of her Son, Luke would naturally have recourse to Mary. There is
evidence in his Gospel that he had intimate knowledge of her private
thoughts and actions.[075] Lange, in his _Life of Jesus_, finds in the
specialties of the narrative evidence of a woman's diction.[076] Be this
as it may, the minuteness of detail, the message of the angel Gabriel,
the preservation of the sacred songs, and of the thoughts and words of
the Virgin, justify the belief that Luke received his information from
herself. When we find him assuring his friend Theophilus that he himself
had perfect understanding of all things from the very first, the
inference is natural that his information was obtained from the most
trustworthy sources. There is no reason to doubt that Mary was
associated with the Apostles of her Son, and had opportunities of
imparting information regarding Him which no other could supply Luke's
account corresponds with that of John, to whose care Jesus from the
Cross committed His mother, and who from that time "took her unto his
own home."[077]

It does not necessarily follow, even if the information was supplied by
Mary, that it is therefore to be accepted as true. Human witnesses are
not infallible or invariably honest, and it is conceivable that Mary may
have been a dreamer or a deceiver. This article of the Creed,
contradicting as it does the ordinary course of nature, stands in need
of more than a historic statement. Jesus admitted that if His claims had
been supported by no other evidence than His own word, the Jews would
have had excuse for hesitating to accept Him. "If," said He, "I bear
witness of myself, my witness is not true,"[078] and therefore He
appealed to the testimony borne to His Messiahship by His Father, by
John the Baptist, by His miracles, and by His life. All the evidence by
which the Divine nature and mission of Jesus were accredited goes to
support the account of His super natural birth.