The study of Theology, an inaugural lecture delivered on June 13, 1918

■^j^^tiSr-

THE

m°. STUDY OF THEOLOGY

AN INAUGURAL LECTURE

DELIVERED ON JUNE 13, 1918

BY THE

REV. A. C. HEADLAM, D.D.

. REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE
UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD

Price One Shilling and Threepence net

OXFORD

AT THE CLARENDON PRESS

1918

Hea

THE

STUDY OF THEOLOGY

AN INAUGURAL LECTURE

DELIVERED ON JUNE 13, 1918

BY THE

REV. A. C. HEADLAM, D.D.

REGIUS PROFESSOR OF DIVINITY IN THE
UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD

LrBRARY

KNOX COLLEGE

TORONTO

OXFORD

AT THE CLARENDON PRESS

1918

OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

LONDON EDINBURGH GLASGOW NEW YORK

TORONTO MELBOURNE CAPE TOWN BOMBAY

HUMPHREY MILFORD

PUBLISHER TO THE UNIVERSITY

THE STUDY OF THEOLOGY

It is a laudable custom that the first act of a new
professor should be the commemoration of his prede-
cessor. On this occasion the task is not difficult. There
have been few more striking personalities in Oxford
during the last fifty years than Henry Scott Holland.
A member of Balliol College, he became a Senior Stu-
dent and Censor of Christ Church ; then, like his master,
Liddon, a Canon of St. Paul's ; and at the end of his life
returned to Christ Church as Canon and Professor. As
a young man he came under two strong influences ;
from Green he learnt philosophy, Liddon gave him his
religious system. He assimilated both with all the
eagerness and enthusiasm of his nature, and harmonized
them into a living creed which dominated his whole life.
For what he said of Liddon was true of himself, that it
was the stability and firmness of his central position
which gave strength and elasticity to his oratory.
Strongly entrenched, his mind played with lightness,
quickness, and vivacity in man}^ directions. The con-
victions were fixed. No effort need be wasted in proving
them. His reasoning powers, his gift of expression, his
vivid imagination, were weapons always ready for use.

As Holland described Liddon, so he would have
himself described. His religion was based on an

4 THE STUDY OF THEOLOGY

unwavering faith, which the spiritual teaching of his
Oxford HegeHanism seemed to justify. From these
sprang his theology, the dominating power of Christian-
ity in his Hfe, his corporate ideal of the Church, his
socialistic sympathies, his political opinions. If the
strength of his religious convictions seemed sometimes
to narrow the circle of his religious influence, it widened
the range of his human interests. It formed, too, his
literary style. He was indifferent to logical proof;
he distrusted it. He did not care for scientific method.
His continuous purpose was to make his hearers realize
a religious experience w^hich seemed so profound as
always to evade expression. A natural eloquence,
a copious vocabulary, an intense enthusiasm, were
devoted not to making others reason as he reasoned,
but to making them feel as he felt, and no language
seemed ever to be adequate. The reality of religious
experience was so tremendous.

This abounding faith created a character which gave
him his title to distinction and affection. His interest
was greater in religion than in theology, in life than
in scholarship, in men than in books, in the world than
in the University. His warm affections, his keen, vivid
intelligence, his human sympathies, made him loved by
a wide circle of friends. He was quick to be attracted
by beauty in nature or art ; a keen musician. He was
generous in his charity, careless of himself, full of
sympathy for the poor. He was more at home as a
speaker than a preacher; his sympathy, his humour,
and his freshness could bring life to a meeting however
dull. His loss has been deeply felt by a wide circle

THE STUDY OF THEOLOGY 5

of friends, and Oxford will be slow to forget a person-
alit}^ of so much attractiveness.

On succeeding to his office, I may hope, perhaps, to
escape the disadvantage of comparison. For whatever
capacity or attainment I may be able to bring to the
service of the University, whatever defects I may
exhibit, I feel that the differences between us are so
great that no one could desire to weigh us one against
the other. The cause of learning and religion, the work
of the Church and the University, demand an infinite
variety of gifts, and with very different temperament,
character, thought, and ideals, I would only claim to
come before you with no less love and affection for
the University of Oxford and the Church of England.

I

The subject on which I would address you to-day
is the study of Theology. I wish to discuss first of all
certain general conditions which are (as I beheve)
essential for a healthy Theology, and then the particular
problems which face us in Oxford.

