is more powerful than 
 the Bible. The Bible rules only in the 
 lives of those who voluntarily accept 
 it as authority. The Christian Calen- 
 dar rules autocratically in the lives of 
 all. The Christian Calendar is the most 
 powerful thing in the world. 
 
 Recently a society for the promo- 
 tion of atheism applied for a charter in 
 the State of New York. That applica- 
 tion was formally presented on the 
 Christian Calendar—in other words, in 
 the name of Jesus legal permission was 
 sought to prove that there is no God! 
 
 [ 138 ] 
 
THE CHRISTIAN CALENDAR 
 
 But there was no other method of 
 procedure left to the New York athe- 
 ists. Applications for charters must be 
 made, and charters must be granted, in 
 the name of Jesus. It is the law. 
 
 No man in the leading civilized 
 countries can transfer property, write 
 a check, make his will or in any way 
 identify himself with business or gov- 
 ernment without recognizing Jesus in 
 the Christian Calendar. Universal 
 business is transacted and governments 
 are run in the name of Jesus. 
 
 Men who talk against the Christian 
 religion sometimes boast that the name 
 of Jesus does not appear in the Dec- 
 laration of Independence, the Consti- 
 tution of the United States or the in- 
 duction oath of public office in the 
 United States. The fact remains, how- 
 ever, that the inauguration of the Pres- 
 ident, for example, is recorded in the 
 name of Jesus, and that every official 
 act of the President is performed in 
 the name of Jesus. Also both the Dec- 
 laration of Independence and the Gon- 
 
 [139 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 stitution of the United States are dated 
 in the name of Jesus. The method of 
 dating the Constitution looks a little 
 odd in this day—a day which takes a 
 short cut to everything. The Consti- 
 tution ends as follows: 
 
 ‘Done in Convention by the unanimous con- 
 sent of the States present the seventeenth day 
 
 of September in the year of our Lord one thon- 
 sand seven hundred and eighty-seven.’’ 
 
 [ 140 ] 
 
INGERSOLL 
 
 OBERT G. INGERSOLL is com- 
 
 monly referred to as ‘‘the great 
 agnostic.’’ The new Standard Dic- 
 tionary names him as an agnostic, and 
 so do other reference-books. But In- 
 gersoll was more than an agnostic. He 
 was not always content to say, ‘‘I do 
 not know.’’ He passed on too recently 
 for his lectures and writings to have 
 been garbled or afflicted with interpo- 
 lation. His works are in our libraries, 
 still fresh and touched with his strik- 
 ing personality. And all who have 
 read them, know that he, in one way or 
 another, emphatically denied the inspi- 
 ration of the Bible, the existence of a 
 Supreme Being and the deity of Jesus. 
 I shall quote a few of his many denials: 
 
 ‘“There never was, and there never can be, 
 an argument even tending to prove the inspira- 
 tion of any book whatever.’’ 
 
 [ 141 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 ‘‘Our ignorance is God; what we know is 
 science.”’ 
 
 ‘‘Beyond the universe there is nothing, and 
 within the universe the supernatural does not 
 and can not exist.’’ 
 
 ‘A deity outside of nature exists in noth- 
 ing, and is nothing.”’ 
 
 ‘“‘The Jewish God must be dethroned. A 
 personal Deity must go back to the darkness of 
 barbarism, from whence it came.’’ 
 
 ‘‘T can not believe in the miraculous origin 
 of Jesus Christ.’’ 
 
 ‘Tf it is important for us to know that He 
 was the Son of God, I say, then, that it devolves 
 upon God to give us the evidence. Let Him 
 write it across the face of the heavens in every 
 language of mankind.’’ 
 
 Yet Ingersoll was an apostle of not 
 only modernism in the broad sense of 
 this term, but of the New Theology in 
 America. He not only proclaimed our 
 present-day modernistic teaching, in 
 his own blunt way, but sensed its pene- 
 tration of the American pulpit, and, 
 judging from some of his utterances, 
 he regarded himself as its forerunner. 
 He praised the ‘‘advanced’’ theology 
 
 of Germany, and predicted that it 
 [ 142 | 
 
INGERSOLL 
 
 would entrench itself in the pulpit of 
 the United States. Moreover, his mem- 
 ory 1s revered by leaders in the New 
 Theology school. Alfred W. Martin, 
 in his book, ‘‘The Life of Jesus in the 
 Light of the Higher Criticism,’’ lifts up 
 this monument to the advance agent of 
 the New Theology in America: 
 
 ‘‘T would not be unmindful of the great 
 service Ingersoll rendered to religion. Remem- 
 bering the particular period in which his work 
 was done—those decades of fierce controversy 
 over issues now dead beyond all possibility of 
 resuscitation—we must gratefully acknowledge 
 that no other man of his time did so much to 
 help the faith of the past on to the faith of 
 the future. Nor is it extravagant to maintain 
 that much of the liberalism conspicuous in or- 
 thodox circles to-day must be attributed, in 
 large measure, to Ingersoll’s expose of an- 
 tiquated beliefs.’’ 
 
 I admire this author’s honesty and 
 frankness. And I think every New 
 Theology preacher in America should 
 publicly praise Robert G. Ingersoll. 
 He favored all such preachers before 
 
 they were born or when they were 
 10 [ 143 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 young, and, if gratitude be a virtue, 
 they should aid in keeping his memory 
 at par in the public mind. 
 
 Had Ingersoll been born in 1873 in- 
 stead of 1833, and his sixty-six years 
 vouchsafed, he would now be among 
 us—and in the zenith of his eloquence 
 and magnetism. Were he alive now, 
 with a conscience more flexible than 
 the monitor so manifest in his life, and 
 should feel so inclined, he would doubt- 
 less be the most outstanding New The- 
 ology preacher in the country. Pre- 
 tending a reverence for things sacred, 
 he could so phrase his thoughts as to 
 make his lectures on the gods and the 
 Bible and Jesus great New Theology 
 sermons. 
 
 However, Ingersoll was born too 
 soon for such a career. And were he 
 here to-day, it is my opinion that we 
 would know the same honest, outspoken 
 man we see in the recent history of the 
 American platform. One may disagree 
 with Ingersoll, but he can not help 
 admiring his honesty and the above- 
 
 faces 
 
INGERSOLL 
 
 board manner in which he played the 
 game. We can not think of duplicity in 
 connection with the name, ‘‘Ingersoll.’’ 
 That great orator was too honest to 
 proclaim his unbelief in the garb of 
 religion, and on salary from church 
 or bible chair. He provided his own 
 auditorium, and was strictly honest 
 with the public. When the people as- 
 sembled to hear him speak, they knew 
 he would endeavor to cut the founda- 
 tion from under the Christian religion. 
 They went, the majority of them, out 
 of curiosity, but when they sat in his 
 audience they knew they were looking 
 at an honest man. He babbled not 
 about ‘‘human genius’’ and its close 
 kinship to inspiration—he told them 
 that the Bible was not inspired. He 
 did not endeavor to explain that in the 
 concept we call God there is something 
 of value—he told his auditors that 
 they were deceived about God, and 
 that human reason was supreme. He 
 talked not about Jesus as ‘‘a son of 
 God’’ in some sort of degree above His 
 [ 145 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 fellow-men—he declared that Jesus was 
 simply a man like other men. He ac- 
 cepted the theory of evolution as exact 
 science, and thus frequently made him- 
 self ridiculous on the platform. And he 
 faced the chilling winds of eriticism 
 bare-shouldered—he did not, when the 
 sting became uncomfortable, don the 
 cloak of ‘‘a working hypothesis.’’ In- 
 gersoll was not built to ride two horses 
 going in opposite directions. And, al- 
 though he paved the way for the New 
 Theology in America, were he here now 
 he would not be a preacher in any pul- 
 pit or a professor in any Bible chair. 
 
 Ingersoll was an extensive reader, 
 and his memory was a marvel. He read 
 the Bible, and it is said that he prac- 
 tically knew it by heart. Whether or 
 not this be true, a comparison would 
 show that more Scripture is quoted 
 in a single lecture of his than is likely 
 to be found in a dozen New Theology 
 sermons to-day. 
 
 I could devote chapters of adverse 
 eriticism to Ingersoll’s lectures and 
 
 [ 146 | 
 
INGERSOLL 
 
 writings, for I am at issue with the 
 major part of his teaching. But such 
 procedure would not be in line with the 
 purpose of this book. I simply wish to 
 point out a tremendous oversight upon 
 his part. 
 
 Now and then, Ingersoll gave Jesus 
 faint praise—he even referred to Him 
 as an ‘‘infidel’’! However, his works, 
 as a whole, do not even give Jesus a 
 prominent seat among the great teach- 
 ers. His lengthy tributes to Humboldt 
 and Thomas Paine are monumental; 
 his brief chapter, ‘‘Christ’s Mission,’’ 
 is a slur. 
 
 In the introductory paragraph of 
 his lecture on Humboldt, he says: 
 
 ‘‘He was one of those serene men, in some 
 respects like our own Franklin, whose names 
 have all the luster of a star. He was one of 
 the few great enough to rise above the super- 
 stition and prejudice of his time, and to know 
 that experience, observation and reason are the 
 only basis of knowledge.’’ 
 
 The concluding paragraph of the 
 
 eulogy reads: 
 [ 147] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 ‘The world is his monument; upon the eter- 
 nal granite of her hills he inscribed his name, 
 and there upon everlasting stone his genius 
 wrote this, the sublimest of truths: The Uni- 
 verse Is Governed by Law.”’ 
 
 His praise of Thomas Paine is more 
 elaborate still—to quote even what 
 might be called a small part of it is 
 forbidden by King Space. Here is a 
 sample paragraph: 
 
 ‘He lived a long, laborious, useful life. The 
 world is better for his having lived. For the 
 sake of truth, he accepted hatred and reproach 
 for his portion. He ate the bitter bread of 
 sorrow. His friends were untrue to him be- 
 cause he was true to himself and true to them. 
 He lost the respect of what is called society, 
 but kept his own. His life is what the world 
 calls failure and what history calls success.’’ 
 
