rn mind inside the Church. Nothing is commoner than to
hear those who dissent from any given construction of the Atonement
plead for a historical as opposed to a dogmatic interpretation of
Christ. It is not always clear what is meant by this distinction, nor
is it clear that those who use it are always conscious of what it would
lead to if it were made absolute. Sometimes a dogmatic interpretation
of the New Testament means an interpretation vitiated by dogmatic
prejudice, an interpretation in which the meaning of the writers is
missed because the mind is blinded by prepossessions of its own: in
this sense a dogmatic interpretation is a thing which no one would
defend. Sometimes, however, a dogmatic interpretation is one which
reveals or discovers in the New Testament truths of eternal and divine
significance, and to discredit such interpretation in the name of the
historical is another matter. The distinction in this case, as has
been already pointed out, is not absolute. It is analogous to the
distinction between fact and theory, or between thing and meaning, or
between efficient cause and final cause. None of these distinctions is
absolute, and no intelligent mind would urge either side in them to the
disparagement of the other. If we are to apprehend the whole reality
presented to us, we must apprehend the theory as well as the fact, the
meaning as well as the thing, the final as well as the efficient cause.
In the subject with which we are dealing, this truth is frequently
ignored. It is assumed, for example, that because Christ was put to
death by His enemies, or because He died in the faithful discharge of
His calling, therefore He did not die, in the sense of the Atonement,
for our sins: the historical causes which brought about His death are
supposed to preclude that interpretation of it according to which it
mediates to us the divine forgiveness. But there is no incompatibility
between the two things. To set aside an interpretation of Christ's
death as dogmatic, on the ground that there is another which is
historical, is like setting aside the idea that a watch is made to
measure time because you know it was made by a watchmaker. It was both
made by a watchmaker and made to measure time. Similarly it may be
quite true both that Christ was crucified and slain by wicked men, and
that He died for our sins. But without entering into the questions
which this raises as to the relation between the wisdom