BS24E3 
 »."RI2 
 
 uaNia laiHdwvT 
 

 THE VIRGIN BIRTH 
 
 A SERMON 
 
 PREACHED IN NEW YORK AVENUE 
 PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH 
 
 BY 
 
 WALLACE RADCLIFFE, DD., LLD., PASTOR 
 
 December 17, 1916 
 
 PUBLISHED BY REQUEST 
 
 WASHINGTON, D. C. 
 
"He that is mighty hath done to us 
 great things." — Luke 1:49, 
 
 The song of Mary echoes through the anthems of the centu- 
 ries. That Babe of Bethlehem reveals to us the great things 
 done for humanity. He is the most illustrious personality 
 among men. He is the Messiah of prophesy — the Christ of 
 history; the Saviour of the world. It is not sufficient to tell us 
 that the story is but a pleasant myth, but a useful legend, but a 
 graceful and gracious sentiment, but an impressive fable for the 
 nursery. We need the larger and satisfying interpretation both 
 of His life and birth, as well as of His death. His life is an 
 efficient and magnificent fact, but if, coming into that life, His 
 birth was but the birth of common humanity; if on that night at 
 Bethlehem only a man was born, then He is on an equality with 
 all other humanity. Born as others, He is a teacher as others, 
 and though born with special aptitude to religion, yet after all 
 His teaching is only a philosophy — a good human guess at 
 the puzzle of the universe — a Socrates, a Plato, an Emerson, 
 speaking great, grand thoughts for us and for the race. But 
 more than this must be if there be in His presence disclosure and 
 authoritative revelation of actual and authoritative truth. 
 
 As Christians we must know whom we follow. Are we 
 disciples of a child of shame? Are we, and the hundreds of 
 thousands with us, obedient only to a man — true and strong 
 indeed, but only a man — or do we in reality listen to and follow 
 the Son of Man who is a Son of God — in His birth, in His life, in 
 His death, in His resurrection and ascension, a supernatural 
 revelation in human flesh? 
 
 i . The Narrative. — Studying His ancestry we turn of necessity 
 to the Scriptures. Here are the steps and sign-posts toward the 
 great event. We begin at Eden and read the promise announced 
 so distinctly to "the seed of the woman." By the woman had 
 come sin; by the woman must come redemption; and it seems 
 
 i 
 
no accident, but a peculiar emphasis that is placed right in the 
 beginning of things, in that the promised one is to be the child 
 of the woman distinctively, and so far as the narrative is con- 
 cerned, exclusively. We move down through the prophesies 
 and we read that wonderful word in Isaiah where the virgin 
 birth of Immanuel is so distinctly and unmistakably announced 
 — unrecognized, indeed, by the Jews, and unaccepted of them 
 because unrecognized and apparently unknown, but carrying in 
 itself distinctly and emphatically the directive idea toward 
 Him who is to be Immanuel — the God who is the divine-human 
 Person. That is what the word means — a divine-human person 
 is to be thus born in the coming centuries. We move down 
 through the times of Jeremiah and Micah and listen to certain 
 vague, indistinct, and yet no less suggestive prophesies of a 
 strange child to be born with a nameless one for mother and of 
 whose father there is no mention, and of a new thing on the 
 earth, a woman who hath encompassed a man — Micah 5:2,3 and 
 Jeremiah 31: 22 — until we emerge into the Gospels with their 
 positive, direct, and unmistakable record. In these the first 
 significance is in the genealogies. These we are often disposed 
 to waive aside as useless. We do not read them; we do not 
 bother about them, and even wonder sometimes why the book is 
 so lumbered up. Yet, for the honest student, very necessary 
 and illuminating. Through the whole course of Old Testament 
 teaching was the idea of the Messiah more and more distinct and 
 illuminated and illuminating. The Messiah of the Hebrews was 
 to be in the character of Christ the anointed one. The 
 Messiah meant the Christ. Step by step the church moved 
 toward its realization. Line by line the countenance was 
 painted. Note by note that majestic anthem was sung through 
 those Old Testament prophesies until we come to this New 
 Testament history that so strikingly confirms and illustrates — 
 The Messiah. We must be sure of Him ; we must know that He 
 is the Christ, and so we find the promise first with Eve, then 
 with Abraham with whom and his children the covenant was 
 made. There were many children and so we have the indication 
 that this Messiah was to come, not only of Eve, and of Abraham, 
 but of Isaac; there were many children of Isaac, and so we have 
 distinctively the information that it was of his child Jacob, and 
 
