“Christ was identified with the Logos, or Word, which must have had a meaning for all time, before and after its, complete revelation.  And this is what the Nicene Creed is trying to express when it says, ‘Begotten of his Father before all worlds.’  In other words, the purpose which Christ revealed always existed.  The awkward expression of the ancients, declaring that he ‘came down’ for our salvation (enlightenment) contains a fact we may prove by experience, if we accept the meaning he put upon existence, and adopt this meaning as our scheme of life.  But we:  must first be quite clear, as:  to this meaning.  We may and do express all this differently, but it has a direct bearing on life.  It is the doctrine of the Incarnation.  We begins to perceive through it that our own incarnations mean something, and that our task is to discover what they do mean—­what part in the world purpose we are designed to play here.

“Incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the Virgin Mary is an emphasis on the fact that man born of woman may be divine.  But the ignorant masses of the people of the Roman Empire were undoubtedly incapable of grasping a theory of the Incarnation put forward in the terms of Greek philosophy; while it was easy for them, with their readiness to believe in nature miracles, to accept the explanation of Christ’s unique divinity as due to actual, physical generation by the Spirit.  And the wide belief in the Empire in gods born in this way aided such a conception.  Many thousands were converted to Christianity when a place was found in that religion for a feminine goddess, and these abandoned the worship of Isis, Demeter, and Diana for that of the Virgin Mary.  Thus began an evolution which is still going on, and we see now that it was impossible that the world should understand at once the spiritual meaning of life as Christ taught it—­that material facts merely symbolize the divine.  For instance, the Gospel of John has been called the philosophical or spiritual gospel.  And in spite of the fact that it has been assailed and historically discredited by modern critics, for me it serves to illuminate certain truths of Christ’s message and teaching that the other Gospels do not.  Mark, the earliest Gospel, does not refer to the miraculous birth.  At the commencements of Matthew and Luke you will read of it, and it is to be noted that the rest of these narratives curiously and naively contradict it.  Now why do we find the miraculous birth in these Gospels if it had not been inserted in order to prove, in a manner acceptable to simple and unlettered minds, the Theory of the Incarnation, Christ’s preexistence?  I do not say the insertion was deliberate.  And it is difficult for us moderns to realize the polemic spirit in which the Gospels were written.  They were clearly not written as history.  The concern of the authors, I think, was to convert their readers to Christ.

“When we turn to John, what do we find?  In the opening verses of this Gospel the Incarnation is explained, not by a virgin birth, but in a manner acceptable to the educated and spiritually-minded, in terms of the philosophy of the day.  And yet how simply!  ’In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.’  I prefer John’s explanation.