i\-Slu4 
 
 '1 /WTr, .• 
 
 14^
 
 THE DIVINITY SCHOOL 
 
 K'S^T) THE 
 
 DIVINITY DEGREES 
 
 OF THE 
 
 ttit)evsit^ of ^u6ftn: 
 
 BY 
 
 CHARLES HENRY HAMILTON WRIGHT, D.D., 
 
 OF TRINITY COLIiEGK, DUBLIX, M.A. OF EXETER COLLEGE, OXFORD, 
 
 PHIL.D. OK THE UXIVEKStTY OF LEIPZIG, INCCMBENT OF ST. MARY's, BELFAST, 
 
 BAilPTOX LECTURER FOR 1878 IX THE UNIVEKSITY OF OXFORD, AKD 
 
 DONNELLAK LECTURER (1880-1) IN THE UNIV. OF DUULIX. 
 
 DUBLIN: 
 HODGES, FOSTER, AND FIGGIS, 
 
 Booksellers to the University. 
 LONDON AND EDINBUEGH : WILLIAMS & NOKGATE. 
 
 1880. 
 Vrice Sicpenciu
 
 BELFAST : 
 
 PRINTED BY AV. AND G. BAIRD. 
 
 AHTUCR STKEET.
 
 P K E F A C E , 
 
 ,The following pamphlet is mainly composed of letters which 
 appeared in the columns of the Irish Ecclesiastical Gazette, in 
 January and February of this year, reprinted with considerable 
 corrections and the addition of notes. No reply was made to 
 any of the letters, altliough it might have been expected that 
 some would have taken the opportunity afforded of urging 
 opinions contrary to those here advocated. 
 
 It is strange that no vigorous effort should have been 
 made to settle the Divinity School question during the years 
 which have elapsed since the disestablishment of the Church 
 of Ireland. It is, perhaps, stranger that the propositions put 
 forward by a considerable number of tlie leading members of 
 the University of Dublin should have been so generally con- 
 demned. For those proposals, though not in all respects 
 satisfactory, offer guarantees not to be despised for the 
 orthodoxy of the future Professors of Divinity, and*securities 
 against men of heterodox views obtaining in future years the 
 control of the Divinity School — securities amply sufficient for 
 this purpose provided the future Bishops are courageous enough 
 to do their duty. The proposals referred to, which without 
 any great difficulty might have served as the basis, at least, 
 of a common agreement, will be found in the notes on pj). 9, 11 , 
 22, 24, and our own suggestions on the subject on p. 22ff. 
 
 It is earnestly to be hoped that this question will be fully 
 discussed in the present session of the General Synod of the 
 Church, and that no rash decision will be arrived at. It is 
 to be regretted that the points of difference have not pre- 
 viously been discussed on both sides in the columns of the pub- 
 lic press. For a large proportion of the members of the 
 General Synodlilo not comprehend the bearings of the question, 
 and may possibly, under the excitement of public debate, como 
 to a decision afterwards to be regretted.
 
 Tlie separation of the Divinity School from the Univer- 
 sity would be a blow far more damaging to the Church of 
 Ireland than the Act of Disestablishment. The loss which 
 would be sustained by such , a separation would be simply 
 irreparable. No Theological College, even if provided 
 with handsome buildings and rich endowments, can ever 
 possess the prestige and advantages belonging naturally to a 
 Divinity School which is an integral part of a great University. 
 The most strenuous efforts of Churchmen should be directed 
 to the preservation of such a status. It is far better to suffer 
 considerable inconveniences than wantonly to abandon such 
 a position. It is mere " clap- trap " to say that the Evangelical 
 character of our Church is at stake. No doubt we must be 
 prepared to concede to other Churches also the right to 
 found, if they will. Theological Schools of their own in the 
 University. "We cannot, under the altered circumstances of 
 our times, claim for our Church what we refuse to grant to 
 other Churches also. But Theology ought to be retained as 
 a branch of University study in the interest of our common 
 Christianity. Our Divinity students will be no less Evange- 
 lical in their doctrine, while they will be far better fitted 
 intellectually "to contend for the faith once delivered to the 
 saints," by continuing to receive their Theological training 
 in a University School, where they will be obliged to meet 
 men holding opinions totally different from their own, than 
 the same students can possibly be if educated in Theology in 
 some narrow ecclesiastical seminary, from which all heresy 
 is carefully excluded. We do not want our future clergy to be 
 like plants trained up in some spiritual hot-house, unable 
 to withstand the cutting frosts of intellectual scepticism 
 and infidelity which must be encountered in the world outside. 
 
 Belfast, April lo, 1880. 
 
 ^ 
 
 if 
 
 * UIUC . 
 
 \ /
 
 THE DIVINITY SCHOOL 
 
 AND 
 
 THE DIVINITY DEGREES. 
 
 § I. Recent Proposals — Advmitages of a University 
 Divinity School. 
 
 IT is not my intention to examine in detail the recent pro- ^^^^^^^^^^ ^^j. 
 posals put forward by the majority of the Board, with ^ ^^"i,^|J^'^!^ehooi 
 number of the Junior Fellows and Professors of Trinity College, 'luestiou. 
 for the settlement of the question of the Divinity School.* It 
 may be fairly assumed that those proposals were put for- 
 ward on behalf of the University, in order to elicit suggestions 
 from persons in authority in the Church, with the object of 
 discovering some common ground of agreement between the 
 two parties concerned. Such proposals were not put for- 
 ward as representing any definite plan, the details of which 
 were to be insisted on in every particular. It* is, there- 
 fore, unfortunate that while such propositions have been 
 made on behalf of the University so long ago, no corres- 
 ponding proposals have been yet put forward by the 
 Church authorities. The Bishops have, indeed, met and 
 consulted on the matter in private, but the public have 
 
 *Two sets of proposals have been put forward by the majoritj' of 
 the Board with the Junior Fellows and Professors. First— The •• Sugs;es- 
 tions relative to the Divinity School of Trinity College addressed to the 
 members of the General Synod of the Church of Ireland, to the members 
 of the Council, and to the members of the Senate of the Universitj' of 
 Dublin," issued April, 1879. This was countersigned by a number also of 
 the members of the Senate, and received my own signature as generally ap- 
 proving of its contents. It was published, with the signatures, in the Iri><h 
 Times of April 25th, 1879, and in other Dublin newspapers. Secondl!/ — 
 A circular issued to the members of the General Synod, and signed by a 
 BmaUer number of Fellows and Professors, which appeared in the Daily 
 Express of Nov. 24th, 1879. This latter circular is that alluded to above. 
 The proposal alluded to in the second paragraph above is to be found in 
 this "Circular." It was not contained in tlie earlier " Suggestions." 
 The gentlemen whose names are appended to the last signed also the earlier 
 document, and in both cases expressed only their general agreement with 
 the recommendations put forward.
 
 6 
 
 not been informed what course they have decided to recom- 
 mend. It would have been well, if a counter scheme is to be 
 presented to the General Synod of the Church, that the 
 public should have been acquainted with it before the meeting 
 of that Assembly. The full bearings of any scheme can 
 scarcely be understood sufficiently in the heat of public debate. 
 One must hope that some reasonable compromise, satisfac- 
 tory both to the Church and the University, may be arrived 
 at ; and that the proposals made on behalf of the University — 
 proposals which may, indeed, require modifications, but which 
 can easily be made the basis of a reasonable arrangement — 
 will not simply be met by an ecclesiastical " non possumiis.'' 
 Objections made Que of the propositions put forward by the Fellows and 
 
 against such ■•• ^ ^ ^ "^ 
 
 proposals. Professors is that the Church authorities should endeavour to 
 raise " an amount equal or nearly equal to the sum now ex- 
 pended on the Divinity School by Trinity College, to be 
 appropriated to the purposes of the Divinity School, such as 
 the institution of additional professorships, &c.," required for 
 that School. But it has been objected in limine to this proposal, 
 that if the Church Body had any such sum in hands, or could 
 raise such without serious difficulty, the Church would be able 
 at^'once to found a Divinity School of its own, and would not 
 seek to obtain terms from Trinity College. 
 