from him successively to David. There were many children; 
 many conditions ; many opportunities for mistake or perversions 
 or wrong and misleading expectations and claims. So we have 
 distinctly and unmistakably the genealogy traced from Eve, 
 Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, David, on to the very end, until the 
 prophesied Forerunner speaks and the babe Christ is born in 
 Bethlehem. The genealogies are there that you and I may not 
 mistake the ancestry; that we may know who this Messiah is; 
 that we may have our finger upon the very word, our eye upon 
 the very personality who is to bring to humanity the Gospel of 
 his redemption. We may trace back the genealogy of the Jesus 
 of Nazareth, from Bethlehem to the Garden of Eden, through 
 Joseph to David, to Abraham, to God, and through Mary to 
 David, to Abraham, to God, a complete genealogy, on the side 
 of Joseph the husband of Mary, and on the side of Mary the 
 child of David, that there may be no mistake, no clouding of 
 title, no misapprehension. The Scriptures give us the family 
 tree that we may recognize the veritable Messiah, the identical 
 Christ who is to be the Saviour of Man. Men sometimes call 
 our attention to supposed mistakes where we have in one case 
 "Joseph the son of Jacob" and in another case "Joseph, the son 
 of Heli." Very easily explained, the statements are consistent. 
 "Joseph, the son of Jacob," is Joseph, the son-in-law of Heli. 
 The narration of the Gospels is by two very distinct and 
 unquestioned authorities, Matthew and Luke. We have the 
 story of the birth from the viewpoint of Joseph, in the Gospel 
 according to Matthew, and the story from the viewpoint of 
 Mary, in the Gospel according to Luke. In the Gospel accord- 
 ing to Matthew you have Joseph's perplexity, and the assur- 
 ance of the angel, which brought Joseph back from his perplex- 
 ity to peace. And then you have in Luke, from the viewpoint 
 of Mary, the annunciationof the angel — Mary's perplexity and 
 modesty — and at last her cheerful and sweet submission. 
 There we have clearly and unmistakably the story of the 
 virgin birth of Christ, familiar to all. It is fair to say that there 
 is one record — the Sinaitic Syrian — that does bear the expression 
 "son of Joseph" but now that is laid aside and unregarded. It 
 is not the version accepted by the Church of Christ ; it has been 
 examined and found defective and contradictory; it appears 
 
 3 
 
that in this very same manuscript in which He is spoken of as 
 the son of Joseph, Mary is spoken of as the virgin, and the birth 
 spoken of as the virgin birth. A single testimony unsupported 
 and contradictory can not be set over against the testimony of 
 Matthew, Luke, Mary, Joseph, and Jesus himself, whose 
 testimony the church accepts as records of the Word of God. 
 These are integral parts of Scripture — these critical manu- 
 scripts have been made exact, there are no marks of interpola- 
 tion ; to dissect, and choose, and reject any part is to impair the 
 harmony, consistency, and completeness of the whole record. 
 These writers were not poets; their records are not myths nor 
 nursery rhymes. These men were sober and honest authors. 
 It is too late to waive aside the evangelists as story tellers or 
 fanatics. Their records are authentic manuscripts. They claim 
 to narrate an historical incident, written, not distant years 
 after the event and in post-apostolic times but by apostolic 
 writers — men of the day — who had access to the inner circle of 
 the Holy Family, and who gave as was delivered by those who 
 from the beginning were eye-witnesses. Matthew and Luke 
 stand with Mark and John as equally evangelists, inspired of 
 God, to communicate to humanity this record. The silence of 
 Mark and John is not rightly an obstacle to faith. Their 
 Gospels have different purposes. Mark begins his Gospel with 
 the public ministry of Jesus. John introduces his Gosepl with 
 the pre-existence of Christ, and then he also begins with the 
 public life of Christ. Of course, they do not mention the birth, 
 but that fact certainly does not argue that they did not believe 
 it. With such logic we might just as well argue that they did 
 not believe He had been born at all, for neither of them men- 
 tions the fact of His birth. There is this significant thing to 
 remember, that one of the authors, Luke, would be justly 
 expected to be the depository of the great secret. It was not a 
 public thing ; it was a secret thing. It was not a matter for the 
 public to talk about and to be projected into their controversies ; 
 it was a matter of privacy. Luke was a physician — the natural 
 confidante in the secrets and intimacies of the Holy Family, — 
 and it is natural and to be expected that if the record appear at 
 all, it would be through him who was thus in intimate pro- 
 fessional relationships and to whom this was not so much a 
 
 4 
 
wonder as a mysterious reality. The silences are rather 
 confirmatory. 
 
