The Fundamentals BY THE REV. PROF. JAMES ORR, D. D., UNITED FREE CHURCH COLLEGE, GLASGOW, SCOTLAND. ' To the Law and to the Testimony ' Isaiah 8:20

1. The Fundamentals
A Testimony
CHAPTER I.
THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF
CHRIST.
BY THE REV. PROF. JAMES ORR, D. D.,
UNITED FREE CHURCH COLLEGE, GLASGOW, SCOTLAND.
Volume I

2. ' To the Law and to the Testimony '
Isaiah 8:20
The Fundamentals
A Testimony to the Truth
Volume I

3. FOREWORD
Thisbookis the firstof a serieswhichwill be
publishedandsenttoeverypastor,evangelist,mis-
sionary,theological professor,theological student,
Sundayschool superintendent,Y.M. C.A. and
Y. W. G. A.secretaryinthe Englishspeaking
world,sofar as the addressesof all these canbe
obtained.
Two intelligent,consecratedChristianlaymen
bearthe expense,becausetheybelieve thatthe
time hascome whena newstatementof the funda-
mentalsof Christianityshouldbe made.
Theirearnestdesire isthatyouwill carefully
readit and passits truthon to others.
THE FUNDAMENTALS
VOLUME I.

4. CHAPTER I.
THE VIRGIN BIRTH OF CHRIST.
BY THE REV. PROF.JAMES ORR,D. D.,
UNITED FREE CHURCH COLLEGE, GLASGOW,SCOTLAND.
It iswell knownthatthe lastten or twentyyearshave beenmarkedbyadeterminedassault
uponthe truth of the Virgin birthof Christ.Inthe year 1892 a great controversybroke
out inGermany,owingtothe refusal of a pastornamedSchrempf touse the Apostles'Creed
inbaptismbecause of disbeliefinthisandotherarticles.Schrempf wasdeposed,and
an agitationcommencedagainstthe doctrine of the Virginbirthwhichhasgrowninvolume
eversince.Othertendencies,especiallythe rise of anextremelyradical school of historical
criticism,addedforce tothe negative movement.The attackisnotconfined,indeed,to the
article of the Virginbirth.Itaffectsthe whole supernatural estimateof Christ — Hislife,
His claims,Hissinlessness,Hismiracles,Hisresurrectionfromthe dead.Butthe Virginbirth
isassailedwithspecial vehemence,becauseitissupposedthatthe evidence forthis
miracle ismore easilygotridof thanthe evidenceforpublicfacts,suchas the resurrection.
The resultisthat in verymanyquartersthe Virginbirthof Christisopenlytreatedasa fable.
Belief initisscoutedasunworthyof the twentiethcenturyin-telligence.The methodsof the
oldestopponentsof Christianityare revived,anditislikenedtothe GreekandRomantories,
coarse and vile,of heroeswhohidgodsfortheirfathers.A
7
8 The Fundamentals.
special pointismade of the silence of Paul,andof the otherwritingsof the New Testament,
on thisallegedwonder.
THE UNHAPPIESTFEATURE.