 The chapter on ‘‘Christ’s Mission”’ 
 contains no eulogistic expressions. 
 Instead, it represents Jesus as the 
 arch-plagiarist of the ages. He points 
 out, at great pains, that Jesus plagia- 
 rized from the Old Testament, Buddha, 
 Laotsze, Zoroaster, Socrates and Cic- 
 
 [ 148 ] 
 
INGERSOLL 
 
 ero, and from the ancient Egyptian, 
 Greek and Roman superstitions. 
 Ingersoll’s mind was like an eagle 
 soaring the skies. He seemed able to 
 see at a glance practically every his- 
 toric thing on a given subject. The 
 history packed into a single Ingersoll 
 lecture is apt to startle the reader. 
 And when one has spent an evening 
 reading Ingersoll his brain is likely to 
 be in a whirl. How could a busy, 
 ever-traveling man like Ingersoll have 
 read so much? And how could one hu- 
 man brain have retained elaborate, 
 exact information on such a variety of 
 subjects? These are the wonder ques- 
 tions one can not help asking. Yet 
 Ingersoll’s eagle eye failed to see the 
 most significant thing in all history— 
 the authority of Jesus on earth. I am 
 positive that he overlooked this, for, 
 had he seen it, the man in him would 
 have either accepted it or wrestled 
 with it. Ingersoll was not built upon 
 the plan that ignores or evades. He 
 did not see Jesus as a world power in 
 [ 149 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 reform and literature and the arts and 
 democracy and the Calendar. Why he 
 was thus blind will never be known. 
 
 In Ingersoll’s estimation, Jesus was 
 insignificant as compared with other 
 world teachers—insignificant as com- 
 pared with even Humboldt and Paine. 
 In his estimation, Jesus was so light of 
 mind that in preparing His sermons 
 He was driven to the necessity of pur- 
 loining the sayings of others and piec- 
 ing them together. Yet Jesus is the 
 only man of history whom Ingersoll 
 was compelled by custom and law to 
 daily recognize throughout his life. 
 
 As has been observed, Ingersoll’s 
 lectures and writings abound in his- 
 tory. He was an adept at specifying 
 dates, and he frequently used the 
 designations—*‘B. C.’’ and ‘‘A. D.”’ 
 It could not have occurred to his 
 otherwise quick mind that when on the 
 platform ridiculing the Bible, the per- 
 sonality of God and the deity of Jesus 
 he was continuously recognizing the 
 authority of Jesus. 
 
 [ 150 ] 
 
INGERSOLL 
 
 Jt is probable that a record of In- 
 gersoll’s birth was made at court— 
 though the law requiring birth records 
 was not so exacting then as now. It 
 may be said, however, that if his birth 
 was recorded the entry was made in 
 the name of Jesus. The elementary 
 books he studied when a boy—books 
 that expanded his mind and supplied 
 the splendid English he used—were 
 published in the name of Jesus. He 
 was admitted to the bar and _ prac- 
 ticed law in the name of Jesus. His 
 marriage license was issued in the 
 name of Jesus. All the business of his 
 life was transacted in the name of 
 Jesus. His death certificate and burial 
 permit were recorded in the name of 
 Jesus. His estate was settled in the 
 name of Jesus. His works are to-day 
 published and distributed in the name 
 of Jesus. 
 
 When Ingersoll started for a given 
 point to deliver a thunderbolt lecture 
 against the fundamentals of the Chris- 
 tian religion, he purchased a ticket 
 
 mess 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 stamped in the name of Jesus and paid 
 for it with money issued in the name 
 of Jesus. On the train, which made 
 every mile of its schedule in the name 
 of Jesus, he entertained himself with 
 magazines and books and daily papers 
 published in the name of Jesus, and 
 from the train he sent his telegrams in 
 the name of Jesus. 
 
 Upon arrival at his destination, he 
 registered at a hotel in the name of 
 Jesus. In the dining-room he ordered 
 his meals from the menu ecards printed 
 in the name of Jesus. At the ap- 
 pointed hour he arose in a hall, built 
 and maintained in the name of Jesus, 
 and leased for him in the name of 
 Jesus, and there he hurled an orator- 
 ical tornado at the religion Jesus 
 founded. The next morning he read 
 the glowing report of his brilliant lec- 
 ture. And had he glanced thought- 
 fully at the date-line, he might have 
 discovered that his great reputation as 
 a ridiculer of the religion of Jesus was 
 heralded in the name of Jesus! 
 
 palsy: 
 
THE JEWS 
 
 T is not necessary to dwell at length 
 
 upon the well-known fact that Jew- 
 ish teaching never recognizes Jesus as 
 the Christ. Jews everywhere are 
 taught that Jesus was a man, plus 
 nothing. They generally regard Him 
 as a religious enthusiast who sought 
 to be a reformer, or as an impostor. 
 The latter view is more likely to be 
 found on the orthodox side of Judaism. 
 No Jew could in any way express rec- 
 ognition of Jesus’ deity and remain 
 in the fold. Yet the Jews of Europe 
 and America, and likewise Jews in 
 other parts of the world, are compelled 
 to daily recognize the authority of 
 Jesus. 
 
 In a preceding chapter we observed 
 that Jews close their business houses 
 every year on December 25—out- 
 wardly, at least, in celebration of Jesus’ 
 
 [ 153 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 birth. This is, of course, in line with 
 custom. Nevertheless, I am calling at- 
 tention to facts—and it is a fact that 
 Jews close on Christmas Day. 
 
 Moreover, in this and other coun- 
 tries the Jew—especially the large Jew- 
 ish merchant or banker—closes his 
 business on Sunday. Sunday has dis- 
 placed the Sabbath in the public mind. 
 Sunday closing is a general custom, 
 and to it the prominent Jew in busi- 
 ness can not say ‘‘nay.’’ In bowing to 
 custom, he bows to authority. It may 
 be added that in many localities the 
 Jew, like the Gentile, must close his 
 place of business on Sunday because 
 it is the law. And be it remembered 
 that Sunday is set apart as the day on 
 which tradition says Jesus arose from 
 the tomb. (As I am not yet permitted 
 to reopen the Bible, I can do nothing 
 other in this connection than employ 
 the word ‘‘tradition.’’) 
 
 It is to the Jews’ anomalous predic- 
 ament, enforced by the Christian Cal- 
 endar, that I wish to eall special atten- 
 
 [ 154 ] 
 
 
 
THE JEWS 
 
 tion. As we have already observed, 
 the Christian Calendar must be recog- 
 nized in every human transaction that 
 involves an obligation. 
 
 The Jewish Encyclopedia, prepared 
 by more than four hundred scholars 
 and specialists, was, of course, copy- 
 righted and published in the name of 
 Jesus. ‘This comprehensive work con- 
 tains a lengthy explanation of the Jew- 
 ish Calendar, yet throughout its vol- 
 umes the Christian Calendar is used. 
 The abbreviation, ‘‘B. C.,’’ is inva- 
 riably used when dating events prior 
 to the Christian era. The fact that 
 this is the only way, and that it is 
 therefore compulsory, does not make 
 insignificant the observation. ‘The 
 ereatest literary production of the 
 Jewish mind must, from beginning 
 to end, submit to authority which in 
 some way proceeds from Jesus. 
 
 Also, the ‘‘American Jewish Year 
 Book’’ for 1925-26, issued by the Jew- 
 ish Publication Society of America, is 
 compelled to recognize the authority 
 
 P1155] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 of Jesus. The Jewish Year Book con- 
 tains ‘‘A Survey of the Year 5685,”’ 
 and a footnote makes this explanation: 
 ‘‘The period covered by this Survey is 
 from Apr. 1, 1924, to March 31, 1925.”’ 
 Not at all insignificant when one re- 
 alizes that the Jewish Calendar has to 
 be explained to Jews in the light of 
 the Christian Calendar! 
 
 Jesus of Nazareth, in the Jewish 
 synagogue, is an historic impostor or 
 would-be reformer or great teacher— 
 His standing depends upon the ortho- 
 doxy or liberality of the pulpit that 
 refers to Him. Yet the synagogue it- 
 self, whether Orthodox or Reform, 
 mutely, but eloquently, recognizes the 
 authority of Jesus. The title to the 
 ground on which it stands is recorded 
 in His name. The permit for its ereec- 
 tion was granted in His name. The 
 architectural specifications were con- 
 tracted for and delivered in His name. 
 The synagogue, from start to finish, 
 was builded in His name—the con- 
 tracts for excavation, stone and wood- 
 
 [ 156 J 
 
THE JEWS 
 
 ~ 
 
 work, tiling, painting, decorating and 
 furnishing were all let and executed in 
 His name. And the synagogue is main- 
 tained in the name of Jesus. Every 
 piece of repair work is done and every 
 ton of coal is shoveled into the cellar 
 in the name of Jesus. Even the rab- 
 bi’s salary check is made out in the 
 name of Jesus! 
 
 Law bends not to the convenience 
 of either race or creed. Hence, Jews, 
 like other people, are born in the name 
 of Jesus, they are married in the name 
 of Jesus, they transact their business 
 in the name of Jesus, they handle 
 money (lots of it) issued in the name 
 of Jesus, they die and are buried in the 
 name of Jesus, and their estates are 
 executed in the name of Jesus. Where 
 is the Jew who can transact an item 
 of business, take a journey, provide his 
 daily food, live a day or die without 
 recognizing the authority of the young 
 man from Nazareth ? 
 
 Also, the fact that Jesus is more 
 and more compelling the respect of 
 
 [157] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 leading Jews, in America and other 
 countries, merits special emphasis. 
 
 The Jewish Encyclopedia treats 
 Jesus with distant, stately courtesy. 
 Nevertheless, it discusses Him at great 
 length and with considerable respect. 
 Jewish historians and scholars have 
 dignified Jesus as an historical per- 
 sonage of influence and power. And 
 others of the Jewish race have praised 
 Him in terms that are surprising. 
 Claude G. Montefiore wrote an appre- 
 ciation of Jesus and likewise a com- 
 mentary on the Synoptic Gospels. 
 Joseph Jacobs wrote a complimentary 
 study of Jesus entitled, ‘‘As Others 
 Saw Him.’’ And rabbis frequently 
 get into the headlines as a result of 
 pulpit references to Jesus that are ex- 
 traordinary. As late as 1925, Rabbi 
 Wise made statements respecting Jesus 
 that startled the public and that tem- 
 porarily embarrassed his standing as 
 a Jewish teacher. 
 
