FACT AND THEOEY
563
)f tlie religious life of man. This dues <a\vay \\'itli I
truth caiiie tu them. The questiuu, tiieielure, really resolves itself into that of the trustworthiness of Christ and His Apostles as teachers of doctrine. The evidence for their trustworthiness is just the
I evidence for Christianity as a suiiernatui-al relij,'ion,
which, of course, takes \js t.ir lnvdinl thr limits i,f : this article (cf. Warhelil, .nt. ■■'l\<- i;.,il rn.l,l<.m
I of Inspiration' in P;r.5'. "//(/ 7,'./'. /,■■(■. i\. ].. 177 f.).
But if we accept their autlionty (i- w i\". rr,liiiL;' it on the above mentioned evideiiiri. ili.n ('lnisii- anity consists in certain great fait^, aii.l in lln' tnir meaningoftho.se facts. The mc^uiin;: <■! :i fai-t is its meaning for a mind. By thiir iiu ■ nir;iiiiiiL;, of course, is meant their meaniiiu i^i '■'•<l. Tliis meaning, therefore. He must autlioi ii.ii i\ ^In make known to us if we are to have any ( In i-l ianiiy.
In the first place, then, to attempt tu hoi. I in tlie great supernatural facts of Christianity .and tu ,L;ive up their nieaniufj-, is not only impossilili', l)ut, were it possible, would result in takiii- Inmi tlie facts just that which makes them Cliiisliau facts, and which makes them constitutiM' of (he essence of Christianity. There has liuun .lu .attempt to dis- tinguish between the facts of Christ's life as the permanent Divine element in Christianity and ' theories ' as relative, human, and changing. This general tendency to separate between fact and theory in Christianity has assumed two forms : on the one hand, it is said that the Bible contains no explanation of the great facts of Christianity ; on the other hand, it is ,admitte<l that the BiVile does contain an explanatimi of tlii> fa.ts ; but. while a special revelation in a siiic- of -u|.ri nal mal a.ts of God is recognized, a spi'rial w .n.l iv\ rialion is denied, and the wIkjIl- iloiliiual lonirnt of Christianity as contained in the BiljJe is reduced practically to human reflexion upon the acts of
In the former position, it is said tliat Christianity consists in facts, not in doctrines. We have in the Bible the fact of Christ, but no theory as to His person. We have the fact of the Atonement, but no theory or doctrine of its meaning.
The Atoneinent mid Modern Rt'li'jious Tlinihilit. I'XH). For ex- ample, Farrar maintains that anv aU'.'iM|>l !m i.xiilaiii tin- nature of the Atonement is a 'futile'en.l..i> i' I.I" .11 i ili.ii. what is written, and to translate the laii-i' . . i,
that of rigid scholasticism.' So also 11. I il on the Atonement in a volume entitle 1 /
1893, says that the NT contains no tliror- -.i M m. in
(Horton has given up this position in his <'ssa\- on the ^:aIn(■ subject in the same volume with Farrar's essay). A similar position seems to have been maintained bv Astie, who is quoted by H. Bois in De la Connaissance Reltiiietise, p. 342 ; ct. War- field, The Rirfht nf Systematic Theolnjij, p. 3n.
In regard to this position we should note, first of all, that 'bare facts,' i.e. meaningless facts, are impossible, for every fact has a meaninfj whether we know it or not. And still further, a 'bare fact ' ere is no atonemen death, and no Chris tianity in the events of His life regarded as ' bare facts.' If we clearly understand that a ' bare fact ' is simply an event in the external world appre- hended by the senses, or a subjective fact of some self-consciousness, then it may be the statement of a ' bare fact' to say that a man called Jesus was born some 1900 years ago, but we are not to say that He was God's Son made flesh for our salvation ; we can say that He died un tlir cross willioiU going beyond ' li.aic fact,' or cNiai ihii ll-<.\|iiv -rd
rtain feelings, but we cannot say so much as that He dicil fur our sin. It i> not iirrc~^ary to salvation tliat \\y slimil.l Know tla' full aial 1 1 iic meaning of (_'liiist's .l.'ath: «■(■ arc iioi s|jcakiijc, however, of
Christi.inil y. Ami tin- lic,^ in the meaning of the great icilmiiii i\ .■ fa. is of ih,. Christian religion, or in till' fai Is li.'.au-i- ..f their meaning. We may conceive sonic- lalse nieaniug of the.se facts, but like all facts they must have some meaning, and their true meaning is their meaning for God. Hence, as was said, if we are to know their true meaning, God must tell it t(j us. If, therefore, we were simply to Iml.l t.i th.i facts uf Christ's life i-onsidcreil as 'hari' fads,' wc .should have taken away from tlicm that whi.-li makes them Christian facts and reilemptive facts. In short, this method of treating the facts of Christianity takes from them all that makes them constitutive of the essence of Christianity.*
We should observe, next, that the modes of statement of all those who hold this position suggest the impossibility of holding to ' bare facts.' They speak constantly of the ' fact of the Atonement.' But this is quite ambiguous. If it means that the atonement is real, then it is a true statement, but a statement which involves a theory or interpreta- tion of the fact of Christ's death as atoning for sin. But, taken as they appear to mean it, the statement involves an error, 'we may speak of the fact of Christ's death, but in this as a ' bare fact ' there is no atonement. As soon as we call it an atonement ^^■e have interpreted it by a theory. So, when P'arrar says it is a 'landmark of the death of C'hrist,' that it is 'not only the declaration, but the ground of pardon,' he has gone a long way toward understanding its meaning, and, according to his position, has made the mistake of ' translat- ing the language of emotion into the rigidity of syllogisms.' And this same ambiguity often at- taches to the language of those who do not hold this position. Thus the late Dr. Dale, in his book on the Atonement, first seeks to establish its fact and secondly its theory. In reality, however, the first part of his book contains more general, and the latter part more specific, statements of the doc- trine or theory. Precisely the same ambiguity i.s .seen in the article 'The Fact of the Atonement,' by K. Mackintosh (Expos. Times, May 1903), who speaks of the ' fact of Christ's death ' and the ' fact of tlie Atonement' as equivalent terms, and again of I he 'fact that Christ died for our sins,' which I a I cment, of course, contains a doctrine. Hut we must observe, finally, that it is not sufti- liciit to show the necessity of an interpretation of the facts of Christianity. The question of an external authority in religious knowledge cannot be evaded by saying that the Bible contains no explanation of these great facts. Whatever may be said as to the authority of Scripture, it is evident that the Bible does contain an inter- pretation of the great facts of Christ's life. And