A further implication of the doctrine has been found in St. Paul’s thought of _the Second Adam_ (Rom. v. 12‐21, 1 Cor. xv. 44‐9). In _Dissertations_ (new ed., p. 11), Dr. Gore writes: “What we can maintain, with great boldness, is that St. Paul’s conception of the ‘Second Adam’ postulates His miraculous birth” (cf. Box, _The Virgin Birth of Jesus_, p. 150). In a question of this kind, we must distinguish between what the doctrine of the “Second Adam” may or may not “postulate” in our own minds, and what St. Paul’s thoughts may have been. Certainly he gives us no reason to suppose that the Virgin Birth was in the background of his mind when he wrote Rom. v. 12‐21.(2) There would be as much justification, if not more, for the contrary suggestion. So far as 1 Cor. xv. 44‐9 is concerned—(verse 47 reads: “_The second man is of heaven_”)—the reference is to the Resurrection, not the Incarnation.(3) None of these passages is sufficient to show that St. Paul was acquainted with the Virgin Birth tradition, nor can any others be cited. This fact is the more remarkable when we call to mind the great Pauline passages which bear upon the Incarnation. With the closest scrutiny, not one of them gives us reason to think that the Apostle knew of the Virgin Birth. This is true of the great Christological passage of Phil. ii. 5‐11, and also of the well‐known words of 2 Cor. viii. 9. Most significant in this connexion are Phil. ii. 7 (“_Being made in the likeness of man_”) and Rom. viii. 3 (which speaks of the Son as sent “_in the likeness of sinful flesh_”). These passages are important because they clearly imply a difference between the humanity of Christ and ordinary humanity. This difference—indicated by the word “likeness” (ὁμοίωμα)—is certainly not a difference in mode of origin. Its character is manifest in Rom. viii. 3; it lies in the sinlessness and moral perfection of Jesus.(4) There is no indication that the Apostle is thinking of anything further, and the same is true of Phil. ii. 7. Viewing the passages as a whole, we must conclude that, not only is St. Paul completely silent as to the Virgin Birth, but that he is silent just where his silence is most difficult to understand, if he knew of the tradition. Can we go further, and say that St. Paul did not know of the doctrine? Short of a hard and fast conclusion, we are at liberty to state what would seem to be the probabilities of the case; and as regards these we can have little hesitation. It is reasonable to urge that St. Paul would have phrased his references to the Incarnation somewhat differently, if he had known of the Virgin Birth, and that, on the whole, his words are best explained by presuming his ignorance of the tradition.