 ‘‘A Jewish View of Jesus,’’ by H. 
 G. Enelow, published in 1920, is per- 
 
 [ 158 ] 
 
 ee SE eee 
 
THE JEWS 
 
 haps the most liberal recent book from 
 the pen of a Jew. This book is exceed- 
 ingly complimentary in its references 
 to Jesus. Yet, in the author’s mind, it 
 is written within the limitations of 
 Jewish orthodoxy. Liberal quotations 
 from it will constitute an asset worth 
 while in support of the proposition that 
 Jesus was and is more than man. 
 
 Neither this book nor any other 
 writings of lLberal-minded Jews should 
 be regarded as an indication that the 
 Jewish people are about ready to ac- 
 cept Jesus as a divine personage, for 
 they are not. The rank and file of 
 Jews are not in sympathy with dis- 
 courses upon the worth of Jesus as a 
 man, which are delivered by some of 
 their leaders. Nor do the exceptional 
 rabbis and writers who eulogize Jesus 
 accept Him, in any sense, as the fulfill- 
 ment of Messianic prophecy. 
 
 The first paragraph in ‘‘A Jewish 
 View of Jesus”’ reveals clearly the gen- 
 eral Jewish attitude toward Jesus. It 
 reads: 
 
 11 [ 159 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 ‘‘A study of the relation of Jesus to the 
 Jews, from the Jewish point of view, is still a 
 somewhat hazardous undertaking, exciting sus- 
 picion or fear of one kind or another. Ortho- 
 dox Christians will suspect an element of ir- 
 reverence in a Jew’s treatment of Jesus. The 
 old-fashioned Jew, on the other hand, may ob- 
 ject altogether to such a discussion, as giving 
 undue attention to a foreign subject. Consid- 
 eration of Jesus on the part of a Jew is regarded 
 as a sign of weakness, if not disloyalty; as a 
 leaning in the wrong direction, particularly if 
 it shows symptoms of admiration for Jesus.’’ 
 
 The author makes it plain that, 
 notwithstanding his great admiration 
 for Jesus, he stands with his people in 
 denying that Jesus was the Messiah. 
 The following statement is clear-cut: 
 
 ‘‘Perhaps it is well, first of all, to dispose 
 of the question asked most often and most in- 
 stinctively by Christians; namely, whether the 
 modern Jew accepts Jesus as the Messiah. That 
 the Jews, whether modern or ancient, Reform 
 or Orthodox, do not acknowledge the divinity of 
 Jesus is known to all. It is understood that 
 Jews could not do that and still remain Jews, 
 as the very foundation of all Judaism is the 
 unity and the spiritual nature of God, and the 
 
 [ 160 ] 
 
THE JEWS 
 
 Jewish religion has never in the least compro- 
 mised on this fundamental principle. Only in 
 so far as all humanity is divine, formed in the 
 divine image and with divine possibilities, can 
 the Jew associate the idea of divinity with Jesus. 
 It is commonly understood that the acceptance 
 of Jesus as Divinity is quite out of the ques- 
 tion for the Jew. But do the Jews of to-day, 
 or any part of them, find it possible to accept 
 Jesus as the Messiah? The answer is that they 
 do not find it possible to do so, and for the 
 reason that the ideas associated in the Jewish 
 mind with the Messiah not only were left un- 
 realized by Jesus, but have remained unful- 
 filled to this day.’’ 
 
 Professor Graetz, a Jewish histo- 
 rian, asserts that Jesus is the only man 
 of whom it may be said that He 
 achieved more by His death than by 
 His hfe. The author of ‘‘A Jewish 
 View of Jesus’’ does not take sharp 
 issue with this. However, he argues 
 at length that the Jews did not insti- 
 gate the death of Jesus, and places 
 the responsibility of that tragedy en- 
 tirely upon the Roman Government. 
 After much conjecture regarding the 
 
 [161] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 improbability of Jewish influence and 
 domination at the Roman court, he 
 records his own opinion: 
 
 ‘*In reality, there seems no reason to doubt 
 that Pilate, hearing of Jesus, regarded him as 
 a new claimant to the part of Messiah, of the 
 kind he had learned to fear as chiefs of rebel- 
 lon. As it was the season of Passover, when 
 the city was full of pilgrims and of national 
 enthusiasm, his fears grew the worse. He there- 
 fore ordered the arrest of the new leader and 
 his immediate trial and execution.’’ 
 
 This statement, which is followed 
 by an argument against the atonement, 
 seems to be an effort upon the part 
 of the author to remove Jesus still fur- 
 ther from the supernatural. He fol- 
 lows it up with an explanation of 
 Jesus’ resurrection in the widespread 
 prestige of His name: 
 
 ‘‘He died a Jew, having no idea that he 
 was destined to be called the founder of a new 
 faith, to supersede or destroy his own. That 
 this part fell to him was due entirely to the 
 small group of men and women that had fol- 
 lowed him and stood by him to the last, be- 
 eause they loved him.’’ 
 
 [ 162 ] 
 
THE JEWS 
 
 Further on in the same chapter he 
 puts it in another way: 
 
 ‘‘It was this band of loyal men and women 
 that thus saved the name of Jesus from ob- 
 livion. Whether Jesus would have. approved 
 their conception of him as the Messiah, or 
 whether it meant to them what later it came to 
 mean, is quite apart. It was they who made 
 the name of Jesus immortal. 
 
 ‘‘Naturally their number grew, but the most 
 important addition to their ranks they gained 
 when joined by Paul.’’ 
 
 Then follows lengthy argument to 
 prove that Paul, instead of Jesus, 
 founded the Christian church. I am 
 forbidden to quote the New Testament. 
 Nor can I debate the question as to 
 whether Jesus or Paul founded the 
 church. However, I can say that the 
 author of ‘‘A Jewish View of Jesus”’ 
 clasps hands very warmly with the 
 New Theology writers, who almost in- 
 variably arrive at the conclusion that 
 Paul was the founder of the Chris- 
 tian religion. 
 
 Rabbi Enelow also avers that the 
 worth-while things in Jesus’ teaching 
 
 [ 163 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 were either taken from the Old Tes- 
 tament or inspired by the Jewish 
 religion. After elaborating upon this 
 proposition, he says: 
 
 “That he himself regarded his teaching as 
 a pure expression of the Jewish religious ideal 
 —as a fulfillment of the law and the prophets— 
 one can hardly doubt.’’ 
 
 Thus it is seen that this modern 
 Jew, in the argumentative part of his 
 book, strips Jesus of the supernatural, 
 of fundamental originality, of au- 
 thority and of everything else that 
 would immortalize the name of a man 
 —just as the New T'heology writers do. 
 And he concludes that but for the loy- 
 alty of a few men and women and the 
 accidental conversion of Paul the name 
 of Jesus would have perished from the 
 earth. Yet, outside the limitations of 
 argument, he appears strangely com- 
 pelled to place Jesus upon the high- 
 est earthly pedestal, and to pay Him 
 homage close akin to worship. The 
 folowing is an assembly of a few 
 paragraphs and single statements se- 
 
 [ 164 ] 
 
THE JEWS 
 
 lected from many such that appear, 
 here and there, in his book: 
 
 ‘“‘There are many reasons why a Jew should 
 be interested in Jesus. First of all, Jesus has 
 become the most popular, the most studied, the 
 most influential figure in the religious history 
 of mankind.’’ 
 
 **In the second half of the nineteenth cen- 
 tury, we know, there were many attacks upon 
 traditional religion. Criticism of every kind, 
 historical and philosophical, was directed against 
 it. Many thought that the fortress of faith 
 could not long endure. One thing, however, is 
 remarkable. Amid all these assaults, the world 
 kept on studying Jesus, and regarding him 
 from every conceivable angle. New biographies 
 of Jesus were produced from most diverse points 
 of view; from the physiological, the psychologi- 
 eal and pathological points of view, as well as 
 from the orthodox. When, several years ago, 
 the theory was revived that Jesus never existed 
 —that he was a myth—it only served as an 
 incentive to the production of new biographies 
 of Jesus.’’ 
 
 ‘‘As a religious being, the Jew can not help 
 taking an interest in the man who, above all 
 others, has played a part in religious history.’’ 
 
 ‘“Whether we like it or no, Jesus has fas- 
 cinated mankind.”’ 
 
 [ 165 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 The book is concluded with this 
 glowing tribute to the young Naz- 
 arene: 
 
 ‘“Who ean compute all that Jesus has meant 
 to humanity? The love he has inspired, the 
 solace he has given, the good he has engen- 
 dered, the hope and joy he has kindled—all 
 that is unequaled in human history. Among 
 the great and the good that the human race has 
 produced, none has even approached Jesus in 
 universality of appeal and sway. He has be- 
 come the one fascinating figure in history. In 
 him is combined what is most mysterious and 
 most enchanting in Israel—the eternal people 
 whose child he was. The Jew can not help 
 glorying in what Jesus thus has meant to the 
 world; nor can he help hoping that Jesus may 
 yet serve as a bond of union between Jew and 
 Christian, once his teaching is better known, 
 and the bane of misunderstanding at last is re- 
 moved from his words and his ideal.’’ 
 
 The language this Jewish author 
 employs is not extravagant. The 
 gauntlet of criticism Jesus has run 
 down through the centuries—and espe- 
 cially during the past century—would 
 have destroyed all faith in Him, had 
 
 He been mere man or a myth. But He 
 [ 166 ] 
 
THE JEWS 
 
 stands forth to-day as the Jew has 
 described Him—‘‘the one fascinating 
 figure in history.”’ 
 
 The Jews will not—Rabbi Enelow 
 says they can not—see in Jesus their 
 Messiah. But they know He is the 
 center of literature, the major subject 
 of art and the soul of music. They are 
 compelled by law to recognize Him 
 daily in their business affairs. And 
 their keen-visioned leaders are begin- 
 ning to call unto them to give pause 
 and to admire Him—the Jew who is 
 fascinating the world. 
 
 [ 167 ] 
 
A MYTH 
 
 VG SS along Broadway, New 
 York City, one afternoon, I saw 
 a sign: ‘‘Buy the Infidel Paper.” I 
 purchased a copy of The Truth Seeker, 
 which I have kept and now have spread 
 open on my desk. 
 An editorial, ‘‘A Bird’s-eye View of 
 Jesus,’’ begins thus: 
 
 ‘< Jesus, as seen by a man in the twentieth 
 century, looks insignificant.’ 
 