 Reply to This objection, which has been seriously made, shows an 
 
 utter want of comprehension of the vast importance of the 
 connection of the Divinity School with the University. It is 
 not the present endowments of that School which are of so 
 much importance to the Church as the status which the Church 
 possesses at present, by virtue of its Divinity School forming 
 an integral part of a distinguished University. The retention 
 
 The great Qf that Status is of more advantage to the Church (even were 
 
 importance of _ , 
 
 the present ^11 the endowments connected with it swept away) than the pos- 
 
 StatllS Oi the -, ^T^^ i ■ ■, /-V n n • T /• n 
 
 Divinity School, session of a well-endowed Theological College, deprived oiall 
 connection with the University. Money can be obtained by a 
 little effort, but such a status once lost can never be regained. 
 Inferiority of a A new Theological College would altogether lack the 
 
 Theological prestige belonging to the Divinity School of the University. 
 prestS^e^and ^'^'^^h. a College would have no connection with the past. It 
 ^ack^f^higher -^Quld be simply more or less like the English Theological
 
 Colleges, as St. Aidan's, St. Bees', or Cuddesdon. Its profes- 
 sors and lecturers would have simply the duty of preparing, 
 as rapidly as possible, young men for holy orders. They 
 would naturally have little to do with the teaching of Theo- 
 logy as a science. They would be certain to succeed best by 
 maldng up their students carefully in a very limited course of 
 Divinity. The longer such a course could be adhered to, and 
 the more carefully it was gone over, the better fitted would 
 the teachers of the College become as "grinders" for the 
 Episcopal Examinations. The tutors and lecturers of such 
 a College would, for the most part, seek to impart to their 
 students only a general knowledge of the subject, and be com- 
 pelled to eschew all minute investigations in any special 
 department of the field of Theological Science. 
 
 The Divinity School of T.C.D., in consequence of its Advantages of a 
 
 . . University 
 
 being a University School, has often attracted to the service schoui 
 of the Church many a man who entered the Universit}^ with- recruiting 
 out any intention of devoting himself to the sacred ministry, niiuistiy.^^ 
 and even with the distinct intention of entering some other 
 profession. Not a few University students have also passed 
 through the Divinity School, and benefited by its stJlidies, who 
 have afterwards entered upon various secular professions. A 
 Theological College unconnected with the University would 
 lose all such University students ; and, although the Church 
 3Jiiglit, indeed, require all students in its Theological College 
 to pass through the Arts' course in the University, it is 
 exceedingly doubtful that such a regulation could long be 
 maintained, while its Divinity School would not merely lose 
 prestige by being deprived of its University status, but the 
 Church would lose her most important field from which to 
 recruit the ranks of the clergy. 
 
 The Divinity students in the University exercise in many The importanc* 
 
 . ,, 1 . ,. Ti T- • • of a Divinity 
 
 cases an important mnuence on their fellow u mversity school in tiie 
 students studying for other professions. The Professors of 
 the Divinity School, as long as they continue to be Professors 
 of the University, must needs be better acquainted with the 
 varying currents of scientific thought than any tutors in a 
 Theological College can possibly be. Such Divinity Pro-
 
 8 
 
 fessors, if men of recognised scholarship, are naturally looked 
 up to by University students as authorities on the subjects 
 which they teach, and their very presence in the Univer- 
 sity as recognised advocates of Christianity is in itself of 
 great importance in retarding the advance of scepticism among 
 the students. Such Professors, if men of genial manners and 
 Christian earnestness, are able not only to secure a respectful 
 hearing from men of science, but occupy also a most favour- 
 able position for true evangelistic labours among the students. 
 I repeat my statement, which w^as most stupidly carped at 
 Kot merely a and misrepresented by the Church Advocate, that " a Univer- 
 f©r clergy." sity Divinity School is not designed only for the professional 
 education of clergymen." There are many departments of 
 theological science which can only properly be cultivated at 
 the University, and the cultivation of which is important 
 from a University standpoint, independently of the interest 
 w^hich such studies must ever possess for the professed theo- 
 logian. The study of Hebrew is notably one of these. 
 
 Importance of Strongly, howcver, as I maintain the importance of the 
 
 Sviuity (School, preservation of the Divinity School as a part of the University 
 on almost any of those conditions which have as yet been 
 proposed by the FelloAvs and Professors, I cannot but think 
 that considerable reforms are needed in the system which has 
 been pursued in our Divinity School ever since its formation 
 as one of the professional schools of the University. The 
 Divinity School, notwithstanding all its defects, has done 
 good service, but it is capable, even with its present revenues, 
 of doing far more than it has j^et accomplished. The 
 present is the most suitable opportunity for discussing the 
 reforms needed in our Divinity School System, for when the 
 Divinity School question is once settled in any way whatever, 
 the dogged conservatism which at present so characterises 
 our Church is likely to be a serious hindrance in the way of 
 introducing any reforms, however slight they may be. 
 
 Tiie opening of It will not be necessary now to urge the necessity of 
 
 ciiairs to ° removing those restrictions whereby the Theological Profes- 
 in general. sorships liavc heretofore been confined to Fellows or ex- 
 Fellows of Trinity College, inasmuch as it has been conceded
 
 9 
 
 on all sides that sucli restrictions ought to be removed, 
 though nothing has vet been done to open such chairs to 
 more general competition.* 
 
 §2. Divinity Lectures — Suggested Reforms as to Sub- Lecturers 
 
 and their Lectures. 
 
 Accordine: to the rei^ulations at present in force in the Present 
 
 ° ^ IT T • 1 • regulations as to 
 
 Divinity School of the University of Dublin, students m their Divinity 
 
 111- Lectures. 
 
 junior Divinity year have to attend each term the prelections 
 of Archbishop King's Lecturer, which are delivered on two 
 days of each week at eleven o'clock, and the lectures of one 
 of his five Assistants on the same day, at one o'clock. In the 
 senior year the students attend the lectures of the Kegius 
 Professor, which are also delivered on two days each week 
 during term, and the classes of some one of his four Assistants. 
 Students have no power of selecting their own sub-lecturer, 
 but are assigned to the several Assistants according to a fixed 
 plan. The Assistants to Archbishop King's Lecturer lecture 
 during two terms on those portions of the Greek Testament 
 appointed for the examinations in the junior year,,andfor one 
 term on Pearson on the Creed. The Assistants to the Eegius 
 Professor similarly lecture for one term on the assigned por- 
 tions of the Greek Testament, and for the other terms of the 
 year on Browne, or Burnet on the Thirty-yine Articles. These 
 lectures are catechetical, and the students have to prepare a 
 certain portion every day, in which they are examined, and 
 are liable to lose their lectures if insufficiently prepared. 
 
 * The Fellows and Professors express themselves thus in their Circular 
 to the members of the Synod : — 
 
 "It is premised that as, according to the probabilities of human 
 life, the Board of Trinity College will, for the next 25 or 30 years, be 
 mainly a clerical body — and for many years afterwards will be mainly or 
 altogether composed of members of the Church of Ireland— there is no 
 sufhcient reason why the present management of the Divinity School 
 might not be left undisturbed till the necessity for a change arrives — if it 
 ever shall arrive. Nothing new is needed except — (1). To open the 
 Divinity professorships, now limited to Fellows and ex-Fellows, to 
 Clerical Graduates of the Church of Ireland; and (^.). To secure, by 
 proper authority, the amount now expended on the Divinity School to 
 the uses of maintaining a Theological Faculty and a Divinity School in 
 Trinity College. Upon the expediency of these two points ail are 
 agreed."
 
 10 
 
 Evils of present According to tliis system, Divinity students are treated 
 exactly as school- boys, while the Assistant- Lecturers have, 
 year by year, to go over the same unvarying course. Each 
 Assistant-Lecturer has but a small number of the Divinity 
 students for each year in attendance on his lectures, and in 
 the general examinations is obliged to confine himself to points 
 with which all students ought to be acquainted. It would be 
 manifestly unfair to examine the students generally on any 
 subjects not contained in the ordinary text-books. The 
 Assistant-Lecturers have, therefore, little to stimulate them 
 to impart information of a higher kind, and too often confine 
 themselves to teaching simply what is contained in the text- 
 books in common use. There have been Lecturers who 
 have sought to attain a higher ideal, and such may even now 
 exist among the present staff of Divinity sub-lecturers. But 
 it is notorious that a student generally learns little more from 
 the lectures of the Assistant than could be acquired by the 
 most ordinary reading. It is, moreover, a fact, that private 
 ''grinders" in Theology make up their students far more 
 thoroughly in the special business assigned for the various 
 examinations than the ordinary Assistant-Lecturers. 
 
 Divinity '""■ — ^^^ order to remedy this state of things, students in Divi- 
 
 have power^t?^ nity ouglit to be permitted to select for themselves the lec- 
 SubSecturera ^^^^'^rs they might deem most profitable. Men might, indeed, 
 in such a case occasionally select as their lecturer one who hap- 
 pened to sympathize with their own particular theological 
 party. This would, however, be a matter of small importance, 
 for students will generally select for themselves those lec- 
 turers who are most fitted to teach, and who take the greatest 
 interest in their welfare. 
 PrivateTeachers It would be uscful to appoint private teachers of standing 
 be made and ability in the University to the honorary position of 
 
 University Lecturers m Theology. Students wdio preferred 
 to attend the classes of such teachers might be permitted to 
 keep their Divinity terms by such attendance. For if Divinity 
 students find it to their advantage to pay extra money for 
 private tuition in theology, and if the ability of the private 
 teacher has been tested again and again by the success of his 
 pupils, why should not the Church and University recognise
 
 11 
 
 ■siicli a teacher? Of course it would be imclesimble that any 
 such Lecturer should act as an Exammer in theology, but he 
 ought to be willingly accorded a privileged University status. 
 A first-rate Divinity " grinder," like Rev. Canon M'Donogh, 
 ought to be thus rewarded for his services. 
 
