01 - Lecture 01
LECTURE I THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF CHRIST Statement of the Case-Issues and Preliminary Objections
Let me first of all say—I hardly need to say it— that I am not here to attack any individual, to interfere with any church or its discipline, to presume to judge of the Christian standing of any man, whether he agrees with me or not, even on the very vital point which brings us together. I am here to discuss with you calmly and temperately an important part of divine truth which has been of late years most vehemently, and, in my judgment, most unjustly assailed. The question which is to occupy us is a very grave one. It is not a question simply of liberty to the individual conscience, of tenderness and forbearance towards Christian brethren whose minds may be in doubt and perplexity on this subject: that is a totally different matter. It is a question, actually, of the right of the Church to retain in its public creed this fundamental article of the oldest of all creeds—an article based on express declarations of two of our Gospels, and found in the creeds of every important branch of the Christian Church in the world at the present hour—the article, namely, that Jesus Christ, our Saviour, was " conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary." The right to retain this article, you must be aware, is, in the name of modern thought and criticism, boldly, even peremptorily, denied us. With whatever graceful acknowledgment of the poetry that may lie in the heart of the old Christmas story, the time has come, we are told, when that story must be parted with, and the belief it enshrines once and for ever left behind as serious affirmation.
We are growing accustomed to stronger language even than denial. I take two examples. The first is from a recent, often-quoted writer, Soltau, in his book on The Birth of Jesus Christ. " Whoever makes the further demand," he says, " that an evangelical Christian shall believe in the words ’ conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary/ wittingly constitutes himself a sharer in a sin against the Holy Spirit of the true Gospel as transmitted to us by the Apostles and their school in the Apostolic Age." 1 It is sin against the Holy Ghost to ask belief in the Virgin Birth! The other example is from Mr. R. J. Campbell’s newly published book on The New Theology. " The _____________________________________________________________
1 Die Geburtsgeschichte Jem Christi, p. 32 (E. T., p. 65). The passage is put in bold type. Soltau’s own theory is discussed in Lect. VI, pp. 173-5. credibility and significance of Christianity," Mr. Campbell says, " are in no way affected by the doctrine of the Virgin Birth, otherwise than that the belief tends to put a barrier between Jesus and the race, and to make Him something that cannot properly be called human. . . . Like many others, I used to take the position that acceptance or non-acceptance of the doctrine of the Virgin Birth was immaterial because Christianity was quite independent of it; but later reflection has convinced me that in point of fact it operates as a hindrance to spiritual religion and a real living faith in Jesus. The simple and natural conclusion is that Jesus was the child of Joseph and Mary, and had an uneventful childhood."1 Truly the Evangelists who introduced this story into their Gospels have much to answer for!
There is abundant need and call, therefore, for discussion of this question. I bear in mind that I am here to deal with the subject, not in scholastic fashion, but on the lines of a broad, popular presentation. I am not to enter into minute discussions of philological, exegetical, historical, or even theological points, such as might be appropriate to the class-room; but am to try to lift the question out of the cloud of learned subtleties in which it is becoming continually the more enveloped, into a strong, clear light, where all may be able to see the real character of the problem, and the true _____________________________________________________ 1. The New Theology, p. 104. nature of the issues that are involved in it.- I shall probably be able to say little that is really new; nothing, I am afraid, that has not already been better said by others. But I hope, at least, by a reasoned presentation of the case along my own lines, to do something to remove misconceptions, to " stablish, strengthen, settle" faith,1 where that has been unduly shaken, and to produce a stronger impression in some minds than perhaps at present exists of the place which this much-contested article holds in the organism of Christian truth.
I have said that the article of the Virgin Birth of the Lord is being at the present time fiercely assailed. I do not know that, since the days of the conflicts with Jews and pagans in the second century, there has been so determined an attack on this particular article of the creed as we are now witnessing. 2 The birth of Jesus from the Virgin has always, of course, been an offence to rationalism. The attack on it had its place, though a comparatively subordinate one, in the Deis-tical controversies of the eighteenth century. 3 Avail- __________________________________________________ 1. 1 Peter 5:10.
2 The change is perhaps most clearly seen in the literature of apologetics. One is struck by observing how, even in approved text-books on the "Evidences," attention is concentrated on the Resurrection—the great miracle at the end of our Lord’s life—but little or nothing is said of the Virgin Birth—the miracle at the beginning.