 We are told that not only are these two Gospels — Mark and 
 John — silent, but that there is such silence throughout the 
 following New Testament. Well, how often would you have it 
 mentioned? Must we believe a thing only after it has been 
 repeated and re-repeated? Must we wait and wait and wait 
 again until the story is told over and over and over again, no 
 matter what may be the fact presented, nor how demanding the 
 authority of the witness. Once is enough when the Word of 
 God speaks. 
 
 Especially is the silence of Paul an ineffectual argument. 
 This birth was not in the scheme of his work. He did not deal 
 with the details of the life of Christ. His great thought was the 
 Person — the Cross — the Resurrection of Christ; to the elabora- 
 tion and emphasis of these great facts he gave himself, and the 
 very fact that he does not mention the birth, instead of con- 
 tradicting seems to confirm it. Luke and Paul were com- 
 panions. It is altogether likely — it is absolutely certain, I 
 should think — that with such a profound fact in his possession, 
 the intimacies of their companionship would compel the narra- 
 tion by Luke to Paul, and we can read his epistles, seeing in the 
 background the belief, not in the incarnation only, but in the 
 virgin birth of Christ and have sympathy with the old fathers 
 who believed that Paul directed Luke to the writing of his 
 Gospel, as Peter directed Mark to the writing of his. The silence 
 of the Scriptures, far from suggesting our unbelief, rather 
 confirms the conviction that it was accepted by them as a fact, 
 and having another scheme and another phase of the divine 
 commission to present, they wrote upon the basis of that record 
 and spoke their individual message. And certainly this 
 historic fact has been accepted. The church through all the 
 intervening years — for nineteen hundred years — has lived its 
 life of faith in the virgin birth of Christ. There have been, here 
 and there, contradictions. A few Christians, coming into 
 discipleship from the Greeks, denied it ; a few, a very few, of the 
 Jewish Christians antagonized it. And now again in the 
 progress of the years it is in debate; but the great mass of the 
 Christian church has accepted the historic announcement of 
 
 5 
 
V 
 
 Matthew and Luke, as a veritable fact, and all creeds and 
 confessions narrate it, from the Apostles' Creed to the most 
 elaborate confessions; the Holy Catholic Church proclaims to 
 the world and to God with its mighty and overwhelming voice 
 "I believe in Jesus Christ, conceived of the Holy Ghost, and 
 born of the Virgin Mary." 
 
 The testimony is a testimony of scholarship, of accepted and 
 tried integrity, of accumulated and commanding numbers which 
 confirm and reiterates the large, tremendous, unimpeachable 
 belief of the Church of Christ. 
 
 2. Its Reasonableness. — Some questions are raised whose 
 consideration is not worth while. There are indecent sugges- 
 tions, sinful, vulgar, blasphemous, that are not to be heard 
 except with indignation and scorn. But there are honest 
 doubters who insist that of course it is impossible. Well, that 
 depends. If you do not believe in miracles, of course to you 
 it is impossible. If you do not believe in anything but natural 
 law, of course to you the virgin birth is not a possibility. If 
 everything must be measured by the exactness of human reason 
 and human law, then of course we may dismiss this historic 
 incident as fable. But Christianity is supernatural and if we 
 dismiss the miracle we dismiss Christianity, and we waive 
 aside records that are authentic, confirmed in their integrity, 
 and which confirm to us the history of a miracle. If there is to 
 be in your idea of the birth nothing but naturalism, of course 
 this record is not to be accepted. But we believe in the miracle. 
 We believe that the common birth is very largely a miracle, and 
 certainly in the matter of the new birth of the spirit, we not only 
 believe and welcome but we accept as necessary the direct 
 interposition of God. A sinless man is as much a miracle in the 
 moral world as a virgin birth is in the physical world. Chris- 
 tianity is necessarily supernatural. Incarnation of the pre- 
 existent Son implies a miracle in human origin. And this 
 miracle must of necessity have a physical as well as spiritual 
 side. 
 