 As all Divinity students have to pass several examina- students should 
 tions in a carefully selected theological course (which secures to attend other*' 
 a general acquaintance with the elements oftheology), students ouiie'^''''" ^' "^^^ 
 might, with advantage, be permitted to absent themselves Lectui^s hi* 
 from attendance on the lectures of the Assistant-Lecturers, ^^""*-^'- 
 provided they kept their terms by diligent attendance on the 
 lectures of any two other Professors in the Theological School, 
 such as those in Biblical Greek and Ecclesiastical History. 
 Comparatively few students now attend the lectures of these 
 Professors unless such as attend with the intention of com- 
 peting for the prizes offered in those departments. But the 
 lectures of University Professors are certainly not designed 
 merely to facilitate the preparation of a few students who may 
 work to obtain prizes. They ought to be made more generally 
 useful. The lectures in Hebrew and Moral Philosophy ought 
 to be permitted to count as theological lectures, although the 
 Professors in those departments are not noAV reckcmed as be- 
 longing to the Divinity School. 
 
 This would encourage the better class of Divinity students Advantii-e of 
 to take up special studies in subjects connected with theology 
 while passing their ordinary Divinity course. Such an 
 arrangement would permit the number of Assistant-Lecturers 
 to be considerably reduced, and the money thus saved would 
 be available for the purpose of founding additional chairs in be^foiuideu ^^ 
 Divinity, such as those two suggested by the Fellows and 
 Professors, namely — Pastoral Theology and Biblical Exe- 
 gesis.* I w^ould, indeed, prefer to see the Assistant- Lecturer- 
 
 * The Circular of the Fellows and Professors thus suggests : — 
 "Let the provision be made, on the part of the Church of Ireland, 
 either by means of a grant from the Church Surplus, if such can be 
 obtained, or by a special collection, of an amount equal, or nearl}^ equal, 
 to the sum now expended on the Divinity School by Trinity College ; 
 this fund to be placed and remain in the keeping of the Representative 
 Church Body, and to be appropriated to the purposes of the Divinitv 
 School — such as the institution of additional professorships and of 
 exhibitions and pri/es. The foundation, for example, of professorships 
 of Pastoral Theology and of Biblical Exegesis would be a valuable addi-
 
 12 
 
 Sub-lecturers 
 ought to be 
 made assistant 
 Professors. 
 
 " Liberty of 
 hearing and 
 liberty of 
 teaching." 
 
 Xeed of increase 
 of the staff of 
 Divinity School. 
 
 yliips abolished and additional Professorsliips in Theology 
 founded in their room. I The multiplication of several Pro- 
 fessorships in the same subject in the Divinity School (and, 
 indeed, in the University) would be of great importance. Ifc 
 would secure a greater variety in teaching, and would secure 
 a larger body of qualified teachers. Liberty ought to be 
 accorded to the Professors of teaching any subject connected 
 with their department, without being obliged (as in many 
 cases they are) to submit their subjects for the approval even 
 of such a respectable body as the Board of Trinity College. 
 University students will always regard a Professor with greater 
 respect than a mere Sub-lecturer. The Sub-lecturers in 
 past times were looked up to because they were necessarily 
 Fellows of Trinity College. It would be of importance for 
 the future success of the Divinity School of the Church of 
 Ireland in the University to secure for its students, as far as 
 possible, the "liberty of learning," and to grant its Professors 
 the •' liberty of teaching," both of which have been so highly 
 prized and so practically useful in the Universities of Germany. 
 The Divinity School will require a larger staff in the 
 future than in the past. Let it not be forgotten that with all 
 its usefulness in the past that School has produced very, few 
 theologians. If new chairs are founded, it is to be hoped that 
 no attempt will be made to compel the Divinity students in 
 general to attend a much larger number of lectures than they 
 have at present. Some men will be greatly benefited 
 by attendance on lectures on Pastoral Theology, but all 
 students ought not to be compelled to attend such lectures. 
 The Theological Professors ought to exist for the benefit of 
 the Church at large, and not merely for the purpose of 
 " coaching" or " grinding" men wiio in most cases are only 
 beginning their theological studies. The Professors of the 
 
 tion to the staff of the Divinity School. Similar professorships exist in 
 the well-equipped schools at the English Universities ; and the establish- 
 ment of additional theological eihibitions and scholarships would be of 
 great importance to the piosperity of the School. Some of the existing 
 professorships also rcquiie an increased endowment." 
 
 t In 1869 (according to the Return presented to the House of Com- 
 mons, and ordered to be piintcd 31st July, 1874) the sum of £545 was 
 paid to eleven Assistant Lecturers ; £560 was paid in 1870 to twelve such 
 Assistants; in 1871 and in 1872 there were only rine such, with £460 
 divided among them. There are at present nine sub-Lecturers,
 
 13 
 
 future ought not merely to be teachers, but also writers, 
 teachmg, lecturing, and studjdng for the Church at large. It 
 is to be desired that many of these Professors will be men The great neei 
 who will not stand aloof from the students, but seek to have ^^ "^® s«-hooi. 
 fi-ee intercourse with them. It is Utopian to expect the rich 
 endowments in Dublin which exist in Oxford and Cambridge. 
 But enthusiastic teaching is not always to be found in the 
 occupants of highly endowed chairs. To prevent stagnation 
 in the future all attempts to keep up a monopoly in teaching 
 ought to be opposed. Several Professors are needed in almost 
 every department. It is not necessary that all should have 
 equal salaries. One Professor will often supply what is lacking 
 in the teaching of another. Let a diligent student be accorded 
 the liberty of indulging his peculiar tastes for studies of 
 one kind or another, without all men being forced into the 
 same groove. Above all, let us seek to attract students to 
 the Divinity School, not by the multiplication of "Exhibi- 
 tions" or " Scholarships," of which we have almost enough, 
 or by increasing the number of small prizes of the value of 
 £4: or £5, but by providing a number of Professors really 
 enthusiastic in their teaching — men in love with the studies 
 they profess, and, though competently paid, not 'teaching 
 simply for the sake of the emoluments connected with their 
 respective chairs. 
 
 §3. The Umrersity ProfessorshijJS nf Hebrm-. 
 
 It is of considerable importance in connection with the The 
 Divinity School question that the present position of the oiHebSw. '^^ 
 Hebrew chair in the University of Dublin should be rightly 
 understood. In the Vnivcrsity Calendar ior 1S2>^, and for years 
 afterwards, that chair was known as Erasmus Smith's Pro- 
 fessorship of Oriental Languages, the chair having been en- 
 dowed by the will of Erasmus Smith in 1724. When Dr. 
 Todd succeeded to the Professorship on the resignation of Dr. 
 Wall, he took the title of Erasmus Smith's Professor of
 
 14 
 
 The Kegius 
 Professorship. 
 
 Statute which 
 I'efei's to the 
 Kejjius Chair, 
 
 Title of Regius 
 3'x'ofessor 
 assumed 
 without due 
 formalities. 
 
 Hebrew. Dr. Todd, who was always desirous that the Uni- 
 Vfe^'sity of DubHn should possess something of that prestige 
 whivh has ever attached itself to the Universities of Oxford 
 and Cimbridge, desired to have the chair known as the Begins 
 Professorship of Hebrew, to which title, perhaps, the Profes- 
 sorship was entitled, as having been named in the charter of 
 Charles I. (Car. 13, § xv.) But as that designation might have 
 been questioned, because it had not been given to any previous 
 occupant of the chair. Dr. Todd got a clause inserted in the 
 Statute of 18th Victoria (1855), by which power was distinctly 
 given to the Provost and Senior Fellows to elect a Begins Pro- 
 fessor of Hebrew from among the Fellows of Trinity College. 
 The chair of Greek which is spoken of in the same Statute, to- 
 gether with the Professorship of Hebrew, had been raised to 
 the rank of a Begins Professorship by the Boyal Statute of 
 1761. The latter Professorship w^as for a long time, however, 
 a mere annual appointment. But this was changed after the 
 Statute of 1855. 
 
 The clause in the revised Statutes which treats of these 
 Professorships is as follows: — " Volumus et statuimus ut 
 semper in futurum eligantur e Sociis a Praeposito, vel eo 
 absente Yice-praeposito, et majore parte Sociorum seniorum. 
 Professor Begins Lingua Hebraicas. Et potestatem concedimus 
 Prgeposito et majori parti Sociorum seniorum, dictis profes- 
 soribus salaria assignandi, a Visitatoribus Collegii approbanda, 
 atque durationem officii et munera eorundem definiendi." 
 