Theology, if it is not to be a barren study, must be
the interpretation of a deep and simple religious experi-
ence, and judged by this standard we have to confess
that, to a certain extent at any rate, our academic Theology
and the religious teaching of our clergy have been found
wanting in the stress of the present crisis. Our
Theology has been too much concerned with subordinate
questions and too httle with the fundamental facts.
Our minds became absorbed in the history of the

6 THE STUDY OF THEOLOGY

ministry, or the dislocation of the canon, or the Chalce-
donian Christology, and we have forgotten to speak and
think of the being and nature of God, of Hfe and death
and judgement. The clergy of the Church of England,
it has been complained, show an incapacity to talk
on religious subjects as if they had themselves a real
religious experience. In popular language they have
appeared to be 'unconverted'. Their minds have been
filled, not with the central facts of religion, but with
the things of the circumference. Interest in the details
of worship, or current controversy, or ecclesiastical
business, have prevented them from being conscious
of their failure in deeper things. Yet what avail all
the subordinate concerns of religion if the fundamental
faith be obscured ?

There was another defect which particularly affected
popular religion. Religion had become confused with
the conception of material progress which was the
creed of the Victorian era, the belief that under the
influence of education and material civilization sin
and suffering and war might be eliminated. In fact
we had begun to think that sin had no real existence.
Our destiny was to be happy, and the world would
speedily become a home of human happiness. Chris-
tianity was identified in many minds with the shallow
contemporary political thought, and when the break-down
came the disillusionment was terrible. People thought
that God had failed.

An ancient period of history presents a somewhat
close parallel. The wisdom of Jesus the son of Sirach
depicts for us Jerusalem under the beneficent rule

THE STUDY OF THEOLOGY 7

of the Ptolemies. Under the aegis of a sympathetic
government, of commercial prosperity, and an estabhshed
religion enjojang the good things of the world, it was
easy to develop a complacent philosophy of life : that
happiness was the reward of righteousness, that the
man who lived uprightly and piously, obeyed the law,
fulfilled his religious duties, could, since the law and
religion regulated society, count on a prosperous career.
A well-to-do member of the religious aristocracy of
the time might quite well hold such a creed. And
then came the terrible days of Antiochus Epiphanes.
When the penalty of true religion was death, when
the Jewish pacifist, who was willing to submit to
any worldly servitude if he might only practise his
religion in peace, found that even for him there was
no safety, when death or apostasy were the only
alternatives, all this complacent philosophy of the
scribe was washed away. A true instinct began to
realize that the heroism of the patriot and sufferings
of the martyrs had earned for man the conviction of
immortality. But theology failed. The wild phantasies
of Apocalyptic literature could not satisfy men's reason,
and it was not until Jesus of Nazareth taught and died
for mankind that the true answer to the problem of
the Chasidim was given : * He that findeth his life
shall lose it, and he that loseth his life for my sake,
the same shall find it.'

We have been confronted with the same problems
and we are thrown back to the same source for our
answer. We have been perplexed by many questions
which we had shirked or evaded, and shall find a

8 THE STUDY OF THEOLOGY

solution, as the descendants of the Maccabees found
theirs, in the teaching of Christ. It is not the Christian
rehgion which has failed, but the popular version of
it, which had been profoundly influenced by the
utilitarian and progressive ideas of the times, and
the official presentations, which had largely got out
of touch with reality. The Christianity of Christ was
first taught to those who were the sufferers of the
world, and it alone can give any satisfactory Gospel
for a suffering world. The key to our knowledge
of God, as of human destin}^, is the Incarnation and
the Atonement of Christ. All true progress for man
has been won through suffering, and the cross of Christ
shows us that that is not a mistake, an accident,
a failure, but a revelation of the intimate nature of the
Godhead. The academic theologian must never allow
the interest of intellectual problems to make him forget
the realities of personal religion, or to centre his thought
on any other point but the revelation of God through
Christ.

II

A second condition of wise theological study must
be the recognition of the full stream of Christian tradi-
tion, that throughout the centuries the Christian Church
has been taught by the Spirit who will lead us into
all truth. That is the great and abiding lesson that the
Oxford movement gave to Oxford, to England, and, I
think we may add, the Christian world, for it is a
movement whose influence is even now being continually
felt in very remote quarters. Look at the theology

THE STUDY OF THEOLOGY 9

of the eighteenth century. There is indeed much con-
cealed and unobtrusive piety; there is considerable
philosophic acuteness, but how sterile and unattractive
much of it is. It is as uninspiring as the churches that
it built. Large areas of Christian thought had been
forgotten. Great names had vanished from men's
horizon. The creative power which fashioned the
Christian Church and then founded the modern world
had been lost. No doubt in the Oxford movement, as
in all restorations of thought, there was much that was
uninstructed and disproportionate. The ideal picture
which it drew of the Ages of Faith would hardly
bear analysis. Much that it thought catholic was tem-
porary and ephemeral. It retained what it had better
have allowed to be forgotten. But yet the transformation
that it made in the theological outlook was profound.
It made us realize the continuity of Christianity. It
broke down much modern self-satisfaction. It gave
new ideals of worship and corporate life. It pictured
a society inspired throughout by Christian ideals. I
harmonized once more art and beauty with piety. It
revived architecture and music and many ecclesiastical
crafts. It made religion interesting.