3 Cf. Paine’s Age of Reason, Reimarus, etc. ing himself of the Jewish slanders, Voltaire treated it with a scurrilous indecency. 1 In this form the attack perpetuates itself in the coarser unbelief of our own time—in Haeckel, for example. 2 The older rationalism, in all its schools, rejected the miracle, or explained it away. Paulus, in his insipid way, gave a " natural" explanation of the event, supposing Mary to be the victim of a deception practised upon her by her kinswoman Elisabeth. 3 De Wette, who has been followed by many since, saw in the stories poetic symbols of religious ideas. The attack of Strauss on the narratives left little unsaid that could be said, and prepared the way for all subsequent developments. A more recent turning-point was Kenan’s Life of Jesus, which opens in the bold style of assertion with which we are now familiar: "Jesus was born at Nazareth, a small town of Galilee, which before His time had no celebrity. . . . His father Joseph and His mother Mary were people in humble circumstances." 4 Direct attacks on the article of the Virgin Birth developed a little later in the Lutheran Church,5 and the movement hostile to the article has gone on gathering in volume, and spreading its influence into other countries since.
__________________________________________________ 1 Cf. his Examen Important de Milord Bolingbroke, ch. x.
2 Riddle of the Universe, ch. xviii. Cf. in criticism, Loofs, Anti-Haeckel, and see below, pp. 95, 146.
3 Cf. Strauss’s Life of Jesus, I, p. 18 (E. T.).
4. Ch. ii.
5 Cf. Schaff, Creeds of Christendom, I, p. 20. A marked impulse was given to it in 1892 by the deposition of a talented young pastor, Herr Schrempf, in Wiirtemberg, for refusal to use the Apostles’ Creed— a case which brought the redoubtable Prof. Harnack into the field, and gave rise to an enormous controversial literature. Now, in the wake of newer tendencies, has come the so-called " historical-critical" school, with its open repudiation of everything supernatural in the history of Jesus. The movement which this influential school represents is deeply penetrating Britain and America. The result in both countries is seen in a wide-spread tendency, if not to deny this article, at least to represent it as unessential to Christian faith; and the impression left on a still larger number of minds is that the case for the Virgin Birth must be a very weak one, when so many scholarly men reject the belief, and so many more hold themselves in an attitude of indifference to it. Thus the question stands at the present moment.
What now are the grounds on which this article of our old-world faith is so confidently challenged? It would be a poor compliment to pay to our opponents to deny that their grounds of objection, when boldly and skilfully stated, and set forth with some infusion of religious warmth—as they are, e. g., by a writer like Lobstein 1—have not a measure of plausibility fitted to _______________________________________________ 1 In his book on The Virgin Birth of Christ, translated in the Crown Theological Library. produce a strong impression on minds that hear them for the first time. Briefly sketched, they are such as the following:— The narratives of the miraculous birth, we are told, are found only in the introductory chapters of two of our Gospels—Matthew and Luke—and are evidently there of a secondary character. The rest of the New Testament is absolutely silent on the subject. Mark, the oldest Gospel, and John, the latest, know nothing of it. Matthew and Luke themselves contain no further reference to the mysterious fact related in their commencement, but mention circumstances which seem irreconcilable with it. Their own narratives are contradictory, and, in their miraculous traits, bear clear marks of legendary origin. All the Gospels speak freely of Jesus as the son of Joseph and Mary. The Virgin Birth formed no part of the oldest Apostolic tradition, and had no place in the earliest Christian preaching, as exhibited in the Book of Acts. The Epistles show a like ignorance of this profound mystery. Paul shows no acquaintance with it, and uses language which seems to exclude it, as when he speaks of Jesus as " of the seed of David." 1 Peter, John, the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Book of Revelation, all ignore it. If thousands were brought to faith in Jesus as the divine Eedeemer in this earliest period, it was without reference to this belief. There is no proof that the _________________________________________
1 Romans 1:3. belief was general in the Christian Church before the second century. 1. On the other hand, it is alleged, the origin of this belief, and of the narratives embodying it, can be readily explained. It grew out of a mistaken application of Old Testament prophecy (Isaiah 7:14), or from contact with, or imitation of, pagan myths; and is itself an example of the myth-forming spirit which ascribes a superhuman origin to great men or religious heroes. In any case, it is no essential part of Christian faith. Nowhere in the New Testament is anything ever based on it, and neither the sinlessness of Christ nor the Incarnation itself can be shown to depend on it. Why then, it is urged, burden faith with such a mystery? "Why ask men to believe in that for which, in conscience, they do not think there is sufficient evidence? Why retain so doubtful an article as a binding part of the creed of the Church ? With such reasonings confidently put forward, can we wonder that many are swept along, overpowered, _____________________________________________________