 In accordance with this Statute, "a decree" of the 
 Board was issued in the same year (1855), by which the duties 
 of the Begins Professor of Greek were duly defined, and a 
 suitable salary assigned to that office. No such "decree" 
 Avas issued with regard to the Begins Professorship of Hebrew, 
 but Dr. Todd (no doubt with the approval of the Board, of 
 which he was a distinguished member) at once assumed the 
 title of Begins Professor of Hebrew, to which he considered 
 he was entitled, and the title was given to him in all the 
 I^niversity Calendars from that date, which are, it is also to 
 be presumed, issued under the authority of the Board. Dr. 
 Todd died in August, 1869, and Dr. George Longfield was 
 appointed in October of the same year as Begins Professor,
 
 15 
 
 and bore that designation in all University documents and in 
 all the University Calendars iq^ to his death in November, 
 1B78.- 
 
 The right of nomination to the Begins Professorship of night of 
 Hebrew had meantime been transferred, in the course oftheiiegius 
 legislation, from the Board to the Academic Council. For the Hebrew 
 University Tests' Act was passed in 1873. The re-construc- to thVcinxncii. 
 tion of the governing body of the University, left unaccom- 
 plished by that Act, was effected by the Boyal Letters Patent 
 of 1874, the Queen's Letter having been previously discussed 
 and approved by the Senate of the University. By those 
 Letters Patent the Academic Council was called into existence, 
 and obtained the right to nominate '* to all Professorships, 
 except those the nomination to which is vested in some other 
 body or persons by Act of Parliament, or by the direction of 
 private founders, and except also the following Professorships 
 in the School of Divinity, that is to say the Begins Professor- 
 ship of Divinity, Archbishop King's Lectureship in Divinit}', 
 and the Professorship of Biblical Greek." By this clause the 
 Council obtained the right to nominate to the Begins Profes- 
 sorship of HebreAV in 1878 on the lamented demise of Dr. 
 Longfield. • 
 
 Bat on due examina,tion into the subject several points Difficulties in 
 became clear. (1) That by the Statute of 1855 only a Fellow exerdsLg^ the 
 of Trinity College could be nominated to the Begins Profes- "°^^*" 
 sorship. This restriction might, had it been the only diffi- 
 culty in the case, have been easily removed by a Queen's 
 Letter, had the University authorities thought fit to apply for 
 such, and the Crown to grant their pipplication. (2) But a 
 much graver difficulty presented itself. The lawyers consulted 
 on the question gave it as their opinion that there was really 
 no Begins Professorship of Hebrew in existence in the Univer- 
 sity, no *' decree" of the Board having been issued distinctly 
 founding such a chair in accordance with the charter of 1855, 
 and no salary having been assigned to such an office, nor its 
 duties stated. The salary assigned by Erasmus Smith's will smith's 
 could only be lawfully paid to a Fellow of Trinity College, be^a fciioav. 
 
 * This title was also given to Dr. Longfield in the Eeturns of the 
 Revenue of Trinity College, &c., made to the House of Commons, and 
 l^rinted in July, 1874.
 
 IG 
 
 The action of 
 the Board of 
 T.C.D. 
 
 No Regius 
 jProfessor of 
 Hebrew in the 
 University. 
 
 Want of 
 Eudowraeut. 
 
 Endowment of 
 Erasmus Smith' 
 Chair. 
 
 nominated by the Board of Trinity College. Nothing 
 less than the authority of an Act of Parliament could 
 enable any other person than a Fellow to be appointed 
 to the chair endowed by the Board of Erasmus Smith. 
 In consequence of these difficulties the Board considered 
 it better to postpone for the present all action as to the 
 endowment or regular creation of the Eegius Professorship, 
 and the Council had accordingly no opportunity to exercise 
 their right of nomination. The Board were, therefore, obliged 
 to nominate a Fellow to the Governors of Erasmus Smith's 
 Schools, in accordance with the uniform practice, and Rev. 
 Dr. Carson, S.F. T.C.D , was appointed in 1878 to the '' Pro- 
 fessorship of Hebrew endowed by the Board of Erasmus Smith," 
 and on his resignation in 1879, theEev. T. K Abbott, Fellow 
 of Trinity College, and Professor of Biblical Greek, a very 
 competent scholar, was similarly appointed Professor of 
 Hebrew. 
 
 There is, therefore, at present no Eegius Professor of 
 Hebrew in the University. The chair, it appears, must be 
 first called into existence by a regular "decree," and a salary 
 must be assigned to it, and even if this were done to-morrow 
 no one except a Fellow of Trinity College could be appointed 
 to the office, unless a new Queen's Letter were obtained re- 
 pealing the regulation to this effect in the Eoyal Statute of 
 1855. The Board was naturally unwilling, under the exist- 
 ing circumstances, to assign a salary, even had the funds of 
 the University warranted such a step ; and if such a chair is 
 to belong to the Church it cannot be endowed from the public 
 funds of the University, but must be endowed by private 
 liberality. This state of things with reference to a Eegius 
 Professorship is not creditable to the University of Dublin, in 
 which, to use the language of the Statute of 1855, there 
 ** ought always to exist a Eegius Professorship of the Hebrew 
 language." 
 
 The present Professorship of Hebrew, to which Professor 
 Abbott has been appointed, is only endowed by the Board of 
 Erasmus Smith with the small salary of £60 per annum. It 
 is currently reported, I know not with what truth, that the 
 emoluments of the chair are generally raised to £100 by a
 
 17 
 
 grant from the College funds. The Professorship of Hebrew ^^^^^ "«* 
 
 . . ° , ^ necessarily 
 
 IS not necessarily connected with the School of Divinity, and connected with 
 
 /. 1 x^• • •. 1 • • -. . 1 r. ^Divinity School. 
 
 IS not one of the Divmity chairs mentioned m the Statute of 
 1874. It must, however, be observed, that the Professorship 
 of Ecclesiastical History, which is unquestionably a Divinity 
 Professorship, is not named in that Statute, which does not 
 propose to give a full list of the chairs in connection with the 
 Divinity School. The nomination to both these chairs is 
 practically vested " by the directions of founders" in the 
 Board of Trinity College. 
 
 It is important that the Church and the public should be 
 put in possession of these facts, which require careful consi- 
 deration. Private liberalitv is much needed at the present ,^i:ivate 
 
 liberality 
 
 time for the proper endowment of the chair of Hebrew as well needed, 
 as of other chairs. It is discreditable to the Church and to 
 Irish Protestantism in general that so little has been done for 
 University education by private liberality. 
 
 It would be well, too, that it should be distinctly remem. Erasmus smith's 
 bered that the Erasmus Smith's Professorship must needs be necessarily 
 filled b}' a Eellow of Trinity College to the exclusion of any Fellows, 
 other candidate until such time as the existing state of things 
 has been altered by Act of Parliament. 
 
 Besides the Erasmus Smith's Professorship of Hebrew LecturersWps in 
 there is in the University an Erasmus Smith's Lecturership in 
 Hebrew, which used to be an annual appointment, but has 
 been made a permanent office, with a salary of £60 per 
 annum. There are also two Assistant Lecturers, each 
 paid £50 per annum from the funds of Trinity College. 
 Whether the Erasmus Smith's Lecturership is tenable by any 
 person not a Fellow of Trinity College, I know not ; the As- 
 sistants need not necessarily be Fellows, though they have 
 always hitherto been selected from the Fellows.* But what 
 scholar of merit would offer his services to the University in 
 such a subordinate capacity at such a salary ? The case 
 
 * In 1869 there were, according to the Returns ah-eady referred to, 
 three Assistant Lecturers in Hebrew, among whom £100 was divided ; in 
 1870 and 1871, £133 12s Od was divided among the same number. In 
 1872 there were only two, with £100 between them ; and in 1873 three 
 such Sub-Lecturers with £133 12s Od. To which must be added £')0 an- 
 nually paid to the Erasmus Smith's Lecturer, and £00 paid to the llegiu^i 
 Professor of Hebrew.
 
 18 
 
 would, perhaps, be different if such Assistantships were made 
 Professorships Extraordinary, as they would be in Germany, 
 and if the holders of such posts possessed some of that 
 ** liberty of teaching" referred to in my last letter as 
 always enjoj^ed by German Professors. At present these Assis- 
 tant Lecturers are doomed, year by year, to go over the same 
 circumscribed course and no other ; which system, I maintain, 
 is the surest method of destroying utterly any spark of origi- 
 nality, and almost of interest, in a University teacher, and 
 which has in the past proved a most effective means of dis- 
 couraging original study. 
 