We may have lost the early enthusiasm, we have
corrected mistakes, we have a different point of view for
many things, but I do not think the fundamental lesson
has been lost. It has rather been enriched and extended.
Certainly the Church and the theologian of the present
da}^ have a double duty imposed on them. We must
be ready to learn from the whole Christian tradi-
tion—Patristic, Mediaeval, Reformation, Latitudinarian,

«168 B

lo THE STUDY OF THEOLOGY

Rationalist, Evangelical— and we must be ready also to
learn from all Christian churches. We must correct
the idiosyncrasies of Anglicanism by the study of
Nonconformity. We must correct the Roman tradition
by the Eastern. We must not despise Calvinism or
Lutheranism. We must study Episcopalianism in
the light of Presbyterianism and Congregationalism
and find out the defects of its presentation.

I venture to believe that the final result of our
studies will be reassuring, that we shall learn that there
is greater agreement than had been thought on the
fundamentals of the Christian life. The Christianity
of Cyril of Jerusalem's Catechetical lectures, of the
Russian Catechism, of the Shorter Catechism of the
Scotch Church, differ indeed in presentation, but exhibit
a striking resemblance in all that matters to the Con-
firmation classes of a sober English clergyman.

HI

I come now to my third condition— freedom. It
is only in an atmosphere of freedom that great
intellectual questions can be solved. So far as regards
the nation and the University we have a considerable
amount of liberty, although perhaps not as much as
we think. The restrictions on religious education in
our schools, as regulated by Parliament and local
authorities, are a discredit to a civilized countr}^ and
any acquaintance with English social life will reveal
how often a man's career may be injured by holding
unpopular religious opinions, and how little either

THE STUDY OF THEOLOGY ii

social or political tolerance is understood. But what
I am concerned with now is to put before you the
religious freedom which is the heritage of the Catholic
Church. By a curious pen-ersion, indeed, the Catholic
conception has been developed as the enemy of
freedom, but some study will show how erroneous
this presentation is.

Let us take first of all the classic definition of
Catholicism. We are to hold ' quod ubique, quod
semper, quod ab omnibus creditum est '. I need not,
as I am addressing sensible people, waste time in
refuting the unintelligent criticism which would dwell
on the fact that the maxim, if taken literall}^, cannot
be applied in any case where there is a single adverse
opinion. Its meaning is made quite clear by St. Vincent
himself. We are to correct the aberrations of a part
of Christendom by the whole, of the present by the
past : the idiosyncrasies of any individual in tradition
by the common voice of Church leaders. What I
desire to put before you now is how much of w^hat is
often reputed Catholic would not respond to this test.
The voice of Christian tradition gives us a Canon of
Scripture and a creed : it has handed down a formulated
belief in Christ, His divinit}^ and humanit^M it gives us
the Sacraments which He ordained, the tradition of an
ordered ministry and a liturgical service. But when
that is accepted, how changeable is tradition, how great
the variation between century and century, between
country and country.

Let us turn to the decrees of Church Councils
On their authority we accept the one undoubted

12 THE STUDY OF THEOLOGY

Catholic document — the Creed in an uninterpolated
form which was finally promulgated at the Council
of Chalcedon, and which we call the Creed of Nicaea.
The same Council which gave us our Creed forbids
us to * promulgate, or compose, or construct, or have
in mind or teach others any other creed '. Except as
convenient summaries of what we are teaching, the
Apostles' and Athanasian Creeds and the Thirty-nine
Articles have no Catholic authority. Nor may we add
to the Creed, and this prohibits us also from imposing
any particular gloss or explanation.

A careful study of the history of Christian theology
will, I think, corroborate our thesis. The reality of
the atoning death of Christ has been always the Hfe
of Christianit3^ but the interpretation of that belief
has been conditioned by the spiritual needs of each
Christian generation. There is no Catholic explanation
of the Atonement. There is a rich tradition of Christian
devotion associated with the Eucharist, but no dogma
was formulated until the Lateran Council of 1215,
and that action of the Western Church has had fatal
results. There is no Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist.

To turn to the Ministry. Let me ask you to stud}'
the latest product of English Historical Theology,
the work on the Church and the Ministry edited by the
late Dr. Swete, and particularly the briUiant Oxford
contributions of Mr. Turner and Mr. Brightman, and
I think you will see the extent and limitations of Catholic
tradition. There is a Catholic tradition of an orderly
ministry, but there is no Catholic theory or doctrine.
The conception of the second century was different

THE STUDY OF THEOLOGY 13

to that of the third or fourth. Cyprian differed from
Augustine. Any theory of the ministry must be
subordinate to the well-being of the Church and the
fulfilment of its mission. The ultimate appeal of St.
Augustine is to the Law of Christian Charity.