1. Mr. Campbell says: "The Virgin Birth of Jesus was apparently unknown to the primitive church, for the earliest New Testament writings make no mention of it. Paul’s letters do not allude to it, neither does the Gospel of Mark. . . . Nowhere does Paul give us so much as a hint of anything supernatural attending the mode of His entry into the world. Mark does not even tell us anything about the childhood of the Master; his account begins with the Baptism of Jesus in Jordan. The Fourth Gospel, although written much later, ignores the belief in the Virgin Birth, and even seems to do so of set purpose as belittling and materialising the truth." {The New Theology, pp. 97-8.) shaken in mind, and disposed to acquiesce in the question being left an open one? Especially when they are told, as they commonly are, that all the really competent scholarship has gone over to this side.
I shall immediately try to state the case from the other side, but, before doing this, there is one important remark which I feel it incumbent upon me to make. We are discussing the Virgin Birth, but it is necessary at the outset to point out that, in the present stage of the controversy, this is only a fragment of a much larger question. It is a fact we cannot ignore— it will appear more clearly as I proceed—that the great bulk of the opposition to the Virgin Birth comes from those who do not recognise a supernatural element in Christ’s life at all. I do not state this as a reproach— the writers in question would not regard it as a reproach, but as a mark of their modernity—I call attention to it only that we may see exactly where we stand in the discussion. It is not with these writers, as we soon come to discover, a question of the Virgin Birth alone, but a question of the whole view we are to take of Jesus in His Person and work; not a question of this single miracle, but a question of all miracles. This of itself, I grant, does not prove the impugners of the Virgin Birth to be wrong. If the evidence for the narratives of the Nativity is weak, and the belief based on them erroneous, the fact that it is negative critics who bring the weakness to light will not make the history again good and true. Nevertheless it is highly important, in entering on our inquiry, to keep in mind this general standpoint of the opponents. We constantly hear it said—Even if the Virgin Birth is given up, there is enough left in the Gospels to furnish a secure basis for faith and hope. My point is, that, with these writers, the rest of the record does not stand—is not allowed to stand. They work from a basis, and by a method, which will not allow it to stand. If the Virgin Birth is attacked so pertinaciously, it is because it seems to them the weakest of the Gospel facts in point of evidence, and because they feel instinctively that its overthrow would mean so much. It would be like the dislodging of a great stone near the foundation of a building, that would bring down much more with it. But is the case for the Virgin Birth really a weak one? Let me now, having stated the position as fairly as I can for the opponents, put before you an opposite supposition. I state it at present only hypothetically: the proof will come later.
Suppose, then, it can be shown that the evidence is not what is alleged in the statement above given, but that in many respects the truth is nearly the reverse:— suppose it shown that the narratives in Matthew and Luke are unquestionably genuine parts of their respective Gospels; that the narratives have come down to us in their integrity; that the sources of their information were early and good; that they do not contradict, but, on the contrary, corroborate and supplement each other, and have every right to be regarded as trustworthy narrations:—suppose it shown that the alleged silence of Mark and John can be readily explained—is explained, indeed, by the fact that it does not lie within the scope of these Gospels to narrate the Lord’s birth and infancy at all; 1 that the Apostolic doctrine does not contradict or exclude a miraculous birth, but immensely strengthens the grounds of our belief in it; that so far as we can trace back the history of the early Church, it was united in its testimony to this truth—only the narrowest and most backward of Jewish-Christian sects (the Ebionites), and a few of the Gnostic sects (not all) denying it; that the fact attested is not, as alleged, of minor significance, but, as part of the deep " mystery of godliness," 2 stands in close and inseparable relation with the other truths about our Lord’s Person (sinlessness, Incarnation) :— suppose it shown that the attacks of the critics on all these points fail, and that the failure is witnessed to, not only by the verdict of scholars of more believing tendency, but by the inability of these writers to agree, on almost any single point, among themselves; that ____________________________________________________
1 Cf. e. g. Mr. Campbell’s statement quoted above: " Mark does not even tell us anything about the childhood of the Master; his accounts begin with the Baptism of Jesus in Jordan " (p. 98). How then can it be contradictory of a narrative which does tell us of the Infancy?
