08 - Lecture 08
LECTURE VIII Doctrinal bearings of the Virgin Birth: The Incarnation - summary and conclusion
I have sought in the preceding lecture to show that a creative miracle is implied in the absolute sinlessness of Jesus, and in His uniqueness as the Head of a new humanity. The full height of our argument, however, is not reached till we go a step higher, and, with the universal Church, see in the appearance of Christ in our world the entrance of a true divine Being into humanity—the Incarnation of the Son. I come now, accordingly, as the last stage in this long journey, to show that, if miracle is implied in the sinlessness of Christ, and in the uniqueness of His Person, much more is such a miracle as the Gospels record an integral part of the mystery of the Incarnation.
I have always felt it astonishing that any one should hold the Virgin Birth to be inconsistent with, or excluded by, the doctrine of the pre-existence of the Son of God, as taught by Paul and John. The idea, I suppose, is that the narratives of the birth of Christ say nothing about His pre-existence, but speak as if He first began to be at His birth at Bethlehem. And it may at once be granted that the narratives in the Gospels say nothing of pre-existence. There is no reason to suppose that the full mystery of our Lord’s Person was unlocked to Mary, or to any in that early circle. The Saviour had to be manifested in His life, work, claims, death, resurrection, and exaltation to the right hand of power, before it could be fully seen Who or What He was, and how far the compass of His Being reached. This, of itself, as before urged, is an evidence of the early date and primitive character of these narratives of the Virgin Birth, that they are so entirely uninfluenced by the views of the pre-existence and essential divine dignity of the Son which are developed in the Apostolic writings.
It is all there already, perhaps, in germ—this higher truth of the Lord’s Person. It was not credible, to any mind reflecting deeply on it, that One who had so supernatural, so directly divine, an origin,—of whom the angel could say, " He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Most High "—" the Lord God shall give unto Him the throne of His father David "—" He shall reign over the house of Jacob for ever; and of His Kingdom there shall be no end "—" that which is to be born shall be called holy, the Son of God," 1—should not be more than human. Such expressions stretch out at least to meet the later pre-existence doctrine. They need, to sustain their significance, a frame as ample as that ______________________________
1 Luke 1:32-35. which the Apostolic doctrine yields. The Evangelist Matthew made no mistake when he read unto them the whole meaning of the great Isaianic prophecy of Im-manuel.
It was all there, perhaps, in germ; but it was not yet unfolded. On the other hand, the Apostolic doctrine of the pre-existence of the Son does not exclude, but, if you assume that this pre-existent Being was actually born as a man, positively requires us to postulate a miraculous birth. That seems to me as self-evident a proposition as the mind of man can frame. It is sometimes said by those who argue for the opposite view (e. g., Sabatier and Lobstein), that Paul and John did not need this explanation; they had a better one. 1 But this does not touch the point at all. That Jesus had a pre-existent life—was Son of God in a transcendent or " metaphysical " sense, which is what these writers mean by a " better " explanation—does not touch this other question which has yet to be faced: How did this pre-existent Son become Man 1:1 It cannot be doubted that it is the doctrine of these Apostles that He did become man. " The Word became flesh." 2 It is not the Logos or Word in His abstract being, but the Logos incarnate, that interests John. The burden of his teaching is that Jesus Christ has " come in the flesh." 3 So, if, as Lobstein says, " it cannot be doubted that in the mind of [Paul] __________________________________________ 1 Lobstein, Virgin Birth, p. 57.
2 John 1:14.
3 1 John 4:2. the Lord’s personality has a heavenly origin," 1 it can as little be doubted that in Paul’s mind this heavenly Person entered by birth into the conditions of a true human existence. " Being in the form of God . . . He emptied Himself, taking the form of a servant, being made [becoming] in the likeness of men." 2 He " was born [became] of the seed of David according to the flesh " 3 was " born [became] of a woman." 4 How, then, was this entrance into humanity accomplished? Was it docetically—in mere seeming? Assuredly not, in the view of these Apostles. It was a true humanity which Christ assumed. He came truly in the flesh. There was a true entrance into human life by a birth. But such a birth, in the nature of the case, was a miracle. What was the nature of the miracle ? Do not the narratives of the Virgin Birth supply the answer ? The reply has already been dealt with that there is no trace of such a miraculous birth in the writings of Paul and John. Even if it were so—even were it admitted that Paul and John had no knowledge of the Virgin Birth, or did not reflect on the subject—I would point out that the fact of Christ’s being born stands there just the same, and the problem still awaits solution of how the miracle of the Incarnation came about. But is it in the least likely that Paul did not reflect on it ?— Paul, whose mind was so logical, who carried out his ___________________________________________ 1 Op. tit., p. 63.
