Those State Divinity Degrees Again

New Zealand Tablet, Volume XXXIII, Issue 10, 9 March 1905, Page 19

Those State Divinity Degrees Again

The following further commiunieation was forwarded to the l Otago Daily Times ' in reply to two .paragraphs in last Saturday's issue by its contributor ' Civis,' wiUich i were .chiefly made ujp of angry and Milgar personalities against the editor of the ' Taiblet ' .— Sir,— YoVr contributor, 'Civi^' has, T think hy tnis time realised that he ' spoke before he 'was ready ''when he advocated the pioposcd conferring of divinity degrees by the New Zealand State University. He topped overboard Sir Maurice O'Korke's fatuous scheme ami submitted instead a little ' invention ' of his own which was to settle the majtlcr forthwith. Ihs new patent is in its way, a gem of purest ray serene. ' The esisentials of a degree in divinity t ' says he, ' should be, first, an arts' degree, and on the top of that a pass in four subjects, (1) Hebrew, (2) Greek. (3) Bible literature (4) Church history.' ' And thus it turned out that, after all, the good man did not know the meaning of the word ' divinity ' when he propounded his great scheme, which (he assured his readers) was the only one that cauld be got to wprk It was, therefore, necessary to point out to him that Hebrew and Greek are in themselves n 0 more dir.inity than is Hindustani or Cherokee, and that ' one may study much Bible literature and very much Church history without setting fobt in the domain of divinity.' Any smart Sunday school child might not unnaturally be expected to know so much. A great authority has declared that right definition is the first, the second, and the third ' essential ' of right discussion. ' Civis's ' Ludicrous Slip over ' the essentials of a divinity degree ' made it necessary to defi,ne the term 'divinity or theology. Stated in briefest terms, it is • the science of divine things.' The accepted Protestant division of the science of divinity sorts it out into oxegetical, historical, practical, and speculative or dogmatic. This last is, in turn, subdivided into doctrine or teaching regarding God , doctrine concerning man ; doctrine concerning tLe person and work of Christ ; doctrine concerning the persion and work of the Holy Spirit ; the doctrine of salvation ; the doctrine of the ' Church, the Sacraments, and the means of grace ; and the doctrine of the last things. All this is the veriest A. B.C. of the tyro in theology. But it comes as a great surprise to ' Chls.' He now alters his plea, and asserts that all the departments of the vast field of diunity aie 'comprehended in, and may be got out of, Bible literature. If,' die a/Ids, ' the <! Tablet " editor does not get tihem there, where docs he get them *> It is an awkward question, and I forbear to pi ess it. The matter may stanl at that.' Well, your contributor ' got them ' in Ilcbiew an,d Greek. Why does he exclude Sanscrit and Cingalese 7 As for the ' Tablet ' editor, the only thing he thinks ' awkward ' in the matter is the necessity of teaching yoiiT contributor the most elementary arAl ' essential ' notions of a science on which he (' Civis ') presumed to start a discussion ' before he was ready.' The definition of ' divinity ' already supplied to .him reveals at a glbnce itho plain cn:l .simple answer to his 'awkward question.' ' Bible literature ' is an ambiguous term, and no matter which of its possible meanings you place upon it, it does not necessarily include divinity. The Bible itself is a gcand ' fount ' or 'source ' of divinity But it is by no means the only one It is not itself a treatise or -a set of treatises on diMnity. For divinity, as defined above, is a s> ience. Now science (in this connection) is Knowledge co-ordin-ated and systematised — in other words, it is knowledge arranged on a scientific method. And this svstematased form or scientific metnod is precisely what is not to be fCjiinKi in the Bible. Not &o much as one book or chapter of God's Written Word is, or ever was intended to be, a set scientific treatise on any branch of theology. And so ' Civis's ' little ' invention ' resolves itself iiifto a scheme for conferring Divinity Degrees Without Divinity. I am very curious to know bow he is to get up steam in his patent divinity machine. He must begin by ti&dically altering its ' essrtntial ' details so as to get his divinity. You must first catch your hare. When he has succeeded in doing fo I 3hall take the liberty of pressing ulpon him once more the following ' awkward questions,' to which, up to the present, he has refused the courtesy of a reply — 1. On what principle of statecraft could the New Zealand Government arrogate to itself the rigjht of dragging theology within its domain ?

2. Who is to determine what bnand of divinity, and how much or bow UUle thereof, are to be retired for the proposed State divinity degrees ? 3. If the New Zealand Government has (as 'Civis ' contends) the right to indirectly teaqh divinity, o n what principles may it not also directly teach it? 4. If the Government may exercise this alleged right in our highest schools, on what grounds does l nis suppose (as I understand he does) the extension cf the (Sony ?" rXipIC '° UIC Siale prim * ry l * 5. ' Civ is has shown a line contempt for the rights of conscience of minorities in this matter. I a ak him once more : At what numerical percentage do relicious minorities teg*, to enjoy, in New Zealand, this elementary right of conscience-immunity from compulsory contribuitions towards the propaganda of the theology of faiths m which they do not believe ? H have siome further and very ' awkward questions! ' to press upon your contributor. But if he bends his energies to the solution of. the aifficulties already befoie him, he will, I think, have no alpace left to fling at me any more of those angry and irrelevant insinuations of lying amd hypocrisy which furnish sjuoh a pitiful evidence of the vulgar temptations to which a face -Yo X rs Se< t a ~ maS k * lpOn his n . . ' ' EDITOR, ' N.Z. TABLET.' O tan tan, March 6.