2 1 Timothy 3:16. their rival theories in explanation of the narratives are hopelessly at variance with each other, each effectually knocking the bottom out of the arguments of its neighbours:—suppose, I say, these things, or anything like these, to be established, there are few, I think, but will admit that the question stands in a very different light from that in which it is represented by opponents. Well, but this, in a word, is what I am to try to show is the actual state of the case, and you yourselves are to be the jury to decide whether I succeed or not. " I speak as unto wise men; judge ye what I say." 1.
I have stated thus briefly the issues we are to discuss: there are now one or two things it is necessary to say, in order to define more distinctly the limits of my argument. Here:—
1. My argument is not primarily, or in the proper sense at all, with those who rule out these narratives simply on the ground that a miracle is implied in them. I am not here, in other words, to discuss the general question of the possibility or probability of the miraculous. I am quite prepared to do that in its own time and place; but that is not my business at present. If, therefore, a man comes forward and says: "I do not believe in the Virgin Birth of Christ because it involves a miracle, and miracles do not happen! 3 I have no place for them in my intellectual scheme," I do not _______________________________________________ 1 1 Corinthians 10:15.
2. Thus Matt. Arnold, Lit. and Dogma, Preface. profess to argue with that man. When he descends from his a priori altitude to discuss the evidence, I will hear him, but not before. It is evident that this canon already rules out a great deal of objection of a sort to the narratives of the Virgin Birth. Here, e. g., is Prof. Foster, of Chicago, who, in his book on The Finality of the Christian Religion, goes so far as to declare that an intelligent man who now affirms his faith in miraculous narratives like the Biblical as actual facts—who believes, say, in the resurrection of Christ— " can hardly know what intellectual honesty means." 1 I say nothing of " honesty," but I do marvel at the self-assurance of any intelligent man who permits himself in these days to use such language. It is language that might be justifiable on the lips of a Spinozist to whom nature and God are one, but which surely is not justifiable on the lips of any one professing faith in the living Father-God of Jesus Christ. For who is this God? The Creator and Sustainer of the world—immanent in all its forces, Cause in all causes, Law in all laws—yet Himself not identified with the world, but above it,2 ruling all things in personal freedom for the attainment of wise and holy ends. How great the intellectual confidence of any man who undertakes a priori to define what are and are not possibilities to such a Being in His relations to the universe He has made! Personally, I have only to say that I believe __________________________________________________
1. p. 132.
2. Ephesians 4:6. that God can reveal Himself in extraordinary as well as in ordinary ways,—that miracle enters deeply into the economy of revelation,—that Jesus Christ is the Person in whom the long course of historical revelation culminates. To me, therefore, it is in no way a priori incredible that God should make a new supernatural beginning in the entrance of His Son into humanity. The world knows many new beginnings. I do not think you can explain nature itself without taking such into account. Prof. Foster himself, I observe, admits that the consciousness of Jesus is " empirically inexplicable "—incapable of causal and psychological explanation—and that a " creative " element derived immediately from God must be discerned in it. 1 That is a large admission, and involves much more than perhaps Prof. Foster thinks. What bearing it has on such a miracle as the Virgin Birth will be considered after.
