latter being unbelievable in such a man. Peter, the First
Apostle, makes no mention of the story or doctrine in his
great Epistles, which fact is inconceivable if he knew of
and believed in the legend. The Book of Revelation is
likewise silent upon this doctrine which played so important
a part in the later history of the Church. The great
writings of the New Testament contain no mention of the
story, outside of the brief mention in Matthew and Luke,
alluded to above.

5. There are many verses in the Gospels and Epistles which
go to prove, either that the story was unknown to the
writers, or else not accepted by them. _The genealogies of
Joseph are cited to prove the descent of Jesus from David,
which depends entirely upon the fact of Joseph's actual
parentage. Jesus is repeatedly and freely mentioned as the
son of Joseph._ Paul and the other Apostles hold firmly to
the doctrine of the necessity of the Death of Jesus; his
Rising from the Dead; and his Ascension into Heaven, etc.
But they had nothing to say regarding any necessity for his
Virgin Birth, or the necessity for the acceptance of any
such doctrine--they are absolutely silent on this point,
although they were careful men, omitting no important detail
of doctrine. Paul even speaks of Jesus as "of the seed of
David." (_Rom. 1:3._)

6. The Virgin Birth was not a part of the early traditions
or doctrine of the Church, but was unknown to it. And it is
not referred to in the preaching and teaching of the
Apostles, as may have been seen by reference to the Book of