 § 4 Hebrew Lectures mid Proposed Reforms. 
 
 j>yt{es of The work assigned to the Professor of Hebrew under 
 
 Heifrew and present regulations is to lecture on Isaiah to the senior class 
 his Assistant?, q^^qq ^ -yyeek during term, that class being composed of 
 students who have entered on their third year of Hebrew 
 study, to preside and assist at all the examinations in 
 Hebrew (including the Fellowship exam.), and to deliver 
 "public prelections from time to time, as required by the 
 rules of Erasmus Smith's Board" (Dub. Univ. Calendar for 
 1880, p. 67). Until very recently the rule was that these 
 prelections were to be delivered once a week during term, 
 and Dr. Todd used to lecture every Saturday, and Dr. Long- 
 field every Monday. It would consequently appear that these 
 public prelections have not been so frequent since Dr. Long- 
 field's death, probably ow^irg to the fact that the gentlemen 
 who have performed the duty since that time have not had 
 the necessary leisure required for such work. Erasuius 
 Smith's Lecturer has once a vreek to lecture the middle class, 
 composed of the second year's students, in selected portions of 
 the Psalms, the selection made being modified only at rare 
 intervals, and to take part at the annual examinations of the 
 middle and junior classes. The two Assistants lecture on 
 Hebrew grammar, and on small portions of the Book of 
 Genesis and of 1 and 2 Kings. 
 
 When studying in the University I attended as a "fresh- 
 man" Dr. Todd's public prelections for three terms. The
 
 19 
 
 annual " Primate's Hebrew Prizes," as tliej' were then termed, 
 were open only to students of higher standing, consequently Prelections of 
 I had at a later period to attend the Professor's pubHc uSfom'in^pTst 
 lectures again in due course, and I also attended many of *'"^^''^' 
 those prelections for a third year. To my surprise the Pro- 
 fessor delivered the same lectures year after year without 
 variation. This is, unfortunately, too common a practice, 
 which wherever it occurs ought to be condemned. One result 
 of it is that a Professor's lectures possess a peculiar interest 
 for the first few years after his entrance upon the duties of 
 his chair, but are afterwards generally regarded without 
 enthusiasm on the part of the students, as they know full well 
 that the lectures they have to attend have been often before 
 delivered by the Professor. Abstracts of such prelections, 
 moreover, often circulate among the students, and find their 
 way into the hands of the private " grinders," who are thus 
 enabled to prepare their pupils for the regular examinations. 
 
 If a Professor considers his prelections of such importance 
 that they ought to be delivered to his class year after 3'ear, 
 and if those prelections have been so carefully elaborated as 
 to require no substantial change, it would conduce bgth to the 
 credit of the University and to the benefit of the students that 
 the Professor should publish such lectures, and put his book 
 into the course required for examination. Many valuable 
 works of German scholars have originated in this very wsiy. 
 But no German Professor would work hard to make up a set 
 of prelections, and afterwards be satisfied with delivering them 
 year by year without alteration. No set of lectures ought to prelections 
 be read by any Professor for more than five years successively, cufnit^i' ''"^ 
 if so often, even though his class may be entirely composed 
 of different auditors ; nor in an age of so much intellectual 
 activity in linguistic and theological research of all kinds, 
 is a Professor justified in keeping to the same unvary- 
 ing course for a decade of years. In the case of oral 
 lectures, the case may be something different. But even 
 under such circumstances a change is generally needed to 
 keep up the interest of the teacher. The system I refer to 
 has a tendency to make even good Professors indolent after ^^^^^ ^^ present 
 a few years, when they have nothing further to do than to read
 
 20 
 
 their old lectures over and over again. Dr. M*Neece, who was 
 Archbishop King's Lecturer from 1842 to 1862, was a striking 
 illustration of the truth of this statement. Dr. Todd, formerly 
 Kegius Professor of Hebrew and Senior Fellow, was an orna- 
 ment of the University of Dublin, and a busy man — a scholar 
 of eminence in several departments. His labours in ancient 
 Irish are well known, and will ever be valued ; but as Eegius 
 Professor of Hebrew he was most indifferent. His public pre- 
 lections had a certain value, but were always the same, and 
 they gave no indication of having been brought up to the latest 
 results of scholarship. One learned very little even from his 
 lectures on *' Isaiah" to the senior class — less than could have 
 been acquired by a study of Eosenmuller's Scholia and Heng- 
 stenberg Christology, which were then the favourite books on 
 the subject. Though a voluminous author on other subjects, 
 and for fifteen years Professor of Hebrew, Dr. Todd left nothing 
 behind him to show his interest in Hebrew studies. There 
 was a marked contrast in this respect between his lectures 
 and the lectures on Arabic, Syriac, and Chaldee, &c., delivered 
 l)y Professor Dr. William Wright (then Professor of Arabic in 
 Dublin, now Fellow of Queens' College, Cambridge, and Pro- 
 fessor of Arabic in that University), or even between Dr. 
 Todd's lectures and the lectures of Dr. Eudolph Siegfried, at 
 that time Professor of Sanskrit in the University. Both the 
 latter Professors lectured after the German fashion, and had, 
 consequently, enthusiastic students in their classes. 
 
 difficulty of a These remarks are no real digression from the subject. 
 
 F.T.C.D. being . . . '-' •' 
 
 an efficient It is hard for a Fellow of Trinity College, actively engaged in 
 the multifarious and heavy work connected with that position, 
 which is no sinecure in Dublin, to be a really efficient Pro- 
 fessor of Hebrew. If that Professor had merely to perform 
 the duties assigned in the University Calendar, he could do so 
 with comparative ease. Much more, however, ought to be 
 done by a University Professor of Hebrew. It is, however, 
 impossible to do much more under existing circumstances. 
 Dr. Longfield several times regretted, in conversation with me, 
 that he could not devote himself to the studies of his chair. 
 At present a Professor and three Assistants are actually em- 
 ployed in performing duties which, if confined to what is set
 
 21 
 
 forth in the University Calendar, might be more effectively 
 performed by half the number of individuals, if only they had 
 no other work to perform. The united salaries, however, of 
 the Professor and his Assistants only reach the sum of £220 — 
 a sum inadequate to pay a single Professor a suitable salary. 
 [See Note page 17.] If, however, these Assistant Lecturer- Ass-gtant 
 ships were transformed into Professorships Extraordinary, and ouoKrhe^'* 
 filled by men entirely devoted to such studies, a far larger p""j*g*;'jj.g^^^ ^ 
 number of lectures could be delivered on a greater variety of extniuidmary. 
 subjects, and much more would be done. The value of such 
 lectures ought not to be estimated by the number of students 
 attending them, but by the number of those stirred up to take 
 a real interest in such studies. 
 
 If it should ultimately be found impracticable to open the ^.^.^^^".^ ^;^^^^^ 
 Erasmus Smith's Professorship of Hebrew to general compe- 
 tition, it might be advisable to do awaj- with these Assistant 
 Lecturerships (if they could not be modified as suggested) and 
 with the money saved found a second chair of Hebrew. At 
 present, Hebrew grammar is not studied as it ought to be. study of 
 Students seldom do more than obtain a very superficial know- Granimar. 
 ledge of the smaller grammar of Gesenius, while they ought 
 in the course of the Professor's lectures to be encouraged to 
 study the English works on Hebrew grammar of Driver and 
 Kalisch, and the German works of Ewald (now to be had in 
 an English dress), Bottcher, 01shausen,Delitzsch, and others. 
 
 The Church in general needs to be aroused to the impor- NewProfessoia 
 tance of ^Dromoting the study of Old Testament criticism — BlbikLi ""^ 
 only men acquainted with such studies can be expected to ^**^*^^'^'*- 
 stem the progress of intellectual infidehty. This subject alone 
 would give full scope to the energies of a Professor. It would 
 be a great mistake for one Professor to be required to lecture 
 both on the Old and New Testaments. Yet, I fear, this is 
 contemplated in the proposition already made to erect a 
 single chair of Bibhcal Exegesis in the Divinity School. 
 
 The Church of Ireland ought to have a Professor ofAcimich 
 Hebrew of her own in connection with the Divinity School of HeifSw!' "' 
 the University. If such a post is to be filled by a succession 
 of competent men, a fitting salary must be secured. The great 
 object of such a chair ought to be to raise up students really
 
 '>,♦). 
 
 Renl object of 
 
 Professors' 
 
 Leeturea, 
 
 Advantage of 
 Reforms. 
 
 interested in Hebrew studies, and not merely studying for 
 prizes. Prizes and scholarships ought to be stimulants to 
 study, but not the objects solely aimed at. 
 