 A paragraph reads: 
 
 ‘‘Looking upon Jesus from the twentieth 
 century, he is seen as a traveling exhorter in 
 a country which believed in angels and devils 
 and exhibitions of divine manifestations, in an 
 age of mental darkness lighted up by miracles, 
 followed by persons of no education and no 
 character.”’ 
 
 A closing sentence affirms: 
 
 ‘‘A bird’s-eye view of Jesus shows him not 
 a god, not a man, but a myth.’’ 
 [ 168 ] 
 
A MYTH 
 
 The writer of this editorial demon- 
 strated very clearly the dictionary defi- 
 nition of a ‘‘bird’s-eye view’’—‘‘seen at 
 a glance.’’ But even his ‘‘glance’’ was 
 twisted. He saw Jesus first as an ‘‘in- 
 significant’? somebody, ‘‘a_ traveling 
 exhorter’’ in a benighted age and in 
 a country especially afflicted with su- 
 perstition, and followed by ‘‘persons 
 of no education and no character,”’ 
 then as ‘‘not a god, not a man, but a 
 myth.’’ And evidently his ‘‘glance’’ 
 did not even reach to the top of his own 
 editorial page. For there he would 
 have read that The Truth Seeker was 
 founded by D. M. Bennett in 1873, and 
 that the date of the enlightening edito- 
 rial he was writing was to be Oct. 27, 
 1923. 
 
 I likewise have before me a copy of 
 a great and popular magazine. It con- 
 tains a featured article by Edwin 
 Bjorkman, entitled, ‘‘Am I a Chris- 
 tian ?”’ 
 
 Mr. Bjorkman frankly acknowl- 
 edges that he regards Jesus as a myth, 
 
 [ 169 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 and so refers to Him throughout the 
 article. Authors from Bruno Bauer 
 down to our day have devoted volumes 
 to the ‘‘myth’’ discussion, but this mag- 
 azine writer has transcended them all. 
 He has succeeded in explaining the 
 ‘‘myth’’ proposition with a _ gesture. 
 His explanation is contained in the fol- 
 lowing brief paragraph: 
 
 ‘‘The Christ story as we have it, in both its 
 natural and supernatural phases, is demonstra- 
 bly a conglomerate of pre-Christian myths, some 
 modified to suit their novel applications, and 
 others taken over practically intact. From this 
 abundantly proved fact has sprung the new cur- 
 rent of opinion already suggested. It sees, in 
 the exalted figure at the heart of all religions 
 called Christian, a myth gradually built up by 
 the race-mind for the symbolic embodiment of 
 man’s ever-recurring dream about an agency 
 eapable of leading him out of the misery and 
 despair that result from his lack of authentic 
 communication with the omnipotent power 
 sensed behind life’s perplexing phenomena.’’ 
 
 It is to be regretted that this il- 
 luminating paragraph arrived so late. 
 Had it appeared early enough in the 
 
 [170 ] 
 
A MYTH 
 
 ‘‘myth’’ investigation, it might have 
 saved a lot of brainwork. Had this 
 streak of light bit the earth on time, 
 men like Voltaire, Kalthoff, Niemojew- 
 ski, Jensen, Karl Voller, J. M. Robert- 
 son and W. B. Smith would probably 
 not have labored so strenuously to 
 prove Jesus a myth. And had Drews 
 and von Soden read this lucid para- 
 graph in 1909, the great debate would 
 probably not have occurred in Berlin 
 in 1910. 
 
 The major paragraph of the article 
 reads: 
 
 ‘‘Another aspect of this myth has played a 
 part in shaping the conclusion to which this 
 self-scrutiny led me—an aspect that impressed 
 me deeply as soon as it occurred to me. While 
 I am pondering whether I should call myself a 
 Christian or not, there are millions of people 
 in other parts of the globe who have no hesita- 
 tion at all on that score. Of course I am a 
 Swede and a European by birth, an American 
 by nationality and adaptation, an Occidental by 
 geographical location, and a member of the so- 
 ealled white races anthropologically. But to in- 
 numerable Moslems, Buddhists, Brahmanists 
 
 PL TLE 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 and Confucians, all such distinetions are sub- 
 merged in my membership of that part of hu- 
 manity which constitutes modern Christendom. 
 To all such outsiders I am first and last a Chris- 
 tian, no matter what I may say about it. The 
 community of different peoples is determined 
 partly by their own sense of it, and partly by 
 their common juxtaposition to other parts of 
 the human race. From both points of view, 
 Christianity remains a real and living fact even 
 at this late day, and I find myself a part of it.’’ 
 
 This man is certainly fenced in 
 and chained down—his escape is im- 
 possible. But read the pathetic state- 
 ment near the close of his article: 
 
 ‘‘Believe what I may, I am a member, by 
 birth and upbringing, by political allegiance 
 and cultural tradition, of a vast number of 
 racial groups scattered all over the earth, and 
 held together, nominally at least, by a name and 
 an idea, a myth and a dream.’’ 
 
 This is an admission worth ponder- 
 ing. Mr. Bjorkman has to accept what 
 he does not believe, and he 7s what he 
 knows he is not. Religiously, he is as 
 a prisoner in irons, and can move 
 neither hand nor foot. But by what 
 
 [ 172 ] 
 
A MYTH 
 
 is he thus securely held? Only a myth! 
 And had it occurred to him he might 
 have said, in a footnote, that his article 
 would appear in the April number of 
 the Century, which the myth had de- 
 creed should be dated 1926! 
 
 ‘The Christ Myth,’ by Arthur 
 Drews, is perhaps the most elaborate 
 denial of Jesus’ existence that has 
 found a place in literature. It has, at 
 any rate, occasioned more widespread 
 interest and discussion than has any 
 other. 
 
 Professor Drews, like his predeces- 
 sors, parallels everything Christian 
 with something pagan, and, in his own 
 mind, arrives at correct conclusions. 
 Space will not permit extended ref- 
 erences, but a couple of sample con- 
 clusions may be recorded. Here is one: 
 
 ‘‘In reality, the whole of the family and 
 home life of the Messiah, Jesus, took place in 
 heaven among the gods. It was only reduced 
 to that of a human being in lowly circumstances 
 by the fact that Paul described the descent of 
 the Messiah upon the earth as an assumption 
 
 [173 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 of poverty and a relinquishment of his heav- 
 enly splendor. Hence, when the myth was trans- 
 formed into history, Christ was turned into a 
 ‘poor’ man in the economic sense of the word, 
 while Joseph, the divine artificer and father of 
 the sun, became an ordinary carpenter.’’ 
 
 According to Drew’s method of 
 reasoning (and it is also the method 
 pursued by some of the New The- 
 ology writers), Paul, an ‘‘epileptic,”’ 
 founded the Christian religion. Paul 
 was keen of intellect, and likewise sub- 
 ject to visions—this was probably due 
 to his ailment. And, besides, he had 
 been reared at a superstitious center. 
 Henee, it was easy for him to honestly 
 deceive himself, and, incidentally, to 
 deceive millions of people down to our 
 day. But had it not been for the 
 accident of Paul’s conversion, which 
 was an illusion, the myth known as 
 Jesus and Christ would not have been 
 here for the thinkers of our day to 
 wrestle with. 
 
 There were many myths in the 
 
 olden times, and myths are still nu- 
 [ 174 ] 
 
A MYTH 
 
 merous. but Jesus has attracted more 
 attention than have all the other myths 
 put together. Why? Drew’s thesis, 
 taken as a whole, explains it. He 
 makes a wonderful composite of the 
 myths. He bunches practically all of 
 the major old-time myths into the 
 Jesus myth. In other words, about all 
 of the ancient myths were put together 
 into one big myth—our present-day 
 myth. Hence, his conclusion: 
 
 ‘* Jesus, the Christ, the Deliverer, Saviour, 
 Physician of oppressed souls, has been from first 
 to last a figure borrowed from myth.’’ 
 
 Professor Drews, as are the rest of 
 us, is in the grasp of the myth. His 
 book was originally published in the 
 name of Jesus, it was translated and 
 republished in the name of Jesus, and 
 it is to-day distributed in the name of 
 Jesus. And when reading his book one 
 is again impressed with the authority 
 of the myth. Like Ingersoll, he draws 
 upon history and gives many dates, 
 and, like Ingersoll, he is compelled to 
 
 12 PlTon 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 recognize the authority of Jesus. He 
 uses the abbreviations ‘‘B. C.’’ and 
 ‘fA. D.’’ But frequently he recognizes 
 Jesus in still a more pronounced way. 
 The following is a sample of his phrase- 
 ology when locating something in his- 
 tory: 
 
 ‘‘Seldom in the history of mankind has the 
 need for religion been so strongly felt as in the 
 last century before Christ and the first century 
 after Christ.”’ 
 
 The authority of a myth! And the 
 myth’s finger on Drews’ pen when 
 ‘The Christ Myth’’ was written! 
 
 In the preface to the third edition 
 of his book, Professor Drews says: 
 
 ‘‘The storm which has been raised against 
 my book in theological circles and in the press, 
 and has even led to mass-meetings of protest in 
 the Busch Cireus and in the Dom at Berlin, 
 shows me that I have ‘hit the bull’s-eye’ with 
 my performance.’’ 
 
 There appears to be an element of 
 egotism in this. However, one should 
 not pass hasty judgment. Neverthe- 
 
 [ 176 ] 
 
A MYTH 
 
 less, Professor Drews evidently con- 
 cluded that his ‘‘performance’’ had 
 accomplished something wonderful. 
 He modestly acknowledged that he had 
 ‘“‘hit the bull’s-eye.’’ Drews, in his pref- 
 atory remarks and throughout his the- 
 sis, makes it clear that, in his own mind, 
 Bruno Bauer and all the other ‘‘ Jesus 
 Myth”’ writers had failed to ‘‘hit cen- 
 ter. ‘‘Hitting center’’ is equivalent 
 to killing. Back of the target is 
 reality. ‘‘Shoot the bull in the eye’’— 
 old-time advice on _ slaughter-day. 
 When a bull was shot in the eye it 
 usually dropped, and there was noth- 
 ing left of that bull—save a lifeless 
 form. If language means anything, 
 Professor Drews thought he had killed 
 the giant myth—and, judging from the 
 loud manifestations of joy in the rad- 
 ical camp when ‘‘The Christ Myth’’ 
 went forth, many others thought so. 
 But a curious thing remains to be con- 
 sidered. Professor Drews closed his 
 third preface—and it was the last end 
 of that ‘‘performance’’—by signing 
 eeu 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 his name and writing under it, ‘* Karls- 
 ruhe, March, 1910.”’ 
 
