SIR ROUNDELL PALMER'S NEW TEST.
SIR ROUNDELL PALMER is one of the ornaments of the House of Commons, and no man in that assembly, as we believe, carries a higher religious spirit into his political life. He has quite recently given the most demonstrative proofs of his own immeasurably higher value for
principle than for political success, and everything therefore that comes from him on the value of true religious influences ought to have credit for a reality of feeling, and a sincerity of purpose, such as the proposals of few other public men
could at once command. Nevertheless, we must express our profound disappointment at the compromise which he has proposed on the University Tests' Bill. He wishes to pass the Bill, to admit Dissenters even to the governing bodies of both Universities, and to leave the Colleges free to regulate the admissions to their own tutorships and fellowships without any Parliamentary tests but one, which he proposes to substitute for that now in use, the declaration of bond fide adhesion to the National Church. And this test, to be made by every professor in either University, and every tutor or lecturer in any college, would run as follows :—" I, A. B., do solemnly and sincerely declare that as Professor of [or lecturer in, or tutor of — as the case may be], and in the discharge of the said office, I will never endeavour, directly or indirectly, to teach or inculcate any opinion opposed to the Divine authority of the Holy Scriptures or to the doctrine or discipline of the Church of England, as by law established." Now, we are well aware that Sir Roundel]. Palmer proposes this compromise in the interests of what he believes to be true religion, but can it be that he has thoroughly considered even the effect on the religious life of the Universities of such a compromise ? We ask him to reconsider his proposal, not on the ordinary and obvious ground that this test would still exclude much teaching ability from the Colleges which the Colleges are bound to utilize,—but exclusively on the ground of the special influence it would exert on the religious life of the young men under education.
In the first place, the proposed prohibition to inculcate any opinion " opposed to the divine authority of the Holy Scriptures " is of very ambiguous and uncertain meaning. It would set an indefinite number of traps and embarrassments for the consciences of numberless hearty believers in revelation. Certainly, it is not a declaration which we hold to be either religious or pious in any sense. It is capable of interpretations which would be very irreligious, if not impious. Suppose the professor of ethics takes it, and has to discuss afterwards, as he probably may do, the ethical obligations a patriot should hold sacred towards his enemies in time of war ; would it not withhold him from saying that Jael, the wife of Heber the Kenite, did a very wicked thing in enticing Sisera into her tent, and hammering a nail through his forehead in his sleep? Would not such an assertion be held by many to be plainly inculcating an opinion " opposed to the divine authority of the Holy Scriptures," since a prophetess blessed her expressly for that action I Suppose a geological professor takes it, and has to discuss the age of the earth, or the question of a universal flood; would it not withhold him from plainly rejecting the latter supposition, if he otherwise saw reason to do so, lest he should be expressing an opinion opposed to the " divine authority " of Genesis ? Suppose the historical professor takes it, and has to examine into Egyptian history, or Hebrew history, or the history of the Church ;—would it not withhold him hero expressing an unbiassed historical opinion on the Shepherd, invasion of Egypt, or the expulsion of the Israelites, or the statistics of the wanderings in the desert, or the relation between the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles of St. Paul ? On any one of these subjects is it possible for a man, to form his judgment freely, without questioning the "divine authority of the Holy Scriptures " ? Is it decent even to propose that he shall fairly weigh both alternatives, but only freely express one of them ? Suppose any such professor arrives at the conclusion that Scripture gives,—as it often does give, —historically inconsistent accounts of certain facts, or morally inconsistent views of certain duties or sins, would not saying so be directly contrary to the engagement Sit Roundell Palmer wishes to impose ? Nay, let us suppose a divinity professor takes the engagement, and has to examine into the authenticity of the book of Daniel or the Epistle of Jude, or the prophetic character of the book of Revelations. Would it not hamper him in stating his final judgment on all these points in any case except that in which he should happen to find them all authentic ? We say without scruple that if Sir Roundell Palmer's declaration be carried, no religions man should undertake any one of these offices, unless he is fortunate enough to have studied all such questions beforehand, and to have made up his mind independently in the orthodox sense on all of them,—a most unlikely supposition. Sir Roundell Palmer proposes a declaration which strikes at the very root of the moral responsibility of the teacher,—which could, in the usual way, only be taken by an unscrupulous teacher, who either did not care what conclusion he arrived at, or was quite indifferent to suppressing it if it turned out to be at issue with the obligation imposed on him by Parliament. The simple fact of the matter is,—as we should have supposed that Sir Roundell Palmer would himself admit,—that "the divine authority of the Holy Scriptures" is a most ambiguous phrase, which may mean anything from their verbal inspiration down to their vast religious value,—but that not one learned man in a hundred, however religious, holds the former, while very much more than the latter is expressed by the words proposed. There is now not a single department of knowledge,—scientific, historical, moral, religious, theological, —on which a mere dictum, however clear, taken at random from any part of the Bible, would be held unanswerable evidence in favour of its truth by the majority, or, indeed, any but a very small minority, of truly religious men. Yet to contradict any one such dictum would unquestionably be inculcating an opinion " opposed to the divine authority of the Holy Scriptures." Why make religious men irreligious by imposing anew on their consciences a burden which neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear ?
