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 by St. Mark; the idea which vitalizes the fact is dominant in St. John."^

—­ + Gore, loc. cit. ^ Bishop Alexander’s Leading Ideas, Introd., p. xxiv. —­

Consider next St. Paul’s references to the Incarnation:—­

“God sent forth His Son, born of a woman.” (Gal. iv. 4) He does not say, “born of human parents.”

“His Son our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh.” (Rom. i. 3.)

“Being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but made Himself of no reputation, and took upon Him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.” (Phil. ii. 6, 7.)

These are the passages in which St. Paul refers to the Birth of Jesus Christ.  Not one of them is inconsistent with the fact that He was born of a Virgin.  But one can say more than this.  Every one of these passages infers that He who was born in time had existed before.  They either assert or imply a Divine pre-existence.  He who was “made in the likeness of men” was already pre-existent in the “form of God,” and was, in fact, “equal with God.”  This being the case, does it not prepare us for the further truth that, when He entered into the conditions of human life, He entered it not in all respects like us?  I should mar if I ventured to abbreviate Dr. Mason’s admirable words, in which he presses this argument—­