 ‘The Authority of a Myth,’”’ by a 
 Robertson, a Smith or a Drews, would 
 be a book worth reading! 
 
 [178 | 
 
SUMMARY 
 
 ADICAL criticism has not suce- 
 
 ceeded in proving that Jesus of 
 Nazareth is a myth. Nor has any 
 school of criticism ruled Him out of 
 history. The assaults upon the his- 
 toricity of Jesus have no more affected 
 it than would feathers in the wind’s 
 whirl dent a mountain. 
 
 The less radical of the modernists 
 admit that Jesus lived, but they con- 
 tend that He was nothing more than 
 man. Hence, Jesus the man, recog- 
 nized by the New Theology as a great 
 teacher, now stands before us. 
 
 New Theology writers give Jesus 
 place among the world’s teachers, but 
 not all of them seem on friendly terms 
 with Him. Now and then, a book by 
 some one of this school is so hostile 
 in its approach that it gives the reader 
 an uncomfortable feeling—he almost 
 
 [179 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 suspects that the author has a personal 
 grudge against Jesus. ‘‘What We 
 Know About Jesus,’’ by Dr. Charles 
 F’. Dole, is one of this type. It not 
 only divests Jesus of deity, but indi- 
 rectly accuses Him of having lacked 
 honor and even the finer qualities of 
 a gentleman. Dr. Dole goes beyond his 
 New Theology brethren in many 
 things, but he accepts Jesus as a fact, 
 and can not, therefore, be classed as a 
 ‘‘radical.’? He is radical enough, to 
 be sure—but, judged by general New 
 Theology standards, he is orthodox! 
 The following statement in his book 
 does not overreach the New Theology 
 viewpoint: 
 
 ‘‘In the whole narrative about Jesus, there 
 is nothing, aside from the implication of the 
 wonder stories (which are no more wonderful 
 than those related in Exodus and the Books of 
 the Kings), that would lift him into a lonely 
 
 uniqueness above the class of other illustrious 
 prophets or teachers of religion.’’ 
 
 The narrative to which this author 
 refers is in the New Testament, and, 
 [ 180 ] 
 
SUMMARY 
 
 therefore, not available to me. Hence, 
 I can not even question the accuracy 
 of his statement. But I can, and shall, 
 call attention to an oversight upon the 
 part of not only Dr. Dole, but that also 
 of practically all writers of his school. 
 They seem to overlook the fact that 
 there is much in the career of Jesus 
 down through modern time which lifts 
 Him ‘‘into a lonely uniqueness above 
 the class of other illustrious prophets 
 or teachers of religion.’’ 
 
 The prophets and teachers of relig- 
 ion to whom Dr. Dole refers, and other 
 ancient teachers as well, still live in 
 their teaching which has been pre- 
 served. They have each had a career 
 down to our day, and some of them find 
 place in high school and college. Great 
 teachers of the past are welcomed in 
 many schools out of which the Bible 
 is barred by law. 
 
 Inasmuch as the New Testament is 
 still closed, we are not supposed to 
 have knowledge of anything Jesus 
 did in the flesh. But there is one thing 
 
 [181 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 we know He did not do. He did not 
 write theses on philosophy and morals 
 and religion and send them down to 
 our day, as did other teachers called 
 great. If He wrote, His writing was 
 not preserved. At any rate, nothing 
 from His pen has ever been discov- 
 ered. In this, the old teachers have 
 great advantage. And, to make His 
 case worse still, the critics of Jesus 
 claim that in oral teaching He plagia- 
 rized the ancient classics. Neverthe- 
 less, a couple of questions. Where do 
 the ancient teachers stand in com- 
 parison with Jesus? Has one of them 
 been lifted ‘‘into a lonely uniqueness’’ 
 in world progress ? 
 
 Not one of the great teachers has 
 aggressive prestige in the world. Some 
 founders of religion hold sway in cer- 
 tain parts, but even there their influ- 
 ence is waning. As examples, Bud- 
 dhism and Confucianism have flour- 
 ished only in spots on the earth, and it 
 has been repeatedly demonstrated that 
 they can not gain hold elsewhere. More- 
 
 [ 182 ] 
 
SUMMARY 
 
 over, these religions, as are all others 
 not Christian, are losing ground. Mis- 
 sionaries and world-travelers tell us 
 that in India and China and Japan 
 —where they have been most in evi- 
 dence—these religions are beginning to 
 flee before the advancing hght of eivil- 
 ization. 
 
 The Christian religion in concrete 
 form remains and expands in what- 
 ever land planted. Pagan religions 
 perish in Christian countries, but the 
 Christian religion flourishes in pagan 
 countries. but it is not necessary to 
 confine one’s observation to organized 
 Christianity. Jesus is lifted ‘‘into a 
 lonely uniqueness’’ the world around, 
 outside of church. Jesus is the One 
 unique, not only in literature and the 
 arts, reform and world-wide ministra- 
 tions of mercy and the ruling Calendar, 
 but in all of civilization’s complex 
 progress. 
 
 Books that try to prove Jesus a 
 myth, or a man like other men, are 
 interesting to read—when they contain 
 
 [183 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 research, and are well written. But 
 when the greater view of Jesus is taken, 
 these books are comical. Such books as 
 ‘‘The Christ Myth,’’ ‘‘Christianity and 
 Mythology”? and ‘‘The Pre-Christian 
 Jesus’’ are like paper wads hurled at 
 Gibraltar to topple it over or pails of 
 water dashed toward the sun to blot it 
 out. 
 
 Ingersoll challenged God to write 
 that Jesus was His Son across the heav- 
 ens, in every language of mankind. Had 
 Ingersoll looked up into the heavens 
 which constitute the horizon of world 
 life, he could have read a _ blazing 
 sentence: ‘‘ Jesus is more than man has 
 ever been.”’ 
 
 Even this sentence fails to express 
 Jesus. It is possible to think of some 
 man exceeding all other men in good- 
 ness and greatness. But one can not 
 give his imagination sufficient range to 
 conceive of a mere human being as- 
 cending so many heights as has Jesus 
 and holding such sway as is in His 
 hands. 
 
 [ 184 ] 
 
SUMMARY 
 
 Jesus has been lifted ‘‘into a lonely 
 uniqueness’’ which is beyond the com- 
 prehension of any man—‘‘a lonely 
 uniqueness’? which, when but faintly 
 comprehended, fills the soul with awe. 
 
 Science lets Jesus alone. Jesus is 
 beyond the specialists. No _ philoso- 
 pher, no psychologist, no sociologist, 
 has explained Jesus. Jesus is inex- 
 plicable. Jesus in the world’s life is 
 the greatest of miracles. Hence, there 
 is only one conclusion the finite mind 
 can grasp—JESUS IS DEITY. 
 
 [ 185 J 
 
THE BIBLE REOPENED 
 
 I NOW reopen the Bible, turn to the 
 New ‘Testament and read about 
 Jesus, the Christ. Nor do I find it 
 difficult to believe what I read. 
 
 ‘“In the beginning was the Word, and the 
 Word was with God, and the Word was God. 
 ... And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt 
 among us.”’ 
 
 ‘‘God was manifest in the flesh.’’ 
 
 ‘‘And thou shalt call his name JESUS.’’ 
 
 ‘‘Therefore let all the house of Israel know 
 assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, 
 whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.’’ 
 
 ‘Christ came, who is over all.’ 
 
 ‘*Christ is all, and in -all.’’ 
 
 Thus the references to Jesus, the 
 Christ, run from the beginning to the 
 end of the New Testament. Moreover, 
 in Jesus, the Christ, can be found the 
 fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy, 
 the counterpart of Old Testament type 
 
 and the substance of Old Testament 
 [ 186 | 
 
THE BIBLE REOPENED 
 
 shadow—criticism, Lower and Higher, 
 to the contrary notwithstanding. The 
 Bible is the Book, and Jesus has been 
 appropriately called ‘‘The Man of the 
 Book.”’ Jesus is as assuredly the cen- 
 ter of the Bible as He is the center 
 of time. Modern painters have made 
 Him the major subject of art, but be- 
 fore their day the inspired writers 
 made Him the major subject of the 
 Bible. He is the soul of music, but 
 before music was organized He was 
 the soul of the bible. 
 
 Criticism’s sharp spade has turned 
 all the earth about the foundations of 
 Holy Writ, its searchlight has flashed 
 in every chamber and in every nook 
 and corner, and its findings have been 
 announced again and again. However, 
 the Bible remains—not one of the sa- 
 ered books, but the Book. ‘‘Nobody 
 reads the Bible any more,’’ we hear on 
 the right and the left. How do people 
 who say this know it? More copies of 
 the Bible are distributed every year 
 than during the previous year, and the 
 
 [187 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 distribution is among the people of all 
 tongues. The number of copies dis- 
 tributed in the United States in 1925 
 far exceeded the number distributed in 
 1924. Those who maintain that the 
 Bible is losing out would do well to 
 ask the American Bible Society a few 
 questions. Accurate information is the 
 only correct basis for an important 
 statement. 
 
 The Bible’s major mission is that of 
 describing Jesus, the Christ. The Old 
 Testament predicts Him, the New Tes- 
 tament presents Him. And the fact 
 that the circulation of the Bible is in- 
 creased each year shows that the peo- 
 ples of earth are studying Jesus more 
 and more. The Jewish author, quoted 
 in a preceding chapter, said: 
 
 ‘When, several years ago, the theory was 
 revived that Jesus never existed—that he was 
 a myth—it only served as an incentive to the 
 production of new biographies of Jesus.’’ 
 
