319 ART. II.-MR. OXENHAM AND THE "DUBLIN REVIEW." The Catholic Doctrine of the Atonement: an Historical Inquiry into its Development. With an Introduction on the Principle of Theological Developments. By HENRY NUTCOMBE OXENHAM, M.A. London: Longman. Letter addressed to the "Tablet" of July 15, 1865. By HENRY NUTCOMBE OXENHAM. E would beg our readers, before they enter on this article, to peruse the notice of Mr. Oxenham's work which appeared in our last number, pp. 265-270. In reference to this notice, Mr. Oxenham has addressed to us the following letter: To the Editor of the DUBLIN REVIEW. SIR,-The notice of my book on the "Catholic Doctrine of the Atonement," which has just appeared in the DUBLIN REVIEW, is, in many respects, so manifestly unfair, that I cannot doubt you will recognise the justice of my claim to point out to your readers the strange mistakes (to use no harsher term) into which my critic has fallen: and this I will do in the fewest words I can. Of the many civil epithets bestowed on me and my book, I shall, of course, say nothing, because that is a matter on which opinions may differ; though I venture to think that most persons who have read the book will question their correctness. But misstatements and misrepresentations are a graver matter. 1. Far the greater part of the notice (three pages out of four and a half) are taken up with a letter from "A Correspondent," combating my assertion that the Lord's Prayer was in use among the Jews. The correspondent, who is scarcely less liberal in polite epithets than the Reviewer, tells us that he has searched in vain through "a tolerably large biblical library" to find any statement so "bold," "extravagant," "ludicrous," &c., as mine. And the Reviewer sums up his correspondent's criticism by saying that "after this exposure it will be impossible for reasonable readers to accept any one statement of Mr. Oxenham's simply on his authority "- —a remark again repeated a page later as to "facts and quotations," though no single instance of mis quotation is even alleged. Will it be believed that all this elaborate "exposure," occupying three-fourths of the entire notice, is based on a purely incidental statement occupying just one line in a volume of 250 pages, which, so far from being made on my own "authority," is part of a passage taken in substance, and almost in words, from a book so familiar to the merest tyro in Catholic theology as Möhler's "Symbolism," the reference to the passage being given at the bottom of the page? The Socinians, according to Möhler, forgot that our Lord had "only sanctioned a form of prayer already in use among the Jews." Whether he was right or wrong I need not stay to discuss; his authority is at least enough to shelter a statement, casually introduced into a passage about the Socinians, and having no bearing whatever on the general structure and argument of my book. 2. My critic proceeds to lay down three propositions about the "fundamental doctrines of Christianity"-viz. (1), the immediate inspiration of the apostles; (2) the adequate teaching of the Ecclesia Docens in every age; (3) the scientific analysis of dogma in the Church: and then gravely asserts that I have either "ignored" or " denied" the two former. I sincerely hope, when he made this monstrous assertion, he had not read my “Introduction on Theological Developments," which he is here professing to criticise; for if he had, the emphatic enunciation of what he accuses me of ignoring or denying must have stared him in the face. I have most carefully discriminated the "divine and human elements" in the process, and included under the former head what I am said to have ignored. I will quote but one passage out of many here, which, as it is given at the beginning as a kind of definition of what I mean by development, it was the less excusable in my critic to have either overlooked or suppressed. "What is meant is simply this-that the Christian revelation once, and once for all, delivered to the saints, through the Incarnation of the Eternal Word, and from the lips of His inspired servants, though fully apprehended from the first for all necessary ends, has grown and was intended to grow, by degrees on the consciousness of the Church, illumined by the abiding presence of the Divine Comforter." It would be difficult to express more distinctly what I am said to ignore or deny the only grounds alleged for the accusation being two short passages, of which one is a simile, the other— though my Reviewer omits to say so-a quotation from a book of Dr. Döllinger's! 3. His next and last attempt at criticism is to take me very severely to task for omitting an examination of the New Testament teaching on the Atonement, without which the whole plan of my work is, he adds, with his habitual courtesy, "simply absurd and unmeaning ;" and he can only account for my "evading" it by my being "dimly conscious of " my "incompetence.” It does not seem to have occurred to him that to have prefaced my treatise by a critical discussion of the New Testament doctrine on the subject-however useful or desirable in itself-would not only have at least doubled the size of the