THEOLOGICAL DEGREES AT OXFORD.
[To THE EDITOR 07 THE " SPECTATOE."] Sin,—Now that the day is approaching on which the new statutes will be voted upon, we wish to be allowed through your columns
to remind members of Convocation of the main grounds on which they have been proposed. The voting will take place on Tuesday, April 29th, in the Sheldonian Theatre, and the debate will begin at two p.m. There are two quite distinct statutes, and it is hoped that voters will carefully distinguish between them and weigh the arguments separately, as they rest on different considerations.
I. The firit statute removes the provision which requires that an Examiner in the Honour School of Theology should be in Priest's Orders in the Church of England. We urge this (a) Because there are already in Oxford lay Churchman and Nonconformists perfectly competent to examine. (6) Because the candidates for the school are not confined to Churchmen, and there is no justice in protecting one set of candidates and not others. The school has become, in fact, only a test of intellectual attain- ment, and, this being so, the value of the original provision is gone. -(c) Because the examiners are appointed by a responsible Committee who can be trusted to nominate men competent in character and ability. (d) Because the high morale of examining, which is thoroughly established in Oxford, is a sufficient pro- tection against any injustice being done to a candidate from the fact that his examiner differs from him in religious opinion.
II. The second statute removes the same provision with regard to candidates for the B.D. and D.D., and makes these degrees a test of intellectual performance only.
They are thrown open to all candidates without any test or denominational qualification, but such candidates must already have taken the M.A. degree. They must have shown proof of such a knowledge of Christian theology as is equivalent to the level of a first or second class in the School of Theology, and their theses have to be certified as reaching a high standard of merit, and in the case of the D.D. as being a serious contributor to thought or learning. We submit that these requirements are a sufficient safeguard against any lighthearted or aggressive treatment of theology.
We urge this change (1) Because it is an act of justice to many M.A.'s who are intellectually quite qualified to take their degrees. (2) Because in the matter of examinations and degrees it is desirable that this University should only take account of intellectual considerations. (3) Because, since the passing of the University Tests Acts, the University has become every year less and less qualified to act as the representative of the Church of England, less and less justified in treating its degrees as ecclesias- tical licences. (4) Because the change will tend to raise the standard for the degrees, and to lead to a keener study of theology which must issue in the long run in the promotion of truth.
Both statutes raise a serious question of policy on which all members of Convocation have a perfect right to form and express an opinion, but we would urge them to weigh carefully the responsibility of overruling the large majorities by which they were passed in Congregation, and we would appeal to all who are willing to support the Statutes to be present and vote, unless they are able to pair beforehand. We would also remind them that the condition introduced by the first statute has been in opera- tion at Cambridge for years, and that that introduced by the second statute has just been accepted there by a very large majority.
The opponents of the statute have recognized that some change is necessary and have suggested either the imposition of a new test or the system of concurrent faculties, but Dr. Selbie's letter to the Times shows how little either scheme meets the needs of the people whose case we are considering.—We are, Sir, &c., HENRY SCOTT HOLLAND, D.D. ; SAMITEL ROLLES DRPTER, D.D.; WILLIAM SANDAY, D_ .D.-, THOMAS Bums STRONG, D.D.; WALTER LOCH, D.D.; ROBERT LAWRENCE OTTLEY, D.D.; EDWARD WILLIAM WATSON, D.D.; GEORG& ALBERT
Previous page