2. The second thing I have to say is, that I do not profess to argue with those who rule out as inadmissible the higher aspects of Christ’s Person involved in the New Testament doctrine of the Incarnation. I say advisedly, " rule out as inadmissible," for I do not wish to exclude those who may be looking towards this truth, without having obtained clearness in regard to it; and I am ready, again, to hear any, whatever their standpoint, when they descend into the sphere of evi- _____________________________________________
1. pp. 265-7. dence. All I mean is that my own standpoint is that of faith in the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation, and that I address myself primarily to those who share with me in this belief. I can, therefore, naturally entertain no argument which proceeds on the assumption of a purely humanitarian estimate of Christ,— which concedes Him to be holy man, religious genius, human revealer of God, but acknowledges no supernatural element in the constitution of His Person, or the course of His life. I admit at once—there is no need of any further argument about it—that if this is all we can say of Jesus,—if there has been no such life, or works, or claims, as the Gospels depict,—no resurrection from the dead, no exaltation to glory,— then there is no fitness or credibility in the idea of a Virgin Birth. If there is no resurrection at the end, there is no suitableness in a Virgin Birth at the beginning. It would be folly to argue for the supernatural birth of Christ with those who take the naturalistic view; for, to minds that can reject all the other evidence in the Gospels for Christ’s supernatural claims, such reasonings would be of no avail. The evidence for this particular miracle goes down in the general wreck of all evidence for the supernatural in the Gospels. This obviously, as I remarked before, raises a much larger question than the one immediately before us. I have again only to say that I take here for granted the great facts of Christ’s life, death, and resurrection, as recorded in the Gospels, and the main outlines of the Apostolic teaching on Christ’s Person; and my argument is directed to the question: How, on this assumption, does it stand with the evidence for the Virgin Birth of Christ? It may be true that, if there is no resurrection at the end, there is no fitness in a Virgin Birth at the beginning. But my question is a different one. If there has been a resurrection at the end, what of the fitness of the Virgin Birth then% In brief, my argument will have special respect to those who, accepting the general New Testament doctrine of Christ, are disposed to regard this as independent of the doctrine of the Virgin Birth, or who think the evidence for the latter insufficient. With such I desire to reason. The way is now open for the direct discussion of the subject, and in the remainder of this lecture I propose to deal in a preliminary way with the objection that the Virgin Birth is not a vital part of Christian doctrine, and therefore may safely be omitted, or at least left an open question, in the Church’s public profession. The full discussion of the doctrinal implications of this article of faith necessarily comes later. But certain considerations may here be adduced, which may suffice to show, in starting, that the connection between fact and doctrine is at least closer than many imagine. The grounds on which objection to the Virgin Birth is based have already been indicated, and the question is asked: How can that which was not essential to the faith of a Peter, a Paul, or a John, be an essential of faith for us? Prof. Harnack is very angry with a Lutheran official pronouncement in which it is declared : " That the Son of God is ’ conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary’ is the foundation of Christianity, is the corner-stone on which all wisdom of this world will shatter," and replies,: "If that were the case, ill would Mark fare, ill Paul, ill John, ill Christianity." 1 This consideration undoubtedly weighs with many, even among those who do not themselves reject the fact. It seems to me, on the other hand, that, if the Virgin Birth be true, its connection with the other truths about our Lord’s Person cannot be other than essential.
One thing which creates a strong presumption in favour of this connection is the fact already adverted to—the connection which experience shows actually to exist between belief in the Virgin Birth and adequate views of our Lord’s divine dignity. The article is assailed because it is alleged to be indifferent doctrinally. I draw a very different inference. The very zeal with which it is attacked is to my mind a disproof of its slight significance. Men do not as a rule fight strenuously about points which they think of no importance. They concentrate their attack on points _________________________________________________________ 1 Das apostolische Glaubensbekenntniss, p. 39. which they feel to have strategic value. The Virgin Birth would not be assailed so keenly as it is, if it were not felt to mean a great deal more than appears upon the surface. I am strongly confirmed in this conviction when I look to the dividing-line of parties, and observe the almost invariable concomitance of belief in the Incarnation with belief in the Virgin Birth, and of denial of the one with denial of the other. This is a point of so much importance that it deserves a little closer attention. From whom, as a rule, do the attacks on the Virgin Birth of Christ come? I find, of course, ranked on the side of the assailants, as already said, the whole multitude of those who reject the supernatural nature and claims of Christ. But what of the other side? There are exceptions, I know. Meyer, the commentator, was one; 1 Beyschlag, who occupied a half-way house theologically, but accepted the resurrection, was another — and others might be named. But that stage is practically past. I do not think it will be doubted by any one who has looked into the literature that the scholars and theologians who accept the higher claims of Christ—who are bona fide believers in His Incarnation and resurrection— are nearly all—you could count the exceptions on your fingers—likewise among the upholders of the Virgin Birth. Does this, on the face of it, look as if there was __________________________________________________ 1 Meyer accepted the Incarnation, but rejected the Virgin Births— an almost solitary exception of his class. no connection? When in nature a nearly invariable concomitance is observed between two sets of phenomena, the scientific inquirer seldom hesitates to postulate some causal relation. Is the presumption of a hidden bond of connection not equally strong here?