 And this is not, as many suppose, a miracle, or a supernatural 
 act, above others. I can believe as readily in this as I believe in 
 the resurrection. You believe in the resurrection. You believe 
 in regeneration, which is a miracle of the Holy Spirit — and in 
 
 6 
 
sanctification. And the whole experience, from the beginning 
 to the end of the spiritual life, is a miracle of the Spirit of God. 
 And through His whole life, Christ's life was glorified, made 
 splendid and impressive by interpositions with intrusions upon 
 the law of nature. His great incidents — His death, His resur- 
 rection, His ascension, are no less miracles than this birth of the 
 Christ child at Bethlehem. 
 
 I am not bothered, and the Christian man is not to be 
 bothered, with the fact that we are confronting a miracle. Of 
 course it is a miracle, and if we are not to accept the possibility 
 of the supernatural, we are in the very act of belittling our 
 religion, we virtually reject the basic fact and influence in 
 Christianity and repudiate His Gospel of redemption. All 
 miracles are equally easy to Omnipotence. The Virgin Birth is 
 not a unique exception. The fact is not as unscientific and 
 impossible as we are sometimes told. Huxley himself tells us 
 that the very incident essentially is an every-day occurrence in 
 modern biology. 
 
 We are told that it is unhistoric, and are pointed to heathen 
 legends and myths and asked to believe that the whole story has 
 its origin either from Egyptian or Pagan suggestion. They tell 
 us, for instance, that the idea existed in Babylon, and that our 
 story is but a projection into Christianity of an old Babylonian 
 myth — the very same men forgetting that in the early part of 
 their argument they were trying to teach us that this story 
 of the virgin birth was not known by the apostles or by the early 
 church but was a subsequent growth of the years of the Christian 
 era. They had better fix up their tenses before they begin to 
 talk. Certainly it is not of Jewish growth, for the Jews them- 
 selves failed to see their Messiah in the prophesied Immanuel 
 who was to be born in Bethlehem of the virgin. And certainly 
 it could not have been transmitted from those who had no faith, 
 and no mention of such a miracle. I fail to see the analogies 
 claimed in Pagan mythology. And we are taught sometimes 
 that it is an invention read back into the record — in these days 
 particularly of destructive criticism. We are told with great 
 elaboration that the Gospel of Mark is the first of the Gospels, 
 and that Matthew and Luke borrowed from Mark, and that 
 Mark himself wrote his Gospel partly of personal knowledge. 
 
 7 
 
There are things on which Matthew, Mark, and Luke agree; 
 there are matters on which two of them agree; there are matters 
 of which Mark only knows — or that there were pre-existent 
 sources, hypothetical manuscripts called "Logia" and "U- 
 Mark," and "Q" from which he borrowed. We get very 
 elaborate in our scholarship when we undertake to destroy the 
 Bible, you know. Mark was using these, and out of all these, in 
 building up his Gospel, he never found or mentioned the 
 virgin birth, but Matthew and Luke simply appropriated from 
 him their historic narratives and then, out of the superstition 
 on the part of some, out of the pious wish on the part of others, 
 out of an ignorant puzzle on the part of others — intruded the 
 virgin birth into their Gospel. That story needs only to be told, 
 to be disregarded. 
 
 We are told again that it is unnecessary; that we build up a 
 great piece of history here that is not needful for the mission of 
 Christ; that He was the child of Mary and of Joseph, to whom 
 there came the large endowment of an indwelling of the spirit of 
 God by which He became thus the Almighty teacher of the 
 Gospel of salvation. Such a theory forgets one or two things. 
 It forgets, first, that any such inflowing of the spirit of God can 
 not produce a sinless man. The child of Adam, by ordinary 
 generation, generation after generation, shares in the fall in the 
 sinful nature. It is not possible for the stream to rise higher 
 than its fountain, that it shall not carry with itself the qualities 
 of that fountain. As one of Adam's race He would have shared 
 in Adam's sin and doom. If Christ is the son of a man and a 
 woman, then of necessity He is only a son of man and He 
 carries in Himself the faults, the weaknesses, something of the 
 sin of that humanity, and needs for Himself, somewhere, a 
 redemption. With all reverence be it spoken, God himself can 
 not create a divine being, and it is not possible by any endow- 
 ment of the spirit by any large and overwhelming benediction 
 of the spirit of God, for any man to be made divine — human. 
 But bear in mind the name — Immanuel — whose very meaning is 
 literally, the divine-human Person. 
 
