THE HARVARD DIVINITY SCHOOL.

DURING the months of July and August a discussion was carried on in the Nation in regard to the Harvard Divinity School, which attracted much attention, and called forth a number of letters on each side. The main question at issue was, whether the Divinity School was an unsectarian institution or not. As this is a question which has important bearings on the whole character of the University, a short resume of some of the arguments put forward on each side is given below.

In the Nation of July 3 was an editorial article on "The Cultivation of Theology in Colleges," from which the following extracts are taken:-

"Judging from President Eliot's remarks, in his address at the Commencement Dinner of his own College, and from the successful efforts he has recently made to secure large donations for the Harvard Divinity School, we fear it would be difficult to show the incorrectness of the popular impression that Harvard College is really associated with the Unitarian body, . . . and therefore not in the strict sense of the term undenominational."

Then follows a quotation from President Eliot's remarks at the dinner, in which he says, after speaking of the success in raising the required endowment:-

"You will allow me to mention that the motive of most of the gentlemen who have contributed to this endowment was, I think, the support of theological teaching of a perfectly unsectarian character. That was precisely what interested them in this movement."

The writer comments on this, as follows:-

"Neither the Harvard Divinity School, nor any divinity school in this country or in England, exists simply for the cultivation of theology as a science. All these institutions . . . exist for the much more practical purpose of training ministers, and most of them ministers for particular denominations. . . . We are sure President Eliot did not intend to be vague or ambiguous when he used the phrase 'theological teaching of a perfectly unsectarian character.' But we are also sure that he would find it difficult now to tell us what such teaching is. We may, therefore, safely set down the Harvard Divinity School as necessarily denominational in its practical workings, whatever character its managers may seek to give it, or may have originally claimed for it."

The article concludes thus:-

"So that, no matter from what side we approach the matter, we fail to see why a university which has been making such rapid strides as Harvard towards a thoroughly non-sectarian and national position should suddenly pause and devote large sums of money, sorely needed in other fields, to the cultivation, for the benefit of one sect, of a study which is already abundantly provided for by the various Christian churches."

In the Nation of July 17, Dr. Clarke replies that there is a science of Protestant theology, and that the best men in the different sects have a common foundation for their theology. Where, then, he asks, shall this broader, inclusive theology be taught if not in Harvard University?

The editor says, in his comments on Dr. Clarke's letter:-

"We repeat, in the interest of the University, that one of the hindrances to its usefulness lies in the fact that a large body of Christian parents believe it to be a hot-bed of Unitarianism. . . . We shall be glad to receive from Dr. Clarke a definition of 'non-sectarian theology,' describing in detail the manner in which it is taught, and the view it takes of such questions as the Atonement, the Trinity, etc., . . . and telling us whether the chair or chairs from which it is to be taught in the Harvard Divinity School can be or will be filled by Congregationalists, or Episcopalians, or any body but Unitarians. Some explanation of this kind is due both to the subscribers to the endowment and to parents throughout the country who are asked to consider the College undenominational."

In the Nation of July 31, Dr. Clarke follows with another letter. He claims that a theology which is not confined to the limits of any sect, nor taught in the interests of any sect, is a non-sectarian theology. In regard to the Harvard Divinity School, he says:-

"It is, therefore, already to a large extent non-sectarian by its statutes and foundation; by the encouragement given to students to examine both sides of important questions; by the largest liberty given them in their essays, discussions, and preaching; by there being no doctrinal tests for students or professors."

The Nation then replies:-

"If you teach non-sectarian theology, you must teach only the things which no sect rejects. Your only escape from this difficulty lies in throwing down the dogmas before the student, and bidding him choose for himself. We grant that some subjects may be taught in this way, but surely not theology. . . . Few religious men like to see theological teaching converted into an exercise for sharpening the wits, or would like to see young men exposed to the influence of professors who took half a dozen different views of the Trinity and the Atonement."

These extracts may be appropriately concluded with the following from the letter of "A Harvard Alumnus," in the Nation, of August 14:-

"No one doubts that a so called science of religions, or that the history of the development of theological doctrines and religious sects, may be taught according to a purely historic method, - that is, in a non-sectarian manner. Instruction in these subjects may very properly form part of a scheme of university teaching. But the function of a divinity school is to teach other things in addition to these, in order to prepare its students for the ministry. Its teachers cannot help teaching sectarian theology. . . . That part of the community which regards Harvard College as a national institution . . . cannot but feel a deep regret at what they esteem the grave error of its eminent president in his endeavor to strengthen a sectarian school which is connected with the College by no necessary bond. So far as Harvard College has, or is supposed to have, a sectarian character, or even a sectarian bias, so far is its growth impeded, its proper work hindered, and its national influence diminished."