5. It isnot only,however,inthe circlesof unbelief thatthe Virginbirthisdiscredited;inthe
church itself the habitisspreadingof castingdoubtuponthe fact,or at leastof re-gardingit
as no essential partof Christianfaith.Thisisthe unhappiestfeature inthisunhappy
controversy.Till recentlynoone dreamedof denyingthat,inthe sincere professionof
Christianity,thisarticle,whichhasstoodfromthe beginninginthe forefrontof all the great
creedsof Christendom,wasincluded.Now itisdifferent.The truthandvalue of the
article of the Virginbirthare challenged.The article,itisaffirmed,didnotbelongtothe
earliestChristiantradition,andthe evidence foritisnot strong.Therefore,letitdrop.
THE COMPANYIT KEEPS.
From the side of criticism,science,mythology,historyandcomparative religion,assaultis
thusmade on the article longso dearto the heartsof Christiansandrightlydeemedbythem
so vital totheirfaith.For loudasis the voice of denial,one fact muststrike everycareful
observerof the conflict.Among those whorejectthe Virginbirthof the Lordfew will be
found— I do not knowany — whotake in otherrespectsanadequate view of the Person
and workof the Saviour.Itis surprisinghow clearlythe lineof divisionhere revealsitself.
My statementpubliclymade andprintedhasneverbeencon- futed,thatthose whoaccepta
full doctrine of the incarnation — thatis,of a true entrance of the eternal Sonof God into
our nature for the purposesof man'ssalvation — withhardlyanexceptionacceptwithitthe
doctrine of the Virginbirthof Christ,while those whorepudiate ordenythisarticle of
faitheitherholdaloweredviewof Christ'sPerson,or,more commonly,rejectHis
supernatural claimsaltogether.Itwill
The VirginBirthof Christ.9
not be questioned,atanyrate,that the greatbulkof the oppo-nentsof the Virginbirth —
those whoare conspicuousbywrit- ingagainstit— are in the latterclass.
A CAVILANSWERED.
Thisreallyisan answerto the cavil oftenheardthat,whethertrue ornot, the Virginbirthis
not of essential importance.Itisnotessential,itisurged,toChrist'ssinlessness,
for that wouldhave beensecuredequallythoughChristhadbeenbornof two parents.And
it isnot essentialtothe incarnation.A hazardousthing,surely,forerringmortalstojudge

6. of whatwas andwas not essentialinsostupendousaneventasthe bringinginof the "first-
begotten"intothe world!But the Christianinstinct haseverpenetrateddeeper.Rejection
of the Virginbirthseldom, if ever,goesbyitself.Asthe late Prof.A.B.Bruce said,withdenial
of the Virginbirthisaptto go denial of the virginlife.The incarnationisfeltby
those whothink, seriously toinvolve amiracle inChrist'searthlyorigin.Thiswill become
cleareras we advance.
THE CASESTATED.
It isthe objectof thispaperto showthat those whotakethe linesof denial onthe Virgin
birthjustsketcheddogreat injustice tothe evidence andimportance of the doctrine they
reject.The evidence,if notof the same publickindasthat for the resurrection,isfar
strongerthan the objectorallows,andthe factdeniedentersfarmore vitallyintothe
essence of the Christianfaiththanhe supposes.Placedinitsrightset-
tingamong the othertruthsof the Christianreligion,itisnot onlynostumbling-blockto
faith,butis felttofitinwithself- evidencingpowerintothe connectionof these other
truths,and to furnishthe veryexplanationthatisneededof Christ'sholyandsupernatural
Person.The ordinaryChristianisawitness here.Inreadingthe Gospels,he feelsno
incongruityinpassingfromthe narrativesof the Virginbirthtothe won-
10 The Fundamentals.
derful storyof Christ'slife inthe chaptersthatfollow,thenfromthese tothe picturesof
Christ'sdivine dignitygiveninJohnandPaul.The whole isof one piece:the Virginbirth
isas natural at the beginningof the life of suchanOne — the divine Son — as the
resurrectionisatthe end.Andthe more closelythe matterisconsidered,the strongerdoes
thisimpressiongrow.Itisonlywhenthe scriptural conceptionof Christispartedwiththat
variousdifficultiesanddoubts
come in.
A SUPERFICIALVIEW.
It is,intruth, a verysuperficial wayof speakingorthink- ingof the Virginbirthtosay that
nothingdependsonthisbelief forourestimate of Christ.Whothatreflectsonthe subject
carefullycanfail tosee that if Christwas virginborn — if He was truly"conceived,"asthe
creedsays,"by the HolyGhost, born of the VirginMary" — there mustof necessityentera