And this rule of Christian liberty is the teaching
and tradition of the Church of England. Its Articles
are articles of comprehension, not of exclusion. It
will impose nothing which cannot be proved by Scrip-
ture. Its teaching on the Eucharist allows probably
any form of belief except transubstantiation or pure
Zwinglianism. It has accepted and given us the
traditional ministry as the rule of the Church, but
does not endorse any theory about it.

It is the possession of this Hberty by our Church
which has enabled us to approach the problems which
modern thought has presented. The nineteenth century
was confronted with the great advance of Natural
Science, and in particular the discoveries of geology, of
biology and the hypothesis of Evolution. There were
those who would have limited our freedom and made
the six days of the Mosaic Cosmology and the theory
of special creation part of the necessary Christian
doctrine. But the Church was bolder. Men were
strong enough to face the truth ; and we have learnt
to understand that the science of the Bible is the
science of the times when it was written, that its function
is to teach us religion and not a cosmology, and that the
spheres of science and religion are distinct and should
not overlap. Modern biology has taught us a more
magnificent doctrine of creation than any we had

14 THE STUDY OF THEOLOGY

conceived, and is appealed to by idealism as destroying
the mechanical conception of the universe.

The next great problem was presented by the literary
history of the Old Testament. Again there were fears,
hesitations, attempts to limit by authority the freedom of
the Church ; but again the principles of Catholic liberty
prevailed. It could assert confidently that no particular
theory of inspiration had ever been held authoritatively,
and I suppose that most of us feel that modern views of
the Old Testament have strengthened our belief in the
providential character of the Old Testament dispensa-
tion and in the Christian message.

The problems that confront us now centre round the
New Testament, the Gospel narratives, in particular the
miracles of the Gospel, and perhaps the definition of
the person of Christ. Again there are fears and limita-
tions. But surely all our experience bids us have faith
and patience. If we recognize the full liberty that the
Catholic tradition gives us, we shall find that these
problems, like the older ones, will be solved, and we
shall cdLvry educated opinion with lis ; but if we advance
with reason in one hand and anathemas in the other, the
world will not listen to our reason.

What are to be the limits of tolerance ? There are
some who would demand for the Christian Church the
same absence of limitation as for the Christian state.
I do not feel that such a position is tenable. The
Christian Church is the society of those who accept
Christ, His person and His teaching, and that must be
secured. Tiiere are indeed two questions, the limits of
legal tolerance and the question of personal sincerity.

THE STUDY OF THEOLOGY 15

As regards the first, it must be settled in each case by
the careful decision of a duly constituted court. Heresy
is a personal charge and must be decided by a just
examination of the personal utterances of the accused.
Popular and partisan accusations must be avoided.
More important for us here and in the conditions of
modern society is the question of personal sincerity.
What must the sincere acceptance of the Christian
creed mean? I venture to suggest that the test
which each person must impose on himself is this :
that although there may be this or that point in
traditional behef on which he may feel doubt, he
must be fully assured in his own mind and conscience
that he holds that conception of Christ's person and
teaching which is contained in the New Testament,
which has been handed down by the CathoHc Church,
which is enshrined in the Creed, and has been given
to us by the Church of England. Let a man be
fully assured of this in his own mind and be content.
Of course in all minor matters he loyally conforms
to the rules of his Church.

One more thing I would say before concluding
this part of our subject, to those particularly who,
perhaps from a mistaken sense of loyalty, perhaps
from a feeling of timidity, would adopt what I may
call the rigid view of Catholic tradition, would impose
strict rules of inclusion and exclusion, and would
demand a close adherence to a rigorous code of
teaching, of worship, and of order. If we stud}^ the
history of the Church of England and the High
Church tradition during the last three-quarters of

i6 THE STUDY OF THEOLOGY

a century, we shall find how wide the influence and
power has been of the body of teaching which we
in England owe to the Tractarians, but that on the
other hand ever}- attempt to break down the old tra-
ditions of worship by the imposition of unaccustomed
novelties, to limit freedom by excessive dogmatism,
and to tighten unduly the bands of Church order has
met with determined opposition, has aroused bitter
resentment, and has alienated men from the Church
and even from Christianity.