2 Php 2:6-7.
3 Romans 1:3.
4 Galatians 4:4. principles so consistently, who in his later Epistles (Ephesians, Colossians) traces the implications of his Christology and of Christ’s Mediatorship in their cos-mological aspects in so vast and bold a way—is it likely that he would be so utterly oblivious of the problem raised on the human side by his own doctrine of the Incarnation, or would remain unconcerned about it ? Or would John?
I have tried to show in previous lectures that Paul did reflect on this problem. 1 Not to go back on what was then said, take only that great liturgical passage in 1 Timothy 3:16. Paul shows there with sufficient clearness his sense of the profundity of the problem: " Without controversy, great is the mystery of godliness "; and in the next clause he tells us where, in his view, the essence of the mystery lies: " Who was manifest in the flesh." Whether, therefore, Paul had the full answer to the problem or not—and I have given reasons for thinking that he was not ignorant of it—he knew at least that the problem was there, and that the constitution of Christ’s humanity was in some sense miraculous. The case is even clearer in regard to John. There is no doubt, really, that John knew of the Gospel histories of Christ’s supernatural birth, and there is just as little doubt in my own mind that he cordially accepted them as a solution of his own problem of how the Word became flesh.
__________________________________________________ 1 See above, pp. 116 ff.
Objection, however, may now be taken on the ground —no doubt in some cases will be taken—that, even granting all that we affirm, this idea of an Incarnation of a pre-existent divine Being, going so far beyond the simpler conceptions of the birth-narratives, is, after all, only a metaphysical speculation of Paul’s and John’s own, borrowed from Philonism—a quasi-philosophical form in which these Apostles sought to embody their impressions of Christ’s greatness—and, therefore, cannot be legitimately used as a basis for arguing back, in our day, to the Virgin Birth. I said at the commencement that it was no part of my business to discuss the reality of the Incarnation, but, by way of clearing the ground, a word or two may be said on the point now raised. The best way of removing any feeling of the kind now expressed is to keep clearly in mind how the conception of Christ’s pre-existence and divine Sonship was actually reached. It did not arise, as the objection assumes, from metaphysical speculation. It arose from facts which were the common possession of the Church; and it was not a conception peculiar to these Apostles, but, as we see from their writings, was widely shared by the Church of their day. 1.
1. First, as the basis of this conception, came the life of Christ Himself—His words, works, claims, the prerogatives He ascribed to Himself, the profound personal ______________________________ 1 See above, p. 161. impression He made on His disciples, which won them to the confession that He was the Son of God and the Messiah—a Person superhuman in character, attributes, and functions. " Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God," 1 confessed Peter. We see this fact-basis of the Apostolic conviction most clearly of all in John— the most transcendental of the Apostles in His estimate of Christ. John did not reason down from some metaphysical conception of the Logos to the divine dignity of Christ; he rose to the belief that Jesus was the Incarnate Word from what he had seen and heard of Him in His earthly manifestation. His feet were on the earth all the time. " That which we have heard," he says, " that which we have seen with our eyes, that which we beheld, and our hands handled, concerning the Word of life . . . that which we have seen and heard declare we unto you." 2 " The Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten of the father, full of grace and truth." 3.
2. Next, after the shock and temporary eclipse of the Cross and Tomb, came the resurrection in power, followed by the brief, memorable period of intercourse of the disciples with their Kisen Lord, the exaltation to heaven, and, finally, the outpouring of the Spirit at Pentecost; and in the light of it all, coupled with the hope of His Return, they saw their Master to be in the fullest sense divine. The resurrection and exaltation _______________________________________________ 1 Matthew 16:16.
2 1 John 1:1, 1 John 1:3.
3 John 1:14. threw back an illuminating, magnifying light on the teaching, works, and claims of His earthly life—" declared [or " defined "] to be the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead," 1 says Paul—and it became clearly manifest to their minds how that here divine greatness and love had been humbling itself to suffering and shame for man’s redemption.