7. supernatural elementintoHisPerson;while,if Christwassin-less,muchmore,if He wasthe
veryWord of God incarnate,there musthave beena miracle — the moststupendous
miracle inthe universe — inHisorigin?If Christwas,as Johnand Paul affirmandHis church
has everbelieved,the Sonof Godmade flesh,the secondAdam, the new redeemingHeadof
the race, a miracle wasto be expectedinHisearthlyorigin;withoutamiracle sucha Person
couldneverhave been.Whythencavil atthe narrativeswhichdeclare the factof sucha
miracle?
Who doesnotsee that the Gospel historywouldhave beenincompletewithoutthem?
Inspirationhere onlygivestofaithwhatfaithonitsown groundsimperativelydemandsfor
itsperfectsatisfaction.
THE HISTORICALSETTING.
It istime nowto come to the Scripture itself,andtolookat the fact of the Virginbirthinits
historical setting,anditsrelationwithothertruthsof the Gospel.Asprecedingthe
The VirginBirthof Christ.11
examinationof the historical evidence,alittle maybe said,first,onthe OldTestament
preparation.Wasthere anysuch preparation?Some wouldsaythere wasnot,butthisisnot
God's way,and we may lookwithconfidenceforatleastsome indicationswhichpointinthe
directionof the NewTestamentevent.
THE FIRSTPROMISE.
One'smindturnsfirstto that oldestof all evangelical promises,thatthe seedof the woman
wouldbruise the headof the serpent."Iwill putenmity,"saysJehovahtothe serpent-
tempter,"betweentheeandthe woman,andbetweenthyseedandherseed;he shall
bruise thyhead,andthou shaltbruise hisheel"(Genesis3:15. R. V.).Itisa forcelessweaken-
ingof thisfirstwordof Gospel inthe Bible toexplainitof alastingfeudbetweenthe race of
menand the broodof serpents.The serpent,asevenDr.Driverattests,is"the repre-
sentative of the powerof evil" — inlaterScripture,"he thatiscalledthe Devil andSatan"
(Rev.12:9)— andthe defeathe sustainsfromthe woman'sseedisamoral and spiritual
victory.The "seed"whoshoulddestroyhimisdescribedem- phaticallyasthe woman'sseed.
It was the womanthroughwhomsinhad enteredthe race;bythe seedof the woman

8. wouldsalvationcome.The earlychurchwritersoftenpressedthisanalogybetweenEve and
the VirginMary. We may rejectanyelementof over-exaltationof Marythey connected
withit,but itremainssignificantthatthispeculiarphrase shouldbe chosentodesignatethe
future deliverer.Icannotbelieve the choice tobe of accident.The promise toAbraham
was thatin hisseedthe familiesof the earthwouldbe blessed;there the male is
emphasized,buthere itisthe woman — the womandistinctively.There is,perhaps,asgood
scholarshave thought,an allusiontothispromise in1Timothy2:15, where,withallusionto
Adamand Eve,it issaid,"But she shall be savedthroughher(or the) child-bearing"(R.V.).
12 The Fundamentals.
THE IMMANUEL PROPHECY.
The ideaof the Messiah,graduallygatheringtoitselfthe attributesof adivine King,reaches
one of itsclearestex- pressionsinthe greatImmanuel prophecy,extendingfrom
Isaiah7 to 9:7, and centeringinthe declaration:"The Lord Himself will give you[the
unbelievingAhaz] asign; behold,avirginshall conceive,andbeara son,and shall call his
name Immanuel"(Isa.7:14; Cf.8:8, 10). This isnone otherthan the childof wonderextolled
inchapter 9:6, 7: "For untous a childis born,untous a son isgiven; andthe government
shall be uponhisshoulder;andhisname shall be calledWonderful,Counsellor,The mighty
God, The everlastingFather,[Fatherof Eternity],The Prince of Peace.Of the increase
of hisgovernmentandpeace there shall be noend,uponthe throne of David,anduponhis
kingdom,"etc.Thisisthe prophecyquotedasfulfilledinChrist'sbirthinMatt. 1 .23, and it
seemsalsoalludedtointhe glowingpromisestoMary inLuke 1 :32, 33. It ispointedoutin
objectionthatthe termrendered"virgin"inIsaiahdoesnotnecessarilybearthis
meaning;itdenotesproperlyonlyayoungunmarriedwomanThe context,however,seems
clearlytolay an emphasisonthe unmarriedstate,andthe translatorsof the Greekversion
of the OldTestament(the Septuagint) plainlysounderstooditwhentheyrendereditby
parthenos,aword whichdocsmean"virgin."The tendencyinmanyquartersnow isto ad-
mitthis(Dr. Cheyne,etc.),andeventoseekanexplanation of itinallegedBabylonianbeliefs
ina virgin-bi-rth.Thislast, however,isquite illusory.1It is,on the otherhand,singular