IV

A fourth element in our Theology must be the
spirit of reverent criticism. The function of a Uni-
versity in relation to current thought must always have
a large element of criticism in it, for it has to expose
error as well as to test truth, and every generation
inherits much that is erroneous or has become anti-
quated from the past. I am using the term criticism
in a somewhat wider sense than is often customary.
It is often confined at present to that particular type
of Theology which studies the literary composition
and the historical witness of the Bible and the Earl}'
Church. That must, of course, always be an important
element in Theolog}^ for it concerns us intimately to
know the truth as far as is possible in such matters.
But criticism really has a far wider task to perform,
and Oxford has full}^ played its part as a theological
critic. Newman devoted all his powers of reasoning to
exposing the shallow rationalism and latitudinarianism

THE STUDY OF THEOLOGY 17

of the Whigs. Essays and Reviews broke down a
good deal of unreal orthodoxy, and in particular
a doctrine of the Atonement which had ceased to be
real even for those who accepted it. In another sphere
we remember the vigorous assaults which two great
Oxford philosophers, Green and Bradley, delivered
on the psychology of Sensation. I do not know
whether the Reader in Mental Philosophy and the
Reader in Physiology would care to be classed as
theologians, but they certainly have afforded abundant
material for the study of theology in their criticism
on mechanical theories of life and mind.

I am inclined to think that a chief task for Oxford
theology at the present time is the criticism of modern
methods of literary criticism. A study of much that
is written nowadays about the Old and New Testa-
ments must reveal the absence in many of those who
claim to be critics of anything approaching a scientific
method, a serious incapacity to distinguish between
what I may call 'guess-work' and scientific proof.
Let me take some illustrations. A few years ago
we were all attracted by a brilliant book on the history
of German Research on the Life of Christ, pubhshed
under the title 'Von Reimarus zu Wrede'. We
admired, no doubt, the prodigious and serious intel-
lectual effort of which it narrated the history, and
marvelled, as we have often done since, at the
sustained mental energy and the equally strange
mental limitations of a remarkable race. But a second
thought that must have arisen in many minds was,
how little progress had been the result of this century

i8 THE STUDY OF THEOLOGY

and a half of toil, and when we come to examine
the cause of this we find that nowhere is there any
discrimination between the brilliant hypothesis and
the scientific proof. Have you ever attempted to
study the German rationalistic theology of fifty years
ago and discovered how unconvincing it now seems?
The current philosoph}^ or the political situation, or
the theological movement of the time created a certain
mental atmosphere. In harmony with this atmosphere
the Gospel narrative was reconstructed. To minds
with certain presuppositions the distinction between
true and false seemed easy, and our theologians did
not perceive that often, if I may use the expressive
language of my old master Ridding, they were trying
to hoist themselves by their own belts. They built
their reconstruction on their historical criticism, but
the criterion of their criticism was harmony with the
reconstruction. A study of the failures of the past
ought to make us cautious in accepting the theories,
however brilliant, of the present.

We want, then, to learn to distinguish between
scientific criticism and guess-work. Let me enumerate
three instances of what seems to me really scientific
work. The first is the writings of Dr. Driver on the
Old Testament. I mention his name particularly
because it seems to me that he, more than any other
critic of the Old Testament with whose works I am
acquainted, realized the difference between what was
proof and what was not. He had not the intellectual
characteristics which could have made him the ori-
ginator of a new school of learning, he could never

THE STUDY OF THEOLOGY 19

have discovered what he taught, and the honour of
founding modern historical research on the Old Testa-
ment will always remain with the great works of
Kuenen and Wellhausen, but whether in the domain
of textual or documentary criticism he appears to
me — I approach the subject as an outsider— as one
of the few Old Testament scholars who realize the
necessity of objective proof. I would recommend his
method, especially his masterly analyses of Hebrew
style and of the development of the Hebrew language,
to those scholars who seem inclined to impose upon
us as a new orthodoxy the latest theories of criticism,
and are ready to accept his conclusions without learn-
ing his methods. I would further contrast with his
sober conclusions the wild and fantastic theories on
the writings of the prophets, the early history of
Israel, and the text of the Old Testament with which
we are so often presented. These seem to start with
the assumption that no statement made in an ancient
author can be correct and that everything happened
in a different manner to what has been handed down
to us. I am sure that subsequent investigation will
not support these vagaries, and that we shall do well
only to accept theories when we find sound objective
proof given us of their truth.

A second instance I could give is the work of Sir
John Hawkins on the Synoptic problem. He seems
to me to be distinguished among other investigators of
that subject by having grasped the need of scientific
proof. And because he has adopted sound methods
his work stands on a different footing to most of what

20 THE STUDY OF THEOLOGY

has been accomplished on the S3'noptic problem. Turn
for example to Moffat's Introduction to the New
Testament and study all the various attempts which he
has anal3^sed with such industry as to the composition
of the supposed Matthaean Logia, and then realize that
they are all equally unsound because in no case do they
represent more than a plausible guess. Or study all
the many theories which have been put forward
to explain the empty tomb and the resurrection on
the third day, or the various attempts that have been
made to separate the supposed genuine words of Jesus.
You will find that none of these theories are founded
on any other basis than that of conjecture, and therefore
they are all equally untrustworthy.

