The Virgin-Birth of Our Lord | Page 9

p.
215. --
Belief in Jesus Christ as the Son of God, belief in His Life, in His
Death, in His miracles, in His Resurrection,--these came first, and these
were the subjects of Apostolic preaching,* and belief in His
Virgin-Birth (ultimately attested by Mary and Joseph) easily followed.
-- * Acts i. 22; ii. 32. --
It is instructive in this connection to draw attention to the Acts of the
Apostles. As every one knows, it is St. Luke's second volume--the
Third Gospel being his first. Now, the Gospel begins with the account
of Christ's miraculous Conception and Birth, but there is no reference
to these mysteries in the rest of the Gospel or in the Acts. "The reason
for the silence in the Acts is the same as for the silence in the
subsequent chapters of the Gospel. The Jews had to learn the meaning
of the Person of Christ from His own revelation of Himself in His
words and works. To have begun with proclaiming the story of His
miraculous Birth would have created prejudice and hindered the
reception of that revelation.
"Similarly, in the Acts, both Jews and Gentiles had first to learn in the
experience of the life of the Church what Jesus had done and said. Only
when they had learned that, was it time to go on and ask who He was
and whence He came."+
The same point is illustrated by St. Mark's silence. "Had he given any
account of our Lord's early years, there would be some ground for

pitting him (so to speak) against St. Matthew and St. Luke."^ But this
Gospel begins, as every one knows, with the public ministry of our
Lord. It is, in fact, the Gospel which reflects the oral teaching and
preaching of St. Peter, and so it begins naturally enough at the point
where that Apostle first came in contact with Christ.
-- + Rackham, Acts of the Apostles, p. lxxiv. ^ Hall, The
Virgin-Mother, p. 217. --
(3) If in these writers of the New Testament expressions had been used
inconsistent with the Virgin-Birth, it would be a very serious matter:
but what are the facts? In the few cases where the Birth is mentioned,
there is nothing said which implies that His Birth in the flesh was
analogous in all respects to ours.
Consider St. John's Gospel. The silence on the Virgin-Birth can
occasion, one would think, no real difficulty. His Gospel is a
supplementary record, and he does not, for the most part, repeat
historical statements already made by the other Evangelists. It seems
altogether impossible to suppose that St. John was ignorant of the
Virgin-Birth. Ignatius, who was Bishop of Antioch quite at the
beginning of the second century, and therefore only a few years after
the writing of this Gospel, calls it (the Virgin-Birth) a mystery of open
proclamation in the Church. (Eph., 19.) Indeed, on any theory of the
date or authorship of this Gospel, there is every reason for believing
that the Virgin-Birth was, at the time it was compiled, part and parcel
of the tradition of the Church. But when St. John does speak of the
Incarnation, in the prologue to his Gospel, when he says, "The Word
was made flesh, and dwelt among us," (St. John i. 14.) there is nothing
in these words to suggest anything inconsistent with the miraculous
story related by St. Matthew and St. Luke. In fact, we may say more
than this. We may say that his teaching about the Pre-existent Divine
Logos who "was made flesh, and dwelt among us," is felt to be a
natural explanation of St. Matthew's narrative as well as of St. Luke's;
for, as we shall see, it is the question of the Divine Pre-existence of the
Logos on which the reasonableness of the doctrine of the Virgin-Birth
really turns. St. John does, in fact, in connection with this mystery of
the Virgin-Birth, what he does in the case of Baptism and the Holy
Eucharist, "he supplies the justifying principle--in this case the
principle of the Incarnation--without supplying what was already

current and well known, the record of the fact."*
-- * Gore, Dissertations, p. 8, seq. --
And it may be added, further, that Mary's word at Cana of Galilee:
"They have no wine," and her subsequent order to the servants:
"Whatsoever He saith unto you, do it," (St. John ii. 3, 5.) are a clear
indication that in the view of St. John she regarded Him as a
miraculous Person, and expected of Him miraculous action.+ I think
that, in regard to the Gospels, their relationship to one another may be
summed up in the words of Bishop Alexander: "The fact of the
Incarnation is recorded by St. Matthew and St. Luke; it is assumed