9. that the Jewsthemselvesdonotseemtohave appliedthisprophecyatanytime to the
Messiah — a fact whichdisprovesthe theorythatitwasthistextwhichsuggestedthe story
of a Virginbirthtothe earlydisciples.
1 For the evidence,see myvolume on"The VirginBirth,"Lecture
VII.
The VirginBirthof Christ.13
ECHOES IN OTHER SCRIPTURES.
It was,indeed,whenone thinksof it,onlyonthe suppositionthatthere wastobe
somethingexceptional andextraor-dinaryinthe birthof thischildcalledImmanuelthatit
couldhave affordedtoAhaza signof the perpetuityof the throne of Davidonthe scale of
magnitude proposed("Askiteitherinthe depth,orinthe heightabove."Ver.10).We look,
therefore,withinteresttosee if there are anyechoesor sug- gestionsof the ideaof this
passage inotherpropheticscriptures.Theyare naturallynotmany,buttheydonot seemto
be altogetherwanting.There is,first,the remarkable BethlehemprophecyinMicah5 :2, 3
— alsoquotedasfulfilledinthe nativity(Matt.2:5, 6)— connectedwiththe saying:
"Therefore willhe give themup,until the time thatshe whotravailethhathbroughtforth"
("The KingfromBethlehem,"
saysDelitzsch,"whohasa namelessone asmother,andof whose fatherthere isno
mention").MicahwasIsaiah'scontemporary,andwhenthe close relationbetweenthe two
isconsidered(Cf.Isa.2:2-4, withMicah 4:1-3), itis difficultnottorecognize inhisoracle an
expansionof Isaiah's.Inthe same line wouldseemtolie the enigmaticutterance inJer.
31 :22: "For Jehovahhathcreateda new thinginthe earth:
a womanshall encompassaman" (thusDelitzsch,etc.).
TESTIMONY OF THE GOSPEL.
The germs nowindicated inphopheticscriptureshadapparentlyborne nofruitinJewish
expectationsof the Messiah,whenthe eventtookplace whichtoChristianmindsmade
themluminouswithpredictive import.InBethlehemof Judea,as

10. Micah had foretold,wasbornof a virginmotherHe whose "goingsforth"were "fromof old,
fromeverlasting"(Micah5:2; Matt. 2:6). Matthew,whoquotesthe firstpart of the
verse,canhardlyhave beenignorantof the hintof pre-exist- ence itcontained.Thisbrings
us to the testimonytothe miraculousbirthof Christinour firstandthirdGospels — the
14 The Fundamentals.
only Gospelswhichrecordthe circumstancesof Christ'sbirthat all.Bygeneral consentthe
narrativesinMatthew(chapters1, 2) and inLuke (chapters1, 2) are independent — that
is,theyare notderivedone fromthe other — yettheyboth affirm, indetailedstory,that
Jesus,conceivedbythe power of the HolySpirit,wasbornof a pure virgin,Maryof Nazar-
eth,espousedtoJoseph,whosewifeshe afterwardsbecame.
The birth tookplace at Bethlehem,whitherJosephandMaryhad gone forenrollment ina
censusthat wasbeingtaken.The announcementwasmade toMary beforehandbyanangel,
and the birthwas preceded,attended,andfollowedbyremarkableeventsthatare narrated
(birthof the Baptist,withannunciations,angelicvisiontothe shepherds,visitof wise men
fromthe east,etc.).The narrativesshouldbe carefullyreadatlengthtounderstandthe
commentsthatfollow.
THE TESTIMONY TESTED.
There isno doubt,therefore,aboutthe testimonytothe Virginbirth,andthe questionwhich
now arisesis — What isthe value oi these partsof the Gospelsasevidence?Are they
genuine partsof the Gospels?Orare theylate anduntrust- worthy'additions?Fromwhat
sourcesmay theybe presumedtobe derived?Itisonthe truth of the narrativesthatour
belief inthe Virginbirthdepends.Cantheybe trusted?Orare ther mere fables,inventions,
legends,towhichnocreditcan be attached?
The answerto several of these questionscanbe giveninverybrief form.The narrativesof
the nativity inMatthewand Luke are undoubtedlygenuinepartsof theirrespectiveGospels.
Theyhave beenthere since everthe Gospelsthemselveshadanexistence.The proof of this
isconvincing.The chaptersinquestionare foundineverymanuscriptandversionof the
Gospelsknowntoexist.There are hundredsof manuscripts,someof themveryold,
belongingtodifferentpartsof the world,andmany versionsindifferentlanguages(Latin,
Syriac,