I may illustrate this by reference to the remark one frequently hears about the weight of scholarship being cast preponderatingly on the side of the denial of the Virgin Birth. The assertion weighs with many who are not too deeply rooted in their own convictions, but it rests on an illusion which it is desirable at the outset to dispel. My reply to it is that the statement can only be accepted if you begin—as many do—by defining " scholars " as those, and those only, who take up the negative attitude already described to the supernatural claims of Christ. Thus regarded, it is a new proof of what I say on the dividing-line of parties. Take any list of the scholars who are best known and most frequently quoted as impugners of the Virgin Birth of Christ, and note who they are. Passing over Keim and Beyschlag, who represent an older strain, you have at the present hour such writers as Lobstein, Pfleiderer, Schmiedel, Harnack, Soltau, Usener, Gun-kel, O. Holtzmann, Bousset, Percy Gardner, P. C. Conybeare, Prof. Foster, of Chicago, Prof. "N. Schmidt, of Cornell University, and others of like standpoint. These writers, as I said before, do not regard it as any reproach, but boast of it as a mark of their intellectual maturity, that they are one and all rejectors of miracle in the life of Christ.
What now of scholars on the other side? I shall not dwell on the long roll of the older theologians— though, when I think of the devout faith and massive learning of these truly great men who pass before me in mental review—of men like Tholuck, and Lange, and Luthardt, and F. Delitzsch, and Eothe, and Dorner, and Martensen, and Oosterzee, and Godet, not to speak of many who might be named among our own countrymen—I wonder, and ask myself what rich and ripe scholarship is, if they did not possess it. But I take scholars of our own time or of the immediate past— scholars of all types: New Testament scholars, Old Testament scholars, Church historians, theologians— some more conservative, some more liberal, some " higher critics," some non-higher critics—who accept this doctrine of the Virgin Birth, and they are so numerous that time would fail me to recount them fully. Were the late Bishop Lightfoot and the late Bishop Westcott, e. g., not scholars? Are Dr. Sanday, of Oxford, and Dr. Swete, of Cambridge, at the present time, not among the finest of our Greek scholars? Is Principal Fairbairn, of Mansfield, Oxford, not a scholar and thinker? Is Sir Wm. Ramsay, of Aberdeen, who has written one of the best defences of Luke’s narrative of the Nativity, not a scholar? Are Bishop Gore, or Canon Ottley, both liberal in their Old Testament views, or Dr. K. J. Knowling, or the writers who ably defend this belief in the recent volume of Cambridge Theological Essays, not to be classed as scholars? Canon Henson, in England, has been alarming his fellow-churchmen by his free views on many things; but Canon Henson holds stoutly by the Incarnation and the Virgin Birth. 1 Among the scholars in the Free Churches of Britain (I have already mentioned Principal Fairbairn), probably the names of Principal W. F. Adeney, of Principal A. E. Garvie, of Prof. Vernon Bartlet, of Prof. J. Denney, are as representative as any; but these are understood to accept, and some of them have written ably in defence of, the Virgin Birth. 2 You glance at the Continent, where rationalism so strongly prevails—though the forces are more evenly divided than many suppose— and you have on this side the great New Testament scholar, Th. Zahn, facile princeps in his own field; you had till lately the learned B. Weiss, of Berlin; you have leading theologians like Seeberg and Cremer, above all, Prof. M. Kahler, of Halle, who has, I suppose, more students in his classes than any other half-dozen theological professors put together. Against these you ____________________________________________________ 1Cf. his volume, The Value of the Bible and Other Sermons, on these points.