A third instance I would take is the proof of the
integrity of the Ignatian letters given by Bishop
Lightfoot. There again I find a recognition of the
necessity of objective proof, in this case a careful
anal3^sis of style, and I cannot fail to contrast it with
much of the work on the history of the Church that his
predecessors gave us. His example has been widely
followed, and on the study of the development of the
early Church and the criticism of its literature much
wiser methods have prevailed during the last thirt}'
years, and I cannot but think that the scholarship of
this country has exercised a wholesome influence in
discrediting the a priori methods which used to be rife.
To sum up : I should put before you that the criticism
which we most need at present is that which will learn
to distinguish between scientific criticism and plausible
' guess-work '.

THE STUDY OF THEOLOGY 21

There is another sphere to which I have already
referred, where the rehgious future of the nation
demands wise criticism, and that is in the history and
theory of the ministry. Here our weapon must be
a double-edged one, because we must learn to criticize
the many novel theories which have appeared in the
last half-century equally with the too rigid presentment
of the traditional Church order.

I would venture to put before you, then, as four
conditions for the healthy study of theology : a close
touch with religious reality, a willingness to learn from
the whole field of Christian tradition, a grasp of the
conception of freedom which Catholic Christianity
should mean, and a spirit of reverent criticism.

And now I would ask you to turn for a few minutes
to the more practical problems in the study of theology
which Oxford offers at the present time.

Theology in Oxford by tradition and history occupies
its rightful place. It is what we now call a Post-
graduate Faculty. It ranks with Law and Medicine.
From this result certain deductions which have been
sometimes lost sight of.

(i) First, its purpose is to give the scientific training
necessary for a learned profession. Just as the purpose
of the Faculty of Medicine is to train medical men, or
of a Faculty of Engineering to train engineers, so the
purpose of a Theological Faculty is to train ministers

22 THE STUDY OF THEOLOGY

of religion, and by the historical and national posi-
tion of our Faculty to train clergy of the Church of
England.

(2) Secondly, as a necessary corollary of this, its
purpose is to promote and advance the study of
Theology by independent thought and work. For no
body of men can teach any subject properly unless at
the same time they are attempting to advance the study.
A Medical Faculty which was content with repeating
the traditional medical formulas would very soon be
quite out of touch with reality. An engineer who never
turned his mind to the solution of new problems would
soon begin to fail, because every work he has to
accomplish will contain elements of novelty. It is
exactly the same with Theology. Every theological
professor must be ready to enter on new fields of
thought, and every clergyman must be trained to
wrestle with new religious problems, because the
thoughts of those to whom he is to minister will
be continually changing.

(3) Thirdly, while on one side a Theological Faculty
must be in close touch with academic learning, so on the
other side it must respond to the needs of the religious
life of the Church. That is why the great body of
teachers in a Theological school should be in holy
orders. No one would have any respect for a Medical
school in which the great majority of teachers were not
qualified medical men. The teachers of an Engineering
school must be qualified and experienced practical
engineers. So the suggestion that the teachers of
theology should not be required to be ordained could

THE STUDY OF THEOLOGY 23

only be made by those ignorant of what a Theological
Faculty means.

(4) Fourthly, just as almost any subject taught in
a Medical or Engineering or Technical Faculty is a
proper subject of study in a Faculty of Science or,
according to our Oxford arrangement, in the Faculty of
Arts, so almost all subjects taught in a Theological
school may be studied in an Arts Faculty— Language,
Literature, History, Philosophy, the development of
opinion, comparative Theology, all these are Arts
subjects. They are studied there from a scientific or
educational point of view, they are taught and studied
in a Faculty of Theology in relation to life. Theology
from one aspect may be looked on as a form of
applied Arts.

(5) Fifthly, just as a Medical Faculty has a double
relation — on the one side to a University, on the
other to the General Medical Council and the Royal
Colleges of Physicians and Surgeons— and as an
Engineering Faculty must be in close touch with the
Engineering societies, so the Theological Faculty has
its double relation to the University on the one hand
and to the rehgious society on the other. The University
must have in its mind the practical demands of the
religious society, just as it has to consider the require-
ments of the General Medical Council, but on the
other side its duty is to correct the intellectual
inadequacies of the Church and the weakness of
popular religion. The Universit}^, if it is to do its
w^ork properly in all these Faculties, must be in a
position of independence. For the Bishops to exercise

24 THE STUDY OF THEOLOGY

any voice in the management of a Faculty of Theology
would be as harmful as for the University to be
subject to the control of the Board of Education.

I have emphasized these points because it has
seemed to me that in the various discussions on the
work of the Faculty they have been to a certain
extent lost sight of.

