New-York tribune., 1907-10-12

ures Delivered Under the Auspic Of the Bible
1907. BY James Orr. NJ. A. D. D.. Professor Of
Apologe&5ics tics and Systematic Theoosy in a,o the
l2mo, pp. 3O1. Charles scrIbners Sons.
IN these lectures Professor Orr aims to estab-
lish faith in the miracle of the Lords incar-
nation by birth from the Virgin, TO meet OBJ
jectons, and TO show the intimate connection
of fact and doctrine in this transcendent mys-
terry" Not since the second century has there
been determined attack this particu-
lar article of the Greed witness
ing and inasmuch as its overthrow would be
like the dislodging of a great stone near the
foundation of a building, that would bring down
much more with It." DR.. Orr sees the urgency
Of offering popular yet reasoned presentation
in support of the dogma. He dsclaims any
desire of dealing with naturalistc assailants OF
the Christian faith. He seeks only TO aid those
whose standpoint is already that of belief in the
Incarnation. My argument Will have special
respect TO those who, accepting the general
New Testament doctrine of Christ. ase dis
posed to regard this as independent of the
doctrine Of the Virgin Birth, or who think the
evidence for the latter insufficient"
The documents from which the knowledge of
the Virgin Birth derived the opening
chapters in ST. Matthew and st. Luke. Profess
sor Orr devotes three lectures to a thorough
going inspection Of the evidence for these mar
ratives, and he finds them individually genuine
parts Of their respective gospels" After deal
ing with the difficulty of the alleged silence
of the rest OF the New Testament on this sub
ject, the lecturer turns to the witness of early
Church history. Here the doctrine Of the mi
raculous birth Of Jesus is received with unanim-
fly. save on the part OF a few Gnostic sects
and 'an Insignificant Ebionitic fraction"
Those who reject the nativity narratives al
ar 90
sty OF explaining how the narratives come 10
be in the New Testament at all. The attempt is
made by unbelievers TO show that the story is a
myth. But, says Professor Orr, the early dates
Of the Gospels preclude the possibility of myth
development. He regards the mythical theories
as all equally untenable. Indeed. so opposed are
the rival explanations that a defender Of the
faith can wait with his sword in scabbard while
they demolish another. Scholars who with
Harnack insist that the story is a myth orig
mating on Jewish soil are met by others who.
like schmiedel. hold that the origin Of the idea
OF Virgin Birth is TO be sought in Gentle
Christian circles. Against both parties appears
Canon Cheyne with his contention that the be
lief is derived from a widely current mythlc
tradition, ultimately Babylonian which found
literary expression in some pre-C Christian sketch
Of the life, death and exaltation OF the expected
Messiah Concerning the "pre-C Christian sketch"
lHNoheu bE CdIIol NItS ne our duiIlOr says iHcTe
is mot a scrap of evidence for it's existence;
and he proceeds: THE upshot, therefore, is that
this theory. having destroyed all others, it
self shares in their downfall, and leaves the field
clear for the only remaining hypothesis. which
is the simplest and most satisfactory Of any
that the thing actually happened"
Coming to the doctrinal bearings OF the sub
ject DR.. Orr cannot admit that faith in Jesus
as divine redeemer is in no way dependent on
belief in the supernatural birth. On the contrary,
"a miraculous origin must be held to be involved
in the constitution of such person as Christ is
The doctrine Of the incarnation of the pre-ex
istent Son. the perfect sinlessness of Christ and
the archetypal character of his humanity all
imply in the origin of Jesus miracle with a
physical no less than a spiritual side. To these
doctrinal requirements the Virgin Birth is the
historical answer.
Professor Orr's sense Of the priori necessity
of the Virgin Birth generally understood
seems TO stand in the way of his offering hospl-
taity to any simpler attempts at explanation.
With his fondness for alternatives, he confronts
his readers with the dilemma that the tradi-
tionaI view of the birth of Jesus is correct or
there is a cloud on Marys name. That this is
not quite the necessity to which we are reduced
DR. Orr himself bears unconscious witness in
the few pages given to the discussion of Parthe-
nogenesis. where he quotes Huxleys remark to
the effect that virgin procreation is among
ordinary phenomena for the naturalist. Given,
in connection with the nativity narratives, Par
thenogenesis the fact the physical side
and the spiritual splendor Of the Galilean, what
more is needed but the deeply religious Hebrew
spirit to account for the form of the narratives
in St Matthew and ST. Luke? Again, however
Professor Orr gives an alternative: the New
Testament accounts either historical state
,oents or deliberate lctions a. If literature had
no forms between rotous hyperbole and cir
cumstantial AFFIDAVIT.
AS we have seen. naturalistic "assailants" of
the dogma of the Virgin Birth are not dealt
with I'm these lectures. By agreement, the au-
thor's constituency is made mp of those who ac-
ing about Christ the general facts Of the
Masters life. including a physical Resurrection.
II will be seen that within the limits so i'm
posed the task is not of heroic proportions for
one to whom the rest of the New Testament
record presents difficulty ought not - feel
insecure on the article of the miraculous Birth
Such inquirers viii find this essay constructive
and sustaining.
Classification is not at an end when natural
istic assaants" have been opposed to the ira
ditionally orthodox. 1t is well for leaders in
religious thought to put on generous mind
toward that large number of sons and daugh-
ters of the Church who with devout instincts
are looking for guidance. But are they likely
to be helped by point of view which. like that