11. The VirginBirthof Christ.15
Egyptian,etc.),butthese narrativesof the Virginbirthare foundinall.We know,indeed,
that a sectionof the earlyJewishChristians — the Ebionites,astheyare commonlycalled
— possessedaGospel basedonMatthew fromwhichthe chaptersonthe nativitywere
absent.Butthiswas not the real Gospel of Matthew:it wasat besta mutilatedand
corruptedformof it.The genuine Gospel,asthe manuscriptsattest,
alwayshadthese chapters.
Next,asto the Gospelsthemselves,theywere notof late andnon-apostolicorigin;butwere
writtenbyapostolicmen,andwere fromthe firstacceptedandcirculatedinthe church
as trustworthyembodimentsof soundapostolictradition.
Luke'sGospel wasfrom Luke'sownpen — itsgenuinenesshasrecentlyreceivedapowerful
vindicationfromProf.Harnack,of Berlin — andMatthew's Gospel,whilesome dubietystill
restson itsoriginal language (AramaicorGreek),passedwithoutchallengeinthe early
church as the genuine Gospel of the ApostleMatthew.Criticismhasmore recentlyraised
the questionwhetheritisonlythe "groundwork"of the discourses(the "Logia") thatcomes
directlyfromMatthew.
Howeverthismaybe settled,itiscertainthatthe Gospel inits Greekformalwayspassedas
Matthew's.It must,therefore,if notwrittenbyhim, have hadhisimmediate authority.
The narrativescome to us,accordingly,withhighapostolic sanction.
SOURCES OF THE NARRATIVES.
As to the sourcesof the narratives,nota little canbe gleanedfromthe studyof their
internal character.Here twofacts reveal themselves.The firstisthatthe narrative of Luke
isbasedon some old,archaic,highlyoriginal Aramaicwriting.
Its Aramaiccharacter gleamsthroughitseverypart.In style,tone,conception,itishighly
primitive — emanates,apparently,fromthatcircle of devoutpeople inJerusalemtowhom
itsown pagesintroduce us(Luke 2:25, 36-38). It has,there-
16 The fundamentals.