volume, but have materially enlarged its scope, and certainly rendered a change of title necessary. Biblical criticism is one thing, theological development is another. It had certainly occurred to me, before reading this extraordinary comment, that I might perhaps, at some future time, extend my inquiry to this phase of the question also; but it had not occurred to me that a writer, who had just attacked me for ignoring the immediate inspiration of the Apostles, would next attack me for not including in an “inquiry into the development of" a particular doctrine "in the Church" what cannot properly enter into such an inquiry if they were inspired. It is precisely because the New Testament writings do not (except in a much wider sense) form part of the record of theological development in the Church, but are a very main part of the revealed data it is based upon, that they require a totally different treatment from the writings it was my professed object to examine in this volume. If I wished for a still clearer proof of the thoroughly captious tone of this whole notice, I might find it in the concluding sneer at my "impertinence and affectation" for saying that the "Summa" of St. Thomas is ": no mean performance" my critic omitting to observe that I am answering a supposed --and very common-objection to the value of the scholastic theology altogether, and am simply using one of the commonest figures of speech in such cases to denote high commendation! He says he wishes he could "honestly say more in praise of" my volume; perhaps it would at least have been equally honest not to say what he has said in dispraise. I am, Sir, your obedient servant, New University Club, July 10, 1865. HENRY NUTCOMBE OXENHAM. About the same time Mr. Oxenham forwarded another letter to the Tablet newspaper, which we will also insert. To the Editor of the "Tablet." SIR,-You will much oblige me if you can find room in your columns for the following reply to a so-called "Notice" of my book on the "Atonement," which has just appeared in the DUBLIN REVIEW. Of the writer's animus, which is sufficiently conspicuous throughout, I shall, of course, say nothing. Nor is any comment required on his charges of "random and foolish talk," "entire absence of careful, prolonged, and accurate thought," "incompetence," "intellectual poverty," "disgusting pretentiousness," "impertinence and affectation," &c. &c., charges which I am quite content to leave to the judgment of all impartial readers of my book. But nearly all the four pages of the "Notice are occupied with two criticisms, the first founded on one line, the second on four lines of the book; and it is only due to myself to point out how these ingenious criticisms have been arrived at. 1. The first three pages of the "Notice" consist of a letter from some unnamed correspondent, attacking as "scandalous," "bold," "careless," "extravagant," "absurd," "ludicrous," &c., a statement which occurs quite incidentally in my observations on the Socinian view of the Atonement, that the Lord's Prayer "was already in use among the Jews." The anonymous correspondent informs us that he has "been at some pains to search through a tolerably large Biblical library, to discover any so bold a statement which Mr. Oxenham may have unwittingly borrowed, but in vain." And the reviewer sums up his correspondent's letter with the remark, "After this exposure, it will be impossible for reasonable readers to accept any one statement of Mr. Oxenham's, simply on his authority." Very good. But will it be believed, that the statement which the learned correspondent could not discover in his "tolerably large library," and which the cautious and candid reviewer declines to accept "simply on" my authority," is taken almost verbatim from a book familiar to every tyro in Catholic theology, and that 66 the reference is given at the foot of the page! Here is Kingsley on Newman again, as far as honesty is concerned. I subjoin the passage referred to from Möhler's "Symbolism,” vol. ii. p. 336 (Eng. Tr.):—“ And had they (the Socinians) known that the Saviour found this form of prayer already existing, and only strongly recommended it, then their account of the peculiar services of the Envoy of God would have occupied a totally imperceptible space." The authority of one of the first of modern Catholic divines is at least shelter enough for an incidental statement in my book which forms no part of its argument. "After this exposure"-to use my reviewer's language-his correspondent may be left to settle with Möhler, not with me, his charges of "absurdity," "extravagance," &c., while I venture to think that "it will be impossible for reasonable readers to accept any one statement of the reviewer's" himself, "simply on his authority!" 