 And not only so, but that philosophy forgets that other fact — 
 in that inn at Bethlehem was not the beginning of Christ. His 
 birth was not His origin, His beginning was not in that human 
 
birth. In the beginning was the Word. The Word already 
 existed — what happens is a pre-existent personality being 
 introduced into a new order of being — that is all there is — 
 there is not here the creation of a personality ; there is the intro- 
 duction of this pre-existent person coming out of that larger 
 society in which He has been, into this other condition of our 
 earthly human life. So somehow or other there must be a 
 power of almightiness which shall produce the form in which this 
 personality may exist for that earthly mission. 
 
 This controversy is not merely academic, not merely a 
 formula for scholastic dispute. It is not a question of a few 
 isolated Scripture texts. It is the test, not of scholarship, but 
 of principle. It is an essential article of the Christian faith; 
 it is an essential fact; and carries in itself an essential doctrine; 
 it has been accepted as history from authentic records; it has 
 been held for more than 1,900 years in the hearts of the disciples 
 and written into the creeds and confessions of the church of 
 Christ. If this doctrine is false the whole Christian faith breaks 
 down. If true, the whole story of Jesus is unassailable. It 
 carries in itself essential truth and essential life for you and me ; 
 to remove it is to remove one of the very foundation stones of 
 the religion of Christ. 
 
 If you deny this virgin birth, you affect the faithfulness of the 
 word of God. That is the first thing to bear in mind. It is 
 here written, and it is bound up with the whole history and 
 mission of Jesus Christ. 
 
 We can not accept here and there some statement that pleases 
 us, some doctrine that commends itself, some biography that 
 teaches or charms, and then throw aside all the rest of the word 
 of God. He that adds and he that takes from, have the pro- 
 nouncement of an eternal curse. It is part of the word of God 
 not only, but it is particularly essential to the authenticity of the 
 life and mission of Jesus Christ. In the Old Testament picture, 
 the face of the Messiah is constantly emerging through word and 
 type and prophesy defining more clearly the face of Christ. In 
 the New Testament picture are His personality and work still 
 more defined and transfigured. That Word means nothing to 
 you and me unless it brings to us the authoritative, authentic, 
 and effective life of Christ. The one gives us the prophetic 
 
 9 
 
/ 
 
 Messiah, the other the historic Jesus, for our honor, belief, and 
 hope. When I cut out of Luke and out of Matthew this record 
 of the virgin birth, when I cut out of Isaiah, the promise of 
 Immanuel, and when I go back to Eden and silence the promise 
 that the seed of the woman shall bruise the head of the serpent, 
 I am dishonoring the word of God ; I am assailing His revelation ; 
 I am seeking to add to or take from that word to which He has 
 given the final commendation and message. 
 
 But this doctrine yields to us not only His message but His 
 person. It conserves the true doctrine of the Person of Christ. 
 Christ was promised to us as the divine-human Person. He 
 comes to us as Immanuel, as the man who bears in Himself all 
 divine perfections, all human attributes. He is to us the divine 
 side of man, as He is also the human side of God. He is bearing 
 to us this wondrous personality by which we are to know God, 
 by which, among us, God, the divine-human person, may dwell 
 with us. This is impossible if His parentage is only of one 
 kind, or if He is only empowered or inspired by the Holy Spirit. 
 That way lies Unitarianism. You could not have such a person- 
 ality if He was the human son of a human father and a human 
 mother. There must be somewhere the miracle that shall 
 produce the Incarnate, that shall to this humanity give, not 
 appearances, not visions, not occasional words, not intermittent 
 experiences, but transfiguration. In this humanity must abide 
 the presence and power of God. 
 
 That is the reason why the church of Christ to-day emphasizes 
 this doctrine. There is a quiet result of indifference and ease 
 that is encouraging in the common conviction a scepticism and 
 doubt — a relaxing sense of God in Christ, which is often in- 
 sensibly but no less certainly a movement toward the seculariz- 
 ing of the Bible and the undeifying of Christ. 
 