Now if we look at the history of the last hundred
years, there has been no failure in the Oxford School
of Theology in vigorous and creative intellectual life.
It is one of the most famous schools of Theology in
the world, and its religious influence, direct and indirect,
has been perhaps wider and more permanent than that
of any other single University, but by a curious anomaly
as a University Faculty it is completely unreformed.
While since the revival of the University a Medical
School has been founded, and the Post-graduate
study of law encouraged, nothing directly has been
done in Oxford for the Training of the Clergy, and
the Divinity degrees are still distinguished by that
absence of merit which, as in the case of the Garter, is so
dear to the English heart. And this in spite of the
fact that, while there are disadvantages as regards the
advanced study in Oxford of Medicine or Law, probably
no place is better fitted to be a home for training the
clergy. I believe that it is now being widely recognized
how great a loss to the Church of England this is.
Other religious bodies are taking advantage of what
Oxford offers ; there has been some private enterprise.
Five-and-twenty years ago, when I was resident, I
remember how constant were the complaints, especially

THE STUDY OF THEOLOGY 25

from the laity of the Church, that the clergy, instead
of being trained in Oxford, went to theological
colleges, and the same feeling prevails widely in the
Church to-day. Strong recommendations for creating
in our Universities centres for the training of the
clergy will, I understand, be shortly made, insisting
on a two years' course for all after they have taken
their degree, and personally I believe that it is of
paramount importance for the well-being of the Church.
I believe then that our first duty now is to build
up in Oxford a school for the training of the clergy,
and I should much hope that we might make a beginning
at once, on however small a scale, in order that we
may be ready for the time after the war when the
Church will have to recuperate her strength.

May I suggest certain principles which should, I
beheve, be exhibited by such a school?

There are two methods of training ministers of
religion. There is what I may for convenience call the
seminary method. It teaches dogmatically. Its theology
and its rules for the devotional life are clear and well
defined. Its purpose is to make each man conform
to an approved model both in opinions and conduct.

The other method would avoid the danger of
dogmatism in teaching. It would aim at enabling the
student to construct his own system of thought and
life. It would put before him the Christian tradition,
but would not be too anxious to make him conform
to a particular model. It would encourage him to
hear the independent thought of different teachers. I
do not hesitate to say that the second must be our

26 THE STUDY OF THEOLOGY

method as alone befitting a University, as the only one
which will make the clergy able to deliver their
message in a modern world. The seminary method,
indeed, has been tried among us — imperfectly it is
true— but even so it has succeeded in sending out
clergy out of harmony with the religious hfe of the
nation and often alienating men from the Church or
even Christianity by their unsympathetic if self-sacri-
ficing efforts.

We must remember too how important in the case
of the clergy is a general education. Here we have
a point of distinction from the other Faculties we have
considered. If the Regius Professor of Medicine will
allow me to say so, it is possible to be a good medical
man, it is possible to be quite a first-rate engineer, and
yet be without a cultivated mind ; but a clergyman, how-
ever thorough a knowledge of theology he may have, who
is below the general standard of culture, and does not
know how educated people think, is a danger to the
Church. That is why I believe that for most men
the best course is a good degree in arts and science,
followed by a proper training in theology.

We need, too, more system in our theology. If a
student from another country were to come and study
at Oxford, I think the gravest deficiency he would
discover would not be (as some think) the absence of
research (for I believe there is much keen research
and thought among us), but the absence of system.
If he went to Berlin he would find not only the
seminar but a series of comprehensive courses in
which well-known professors would in a systematic

THE STUDY OF THEOLOGY 27

and orderly manner survey the whole field of their
study. We do that in England very imperfectly.
There are few of our philosophers who have attempted
to construct a system. You have to learn Butler's
moral philosophy from a volume of sermons. If you
w^ant to learn Green's metaphysic you have to read
an introduction to Hume. The greatest work of Eng-
lish theology arose out of the Vestiarian controversy.
A theologian collects together his beliefs in a somewhat
haphazard way in a commentary on the Thirty-nine
Articles — themselves a characteristically imperfect and
disorderly compilation — and never even considers his
method. I am well aware of the danger of too much
S3'stem, but I think the complete absence of it with
us is a mistake, and I believe that the failure in
system and order in our instruction has helped to
create that absence of practical thoroughness in our
life which becomes so conspicuous in every department
when a great effort is demanded from the nation. I
would venture to hope that we may organize a more
thorough and comprehensive S3^stem of teaching.

Then, secondly, there is the Reform of the Theological
Degrees. A Regius Professor of Divinity, when
appointed, finds himself apparently solely resf>onsible
for the administration of degrees in Divinity. He
has no statutory obligation to consult any other Pro-
fessor, whatever may be the subject of the thesis. He
administers obscure statutes not adapted to the modern
conditions of the University, and he inherits a tradition
which has been injurious to the reputations of the
University and the Church. It is our first duty to

28 THE STUDY OF THEOLOGY

make these degrees a reality, and in doing so we
have to consider their purpose. They should be a
certificate of a sound knowledge of Theology. Our
model should be the Doctorate of Medicine, which is
intended to ensure a thorough and complete training.
What we should desire is that an able man who has
taken his degree in Arts or Science should, either at
the University or elsewhere, devote himself seriously
to the study of theology — that he should have an
adequate knowledge of theology as a whole, and show
a capacity for independent thought and work. For
the first degree we require, in addition to a thesis, a
comprehensive examination in Divinity such as is the
Bachelor of Civil Law examination in its Faculty.
For the Doctor's degree we should demand a thesis
showing original investigation and thought.