3. But now—and here is a point I think important— to recognise Christ in the light of His heavenly glory as a divine Person was already to affirm His pre-existence; for reflection must at once show us that divinity is not a thing you can make or unmake. If Christ is divine now, He has in nature ever been divine; the temporal in His earthly manifestation is discovered to be but the veil of the eternal; His presence on earth was the revelation of an eternal life He had with the Father. With this agree His own words which John has preserved about a heaven from which He had descended, and a glory He had with the Father before the world was. 2.
Such, then, is the conception of Christ’s Person which lies at the basis of the Apostolic doctrine; and, accepting that doctrine, we see at once how stupendous a miracle is implied in it. Christ’s birth, we are to remember, is not the origin of His Personality, but only its entrance into the conditions of a human life. But that entrance was a real one. The Son of God became man. Now this is miracle: the very constitution of ____________________________________________________
1 Romans 1:3.
2 John 6:33, John 6:38; John 8:58; John 17:5; etc. such a divine and human Person is miracle: the most astounding miracle, as said before, the universe has ever seen. " Ask it in the depth, or in the height above," said Isaiah to Ahaz, and, on the refusal of the king, the prophet declared that the Lord Himself would give him a sign—that of the virgin (or maiden) who should conceive and bear the child Immanuel. 1 God has fulfilled His word, and in the Incarnation has given us a sign greater than anything in the depth beneath or in the height above. And when we think of the wonder of this divine One who has appeared in our midst, and of the glory to which He has now been raised—" angels, and authorities, and powers," as Peter says, " being made subject to Him " 2—do we not feel that faith postulates a beginning which shall correspond with the end—a beginning as unique as the event itself is without parallel ?
Here also we reach the final point of view for seeing the absolute distinction between the Scriptural doctrine of Christ’s origin, and anything found in heathen mythology. As analogies have been sought in heathenism for the Virgin Birth, so analogies have been put forward also for the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation. Heathenism has, indeed, its incarnations of gods in beasts and men. But the differences between these and the Christian conception of the Son of God becoming man are practically infinite. The heathen incarnations are many: Christianity knows of but one. In the __________________________________________ 1 Isaiah 7:11 ff.
2 1 Peter 3:16. heathen incarnations there is no idea of a true and permanent union of a divine being with a humanity which becomes his for ever; in Christianity the union is perfect and abiding. The heathen incarnations are repeated over and over in different forms. Vishnu, e. g., has many Avatars — in fish, in tortoise, in boar, in lion. Only when we come to the eighth have we the incarnation in the hero Krishna. The Son, in Christianity, is incarnate once and for ever. The heathen incarnations are monstrous, immoral, degrading; always purely mythological. In Christianity we have the assumption of a holy humanity for holy ends; and the act is historical, with its result in an actual human life, death, and resurrection, which can be historically verified. The idea of incarnation itself is different. In Christianity a Divine Being voluntarily unites Himself with the race for holy and redeeming ends. Heathenism has no such conception.
We are now well within sight of the conclusion of our inquiry; but there is yet one step remaining to be taken, which to some may seem the most crucial of all, though it is not really so. I have sought in these lectures to impress you with the conviction that a miracle is involved in the constitution of the Saviour’s Person— even in His sinlessness and archetypal manhood—supremely in His Incarnation. I have further sought to show that this miracle is not simply an inward or spiritual miracle, but has a physical side as well. But now it will be asked: " Yes, but does this show that the miracle must take the form of birth from a Virgin ? " Let it be granted that there is a miracle; let the miracle be as stupendous as you please; grant that it involved the physical as well as the spiritual side of Christ’s humanity ; this will prove at most, it may be said, a supernatural factor in Christ’s birth, but not necessarily the Virgin Birth of the Gospels. Can that be shown to be a form which this miracle of Incarnation must necessarily assume? My reply to this, in the first place, must be that, in the nature of the case, the particular form which the miracle of the Incarnation shall assume is not a matter which can be laid down a priori. It is God Himself who must say in what way He shall accomplish this wonder. What we do see is, that there must be a miracle in the constitution of such a Person as Christ is, and we turn to history—not to a priori speculation—to see what form the miracle actually did take. It may be impossible to show a priori that the supernatural origin necessarily implies a Virgin Birth; but, on the other hand, if the existence of a supernatural factor in the bodily origin of Jesus is admitted, assuredly all a priori objection to the Virgin Birth vanishes, and few, in fact, who accept the one will be found stumbling at the other. This is the connection between the propositions I have been advancing and the narratives in the Gospels. The record in the Gospels simply supplies, in the form of history, what faith, on its own grounds, postulates. The history, therefore, becomes credible, and worthy of all acceptation. For that at which naturalism stumbles in the Synoptic narratives is not simply the form of the miracle, but the idea of a miraculous conception in any form. If once it is granted that a new act of the Creative Cause enters into the production of Christ’s humanity, what is there longer incredible in the supposition that it should enter in the manner which the Gospels represent? Along this line of consideration, even if there were nothing else, the doctrinal significance of the Virgin Birth is put on a secure footing. For if this was, de facto, the form which the miracle of the Incarnation assumed, beyond question the Virgin Birth encloses in it, whether we can see it or not, the whole " mystery of godliness." But is it the case that we can see no reason for the miracle assuming this form? No reason, at least, in congruity, if not in actual necessity? Let me, as the concluding part of my argument, ask you to look reverently at this question.
