The Evening Star FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1905.

Evening Star, Issue 12418, 3 February 1905, Page 4

The Evening Star FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 1905.

IVe confess to having been unpleasantly / surprised by the result of Degrees In Sir Ma&rice O’Porke’s mbDirlnltj. tion iii the University Senatd yesterday. j?erhaps Maurice himself was surprised; cerMifcly/ his se<^d^. (PrttfesOor Sahhofld) miwt have been. “Professor Sttihorid, in seconding the iftotionj said that from I h*ha*. ,he- knew; of the temger -o^the

“Senate there was little likelihood of the proposition being carried.” Nevertheless, by a vote of 12 to 9, the Senate resolved that immediate steps should be taken to secure an amendment, of the New Zealand Unversity Act and the charter of the University with a view to the constitution of a faculty of Divinity “on the same stand(<lrV°r o,:>tainiu g' degrees as law and medicine.” It i s a matter for rejoicing that the Senate has no power to carry this reactionary propose! into effect without the authority of Parliament. The Chanoellors opening remarks, to which we drew attention on Tuesday, are not without a significant bearing upon Sir Maurice ORorkes motion. Indeed, we had no idea that they would have so dose a relation io the work of the present session of the Senate. “All of us would deeply regret “to see introduced into this University (( (which has existed more than thirty years as a secular institution) any subject which' would cause- discord in its “management and lead to any sectarian control of its work.” Yet, so far from deeply regretting such a development, the majority of the Senate (it must now be supposed) would regard it with approval We shall probably be told that the projsosal to institute a theological faculty in the University lias nothing in common with the proposal to introduce Bill e-teaching mto the State schools; and the advocacy of Sir Maurice O’Rorke, a Roman Catholic, may be plausibly instanced in proof of the difference. None the less is there a strong family likeness between the two schemes, and the perilous trail of the odium tlieologicum is over them both. According to Professor Salmond, the odium theologicuin is almost dead; would that we could share this pleasant optimism! Even if the Professor were right, however, the quickest way to revive and foster the ancient nuisance would be to graft the subject of theology on to our national CGUcation. The proposal is richly fraught with possibilities—nay, certainties—of fierce controversies. What are to be the standards of the New Zealand theological facility? Theology is not an exact science; is is variable, progressive, fluid; facts and exegesis alike arc matters of eternal dispute. And Sir Maurice O’Rorke, with pious simplicity, thinks that the University could “ lay down a theological course «°f, would be acceptable to all Christian denominations”! Acceptable to Bishop Nevill, Bishop Yerdon, and Dr Watt' Oredat the innocent Sir 'Maurice: non ego. Half the churches would be up in arias against siich a rationalistic faculty os Professor Salmond evidentlv has in his inind.

lb was now agreed, to apply hnmaa reason .impartially and fearlessly to all questions whatsoever, dud it was felt trat religion was comparatively indif-foi-ent to ’riteilectual results. Further a very large number of intelligent persens in ail classes were profoundly interrated in theological problems, such as those of (he Higher Criticism, and the otato ought to place itself in the pcsit on of beirig able to reward the efforts of clergymen arid others who sought to improve themselves. A stimulus of some kind was needed to encourage men to prosecute arduous intellectual work.

We ask Sir Maurice O’Rorke whether the bishops of his Church are likely to encourage their theological students to sit for a degree on the lines laid cldwn by Professor Salmond. Perhaps, however, it is to be ii true blue Protestant degree, arranged (like the Bibte-in-schools proposal) without regard to the claims and desires of the Roman Catholic minority. Yet one wdhld hardly expect Sir Alauric© O’Rorke to promote a sbheme of that kind.

W<f are not greatly alarmed, however. Parliament has to be reckoned with. The people of. New Zealand have to be reckoned with. The thin end of the theological wfedge will hot be irittbdUccd sectetly, silently, and surreptitiously (to use Mr Scobie Mackenzie’s famous phrase). Few people are likely to be hoodwinked by Sir Maurice O’Rorke’s appeal to motives of independence.

The New Zeal tod University might, no doubt, try to shelter itself under the Austfallaii lirllversities, all of which, dreading perhaps the cultivation of religion; Sollchly deriied to theology the encouragement given .to .law and medicine. He thought New Zealand did not wish to be in leading strings, but would strike out ith dcddemic path fof herself and set an example to Sydney or Melbourne Universities by removing the prohibition against giant ing degrees in theology.

There is a true independence and a false, tod Sif Alaiirlcfe recommends the false kihcL It is as though a small boy were to be urged to make a fool of himself just because his eldef brothers Were behaving sensibly. There is no need for the New Zealand University to shelter itself, in the matter of its secularly, behind the Australian Universities. Let its shelter be the law of educational right and expediency. If that law is honored also by the Sydney and Melbourne institdtidns, so much the better; hilt do riot let us go out of our way to “set an example” of reactionary misjudgment. Only the aforesaid small boy—and a very small boy at that—would be influenced by that perverse argument Shout the 'Metoirig strings.”