12. fore,the highestclaimtocredit.The secondfact isevenmore important.A perusal of the
narrativesshowsclearly —whatmighthave beenexpected — thatthe informationthe)
conveywasderivedfromnolowersource thanJosephandMary themselves. Thisisa
markedfeature of contrastin the narratives — that Matthew'snarrative isall toldfrom
Joseph'spointof view,andLuke'sisall toldfromMary's. The signsof thisare unmistakable.
MatthewtellsaboutJoseph'sdifficultiesandaction,andsayslittle ornothingaboutMary's
thoughtsandfeelings.Luke tellsmuchaboutMary — evenherinmostthoughts — butsays
nextto nothingdirectlyaboutJoseph.The narratives,inshort,are not,assome wouldhave
it,contradictory,butare independent andcomplementary.The one supplementsand
completesthe other.Bothtogetherare neededtogive the whole story.Theybearin
themselvesthe stampof truth,honesty,andpurity,andare worthyof all acceptation,as
theywere evidentlyheldtobe inthe earlychurch.
UNFOUNDED OBJECTIONS.
Againstthe acceptance of these early,well-attestednarratives,what,now,have the
objectorstoallege?Ipassby the attemptsto show,bycritical elimination(expurgingLuke
1:35, and some otherclauses),thatLuke'snarrative wasnota narrative of a Virginbirthat
all.Thisisa vainattemptinface of the testimonyof manuscriptauthorities.Neither
needIdwell onthe alleged"discrepancies"inthe genealogiesandnarratives.These are not
serious,whenthe independence anddifferentstandpointsof the narrativesare
acknowledged.The genealogies,tracingthe descentof ChristfromDavid
alongdifferentlines,presentproblemswhichexercise the mindsof scholars,buttheydonot
touch the central fact of the beliefof bothEvangelistsinthe birthof Jesusfroma vir-
gin.Evenin a Syriacmanuscriptwhichcontainsthe certainlywrongreading,"Josephbegat
Jesus,"the narrative goeson,
The VirginBirthof Christ.17
as usual,to recountthe Virginbirth.Itisnot a contradiction,if Matthew issilentonthe
earlierresidence inNazareth,which Luke'sobjectledhimfullytodescribe.
SILENCE OFMARK AND JOHN.

13. The objectiononwhichmoststressislaid(apart fromwhatis calledthe evidently"mythical"
character of the narratives) isthe silenceonthe Virginbirthinthe remainingGos-
pels,andotherparts of the NewTestament.This,itisheld conclusivelyprovesthatthe
Virginbirthwasnot knowninthe earliestChristiancircles,andwasa legendof laterorigin.
As respectsthe Gospels — Mark andJohn — the objectionwouldonlyapplyif itwasthe
designof these Gospelstonarrate,asthe othersdo,the circumstancesof the nativity.But
thiswas evidentlynottheirdesign.BothMarkand Johnknew that Jesushada humanbirth
— an infancyandearlylife — andthat Hismotherwas calledMary,but of deliberate
purpose theytell usnothingaboutit.Mark beginshisGospel withChrist's
entrance onHis publicministry,andsaysnothingof the period before,especiallyof how
Jesuscame to be called"the Sonof God" (Mark 1:1). Johntraces the divine descentof Jesus,
and tellsusthatthe "Wordbecame flesh"(John1:14) ; but how thismiracle of becoming
fleshwaswroughthe doesnotsay. It didnotlie withinhisplan.He knew the churchtradi-
tionon the subject:he hadthe Gospelsnarratingthe birthof Jesusfromthe Virgininhis
hands:and he takesthe knowledge of theirteachingforgranted.Tospeakof contradiction
ina case like thisisout of the question.
SILENCE OFPAUL.
How far Paul wasacquaintedwiththe factsof Christ'searthlyoriginitisnot easyto say.To a
certainextentthese factswouldalwaysbe regardedasamongthe privaciesof the
innermostChristiancircles— solongat leastas Mary lived — and the detailsmaynothave
beenfullyknowntillthe Gospels
18 The Fundamentals.
were published.Paul admittedlydidnotbase hispreachingof hisGospel onthese private,
interiormatters,butonthe broad, publicfactsof Christ'sministry,death,andresurrec-
tion.It wouldbe goingtoofar, however,toinferfromthisthatPaul hadno knowledgeof the
miracle of Christ'sbirth.Luke was Paul'scompanion,anddoubtlesssharedwithPaul
all the knowledge whichhe himself hadgatheredonthisandothersubjects.One thing
certainis,that Paul couldnot have believedinthe divine dignity,the pre-existence,the
sinlessperfection,andredeemingheadship,of Jesusashe did,andnot have beenconvinced
that Hisentrance intohumanitywasno ordinaryeventof nature,butimpliedan
unparalleledmiracleof some kind.ThisSonof God,who "emptied"Him-
self,whowas"bornof a woman,bornunderthe law,"who"knew no sin"(Phil.2:7,8; Gal.
4:4; 2 Cor.5:21), was not,and couldnot be,a simple productof nature.Godmust have