I assume here the result of my previous reasoning, that, if miracle is concerned in the birth of Christ at all, it is impossible to stop short of the conclusion that the miracle must be, in part, a physical one. The Te Deum sings: " When thou tookest upon thee to deliver man, thou didst not abhor the Virgin’s womb." Every birth is in a sense a miracle—a mystery of God. Psalms 139:1-24 says: " My frame was not hidden from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my imperfect substance, and in thy book were all my members written, which day by day were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them." 1 Similarly, the miracle of the Incarnation, whatever the nature of it, was one wrought in the secrecy of the mother’s being. This is the fact overlooked by mediating writers like Prof. Pricke, of Leipzig, who cannot understand why any one should take offence at the article, " Conceived by the Holy Ghost," yet objects to any one dragging down this expression into the region of what he calls " the physiological." 2 In one respect the protest of this writer is justified. Nothing is more objectionable than the attempt sometimes made to give a sensuous interpretation to the words of Luke about the miraculous conception. Talk about " physical filiation " such as one meets with even in Lobstein,3 suggests pagan analogies, and is wholly out of place in connection with the creative energy of a purely Spiritual Agent, such as the Holy ________________________________________________ 1 Psalms 139:15-16.
2 Christliche Welt, 27 Oct., 1892; cf. my Ritschlianism, p. 234. Prof. Fricke, like others of this mediating tendency, stops short of a complete Incarnation. Jesus is to him One who has the Spirit without measure—the Incomparable One. Naturally, therefore, there is weakness in his view of the Virgin Birth.
3 Op. ctt., pp. 67, 126.
Spirit is conceived to be. On the other hand, the Holy Spirit is undoubtedly regarded as, in Lobstein’s words, " the author of the corporeal and material life of Jesus," and this physical result of His action is not to be lost sight of.
I recognise, then, to the full a miracle in the origin of Jesus which involved His bodily nature. I desire neither to minimise nor to explain away the miracle. To me the stupendous miracle is always the Incarnation itself, and any lesser miracle which is involved in that loses its power to offend. This is why, in these discussions, I have laid no stress on the interesting facts of " Parthenogenesis," or virgin births in nature, sometimes brought forward as throwing light on the birth of Christ. I do not say that these facts have no bearing on the subject; in some respects they have a very close bearing. It has been plausibly argued by Mr. Griffith-Jones, e. g., in his book, Ascent Through Christ, on the ground of these facts of parthenogenesis, that, if the Virgin Birth is above nature, it is not contrary to nature ; 1 and this, by consent of scientific men themselves, must be admitted. It was Prof. Huxley who wrote, as quoted by Dr. Gore: " The mysteries of the Church are child’s play compared with the mysteries of Nature. The doctrine of the Trinity is not more puzzling than the necessary antinomies of physical speculation; virgin procreation and resuscitation from apparent death are __________________________________________ 1 Ascent Through Christ, p. 262. ordinary phenomena for the naturalist." 1 Prof. G. J. Romanes, too, in his Darwin and After Darwin, makes the remarkable statement: " Even if a virgin has ever conceived and borne a son, and even if such a fact in the human species has been unique, it would not betoken any breach of physiological continuity." 2 This accords with what one frequently observes in the miracles of Scripture. Miracle may transcend nature altogether, as in the raising of the dead; but more commonly miracle is a heightening or utilising of powers already inherent in nature. The supernatural is grafted on the natural. Parthenogenesis, up to a certain point, is a fact in nature, and has this value, that it shows that Virgin Birth is inherently a possibility, and repels the objection sometimes made that such a birth would not give a complete humanity. 3.