Again, not only is it quite certain that you cannot injure the teachers without injuring the learners ; but beyond this• does not Sir Roundell Palmer see that the whole value of a religious education, at least at the age attained by the students of Oxford and Cambridge, depends on the complete and evident freedom of their teachers to express whatever opinions they may think time ? Sir Roundell Palmer evidently regards this proposed test as a mere mode of shutting out teachers of irreligious, or sceptical, or dissenting opinions. But he does not perceive that it would have a far more important influence than this,—that it would shut the mouths of those who had been chosen, and be recognized by their scholars as shutting their mouths,—and so turn religious professions into mere matter-of-course formulas in the view of half their hearers. No more fatal restriction on the religious influence of any man can be imposed than one which commits him beforehand to a particular view. What value could students of physiology attach to anti-Darwinian views propounded by a man who bad signed a declaration that he would never teach Darwin's theory ? What value would students of history attach to the refutation of Mr. Buckle by a professor who had been compelled to disclaim all sympathy with Mr. Buckle before accepting the chair ? Sir Roundell Palmer forgets to allow for The popular feeling of a University when he proposes to shut out scepticism by getting teachers to undertake not to be sceptical. He could not more effectually prejudice the students against such teachers ; — and justly so, since no man with any respect for his special study would take a previous engagement that the conclusions arrived at should never militate against " the divine authority of the Holy Scriptures," or against "the doctrine'of the Church of England." Such an engagement operates, in fact, more dangerously even than it seems to do. It not only makes the
professions of the teacher on many points a matter of course, —a matter of prescribed arrangement,—but it undermines generally the student's faith in the thoroughness of the investigations set before him. He not only knows that, on certain points, but one profession of opinion is open, but he ceases to have confidence in the intellectual method his teacher pursues, in the unshrinking accuracy of his scrutiny, in the obstinate exhaustiveness of his research.
Sir Roundell Palmer, high-minded and religious-minded as he is, seems to us not to have yet apprehended that, in a University at least, where truth is the final aim, any limitation on the absolute freedom of investigation is a discreditable compromise, and a special slur on the truth supposed to be protected. Does he think that faith in Christ and faith in Anglican' divinity would suffer by perfect freedom Then surely at the bottom he entertains doubts as to both,—doubts which a stronger faith would contemptuously repudiate. If Christianity, and the Church of England's view of Christianity, cannot stand the test of being canvassed by dissentients, they are worth little, and ought to be refuted. If they can, they will gain ten times the strength for casting to the winds the "protection " from which they have been suffering. As Mr. Fowler said in his able speech, the only religion which has the smallest pretence of right to a protected life is the Romanism held by the founders of the great majority of the Colleges. Now that we have withdrawn all protection from the religion of the founders, we are bound to trust that force of faith only which can make good its own ground without diplomatic aid. Sir Roundell Palmer's test would be, to our minds, an insult to true religion, and a new incentive to hollow and unworthy intellectual compromise.
Previous page