 Our Divinity students need to be aroused to set about 
 their work as men, and not as schoolboys. The object of the 
 Professors' lectures ought not to be to "spoon-feed" idle 
 men, only desirous of acquiring a minimum of knowledge, but 
 to stimulate real research. In his lectures a Professor ought 
 to show a student how to prosecute such researches. By 
 this system a higher class of students would be drawn to the 
 Professorial lectures. By permitting Divinity students to 
 choose their o\Yn lecturers in any special subject, and by 
 allowing them to obtain credit for their terms by attendance 
 on such lectures, with a due attendance on the prelections of 
 the Kegius Professor of Divinity and Archbishop King's 
 Lecturer, every man could obtain that instruction which he 
 severally might desire. Men who needed more individual 
 teaching would naturally attend the lectures of some Assistant 
 Professor, or of some private teacher recognised as a Univer- 
 sity Lecturer. The School of Divinity would thus become 
 a real place of study, and the due acquaintance of all its 
 students with the general outlines of theology would be tested 
 by their answering, as at present, at the numerous examina- 
 tions. It ought, however, to be presumed that professional 
 students really mean to study, and not to shirk study, as 
 schoolboys are wont to do. 
 
 The Divinity 
 School yueation. 
 
 § 5. Projjosed Settlement of the Divinity School Question. 
 
 Although I do not at all purpose to enter into any 
 special examination of the plan for the settlement of the 
 Divinity School question put forward by a majority of the 
 Fellows and Professors of the University, which possesses 
 certain merits of its own,* I may be permitted to ob- 
 
 * The first portion of that proposal will^be found in Note, p. 11. The 
 remaining portion may well be quoted here. 
 
 " Such provision having been made, let the government of the 
 School be vested in the Board of Trinity College, and an Episcopal 
 Committee acting as a separate body, composed of the two Archbishops 
 and of such Bishops as might be selected for that purpose by the Bishops
 
 ^23 
 
 serve that a simpler arranorement could easily be devised, J^^^'■^''^ ^-^^ 
 were it not that the Church authorities have been unduly 
 alarmed b}^ their dread of the Divinity School becoming a 
 centre of heretical teaching instead of retaining its position as 
 a place of sound theological learning. 
 
 Notwithstanding the speeches made in the meeting of the ^o danger to be 
 General Synod held last year, and the recent Charges of some fjom the Board 
 of the Bishops, especially those of the Bishop of Meath and the future" ' "^ 
 Bishop of Cork, no real practical danger could possibly accrue 
 to the Church of Ireland if the nomination to the present 
 Professorships and Lecturerships in the Divinity School was 
 left in the hands of the Board of Trinity College. For it must 
 be borne in mind that no member of that Board has ever pro- 
 posed that the Board of Trinity College should continue to 
 retain the same exclusive right in the Divinity School which 
 it has at present. On the contrary, it has been proposed that 
 if in process of time any person not belonging to the 
 
 of the Church of Ireland. All proceedings connected with the Divinity 
 School to require the assent of the Board and of the Episcopal Com- 
 mittee, each body to have equally the power to initiate proposals of 
 change and reform. The Professors and Lecturers — as regards the Pro- 
 fessors, &c., now existing and paid out of the funds of Trinity College — 
 to be nominated by the Board; as regards those to be hereafter esjiablished, 
 and which are to be paid by the Eepresentative Church Body — the nomi- 
 nation to rest with the Episcopal Committee. The nomination in each 
 case to require the assent of the other body. In case the two bodies should 
 not come to an agreement, the decision to rest either with the Chancellor 
 of the University, or such other referee as may be agreed upon. 
 Questions connected with charges of heterodoxy to be tried hy the 
 two Archbishops, with a legal assessor. The reasons are at present 
 omitted, as they have been treated of in another paper [namely, 
 the " Suggestions " referred to in Note, p. 5 j , why it is essential that the 
 Academical element should be fully represented in the government of the 
 Divinity School of Trinity College ; and it is only necessary to observe 
 that the above proposal places the two bodies — supposed to be contriba- 
 tories — on an equal footing ; and that Trinity College, while not aban- 
 doning its own proijer position, is ready to admit, on the conditions 
 stated, the representatives of the Church of Ireland to an equal share in 
 the control and management of the Divinity School. There would be 
 also the advantage of securing large additional means for the work of 
 theological education ; and should this proposal be adopted, the time 
 may reasonably be looked for, as near at hand, when — with a wider de- 
 velopment and a more extended sphere of usefulness — the School may 
 become— the Divinity School of Trinity College and of the Church of 
 Ire'and," The following note is added at the end : — 
 
 " If, at any time, there shall be a member of the Board who 
 shall not be a member of the Church of Ireland, his place to be filled, 
 for the purposes of the government and management of the Divinity 
 School, by the Fellow next in seniority who shall be a member of the said 
 Church.'^
 
 24 
 
 Guarantees to 
 be taken for 
 the future. 
 
 Propos^jd 
 Divinity 
 Council. 
 Its powera. 
 
 Church of Ireland should obtain a seat on the Board of 
 Trinity College in case of any election of a Theological Pro- 
 fessor or Lecturer, a Fellow in holy orders of the Church of 
 Ireland, next in seniority, is to supply the place of any 
 Senior Fellow belonging to any other religious denomi- 
 nation. It has been further proposed that the Bench of 
 Bishops should be granted a veto on all such appointments, 
 subject to an appeal to the Chancellor of the University. As, 
 however, it is quite possible that the office of Chancellor of 
 the University may at some future time be filled by some 
 person unfriendly to the Church, it would be better in case of 
 any dead-lock between the Board of Trinity College and the 
 Bishops of the Church that the appeal should lie to the 
 Council which must necessarily be appointed for the special 
 management of the Divinity School.* 
 
 A Divinity Council could easily be appointed on a plan 
 similar to that on which the Academic Council is now elected. 
 Such a body ought to have power to re- arrange the distribu- 
 tion of the money at x^resent spent by Trinity College on the 
 Divinity School. The right ought, moreover, to be conceded to 
 this Council of founding new Professorships in the School of 
 Divinity, with the approval of the Board of Trinity College, 
 such Professorships to be regarded as Professorships in the 
 University. 
 
 *The following is the proposals on this head contained in the " Sugges- 
 tions" of April, 18G9 [See Note p, 5J — "Let the authority of Parliament 
 be at once obtained for allocating the sum — say of £2,867 16s Od — now ex- 
 pended in connection with the Divinity School, to the purposes of main- 
 taining a Theological Faculty in the University of Dublin, and a Divinity 
 School therem. The government of the Divinity School to be vested in 
 the Provost and Senior Fellows, so long as they shall all be members of 
 the Church of Ireland. If, at any time, there shall be a member of the 
 Board who shall not be a member of the Church of Ireland, his place 
 shall be filled for the purposes of the government and management of 
 the Divinity School by the Fellow next in seniority, who shall be a 
 member of the said Church. This Board, as heretofore, to have all the 
 powers in regard to the Divinity School now possessed by the Provost , 
 and Senior Fellows, with this exception, that all the proceedings, of 
 whatever sort, in connection with the Divinity School, shall require the 
 sanction of a Committee, composed of the Archbishops of Armagh and 
 Dublin, and of three Bishops, to be chosen under the authority of the 
 General Synod of the Church of Ireland. This Committee also to have 
 the power of initiating any measure of reform connected with the Divinity 
 School. In the case of a disagreement between the Board of Trinity 
 College and the Episcopal Committee, the decision to rest with the Chan- 
 cellor of the University."
 
 25 
 
 This Divinity Council mioht fairly consist of fifteen mem- To be a 
 
 •^ o .y ^ Kepresentative 
 
 bars, four representatives chosen by the Board of Trinity Body. 
 College, and the Fellows in holy orders, three nominated by 
 the Bishops, three by the Professors and Lecturers connected 
 with the Divinity School of the Church, and four by the 
 General S3aiod. The Provost of Trinity College should be 
 an e.v-officio member. These fifteen representatives should be a body aiieiAo^ 
 required to be (1) members of the University Senate, and (2) ^^ m^^si 3. 
 members of the Church of Ireland, not under the censure of 
 the Ecclesiastical Courts of that Church. They might 
 be elected for three or five years, but should be em- 
 powered to hold office until their successors were duly 
 appointed, and that appointment notified regularly to the 
 Board of Trinity College. 
 
 Such a Divinity Council might be fairly trusted to uphold 
 the interests of the Church on the one hand, and of the 
 University on the other. It would not be a body alien to the coucessious 
 
 •^ • • i-1 1 "^v^nich might bo 
 
 University. To such a Council the Board of Trinity College made to such a 
 
 . . T . . . ^ 1 . Counci], 
 
 might, without loss of dignity, concede the right 01 making 
 all arrangements with regard to the catechetical instruction 
 given to those University students who are memb^-s of the 
 Church of Ireland, and might also hand over to that Council 
 the management of the present College Chapel, the para- 
 mount rights of Fellows of Trinity College in holy orders 
 of the Church being duly preserved — so long as they taught 
 nothing contrary to the doctrines and practices of the 
 Church. 
 