 HKivery one who has read knows that 
 the Jew’s statement is true. The rad- 
 icals have arrived again, with fresh 
 
 [ 188 ] 
 
THE BIBLE REOPENED 
 
 boldness, and they are declaring from 
 the housetops that Jesus is a myth. 
 The New Theology folk are more in- 
 sistent than ever before in affirming 
 that Jesus was only aman. The latter 
 teaching is now in books numerous, 
 that can even be picked up at the sec- 
 ond-hand stores for a song; it is pro- 
 claimed from many pulpits in the 
 homelands; it is also presented on the 
 mission fields. Has it all dissipated 
 the publie’s interest in Jesus? The 
 tremendous increase in the circulation 
 of the Bible can not mean that the 
 people of the nations and tribes are 
 better satisfied with a myth or a man 
 than with the Anointed of God por- 
 trayed in the Scriptures. Were this 
 so, interest in the Bible would wane 
 —people would not waste their time 
 reading in an uninspired book about 
 a miracle-worker that never existed. 
 This would be contrary to human na- 
 ture. People do not revel in exploded 
 
 theories. The renewed interest in the ~ 
 Bible indicates very clearly that the 
 
 [ 189 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 people are investigating the matter for 
 themselves. They desire to see Jesus, 
 not divested of personality or deity, 
 but as the Bible presents Him—the 
 perfect Man, the crucified One, the 
 risen Lord, the world’s Redeemer. 
 Human achievement is so rapid that 
 the marvelous of yesterday is the com- 
 monplace of to-day. We are no longer 
 amazed at the scientific direction of 
 steam or electricity. The whir of com- 
 plicated machinery does not now at- 
 tract our attention. The automobile 
 1S a numerous nuisance—we are ever 
 fearing that it will kill us. The mul- 
 titudes in open field to watch a man 
 fly are assemblies of the past. The 
 radio is no longer a novelty in the 
 home. Even the headline, ‘‘Photog- 
 raphy by Wireless,’’ excites us not. 
 Our inventors (discoverers) are con- 
 stantly uncovering the powers and pos- 
 sibilities of nature all about us, and 
 we have ceased to wonder at their finds. 
 We take it all as a matter of course— 
 it is their business to discover things 
 [ 190 ] ' 
 
THE BIBLE REOPENED 
 
 for the rest of us. Man analyzes the 
 earth from center to surface, he meas- 
 ures the heavens, he weighs the planets, 
 he heralds the far-off coming of new 
 stars, and he sees and describes the 
 infinitesimal and invisible in nature. 
 Also, he looks into the human mind 
 and tells us why and how we think. 
 And he explains our daily procedure— 
 the influence of people upon people, 
 things upon things, and conditions 
 upon conditions. We survey the won- 
 drous works of man and ask: What is 
 it that he can not do? What is beyond 
 his explanation? As we have already 
 seen, man has never duplicated the 
 authority and achievements of Jesus. 
 Nor has he explained the prestige of 
 Jesus among men. Before the tremen- 
 dous and ever-increasing, onrushing, 
 world-uplifting power of Jesus, human 
 wisdom stands abashed. 
 
 Whence the power of Jesus? This 
 question is without answer—save in the 
 Bible. And the Bible answers, ‘‘God.”’ 
 Does some one protest that the Bible 
 
 13 [ 191 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 answer can not be accepted, because 
 it does not explain? Replying to this, 
 it may be said that nothing is explained 
 beyond the possibility of the question, 
 ‘‘Why?’’ Man can harness nature and 
 make it do his bidding, but his ex- 
 planations of nature are by no means 
 complete and satisfactory. Science has 
 not annihilated the question-mark in 
 any sphere. But where knowledge 
 reaches its limit faith enters in, and 
 we accept and proceed. ‘The world 
 ‘‘walks by faith’? every day. Hven 
 Darwin had to bow to the Creator 
 when he began his discourse on evolu- 
 tion. The Bible, however, is construc- 
 tive. The inspired writers have builded 
 the plan of the ages so thoroughly 
 and solidly that the honest inquirer 
 Sees in it reality, and can, therefore, ac- 
 cept it. We see and hear and feel and 
 know the power of Jesus on earth, and 
 ask, ‘‘Whence?’’ The answers to our 
 question in the Bible are many, but 
 not different except in phraseology. 
 One is in 1 Tim. 3: 16: ‘‘God was mani- 
 [ 192 ] 
 
THE BIBLE REOPENED 
 
 fest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, 
 seen of angels, preached unto the Gen- 
 tiles, believed on in the world, received 
 up into glory.”’ 
 
 ‘*Preached unto the Gentiles, be- 
 heved on in the world’’—these state- 
 ments, suggesting missionary enter- 
 prise upon the part of believers and 
 acceptance upon the part of hearers, 
 enable us to see in part the reason for 
 Jesus’ ever-increasing authority. But 
 the heart-throb of His power is con- 
 cealed in the statement, ‘‘God was mani- 
 fest in the flesh.’’ Here the supernat- 
 ural begins and philosophizing ends. 
 We look back upon Olivet and behold 
 Jesus saying to some disciples, but 
 over their heads shouting down through 
 the centuries to our generation: ‘‘All 
 power is given unto me in heaven and 
 in earth.’’ The world, in many ways, 
 hears Him, and myriads of voices sing: 
 
 ‘“ All hail the power of Jesus’ name! 
 Let angels prostrate fall; 
 Bring forth the royal diadem, 
 And crown Him Lord of all.’’ 
 [193 ] 
 
THE WORLD’S REDEEMER 
 
 FE Jesus was not the Son of God in 
 
 a sense above that in which all men 
 are the sons of God, what was He pro- 
 fessionally?’’ I asked this question of 
 the aged minister of the All Souls’ 
 Church, Columbus, O., some years ago. 
 ‘‘Jesus was a reformer,’’ he replied. 
 Another modernist explained to me that 
 Jesus was a young religious enthusiast, 
 that He was a keen observer of the 
 glaring evils of His day, and that He 
 set Himself the herculean task of put- 
 ting things to rights. This view is 
 quite common among modernists. 
 Some disposition must be made of 
 Jesus’ career, and it is easy to affirm 
 that He was a reformer. But when 
 the matter is looked into a little, the 
 reformer, in the generally accepted 
 sense of the word, is not evident in 
 J esus. 
 
 [194 ] 
 
THE WORLD’S REDEEMER 
 
 The Gospels, which constitute our 
 only source of information about the 
 preaching and the activities of Jesus, 
 do not describe or portray Him as a 
 mere reformer. 
 
 Reformers identify themselves with 
 special causes. And if a reformer’s 
 name is preserved, it is in connection 
 with the history of the reform he leads 
 or aids. If Jesus devoted any consid- 
 erable part of His ministry to the op- 
 position of an evil system, the Gospels 
 are silent about it. Moreover, a re- 
 former is vehement in denunciation of 
 the system he attacks. Such procedure 
 is foreign to the Gospel account of 
 Jesus. His denunciations of Pharisa- 
 ism were emphatic, and He drove the 
 tradesmen out of the temple. But 
 these are incidents—they do not bulk 
 large in the story of His life. Had He 
 been a reformer He would have devoted 
 special attention to at least one of the 
 institutional sins of His day. This He 
 did not do. He railed not against 
 political corruption, slavery, human 
 
 [ 195 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 torture, stage licentiousness, child mur- 
 der or polygamy. 
 
 There was a content in the preach- 
 ing of Jesus that was up to His day, 
 and is yet, without parallel. Every 
 recorded saying of His is as a rifle-ball 
 hitting center. Whether His utterance 
 was original or based upon something 
 in the Old Testament or a classic, He 
 put something into it that sent it 
 straight home to the human heart. 
 He spoke with authority, which no 
 other teacher in all history has success- 
 fully assumed. No matter what the 
 subject He discoursed upon, there was 
 in His message a carrying, driving, 
 applying power all His own. No won- 
 der the officers who declined to arrest 
 Him said to the chief priests: ‘‘ Never 
 man spake like this man.’’ 
 
 Jesus taught not for merely His 
 day and generation. His teaching con- 
 tains the universal and the all-time 
 remedy for world ills. 
 
 The physician prescribes, but the 
 application of his remedies is in the 
 
 [ 196 ] 
 
THE WORLD’S REDEEMER 
 
 hands, at the discretion, of his patients. 
 Often the patient puts his own ideas 
 into the treatment, and complication, 
 rather than speedy recovery, is the 
 result. Human nature is the same the 
 world over and in all generations. 
 People cherish their own opinions and 
 pit them against the advice of special- 
 ists, and confusion that retards or de- 
 stroys ensues. 
 
 Back in its early history the organ- 
 ized church began substituting human 
 opinion for the gospel of Christ. And 
 to this day ecclesiasticism has taken 
 liberties with the gospel—adding and 
 subtracting, as human whim has dic- 
 tated. This has resulted in division 
 and strife, the retardation of Chris- 
 tian progress and history that is tragic. 
 
 ‘“‘In union there is strength.’’ It 
 is the opposite in division. Attacks 
 from without may temporarily embar- 
 rass a worthy cause, but they help it 
 in the long run. It is internal dissen- 
 sion that seriously impairs a righteous 
 movement and long defers achievement. 
 
 [197 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 Human opinion expressed in ehurchi- 
 anity all along the way has resulted in 
 division and strife that have greatly 
 hindered the progress of Christianity. 
 
 Nevertheless, the world has been so 
 changed by the teaching of Jesus that, 
 compared with what it was, it might be 
 called new: This statement is con- 
 firmed by detailed reference in pre- 
 ceding chapters—especially in the 
 chapter on ‘‘Reform.’’ The changes 
 that have obtained in civilization are 
 miraculous—human wisdom e¢an not 
 explain them. The miracles Jesus per- 
 formed while in the flesh were insig- 
 nificant compared with the miracles 
 He has wrought during the past nine- 
 teen centuries. 
 
 The salutary results of Jesus’ 
 teaching that obtained during the Dark 
 Ages are so obscured that investiga- 
 tors can not enumerate and describe 
 them sufficiently to lft them into 
 satisfactory view. But we know that 
 His teaching was preserved during 
 that black period, and that it promoted 
 
 [ 198 ] 
 
THE WORLD’S REDEEMER 
 
 righteous progress through the lives of 
 all who ordered their ways in accor- 
 dance with the principles it enunciates. 
 And we know that since the passing of 
 the night the teaching of Jesus has 
 been continuously cumulative in per- 
 manent achievement. (Preceding chap- 
 ters submit the proof.) 
 