2 See specially Dr. Adeney’s valuable essay on The Virgin Birth and the Divinity of Christ in the series " Essays for the Times," No. xi. Cf. Dr. Denney’s article on "The Holy Spirit" in the Diet, of Christ and the Gospels; vol. i. have, I grant, to place some even of the more positive Ritschlian theologians, as Kaftan, Haring, Loofs, who shy at this article; but in Germany as elsewhere the general fact is that full belief in the Incarnation and belief in the Virgin Birth go together. In America, among a multitude of others, mention should be made of the late Dr. Philip Schaff, a fine historical scholar, if ever there was one; and now Dr. Briggs, of the same Seminary,1 one of the most advanced Old Testament scholars, has thrown himself into the strenuous defence of this article. A similar combination of standpoints is witnessed in England in Prof. W. E. Addis, a radical Old Testament critic, but a devout believer in the Incarnation, and upholder of the birth of our Lord from the Virgin. Many other names might be cited, but I forbear. If scholarship is to be the test, we need not be afraid to meet the adversary in the gate.
While this large consensus of opinion exists as to the reality of the Virgin Birth, it is right to notice that there are many who themselves accept the fact, who still, on the ground that it does not enter into the " foundation " of our Christian faith, are in favour of making this point of belief an " open" one in the Christian Church. One thing, it seems to me, too often forgotten in the discussions on this subject is, that the ____________________________________________
1 Union Theol. Seminary, New York. Cf. Dr. Briggs’s work, New Light on the Life of Jesus, pp. 159ff, and a striking article in the North American Review for June, 1906. question we are dealing with is not, in the first instance, one of theology, but one of fact. What raises the question at all is that we have two evangelical narratives—the only two which relate the events of our Lord’s Nativity—which circumstantially testify that this was the mode of His earthly origin. The first thing to do, plainly, is to try to ascertain whether this witness is true. If it is not, there is no more to be said. If it is, then we may sure that the fact it attests has some bearing on the constitution of our Lord’s Person, whether at first we see it or not. It is here that the position of those who accept the fact of the Virgin Birth, but deny its essential connection with the other truths about our Lord’s Person appears to me illogical and untenable. The one thing certain is: either our Lord was born of a Virgin, or He was not. If He was not, as I say, the question falls: there is an end of it. But if He was—and I deal at present with those who profess this as their own belief—if this was the way in which God did bring the Only-Begotten into the world—then it cannot but be that it has a vital connection with the Incarnation as it actually happened, and we cannot doubt, in that event, that it is a fact of great importance for us to know. In any case, we are not at liberty summarily to dismiss the testimony of the Gospels, or relegate the fact they attest to the class of " open questions," simply because we do not happen to think it is important. It is not thus that science stands before its facts. If an alleged fact is presented to science, it does not first ask: What is the importance of the fact? but, Is the fact real? If it is, the man of science is sure it will have some valuable light to throw on the department of knowledge to which it belongs, whether at first he perceives it or no. This is the spirit in which we should approach the subject now under consideration.
Still, the objection will be pressed that the Virgin Birth does not enter into the " foundation" of our Christian faith; hence cannot be regarded as an essential article of belief. It did not form part of the foundation of the faith of the Apostles, or of the earliest Christian teachers, so cannot be reasonably made part of the foundation of ours. It might be replied, for one thing, that our position is, after all, not quite that of the earliest believers; that for us the truth is now there, and that we have, whether we will or no, to take up some kind of relation to it, just as they would have had to do, had they been where we are. But, leaving the discussion of the faith of the Apostles to its own place, and without prejudging the degree of their knowledge of this mystery—a matter to be afterwards investigated—I should like to point out that a truth may not be the foundation of our faith, yet, once it is known, may be found to have very important bearings on our faith, to contribute to it, to be so closely related to what is vital in our faith, that our faith thenceforward may feel it to be indispensable, and would be greatly impoverished without it: moreover, that a truth may not be the foundation of my faith in a fact, yet may very well be part of the foundation of the fact itself. The law of gravitation, e. g., is no part of the foundation of my belief that stones fall. The world knew that stones fell before it ever heard of the law of gravitation. Yet the law of gravitation has much to do with a proper understanding of the fact that stones fall, and more, lies at the foundation of the fact itself, though not at the foundation of my belief in it. Shakespeare’s authorship is no part of the foundation of my knowledge of the play of Hamlet, or of my appreciation of the