 The Professors and Lecturers connected with the Divinity Professo-s. 
 
 •^ Lectu -ers, and 
 
 School, and the clerical Fellows of Trinity College (so iav Jeiv^vs quoad 
 
 ' 1 t'^eu" clerical 
 
 forth as their clerical position is concerned) should, after the status to be 
 
 ' 111 subjected to 
 
 vested ridits of the present Professors and Lecturers had been the ordinavy 
 duly preserved, be subjected in all questions affecting ortlio- Tribunals, 
 doxy of doctrine to the ordinary ecclesiastical tribunals of 
 the Church of Ireland, No action, however, for heresy provision to be 
 against any such Professor, Lecturer, or Fellow of Trinity unnecessary 
 College should be entertained without the express consent ^^"^^^"*'^"'^' 
 both of two-thirds of the Bishops and of the Divinity Council. 
 Such a proviso would be a guarantee against all unnecessary 
 prosecutions, while it would not shield a Professor whose 
 
 D
 
 m 
 
 Divinity Council 
 ought to have 
 right of 
 
 dispensing with 
 services of 
 present 
 Sub-Lecturers, 
 their financial 
 rights beii'g 
 secured. 
 
 Readjustment 
 of present 
 salaries. 
 
 What might be 
 chiimed fioiu 
 Government. 
 
 opinions were really opposed to the doctrines of the Church 
 from a proper prosecution in the ordinary manner. 
 
 It would greatly facilitate a satisfactory settlement of the 
 Divinity School if the Divinity Council were, furthermore, to 
 be permitted to dispense, if thought desirable, with the ser- 
 vices of any of the present Assistant Lecturers, provided 
 that due and proper compensation was made. It is well 
 knoAvn that one, at least, of the present Assistants is sus- 
 pected of holding views opposed to the doctrines of the 
 Church, and though it would be highly undesirable to permit 
 any person to be condemned on suspicion without fair 
 and open trial, yet, if it were possible to remove a sus- 
 pected individual from the Divinity School without doing 
 any injury to either his pecuniary or personal status, that 
 removal would be of advantage in order to secure the full 
 confidence of the public in the teaching given in the School. 
 
 If the present status of the Divinity School as an inte- 
 gral part of the University were preserved intact, its Pro- 
 fessors continuing to remain Professors of the University, and 
 entitled as such to use the University lecture-rooms and 
 examination halls, the Divinity School might possibly be 
 maintained in a state of tolerable efficiency, even with the 
 sum of money at present spent upon it by the Board of 
 Trinity College. If the present state of the Divinity School 
 is to be improved a larger income is imperatively required. 
 The readjustment of the salaries of its Professors would, also, 
 on the expiration of the present vested rights, be one of 
 the most important duties devolving on the Divinity Council. 
 
 It is quite hopeless to expect that any Government will 
 give for the purposes of the Divinity School a grant of £300,000 
 from the Surplus Fund of the Irish Church. It is equally 
 hopeless to look for £100,000. Some of the rights for the 
 loss of which such compensation is claimed were surrendered 
 voluntarily by the University itself in giving its support to Mr. 
 Fawcett's Act in 1873. The Church of Ireland did not send 
 in any protest against that Act. No doubt the action of the 
 Church and University in supporting that Bill in Parliament 
 was in great part owing to the pledges given by the leaders of 
 the Liberal party in reference to the Divinity School. The Con-
 
 27 
 
 servative party was always looked upon as friendly to the 
 Church's claims. But it has done nothing for the Church while 
 in office ; and what can be expected fi'om the Liberals now 
 coming into power? The Church may fairly seek some 
 compensation for the surrender of the exclusive rights she 
 once possessed in the Fellowships and Scholarships of Trinity 
 College ; and if she w^ere to ask, along with the retention 
 of the present status of the Divinity School in its connection 
 with the University, for a grant of some £30,000 or £40,000, 
 in order to found additional Chairs, and for other purposes 
 connected with the Divinity School, such a moderate request 
 would probably be conceded even by the Liberal party. 
 
 With the most earnest desire to secure for the future 
 sound evangelical teaching in the Divinity School of the 
 University, I still strongly advocate, from a Church stand- 
 point, the advisability of the Church authorities coming to a 
 friendly understanding with the Board of Trinity College on 
 this question without delay. The members of that Board 
 are not unfriendly to the interests of the Church, as 
 some have most unfairly asserted. The relations of the 
 Divinity School with Trinity College ought to be altered as 
 little as possible. It is of the utmost consequence 4hat that 
 School should ever remain an integral part of the Univer- 
 sity, and much, if necessary, should be sacrificed rather than 
 abandon a position which is of vital importance both to the 
 Church and the University. 
 
 § 6 The Divinity Degrees of the University of Dublin, 
 
 The opening of the Divinity Degrees to persons not in no connection 
 holy orders of the Church of Ireland or of the EngHsh Church Kfity Decree 
 has of late been severely censured. It must be, however, scho?r""*^' 
 observed that the Divinity Degrees have no necessary con- 
 nection with the Divinity School. The Divinity School of 
 the University, in its present shape, is a modern creation, and 
 the University has never required its graduates to pass through 
 a course of study in the Divinity School before proceeding to 
 their degrees in Divinity. The only connection which has
 
 28 
 
 The opening of 
 the Theological 
 Degrees. 
 
 Approved of 
 by Divinity 
 School 
 
 Committee of 
 General 8vnod. 
 
 Opening of 
 Degrees 
 advocated for 
 years without 
 protest. 
 
 ever existed between the one and the other is that the exer- 
 cises for the Divinity Degrees must be performed before the 
 Eegius Professor of Divinity, who is considered to be the head 
 of the Divinity SchooL Degrees in Divinity were conferred by 
 the University long before there was any special Divinity 
 School in the University, and the Divinity School might 
 conceivably cease to exist without the rights of the University 
 to confer Theological Degrees being at all interfered with. 
 
 The opening of the Divinity Degrees to all graduates in 
 arts who may think fit to comply with the required regula- 
 tions, without any subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles, is 
 a question to be considered quite apart from that of the 
 Divinity School, and those who heartily approve of this 
 alteration in the University statutes ought not to be suspected 
 of desiring to make the Divinity School a place in which all 
 kinds of opinions may be taught without restraint. 
 
 The Divinity School Committee, appointedby the General 
 Synod of the Church of Ireland, in their report, presented to 
 that Synod in 1874, rightly regarded the question of the Divi- 
 nity Degrees as quite distinct from that of the Divinity School . 
 The report in question even spoke with approval of the very 
 alteration in the University statutes which is now complained 
 of by some. No voice was raised in the General Synod against 
 such a proposal, but the report was accepted without opposi- 
 tion, and apparently with approval. 
 
 The opening of the Theological Degrees was advocated 
 by the writer in 1869 in the columns of the London Times, 
 and afterwards in pamphlets on University Eeform and the 
 Divinity School, published in May, 1873, and in February, 
 1874, previous to the meeting ol the General Synod. At the 
 meeting of the University Senate, in June, 1873, I interro- 
 gated the Board of Trinity College on the subject, and Dr. 
 Carson, in reply, mentioned that the matter was then under 
 consideration by the Board, while the Provost further stated 
 that action Avould, ere long, be taken in the matter. A full 
 report of this meeting appeared in the columns of the Daily 
 Express and in other papers, and attention was drawn to it in 
 leading articles. The subject was again and again brought 
 before the public by letters in the Daily Express, Saunders, 
 Evening Mail, Church Advocate, Irish Ecclesiastical Gazette,
 
 29 
 
 and in the Belfast News-Letter. But not a voice was pub- 
 licly raised against the proposal so recently discovered to be 
 dangerous in its tendency and degrading to the University ! 
 
 Such facts as these, as well as others which shall now"?^*^^^^*. 
 
 . cleuunciation of 
 
 be mentioned, are very awkward facts, which have to be dealt ^^^^ "^'^^"se 
 
 • /. adopted, 
 
 by those who denounce the opemng of these degrees in such 
 vehement language as that employed in the Irish Church 
 Advocate in its leading articles of last October, November, and 
 December. 
 
 The statute of the University by which the opening of ^^"iversity 
 the Theological Degrees became an accomplished fact was passed with due 
 submitted by the Board of Trinity College to the University 
 Senate in June, 1876. It was discussed at considerable 
 length on that occasion, and again in the meetings of November 
 2nd and November 18th, w^hen it was duly considered, and 
 amended, paragraph by paragraph. It finally passed without 
 opposition at the meeting of November 30th of that same 
 year. 
 