 That Jesus is in the pulpit, college 
 chair, current literature, legislative 
 measures and all other cultural expe- 
 dients is a fact so patent that it can 
 not be called in question by thinking 
 observers. However, He is often seen 
 but dimly—even in the pulpit. The 
 Christian religion is still greatly ham- 
 pered by human opinion, division, 
 strife and hypocrisy. The prayer of 
 Jesus for the oneness of His followers 
 and their sanctification through divine 
 truth, that the world may believe, is yet 
 only in preliminary process of answer. 
 Hence, the apparently slow progress of 
 the world toward the supreme stand- 
 ards Jesus holds forth discourages 
 the near-sighted. 
 
 14 [ 199 | 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 The fundamental principles of the 
 Christian religion have made their 
 way to, and are cemented in, the foun- 
 dations of world progress, as we have 
 noted in preceding chapters. No de- 
 partment of human advancement is en- 
 tirely minus Christian precept at its 
 base. And the teaching of Jesus, in 
 degree from small to great, is active 
 in the private lives of teeming millions. 
 It is a leaven bringing about change 
 for better in every country. Hence, 
 the inevitable conclusion that the teach- 
 ing of Jesus is, in its world-wide sweep, 
 pushing the world toward its Golden 
 Age. 
 
 War does not signify that the 
 Christian religion fails, neither does 
 feud. War and feud are in the same 
 class—the only difference between them 
 is that of dimension. Each is the 
 result of human failure to thoroughly 
 grasp and faithfully apply the Golden 
 Rule. When the Christian religion 
 shall have been purged of all human- 
 ism—freed from every false tenet— 
 
 [ 200 } 
 
THE WORLD’S REDEEMER 
 
 and division and strife among Chris- 
 tians shall have ceased, then the world 
 will rapidly learn the way of the Lord 
 and climb to the plane of stable think- 
 ing, clear vision and tolerance, and the 
 guns that kill will be silenced. 
 
 How long will it be until heaven 
 shall come down to earth? I do not 
 know. Neither do the date-setting 
 prophets. God is in Christ ‘‘recon- 
 ciling the world unto himself.’’ He is 
 doing this through the gospel. ‘‘One 
 day is with the Lord as a thousand 
 years, and a thousand years as one 
 day.”’ 
 
 Jesus was the giant optimist. He 
 had no doubts. He spoke with assur- 
 ance. He looked down through time 
 and saw ultimate success. He declared 
 that He would build His own church, 
 and that the gates of hell should not. 
 prevail against it. 
 
 Hell has assailed the church from 
 without and from within. But the 
 church endures. It will in oncoming 
 years be governed by the teaching of 
 
 [ 201 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 the Christ—plus nothing, minus noth- 
 ing. The church of the past, though 
 hindered by its own lack of loyalty 
 to the teaching of Jesus, has kept Him 
 before the world, and He has blessed 
 the world. The church to-day, though 
 still weighted with man-made doctrines, 
 divided and held much in disrepute, is 
 the world’s greatest institution, and 
 through it Jesus is preaching the gospel 
 of everlasting peace and prosperity 
 and happiness the globe around. And 
 when the chureh shall see ‘‘no man 
 save Jesus only,’’ the world’s eyes will 
 be rapidly opened and it will see ‘‘no 
 man save Jesus only.’’ 
 
 Jesus is ‘‘the way, the truth and 
 the life.’’ He is the way along which 
 the world must pass out of its wilder- 
 ness, He is the truth illuminating the 
 way, and he is the life to which the way 
 leads. 
 
 Jesus a reformer of the long ago? 
 No. He is the world’s Redeemer. The 
 man who concludes that Jesus came 
 just to save him and a few other peo- 
 
 [ 202 ] 
 
THE WORLD’S REDEEMER 
 
 ple has a small soul indeed, his vi- 
 sion is exceedingly narrow, and his 
 knowledge of the Bible is sorely in need 
 of repair. The New Testament, from 
 beginning to end, stresses both personal 
 and world redemption. 
 
 Jesus said: ‘‘I am come that they 
 might have life, and that they might 
 have it more abundantly.’’ He said 
 also: ‘‘God so loved the world, that he 
 gave his only begotten Son, that who- 
 soever believeth in him should not per- 
 ish, but have everlasting life.”’ 
 
 Personal redemption is necessarily 
 first. There must be disciples—learn- 
 ers—to send forth with the message of 
 life. And the world must be brought 
 to Jesus through the conversion of in- 
 dividuals. 
 
 Let it not be forgotten that ‘‘God so 
 loved the world, that he gave his only 
 begotten Son.’’ A redeemed world— 
 this is the great objective. Jesus de- 
 clared Himself to be ‘‘the living bread’’ 
 for ‘‘the life of the world.’”’ Again, He 
 said: ‘‘I am the light of the world.”’ 
 
 [ 203 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 Life is the antithesis of death— 
 decay. The struggle in the mental and 
 moral world, as in the physical, is be- 
 tween life and death. Jesus came that 
 the world might have abounding life 
 —life that pulses strong and that is 
 victorious in every conflict. This life 
 has already won great battles with 
 death, as the chapter on ‘‘Reform”’ 
 points out. Human torture, child 
 ‘fexposure,’’ the prostituted stage, 
 slavery and dueling were death’s sol- 
 diers—and giants they were—out on 
 the field battling with the world’s 
 life. These great destroying agencies 
 have been vanquished—they will never 
 trouble earth again. And as the world 
 continues to accept the abounding life 
 Jesus offers, its victories on the great 
 battlefield will be multiplied. 
 
 Jesus, the Christ, ‘‘hath brought 
 life and immortality to light through 
 the gospel.’’ The gospel will be vic- 
 torious in every sphere of human inter- 
 est and activity. ‘‘And there shall be 
 no more death.’’ 
 
 [ 204 ] 
 
INCIDENTS AND OBSERVA- 
 TIONS 
 
 Sone years ago, six or eight men in 
 
 a chair-car were being entertained 
 by a young man who was on his way 
 home from overseas. He had a pleas- 
 ing personality and was extraordinarily 
 bright. His descriptions of battles, in- 
 cidents and camp life and conditions 
 throughout France afforded interesting 
 information. Finally, he announced 
 that. after the war Christianity would 
 vanish. He stated, without mincing 
 matters, that the Bible was all bosh, 
 and that Jesus was a myth. And he 
 averred, with the composed attitude of 
 authority, that the war was rapidly 
 opening the eyes of the keen men of the 
 world to the fact that mankind had 
 been deceived by the mercenary Roman 
 Catholic priests and Protestant min- 
 isters. 
 
 [ 205 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 A gentleman of about fifty years— 
 apparently a traveling salesman—had 
 the temerity to take sharp issue with 
 the wise young man, and the battle 
 of words waxed hot for probably half 
 an hour. 
 
 The older man frankly acknowl- 
 edged that, while not a _ professing 
 Christian, he believed the Bible and 
 that he regarded Jesus Christ as the 
 hope of the world. 
 
 The younger man replied: ‘‘My fa- 
 ther swallows all that rubbish, but it 
 ean’t be crammed down my throat.’’ 
 
 At this point, one of the listeners 
 asked: ‘‘Do I understand you to mean 
 that your father actually believes the 
 Bible ?’’ 
 
 ‘*Yes,’’ laughed the soldier, ‘‘he 
 swallows it whole!’ 
 
 ‘*Your father must be an exception- 
 ally ignorant man,’’ the other re- 
 marked, with apparent carelessness. 
 
 There was silence for a minute or 
 so, and the young man’s face flushed. 
 Finally, he said: ‘‘No. My father is 
 
 [ 206 ] 
 
INCIDENTS AND OBSERVATIONS 
 
 a university-trained man, and a Meth- 
 odist minister.”’ 
 
 ‘“That makes no difference. If your 
 father believes the Bible, he is a very 
 ignorant man—a back number,’’ the 
 older man insisted. 
 
 The men who had been listening be- 
 gan laughing,-and the young man in 
 uniform—his face aflame—immedi- 
 ately withdrew from the group. The 
 last I saw of him he was gazing through 
 the window from his chair. I won- 
 dered then, and sometimes still wonder, 
 what was going on in his head. Per- 
 haps he was counting the telegraph 
 poles. 
 
 I have referred to this incident be- 
 cause it affords a sample of things 
 many self-opinionated, but misguided, 
 people said to their friends, and to 
 whomsoever else they found during the 
 war who would lsten, It likewise 
 serves as a reminder of prophecies, 
 made from modernistic pulpits and 
 through modernistic literature, respect- 
 ing the sort of preaching the public 
 
 [ 207 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 would demand after the war. Who 
 does not recall the sermons and edito- 
 rials and essay articles on the text, 
 ‘‘The night is far spent, the day is at 
 hand’’? These sermons and editorials 
 and articles eloquently told us that 
 after the war the public would not tol- 
 erate the ‘‘old viewpoint,’’ and that a 
 ‘‘new gospel’’ would have to be framed 
 for the ‘‘new age.’’ 
 
 Have those prophecies come true? 
 Are they being gradually fulfilled? 
 These questions are answered the coun- 
 try over by what we eall ‘‘religious 
 conditions. ”’ 
 
 For something like three years I 
 have traveled, sometimes continuously 
 through several months. And I have 
 availed myself of Sunday advantages 
 for religious observation. My hobby, if 
 I may eall it such, has been that of hear- 
 ing the preachers most outstanding in 
 their cities and towns—and I listened 
 to quite a number. 
 
 I happened to make headquarters 
 in a city for about three months, and 
 
 [ 208 ] 
 
INCIDENTS AND OBSERVATIONS 
 
 spent my Sundays there. The two 
 leading churches, each ministered to 
 by a preacher of distinction in his de- 
 nomination, were special objects of my 
 observation. One minister was liberal, 
 the other was conservative. The liber- 
 alist preached to small audiences in a 
 large auditorium. The conservative 
 had capacity crowds in an auditorium 
 of about the same size, and frequently 
 people were turned from his door. I 
 may have been mistaken, but I got the 
 impression that the hberalist was the 
 better speaker—he always displayed 
 some oratory, something I did not hear 
 the other attempt. 
 