genius displayed in it. Yet Shakespeare’s authorship is not a matter of indifference either to the origin, or to the character of the play. ~No one I ever heard of has affirmed that the Virgin Birth was the original ground of the belief of the Apostles in the Incarnation or the sinlessness of Christ. These truths stood on their own broad evidence, of which the Virgin Birth may or may not have formed part; but it in nowise follows that the Virgin Birth, if a fact, does not stand in the most vital relations to both the one and the other. This leads me to remark that there seems to me to be in these discussions a constant tendency to the confusing of two very different things—the foundation of my faith in the Incarnation, and the foundation of the fact itself. The proposition is first laid down, perhaps quite truly, though not necessarily so: " The Virgin Birth does not enter into the foundation of my faith in Christ’s Incarnation and sinlessness." This is then immediately transformed into the other proposition: " It does not enter into the foundation of the fact of the Incarnation "—a very different thing. But where is the proof of this latter proposition? Is it sought in our ignorance or inability to see the connection? Need I remind you that there are a thousand things in nature you do not see the reason of, yet they are facts? There are organs in the body the uses or precise functions of which are obscure; but sound physiology does not doubt that they have their uses, and does not abandon the hope of yet discovering them. You go home at night to sleep, yet you would be hard put to it to explain why it should be necessary to spend so large a portion of your existence in this state of dormancy. You know, of course, that it is necessary for the recuperation and refreshment of the body, but you cannot tell why. Even, therefore, were it granted that we could in no degree penetrate the mystery of the connection of the Virgin Birth with the Incarnation and sinlessness of our Lord, it would be unwarrantable dogmatism on our part to declare that there was no connection. Only if we knew all the implications of these transcendent facts would we have the right to make such an affirmation. But that knowledge no one has, and our very ignorance is a reason why we should not belittle the historically recorded fact.
Thus far I have been arguing on the assumption of the opponent that no obvious relation subsists between the Virgin Birth, and the other elements of our faith in Christ. I desire now to say, however, that this, in my opinion, is far from being the case. The consideration of this connection belongs to succeeding lectures, but there is one thing, I think, which most fair-minded people will be willing to admit. It will hardly be disputed that, if the Incarnation is a reality, a miracle of some kind is involved in the constitution of our Lord’s divine and human Person — even on the assumption of Christ’s perfect sinlessness, so much may be conceded; and, on the other hand, granting the Virgin Birth, it will hardly be denied that the Person so born is, in some sense, superhuman in nature and dignity. We may, if we please, deny that the Incarnation necessarily involves the Virgin Birth; but few will question, at least, that, if Christ was born from the Virgin, there is a supernatural element in His Being.
Only one thing more I would say at this preliminary stage. It will scarcely be doubted, I think, that, if the Virgin Birth is true, it is a fact of great historical value. A chief worth of the narratives of the Infancy is just that, by showing how Christ actually came into the world, they incorporate Him, as nothing else could do, into the history of the world, give Him a real place in the history of our humanity, and furnish the needful introduction to what is told us regarding Him by the other Evangelists. The Gospel of Mark, e. g., brings Jesus before us at His entrance on His public ministry without preface or explanation. Had this been all that was told regarding Him, His history would have hung, so to speak, in the air. It would have had no beginning; just as, if the resurrection were wanting, it would have had no suitable ending. We shall see afterwards how, in the conflicts of the early Church, the Fathers made effective use of these narratives in warding off, on the one hand, the Gnostic denial of our Lord’s real humanity, and, on the other, the Ebionitic lowering of the divine significance of His Person—thus preserving to the Church His true image as at once Son of Man and Son of God. 1 These much-assailed narratives have thus approved themselves as possessed of a historical and doctrinal worth which should make us very cautious how we join in any depreciation or thoughtless surrender of them. For some, I know, this historic value of the narratives will only aggravate their offence. Religion, we will be told, cannot be bound up with historic facts. I reply—Religion abstractly may not be; but a religion like the Christian, which has its essence in the entrance of God into history for man’s redemption, cannot but be. This _________________________________________ 1 See good remarks on this in Rev. Louis M. Sweet’s The Birth and Infancy of Jesus Christ, pp. 14ff. means that, if we are to gain the full benefit of the religion, we must believe in the facts on which it is based. We shall see, I hope, as we proceed, that among these Christian facts, not the least fruitful in help to mind and heart is the Virgin Birth.