14. wroughtcreativelyinHishumanorigin.The Virginbirth wouldbe toPaul the most
reasonable andcredible of events.
So alsoto John,whoheldthe same highview of Christ'sdignityandholiness.
Christ'ssinlessnessaproof.
It issometimesarguedthata Virginbirthisnoaidto the explanationof Christ'ssinlessness.
Mary beingherself sinful innature,itisheldthe taintof corruptionwouldbe conveyed
by one parentas reallyasby two.It isoverlookedthatthe hole factisnot expressedby
sayingthat Jesuswasbornof a virginmother.There isthe otherfactor — "conceived
by the HolyGhost."What happenedwasa divine,creative miraclewroughtinthe
production of thisnewhumanitywhichsecured,fromitsearliestgerminal beginnings,
freedomfromthe slightesttaintof sin.Paternal generationinsuchanorigin
issuperfluous.The birthof Jesuswasnot,asin ordinarybirths,the creationof a new
personality. Itwasa divine Person— alreadyexisting— enteringonthisnew mode of exist-
The VirginBirthof Christ.19
ence.Miracle couldalone effectsuchawonder.Because Hishumannature had this
miraculousoriginChristwasthe "holy"One fromthe commencement(Luke 1:35).SinlessHe
was,as His whole life demonstrated;butwhen,inall time,didnatural generationgive birth
to a sinlesspersonality?
THE EARLY CHURCH A WITNESS.
The historyof the earlychurch isoccasionallyappealedtoinwitnessthatthe doctrine of the
Virginbirthwasnot primitive.Noassertioncouldbe more futile.The earlychurch,so
far as we can trace it back,in all itsbranches,heldthisdoctrine.NoChristiansectisknown
that deniedit,save the JewishEbionitesformerlyalludedto.The general bodyof the
JewishChristians — the Nazarenesastheyare called — acceptedit.Eventhe greater
Gnosticsectsin theirownwayadmittedit.Those Gnosticswhodenieditwere repelledwith
all the force of the church's greatestteachers.The Apostle Johnisrelatedtohave
vehementlyopposedCerinthus,the earliestteacherwithwhomthisdenial isconnected.

15. DISCREDITED VAGARIES.
What more remainstobe said?It wouldbe waste of space to follow the objectorsintotheir
varioustheoriesof amythical originof thisbelief.One byone the speculationsadvanced
have brokendown,andgivenplace toothers — all equallybaseless.The newestof the
theoriesseeksanoriginof the belief inancientBabylonia,andsupposesthe Jewstohave
possessedthe notioninpre-Christiantimes.Thisisnotonlyopposedto all real evidence,but
isthe givingupof the contentionthatthe ideahad itsorigininlate Christiancircles,andwas
un- knownto earlierapostles.
THE REAL CHRIST.
Doctrinally,itmustbe repeatedthatthe beliefinthe Virginbirthof Christisof the highest
value forthe right apprehensionof Christ'suniqueandsinlesspersonality.Here is
20 The Fundamentals.
One,as Paul bringsoutin Romans5 :12 ff.,who,free fromsinHimself,andnotinvolvedin
the Adamicliabilitiesof the race reversesthe curse of sinand deathbroughtinby the first
Adam,and establishesthe reignof righteousnessandlife.HadChristbeennaturallyborn,
not one of these thingscouldbe affirmedof Him.Asone of Adam'srace, not an entrant
froma highersphere,He wouldhave sharedinAdam'scorruptionanddoom — would
Himself have requiredtobe redeemed.ThroughGod'sinfinite mercy,He came fromabove,
inheritednoguilt,needednoregenerationorsanctification,butbecame Himselfthe
Redeemer,Regenerator,Sanctifier,forall whoreceive Him."Thanksbe untoGodfor Hisun-
speakable gift"(2Cor.9:15).