Still the question will be pressed, Why parthenogenesis? Why not simply a heightening of the ordinary powers of nature, for which we have at least Old Testament precedents ? Why this superfluous miracle ? But is there not a very obvious answer to this question ? In the Old Testament examples—Isaac, Samson, Samuel —you have a supernatural heightening of the powers of nature, indeed—but to what end ? Not to the overstepping of nature in any degree in the result, but only to _________________________________________________ 1 Gore, Bampton Lects., p. 247.
2 p. 119.
3 Cf. R. J. Campbell, quoted above, p. 3. the production by way of nature of beings who are entirely natural—men and nothing more. Isaac, though the seed of promise, had no peculiar distinction even as a man. Samson, though endowed by the Spirit with superhuman strength, was assuredly no model for imitation. Ethically he was a piece of the commonest of human clay. Samuel was a distinguished prophet, but still simply a man. John the Baptist, Christ’s own forerunner—another child of promise—though Jesus said of him that among those born of women there had not arisen a greater, was yet profoundly conscious of his inferiority to Him whose way he came to prepare, and Jesus Himself declared that one but little in His Kingdom was greater than Hebrews 1:1-14 All these were sinful men. In no case in the world’s history has natural generation issued in a being who is sinless, not to say superhuman. But here in Jesus is One who, as we have seen, is not only sinless and archetypal, but has in Him all the potencies of Godhead. Is it not reasonable to expect that His manner of entering the world will be also different from that of others ?
Assuming this to be so, as a general presumption, I think we can see at least some reasons why the miracle involved in the Incarnation should take this form of a Virgin Birth.
1. When the question is put: Why, granting a creative miracle in Christ’s origin, the conditions might not ___________________________________________ 1 Matthew 11:11. be met by ordinary generation,’ may not the reply be given—Cui bono ? " Conceived by the Holy Ghost"— does not this explain all ? If a creative origin is in any case postulated, why the complication with a second and external factor, namely, the paternal? The objector asks: Why a superfluous miracle? But may it not be legitimately retorted that, seeing the miracle is already there, the superfluity consists in his own insistence on the element of human paternity ? The creative miracle we assume, remember, is one that goes down to the foundations of life in the mother. Does not such a miracle of itself supersede human fatherhood ?
2. Again, the Incarnation is an event sui generis, and we have seen reason to expect that there will be something in the manner of it also sui generis. It is reasonable, that is, to think that there will be something in the mode of the Incarnation that will unambiguously proclaim its extraordinary character; that will draw attention to it as an event wholly unique, exceptional, unexampled, in the history of mankind. Plainly, under the conditions of ordinary paternity, this exceptional character of Christ’s origin would have been veiled, if not nullified. By His birth from a Virgin it is thrown into strongest relief. This is the right use, it seems to me, to make of the Old Testament analogies, which, so far as they go, favour my contention. They show that, when God has a new beginning to make, or a great work to do, even if it be by ordinary men, He takes pains to mark tne fact by some signal interposition. How much more in this new creative beginning, which transcends all previous analogies! Luke, probably, has this thought in his mind in the genealogy of Jesus which he connects with his narrative. In that genealogy, you observe, he carries back the descent of Jesus not, like Matthew, to David and Abraham simply, but to Adam, whom he significantly names " the Son of God." 1 Jesus also, at the commencement, is " Son of God." There is unmistakably a meaning in this. In Luke, as in Paul, Jesus is brought into direct comparison with Adam, the head of the first creation, and " figure of Him that was to come." 2 And the point of comparison can only be that Adam was not, like the others in list, a son of man by ordinary generation, but took his origin directly at the hands of God. Evolution, as I have tried to show elsewhere,3 does not contradict this view, but, as I think, confirms it. Whatever light evolution may throw on secondary factors, there seems little doubt that direct creative action is also involved in man’s origin, both in body and in soul. Luke would seem to imply that was so also in Christ’s case. The Gospels show us the manner.
3. There is a third consideration in this connection which Dorner specially emphasises. 4 We do not lean to a Roman Catholic doctrine of immaculate conception ___________________________________________ 1 Luke 3:38; cf. Matthew 1:1.