The third question before us is the admission of
others than those in orders in the Church of England
to Theological Degrees. Let me say at once that
whether on national or ecclesiastical or academic grounds
I believe that it is incumbent upon us to do this, nor
do I beheve that there is any danger to be apprehended.
For fifteen years I have worked on a Faculty of
Theology with members of all the leading Noncon-
formist bodies and no difference of principle has arisen.
The theological difficulties at the present day are as
much between Churchman and Churchman as between
Churchman and Nonconformist, and the same theological
divisions are found in all the different religious bodies.
But while the aim we have is clear, the accomplishment'
is not so easy a task. I believe in the first place it has

THE STUDY OF THEOLOGY 29

been a serious blunder to combine two separate things,
the reform of the degree and the opening to Non-
conformists. If we first of all ensure that the degree
shall be one in Christian theology, we shall do some-
thing to disarm what I cannot help thinking was a
very reasonable part of the opposition which arose
when a change was advocated— the objection to a
possibly non-Christian degree. Let us first of all make
the degree a worthy one, and then consider the question
of extension.

Then there are certain difficulties of organization
to be faced. It must be remembered that the confine-
ment of the Faculty of Theology in a University to a
single denomination is quite normal. On the Continent
the Faculty is almost invariably either Protestant or
Catholic, and a mixed Faculty is unknown. In certain
Universities there are two Faculties. Such an arrange-
ment is not necessary with us because the distinction
in theology between ourselves and the Nonconformist
bodies is not so great but that we can work together in
the same Faculty. The arrangement that should, I
believe, be adopted, is to recognize difi'erent ' schools '
of theology (if I may use the term) in one Faculty. The
Divinity Professors and other teachers of the Church
of England should be recognized as the Church of
England ' school \ Mansfield College should be recog-
nized in the same way, and its Professors and teachers
be given a proper status in the University. They
should have an adequate representation on the Faculty
Board. So far as regards University matters they will
be under the authority of the Board ; denominational

30 THE STUDY OF THEOLOGY

matters will be regulated by the school. The closer
union will come when the different religious bodies
are united— a consummation which many of us devoutly
desire, but which will not be hastened by ignoring
the differences which at present exist. I do not put
forward those suggestions as anything but tentative.
What I should press for is, that we should at once
undertake the reform of the Divinity Degrees, and
should carefully work out the wisest method of opening
them to other religious bodies.

There is one more practical matter which I should
wish to press upon the University. I should earnestly
hope that the present opportunity will be taken for
the Reform of the Pass Degree — and, I may add, the
raising of the standard required for low degrees in
Honours. It is a matter which intimately concerns
the well-being of the Church, for it must always be
the case that a large number of those ordained must
be intellectually of the type of Pass men. I hope I
shall not be considered presumptuous if I say I have
learnt to look at the matter from outside, and have seen
how much the reputation and prestige of the University
suffers by the character of its pass degrees, and how
harmful in the opinion of many this low standard has
been in the country. The failure of England is and has
been intellectual. What we should ask is that no one
should obtain a degree in the University who has not
learnt habits of work, who is not acquainted with
modern methods of thought, who has not had his
intellectual interest aroused, and obtained a fair measure
of competency in the subjects he has studied. Surely

THE STUDY OF THEOLOGY 31

now, when there has been a complete break with the
past and all vested interests are gone, is the time for
Reform. Let the undergraduate who comes to Oxford
after the war recognize that if he wishes for a degree
he must work.

Circumstances have compelled me to dwell some-
what longer than I should have desired on matters of
organization, of examination, and of degrees. I could
wish it had not been necessary. I recognize as
much as any one here how secondary in some ways
are these matters. They are only the skeleton which
needs to be clothed with life. But a time comes when
organization is out of date and needs to be adjusted
to altered circumstances, and that is, I think, the case
with the Theological Faculty in this University. I hope
the necessary reforms will be possible, but I hope
still more that the spirit of learning and of divine
wisdom may live among us, that the traditional
interest of Oxford in Theology may be retained, that
the keen interest in literary and historical research
which we owe to the enthusiasm of Dr. Sanday may
be fostered and encouraged, that Oxford may more
and more send out a supply of persons duly qualified
for the service of God in Church as in State, and
that in the years to come we may make our full
contribution to the restoration of a lacerated and
bleeding world.

PRINTED IN ENGLAND
AT THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS

o »o