 No member of the Senate was ignorant of the fact that Eesuit of the 
 by this Statute of 1876, the theological degrees were opened umieStJod! 
 even to laymen. The statement made by the Church Advocate 
 — that the opening of those degrees to '' the ministers of the 
 Churches of the Eeformation" was "the subject generally 
 discussed in the press at the time," is without any foundation. 
 Dr. Hart, who introduced the measure to the Senate, dis- 
 tinctly stated that the Statute (the main object of which was 
 to render the " exercises" performed for Divinity degrees real 
 tests of merit) would put an end to the subscription to the 
 Thirty- nine Articles, formerly required from all candidates for 
 Divinity degrees. The same point was referred to in the 
 speeches of Mr. (now Professor) Monck, Professor Ingram, 
 Archdeacon Reichel, and others. Dr. Salmon, the Regius 
 Professor of Divinity, distinctly stated that the Divinity de- 
 grees would be open, if the Statute passed, to persons holding 
 very different religious ojoinions. He, however, maintained 
 then (Nov. 2nd, 1876) as strongly as at the meeting of the 
 Senate in June, 1879, that it by no means followed that "he, 
 as Regius Professor, could approve of a thesis ignoring the 
 Christian religion,"
 
 30 
 
 Theological 
 
 Decrees 
 
 not opened to 
 
 Infidels. 
 
 Divinity 
 Students not 
 obliged to 
 subscribe 
 
 tests. 
 
 The Regius 
 Professor sole 
 judge of fitness 
 of candidates. 
 
 It is not, therefore, quite coiTect to say that the Theolo- 
 gical Degrees are open *' to those who may not believe in 
 Christianity." For the fact is that there are limits beyond 
 which no Theological Professor would go in admitting candi- 
 dates. The Professor of Divinity would be fully justified in 
 refusing to admit a person to a degree in theology, who 
 " stated that he believed there was no God," but he would 
 scarcely be justified in inquiring into the particular religious 
 tenets of a candidate whose printed thesis, or book presented 
 as his qualification for the D.D. degree, was in itself satisfac- 
 tory ; nor would the Professor be justified in inquiring into the 
 creed of any individual w^ho passed creditably the examina- 
 tions required for the degree of B.D. It ought to be remem- 
 bered that no Divinity student has ever been obliged to 
 sign the Thirty-nine Articles before receiving his Divinity 
 Testimonium The case is precisely similar with respect 
 to the Theological Degrees at the present moment. There 
 are bounds which no Theological Professor could possibly 
 be expected to pass. The Statute of 1876 has made the 
 Eegius Professor of Divinity absolute judge in all such matters. 
 I still maintain that it would have been better if the Senate 
 had in the Statute in question inserted the w^ords proposed 
 by me, to be added after " coram Professor Regio^" namely 
 " ceterisque Professoribus in Sancta TheologicC' (See p. 18 of my 
 pamphlet on The Divinity School mid its proposed Ueconstruc- 
 tion under Lord Behnore's Bill. Dubhn : Hodges, Foster & 
 Figgis, 1879)."* 
 
 .*I have always maintained that candidates for theological degrees 
 under the new Statute ought not to be permitted to submit dissertations 
 on any subject of Dogmatic Theology as theses for their degree. A Eegiua 
 Professor of Divinity, however liberal-minded he might be, might feel 
 himself unable to accept a thesis in which opinions were maintained 
 which he considered as untrue, and in opposition to his most deeply- 
 cherished convictions. Yet it would be scarcely fair if Dogmatic Theology 
 be retained as a subject, to admit only dissertations on one side of the ques- 
 tion. Hence, the retention of Dogmatic Theology is a mistake, and will in 
 time prove a source of difficulty, unless the Statute be altered. No formally 
 controversial writings on points of doctrine ought to be accepted as such 
 theses. Dissertations on other questions connected with theology may be 
 fairlv examined, and a decision come to as to their merits as contribu- 
 tions to theological literature. Such dissertations ought not to be con- " 
 demned for casual expressions which may be found in them. But, as I 
 have argued above, no Theological Professor could present any person 
 for theological a degree, who. by his denial of the existence of a God, 
 avowed himself a disbeliever in all theology.
 
 31 
 The abolition of tests in the case of the Divinity Dep:rees ^f^'^' ^^^sc of 
 
 „ , . the opeiiiii;? of 
 
 was not proposed by any one because of any leannig, secret tiie Degrees, 
 or avowed, to so-called ** Broad Church" views. It was pro- 
 posed in order to prevent the right of granting Theological 
 Degrees from being taken aAvay from the University. For it 
 is perfectly certain that the Church of Ireland, after her dis- 
 establishment, would not be permitted for any lengthened 
 period to retain the monopoly in the Divinity Degrees which 
 she possessed in the University of Dublin Avhen she was the 
 established Church of the land. And those who advocated the 
 opening of such Degrees to members of all denominations, 
 felt that it was of the utmost importance for religion in general 
 that the study of Theology should not be banished from the 
 University, nor its ancient privilege of conferring Degrees in 
 Divinity be taken away. The course adopted by the Board 
 and the Senate was, therefore, just and proper, and being 
 just was wise. 
 
 Moreover, the University Tests Act of 1873, while ex- These Degrees 
 empting all " offices" in the Divinity School from its operation, lyAct of^S? 
 defines the term " office" in its second section in such a way 
 as to exempt the Degrees in Theology. Hence, since that 
 Act received the Royal assent, no candidate for Divinity subscription to 
 Degrees has been compelled to subscribe the Thirty- nine Sticfes^"^ 
 Articles, as such a subscription was considered to be in oppo- sS^^s^i 
 sition to the provisions of that Act. The Degrees in Theology 
 were, therefore, legally open to members of other denomina- 
 tions, before the University Statute of 1876 was passed by the 
 Senate. The Regula, enacted by the University under the "^^^^ Reguioe 
 
 .,......,. "^ alone modified 
 
 authority oi its charters, alone stood m the way of Noncoii- ^y statute 
 formists being admitted to such distinctions. These " Fiegulce'' 
 were modified by the Statute of 1876, and brought into con- 
 formity with the altered state of the law. The practice of 
 delivering the Latin sermons required by these ''Begulce'' in the 
 College Chapel had been put an end to some years before 1876, 
 and such sermons were usually read before the Regius Professor 
 in the Divinity School. It was by an extension of this usage a Methodist 
 to the English sermons that Rev. William Applebe, LL.D.,adST 
 Theological Tutor in the Methodist College, Belfast, was per- *''^"^" 
 mitted (after the passing of the Statute of 1876) to deliver
 
 both Ills Latin and English discourses in the Divinity School, 
 and so to qualify for the degree of B.D., to which he was 
 admitted in 1878. 
 poctors in It has, liowever, been recently maintained that the Act of 
 
 Divmity hold "^ 
 
 no office in 1873 did not really affect the Divinity Degrees, because ' * eveiy 
 Doctor of Divinity is by his title a Professor of Divinity," and Pro- 
 fessors in Divinity are specially exempted from the operation of 
 ■^ ! that Act. This argument is based on the fact that in the old 
 
 style a D.D. was designated in Latin not only S.T.D. ( Sanctm 
 Theol. Doctor), but also S.T.P. (Sancta Thcol. Professor). 
 But the argument is more ingenious than profound. For it 
 
 i may be rejoined that Doctors in Divinity as such have never 
 
 been considered to hold any " office" in the Divinity School, 
 in the teaching or in the examinations of which they are not 
 permitted to take any part, unless elected to some definite 
 ''office" in that school. The degrees in theology are also 
 referred to in the Act of 1873, and in close connection with 
 
 ' the definition of an " office" found in that Act. They are 
 
 alluded to in such a way as to shew that they were not viewed 
 as " offices" in the Divinity School, although the Act does 
 not enact anj^thing specially concerning them. Furthermore, 
 
 I if the argument in question were sound, it would only affect 
 
 the higher degree of D.'D., and have no reference whatever 
 
 1 to the lower degree of B.D. The point may be a question of 
 
 i interest for lawyers, but until the lawyers have decided that 
 
 the Divinity Degrees are " offices" in the meaning of the Act, 
 
 Wisdom of jt may be safely assumed that it was a wise and prudent course 
 
 course adopted '^ -, t n 
 
 by Board and for the Board and the Senate to assume that that Act 
 necessitated alteration in the Statutes of the University. 
 The result of the new Statute is, that the Degrees in 
 Theology in the Universities of Dublin are open to Gra- 
 duates in Arts of the University, belonging to all denominations, 
 provided they have the common sense to present as their 
 " exercises" for those degrees theses of sufficient merit, and 
 such as do not contravene the doctrines of the Christian 
 religion in such a manner as to oblige the Eegius Professor 
 of Divinity to interpose his veto. 
 
 Senate.
 
 ^^r 
 
 
 %%m''0-'^:^:'^ 
 
 T 
 
 fK-. 
 
 ik&r* 
 
 fti:4ti 
 
 '■■im^ ''m.^^ 
 
 T^-M