 Men who are antagonizing the supernatural birth of Christ, 
 are minimizing His diety. It is an attack that will take many 
 jewels from the crown of Christ. It will by and by, but very 
 surely, bring us to the announcement of a creed which will 
 eliminate the incarnate God and in place of Immanuel will exalt 
 only The Perfect Man. 
 
 This doctrine of the virgin Birth also holds necessarily the 
 truth of the sinlessness of Christ. Because His human nature has 
 
 10 
 
miraculous origin it therefore is sinless. How can we explain 
 otherwise the Holy One of God? It belongs to man to sin. 
 Every man is a sinner. But Christ comes as the second Adam, 
 introducing in Himself a new creation of our humanity, and there 
 must be in that true body and reasonable soul no guilt nor stain 
 of sin ; He must be to us the Holy One of God. He can come only 
 as the son of God; and thus He proclaims Himself. He never 
 speaks of Himself as the son of Joseph. He never speaks of 
 Himself as a son of man. He never confesses Himself the son 
 of Mary. His birth is not the origin of His personality, and its 
 entrance into the conditions of our human life, whilst recognizing 
 Mary as His mother and revealing in Himself the attributes of 
 His humanity, everywhere and at all times He proclaims Him- 
 self the Son of God. Bear in mind always the wording of your 
 creed. It is not only that He is born of the Virgin Mary, but 
 "conceived of the Holy Ghost"; that the Holy Spirit comes not 
 with external power, but with the internal power — the indwell- 
 ing power of God. His nature and mission required a special 
 miracle differing from the common endowment of the Spirit. 
 
 And over against the idea that Christ is without paternity — 
 this is the large and true thing, that He has on the side of 
 humanity, Mary, the mother — but He is the Son of God. 
 Mary was His mother and God was His father. So we have 
 divinity and humanity with the child Christ, presented to the 
 race. Everywhere He is called the Son of God. Everywhere 
 He proclaimed, not Joseph, but God as His father. Everywhere 
 He emphasized the divine fatherhood. Everywhere He claims 
 to come from the Father; to go to the Father. So there is not 
 only the divinity but the sonship of Jesus Christ that carries in 
 itself a large and comforting and inspiring idea of His friendship 
 for redeemed humanity, so that we say, one to another, "Not 
 only are we the children of the Highest — now are we the sons of 
 God." 
 
 This doctrine impressively and essentially holds the doctrine 
 of His salvation. Bear in mind the emphasis of the truth. Cer- 
 tainly we are not as we are often told, "merely splitting hairs." 
 We are not having a scholastic dispute, we are advocating truth 
 for Christian redemption. When we hold to this doctrine we are 
 holding first to the faithfulness of the word of God; second, to 
 
 ii 
 
His personaltiy — the divine-human; third, to his sinlessness, 
 and fourth, to His salvation. He is the Saviour. He is the 
 Messiah, and the Messiah through all the years is revealed as one 
 who was to be born of a virgin. He is the Christ, and the Christ 
 was thus born of a virgin. He is the Saviour and the Saviour of 
 the world was to be thus born of a virgin. Everywhere, 
 through our Scripture, that great fact is presented, and if it 
 be not true that Christ was thus born; if it be not true as 
 Matthew and Luke narrate, no matter what our experience is, 
 what our doubts, what our logic; if it be not true that this Christ, 
 prophesied throughout all the years, carried to us through this 
 magnificent ancestry, was born in Bethlehem, of Mary, the 
 betrothed of Joseph — then humanity is hopeless; there is no 
 Gospel to teach; there is no Messiah to be revealed; there is no 
 Christ to preach ; there is no word to utter — of love and redemp- 
 tion, of God and Salvation. But over against all doubt and 
 scepticism we come to this manger-cradle and we find Immanuel. 
 In this son of Mary we read the promise of the Messiah ; in this 
 helpless Babe we feel the very presence of the Spirit of God, and 
 in this Child of the Virgin we hail the Son of Redemption. 
 
 12 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 ^"^ffnitm^tm 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 GAYLORD 
 
 
 
 PRINTED IN U. S A. 
 
BS2423.1.R12 
 
 The virgin birth; a sermon preached in 
 Princeton Theological Seminary-Speer Library