 One Sunday evening I listened to a 
 preacher nationally known as a lhber- 
 alist. He delivered one of the most 
 eloquent addresses I have ever heard 
 —to about a hundred people. I was 
 informed that his audiences were never 
 large. A few weeks thereafter, on a 
 Sunday evening, I heard a preacher 
 nationally known for his conservatism. 
 He preached on ‘‘The Death, Burial and 
 
 [ 209 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 Resurrection of Jesus,’’ which he said 
 were the three great gospel facts. The 
 house was packed, and I was told that 
 it was the usual crowd. I was also 
 informed that his church auditorium, 
 while not the most artistic, was the 
 largest in the State. 
 
 There were occasional exceptions to 
 the rule. I recall a town in which 
 I listened to a liberalist one Sunday 
 and to a conservative the next. The 
 hberalist had the large crowd and the 
 conservative the ‘‘handful.’’ I think 
 I figured it out correctly. The liber- 
 alist was a man of striking personality, 
 tremendous magnetism and eloquence 
 extraordinary. His voice was clear as 
 a bell and musical, and he knew how to 
 use it. The conservative had no per- 
 sonality, his voice was harsh and rasp- 
 ing, his sermon was of the scolding 
 type, and he ranted about the pulpit. 
 It all got on my nerves, and I naturally 
 concluded that the people remained 
 away because they did not enjoy being 
 tortured. 
 
 [ 210 ] 
 
INCIDENTS AND OBSERVATIONS 
 
 Usually, however, I found the New 
 Theology type of preacher addressing 
 small audiences and the old type of 
 gospel preacher speaking to the larger 
 crowds. Nor do I think the reason 
 for these conditions far to seek. The 
 people evidently like the old gospel, or 
 they would go to hear the ‘‘new gos- 
 pel.” 
 
 When talking with New Theology 
 folk or reading their periodicals, one is 
 likely to get the impression that the 
 New Theology is having tremendous 
 sway throughout the world—and espe- 
 cially in America. A minister who 
 greatly admires a certain New The- 
 ology journal, which is undenomina- 
 tional, said to me: ‘‘All the leading 
 preachers and educators and informed 
 laymen in the country take it.’”?, When 
 in a public library the other day, I 
 consulted the newspaper directory for 
 1926—just to satisfy myself about that 
 paper. Its circulation is twenty thou- 
 sand. Twenty thousand subscribers in 
 a population of over a hundred mil- 
 
 [ 211 ] 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 lion! And I have an idea that a large 
 number of conservative preachers take 
 that paper to keep themselves posted 
 on New Theology doings. I have sel- 
 dom been in a conservative preacher’s 
 study when I did not see it on his desk. 
 
 It is my opinion that the New The- 
 ology train is not making the speed 
 indicated by its whistling and roaring. 
 
 At Binghamton, N. Y., I had a Sat- 
 urday evening ‘‘to kill.’”’ A gentleman 
 at the hotel suggested that I go as his 
 guest to see ‘‘The Fool,’’ which a noted 
 stock company was playing at the lead- 
 ing theater that week. I agreed to go, 
 and added: ‘‘ We will make two more.”’ 
 I had never read the play, nor had 
 any one described it to me. Therefore, 
 I naturally expected a light entertain- 
 ment—perhaps one for fools only! 
 
 I had two surprises. First, I 
 found a large auditorium filled, and 
 I was told that the play had drawn 
 capacity audiences during the entire 
 week. Second, ‘‘The Fool’’ was any- 
 thing but a frivolous performance. 
 
 eae al 
 
INCIDENTS AND OBSERVATIONS 
 
 As many of my readers doubtless 
 know, the ‘‘fool’’ in the play was a 
 young minister who accepted Jesus as 
 the Christ and ordered his preaching 
 and life accordingly. True, his fashion- 
 able church got rid of him because, as 
 the bishop and church officers told him, 
 the people did not like his preaching. 
 However, I am emphasizing the fact 
 that the play, in which Jesus was the 
 predominant influence, and His gospel 
 the burden of speech, drew the crowds. 
 I might add that when the young min- 
 ister, in argument with his bishop or 
 church officers, appealed to Jesus and 
 quoted His sayings just as they are 
 recorded in the New Testament there 
 was a profound hush upon the part of 
 the audience, and that handkerchiefs 
 at people’s eyes were very much in 
 evidence. 
 
 Whenever the minister justified his 
 preaching by quoting the words of 
 Jesus, those in argument with him 
 ealled him ‘‘a fool’’—even his bishop 
 called him ‘‘a.fool.’? He was ‘‘a fool”’ 
 
 [ 213 } 
 
THE MIRACLE OF THE AGES 
 
 because he was old-fashioned enough to 
 believe in Jesus, but the playhouse au- 
 dience was in sympathy with him 
 throughout the performance. 
 
 My new acquaintance—a commer- 
 cial traveler—and I walked back to the 
 hotel in silence. In the elevator, I 
 remarked that it was a wonderful play. 
 I shall never forget his response: ‘‘I 
 dare say that those people got more 
 gospel this evening than they have re. 
 ceived at church during the past six 
 months.’’ He was a stranger in that 
 city, and did not know its ministry. 
 Nevertheless, his observation merits 
 serious thought—it indicates a prevail- 
 ing impression created by the modern- 
 istic type of preaching. 
 
 [ 214 | 
 

 
 
 
 
 reds, 
 ee. 
 er Sd 
 Sos 
 ih 
 + 
 —s 
 ome 
 =, : 
 3 . 
 ste, 
 , 
 
 _— = 
 + = 
 - - 
 
 om 
 
 7 7 
 - 
 
 ” 
 ~~ 
 
 by 
 
 7 _ 
 _ 
 wal 
 & = 
 _ 
 
 — 
 7 i 
 
 “A 
 < 
 - 
 
 an 
 “e ~~, 
 a 
 
 7 7 
 
 Agi, 
 
 = 
 
 a 
 
 o~ 
 
 —OoJ 
 i, 
 . % 
 e 
 
 i 
 » 
 
 : - 
 > v® 
 at 
 aig 
 
 a” on 
 
 ae 
 
 = 
 » 
 
 - 
 
 « 
 wee = 
 ed 
 
 é *. 
 a d. 
 2 7 —_ 
 = @ : 
 —" 
 
 e 
 
 =o +s 
 oe 4 = » 
 
 = 
 how 
 
 - 
 a 
 
 ne 
 £ a 4 
 i? ‘Sy on J Ov rhe | 5 eS 
 ‘a? ‘s 4 ‘<rak ie } aoe? Dhl : 7 
 4 £ ~- 1 ig . y i a ts ” - 
 “I a ee | ge eat” ° p 
 e. ae ; i ; () aan j 
 ae) 7 , rn ‘ 
 Vie ene ioe 
 aN Pas b. ‘ y \ bred wie 
 ‘ 5 a! i} ‘es _ 5) i b 
 - iy * ry , i) i} i 
 rar eu e Cae 
 eos Clits ne 
 d x, ¢ . vy ¢ . { a 
 : > » i + 
 : q s bf - y a? 78 ~ 
 os La ina i Lat On| 
 a! 4 a ¢ , wets 
 <? ' “ a Sy ier 
 Ps, ; ami a uy bi ; 
 V7 . en ¢ a 
 ’ ; » wy v 7 
 E ’ Ave 
 , ata a. f ; 
 hy eee ? ‘ rAd an ’ 
 ey ; ays iv if: * : * ( 
 a Te CAT Pere ah Awl ; St 
 A f hia ' OO! a 
 a a, OY a ae i 
 ; i : Ae he » (a ; d . a sh 
 , ‘> i ;* ee Sy | 
 ; ) j w 
 TS > 's. i , j - Ral > 
 “ ‘ Lae ’ i 7 
 iw ; pind ¥ Bt f 
 a? m2 See ¢ 
 i x ak ey ¢. 4 ¥ ‘| - 
 Pate trad rl ' ’ Pl 
 a rat “4 ! rf 
 } . ( ie : ; x p-eP “ 
 ' il ] ' e,% 
 i>t an aT bar s, 
 a) ry ‘hk ‘ iz 
 ’ ¢ ¥ i. 1 My, 
 : t ; “Ly \ ‘ “ 
 ; D ce ‘ « 1) Pe >i 
 - ' hd ‘ Ni : 
 wh 1 >) te 
 a \ s i 4, 
 ha, 7 ' bs ; 7 
 as [ ; A ie a 
 > m ‘ T Ni 
 ‘poh a4 ea 
 ® ‘ a™ 7 
 Pr Ae 7 Le "> ; me f bY de, 
 wad Of 7 My ; i“ yes 
 Pi) etm t Tia 5 My 
 : fae a, ' ; ry 
 J ‘ : 
 a _ ae 9 ' a 7 a 
 a i an v 
 ae Oe ae ; : Pa 
 ete 'Y a] a “I eae | ‘ fh ae 
 Gay | P ‘ rw 
 f “uP ! 7 Pat i 4 Ma : 
 » Ay 7 or ‘yl aad A aa) Aes 
 ¥ ue ; 
 - . ry > td 
 
 tae 
 -*-. 
 a . 
 a Py 
 
 a 
 
 2 
 
 ~ 
 
 = 
 
 4. 
 
 
 
 . :. van At yc : 
 
i 
 
 +f 
 ee 
 
 ii 
 i 
 
 . 
 
 ae 
 
 Halicrstig 
 
 ai 
 
 el : 
 
 3 road perth 
 
 se daar CY i 
 Bb My 
 
 ficial 
 
 te tte 
 a PvErerbaeT bs ceaeey 
 ge a 
 
 Pee Hie, 
 ast sa33 
 
 Ei 
 te 
 
 sr 
 He ’ 
 24, 
 
 areca 
 stati ee 
 
 Msi ats re 
 i Ai ie 
 
 eee 
 oC 
 
 fiat 
 
 be prsr a Hit 
 
 nia 
 
 peateea beret 
 Gee ea 
 
 ae ena yia cas bd 
 
 a er 3 : a 
 
 i a: eo ith: 
 Cite MeEESRU EPS t aH 
 
 } 
 Hay 
 Pet iv 
 
 isi i 
 
 3233 
 
 Pr itetonr lee ricer h | 
 
 HREREESE) tH rot 
 
 let taial bts! 
 APNE 
 
 ti dustili 
 473 sie 
 
 THM 
 
 Teel 
 Vee aT 
 CUES Pe hat pr i 
 a