2 Romans 5:14.
3 Cf. my book, God’s Image in Man.
4 Cf. my Ritschlianism, p. 237. when we say that in Mary a fitting instrument was prepared in mind and body for this supreme function of being the mother of the Redeemer. But natural generation involves the introduction of another influence—of a strain of a different quality and kind. Was there then a second and male parent prepared, as there was a female? Or would not the mingling of different and inferior influences have been a positive drawback for the end contemplated—a disturbance calling for a new miracle to counteract and correct it? Natural generation, on this view, does not afford relief from miracle, but rather doubles the miracle.
Gathering up the threads of my reasoning, I think I may claim to have proved that it is a very superficial view which affirms that there is no doctrinal connection between the Virgin Birth and the fact of the Incarnation. I grant at once, as I have done earlier, that for a naturalistic Christ you do not need a supernatural origin. More—if you do not hold a supernatural Christ, you will not long retain belief in a supernatural origin. On the other hand, when you have the certainty of the Incarnation, the whole force of that certainty will be thrown into the scale of the Gospel narratives. In the Virgin Birth you will feel that you have what you might most naturally expect in such a new creative beginning. It is the form of miracle which most clearly corresponds with the nature of the fact. Our faith in the event does not, of course, rest on the power of our minds to deduce it from the Incarnation, but on the history; but, with faith in the Incarnation to start with, and the admission of the necessity of a miracle of some kind, as involved in that, we may readily perceive the fitness and credibility of the miracle as recorded.
Here, then, I conclude my argument, and, in doing so, it may be convenient that I should briefly recapitulate the chief positions I have endeavoured to establish. I may sum them up thus:
1. The only two narratives we have of the birth of Jesus tell us that He was born of a Virgin.
2. The Gospels containing these narratives are genuine documents of the Apostolic Age.
3. The texts of these narratives have come down to us in their integrity.
4. The two narratives of the Virgin Birth are independent.
5. The narratives, nevertheless, are not contradictory, but are complementary and corroborative of each other.
6. There are strongest reasons for believing that Matthew’s narrative comes from the circle of Joseph, and Luke’s from the circle of Mary.
7. The Gospel of Mark, which embraces only the public ministry of Jesus, does not contradict the other narratives.
8. The Gospel of John does not contradict the other narratives, but presupposes them.
9. John unquestionably knew the earlier Gospels, and is traditionally identified with opposition to the earliest known impugner of the Virgin Birth, Cerinthus.
10. Paul does not contradict the Virgin Birth. On the contrary, Luke, a chief witness of the Virgin Birth, was the companion of Paul, and Paul’s language seems to presuppose some knowledge of the fact.
11. The doctrine of Paul and John—as of the New Testament generally—implies a miracle in the origin of Christ.
12. The Gospels containing the narratives of Christ’s birth were, so far as known, received without question by the Church from their first appearance.
13. With the exceptions of the Ebionites—the narrowest section of the Jewish Christians—and some of the Gnostic sects, the Church from Apostolic times universally accepted the fact of the Virgin Birth. The Nazarenes, or main body of the Jewish Christians, accepted it.
14. The early Church set high value on the Virgin Birth doctrinally, as attesting (1) the true humanity of Christ, and (2) His superhuman dignity.
15. The prophecy of Isaiah 7:14 is rightly applied by Matthew to the birth of Jesus.
16. Yet, as most critics now admit, this prophecy was applied by no one in those days to the Messiah, and therefore could not have suggested the invention of this story.
17. It is granted by a majority of recent critics that the myth—as they call it—of the Virgin Birth could not have originated on Jewish soil.
18. It is as conclusively shown by Harnack and others that it could not have originated on Gentile soil.
19. Pagan myths do not afford any proper analogies to the Virgin Birth of Christ, or the doctrine of the In: carnation.
20. The perfect sinlessness of Christ, and the archetypal character of His humanity, imply a miracle in His origin.
21. The doctrine of the Incarnation of the pre-existent Son implies a miracle in Christ’s origin.
22. The miracle in Christ’s origin had of necessity a physical as well as a spiritual side.
23. The Virgin Birth answers historically to the conditions which faith postulates for the origin of Christ. In light of these propositions, I cannot acquiesce in the opinion that the article of the Virgin Birth is one doctrinally indifferent, or that can be legitimately dropped from the public creed of the Church. The rejection of this article would, in my judgment, be a mutilation of Scripture, a contradiction of the continuous testimony of the Church from Apostolic times, a weakening of the doctrine of the Incarnation, and a practical surrender of the Christian position into the hands of the advocates of a non-miraculous, purely humanitarian Christ—all on insufficient grounds.