DEGREES IN DIVINITY.

Evening Star, Issue 18021, 15 July 1922, Page 3

DEGREES IN DIVINITY.

TO THE EDITOE. Sir, —I was pleased to notice your reference to this subject in the issue of July 8. It is good to realise that part, at least, of the public Press is sympathetic with a suggestion which has too often been summarily dismissed as not worthy of serious attention. If it is possible to bring you to recognise that there is no real difficulty in the way of making provision for these degrees, I feel it is worth making the attempt, for your wholehearted advocacy would be a great gain to a cause which, resulting in a better educated ministry, would react in the mental and spiritual outlook of tho whole dominion. Well, then, I havo_ to show that the granting of degrees in divinity can he done without giving rise to sectarian controversy. In the first place I may state that I know of no case where _ such strife has been created. Surely, if the sectarian difficulty is so formidable,_ it ought not to ho difficult to mention cases where it has actuallly arisen. It is not enough to say that there has been no trouble because the universities which grant degrees in divinity are all controlled in the interests of one denomination. That is not true. None of the younger universities come into this category, and many of these grant divinity degrees. In the second place it is relevant to point out the positive concord with which tho whole arrangements are made in entirely undenominational universities. Take the University of London, for instance. It was founded by Nonconformists because they felt that their sons and others were not receiving justice from Oxford and Cambridge. But, although, it bad what might be called a sectarian origin, it threw its doors open even to the denomination against which it felt it had a griev-ance-affiliated to it are Anglican, Congregational, Wesleyan, and other colleges. Tho students of these colleges—“interval” students—-all sit for and receive the same divinity degree, Tho university also confers divinity as well as other degrees on “external” students—i.e., those who have received their training outside of affiliated colleges. Students of all denominations have sat for the same examinations aud received the same degrees. Or, again, there is the Melbourne College of Divinity, formed because the Melbourne University would not grant degrees in divinity. The college is purely an examining body, on the controlling board of which are representatives of all tho denominations except the Roman Catholic. This last church, when approached to join in, stated that it had other sources for its degrees, but made it clear to Parliament that it did not in any way oppose the_ effort to advance ■ learning. The colllogo has been in existence for a number of years now, and it is working as harmoniously to-day as it ever did.

All subjects which are included in the ordinary theological curriculum, with the exception of training, arc also subjects for examination for divinity degrees. This is as it should bo. There is no such things for instance, as a Presbyterian or Anglican theory of the Atonement, or a Roman Catholic one for that matter. The comparatively few doctrines which might make" difficulty can easily be omitted by arrangement dictated either by the university or by the good sense of the examiner. The University of New Zealand could easily grant divinity degrees. After all it is only an examining body also. It is not expected that it should teach the subject required for the degree. A student could get the teaching wherever lie liked. Anyone could sit for tho examination, and so long as he had the necessary knowledge, could gain the degree.—-I am, etc,, Hector Maclean. July 13. [We made clear our opinion that when the difficulties of Bible reading in -schools could ho overcome in ' New Zealand, it would he time enough to consider university degrees in divinity. Ed. E.S.]