2. Most of the fourth page of the "Notice" is devoted to charging me with "ignoring," or more probably "denying," the "immediate inspiration of the Apostles," and the "adequate teaching" of Christian doctrine by the Church "in every age." As the contrary is obvious to the most casual reader of my book on its very surface, I might have left his gratuitous falsehood to refute itself, but for the proof by which it is supported, where a precisely similar trick is played as in the former instance. The proof consists exclusively of one quotation of three lines, and another of one line. The former is a simile, obvious as soon as it is stated to any one who accepts the theory of development at all; the latter, which is the more important, speaks of the original deposit of "facts, principles, dogmatic germs, and intimations." My critic has again carefully omitted to state that these words are distinctly marked as a quotation, the reference being given at the foot of the page, to one of the best known of Dr. Döllinger's works, "Christhenthum und Kirche in der Zeit der Grundlegung!" He may therefore settle as he pleases with that distinguished prelate and divine the charge of "ignoring" or "denying" the first elements of Christianity and Church History. And now your readers will be in a position to appreciate the intellectual and moral value of a criticism of my book, which deals almost exclusively (where it does not merely consist of calling names) with two passages making five lines in all, and is based in either case on a deliberate perversion of facts. The most charitable hypothesis would be that my reviewer has not read the book. I am sending a duplicate of this letter to the Church Times for the benefit of such Anglicans as may be readers of the DUBLIN REVIEW, And remain, dear Sir, your obedient servant, Ash Grove, Pontypool, July 4, 1865. To these letters our original correspondent makes the following reply: SIR,-You have forwarded to me a letter addressed to you by Mr. Oxenham, purporting to be a reply to the notice of his work which appeared in the DUBLIN REVIEW. In this letter, and in a similar one written to the Tablet newspaper, Mr. Oxenham refers to the letter written by me, which formed a part of that notice, and contained a criticism upon his extraordinary statement regarding the origin of the Lord's Prayer. He bitterly complains of that criticism as unfair and even dishonest. I should be obliged, therefore, if you would allow me briefly to recur to the subject. It is important to observe, that Mr. Oxenham nowhere attempts to dispute the accuracy of my comments, as far as they concern the real point at issuethe authorship of the Pater Noster. He contents himself with ridiculing my remark, that I had failed to discover "in a tolerably large Biblical library any so bold a statement which Mr. Oxenham may have unwittingly borrowed :" seeing that, as he now asserts with an air of triumph, he had indeed actually so borrowed it, "almost verbatim," from Möhler's "Symbolism," and even referred to that well-known work at the foot of the page. I am thereupon defiantly asked "to settle with Möhler," and not with him, my charges of "absurdity," "extravagance," &c. It is well, however, that the question itself at issue should be first of all clearly answered; and as a great deal has been said upon the subject in one way or another by "Sacerdos" in certain letters to the Tablet, writing under the mistaken idea that he is defending Mr. Oxenham's thesis, I will deal with that point first. Was, then, the Pater Noster "already in use among the Jews" before our Lord's time, or was it not? Mr. Oxenham distinctly affirms that it was. It is this statement which I censured as "extravagant" and "absurd,” and no other. It is this question also which is put by "Sacerdos," and his answer to it singularly coincides with my own. He refers to the same authorities, he quotes the very words already given by me in the DUBLIN REVIEW, and finally arrives at substantially a very similar conclusion. He even goes beyond me in stating that "it is nowhere asserted that the Lord's Prayer existed as a form before our Lord." He adds, "Its petitions did and were in use among them (the Jews), and in substance it was well known to them. More than this is not asserted by Möhler, nor any other I am aware of." "Sacerdos" elsewhere admits that he neither read Mr. Oxenham's work, nor the criticism upon it, which he censures. Is it, however, even accurate to say, that the several petitions, of which the prayer is composed, are to be found at least in detached forms among the ancient writings of the Jews? Here again "Sacerdos" will be found apparently to agree with me (although he is on this point somewhat selfcontradictory), and thereby practically to condemn the exaggerations of such an eminent scholar as Wetstein, who affirms that "the whole prayer" may be thus made up. For although "Sacerdos," in the sentence above quoted, states without qualification that "its petitions were in use, and in substance it was well known,”—he had in his first letter more correctly excepted one clause ; a most important exception, and one which cannot fairly be so slurred over. In fact neither "Sacerdos" nor any other writer has been able to produce a single Rabbinical sentence, with the slightest claim to antiquity, which can bear a comparison with that which may be called the most essential and characteristic clause of the Our Father-"Forgive us our trespasses as we forgive them that trespass against us." Until that is done, even supposing |