Religion in Colleges.

On Wednesday evening the Nineteenth Century Club of New York, held a discussion on "Religion in Colleges." President Eliot and President McCosh, of Princeton, were the principal speakers. President Eliot spoke in the main as follows:

"The most useful college is the one which has no dominant sect. At Harvard, where more than one thousand students are gathered together, there is no dominant religious sect, and the probability is that there will never be one. In this state of affairs it is manifestly unjust, and certainly impossible, to force any one set of religious views upon a community so divided in opinion. There are three types of American colleges, distinguished from each other by their religious policies. First, the uncompromising denominational college, in which graduates and instructors have been under one influence all their lives. The man of broad religious views objected to them because it divided the Christian house against itself on narrow causes. Second is the semi-denominational college, which is, as a rule, being transformed to an institution yet broader in its policy. Third is the unsectarian college, illustrated by Harvard. Officers of the college at Harvard are appointed without reference to religious opinions, and students are not questioned concerning their religious convictions. Harvard furnishes seats for students in six churches, but technical instruction could not be offered, because the college could not offer a sufficient variety of instruction to satisfy the radically different religious views of the students. The advantage of the non-sectarian college is that under its wing, all forms of religion are safe. When young men make a choice, it is conscious one. They learn that the doctrines and rules of living, common to all sects, have more practical importance than the doctrines about which sects differ. What, on the other hand, are the disadvantages of an unsectarian college? It is asserted that it loses influence through want of support by any sect. It appears to be indifferent to religion. There is a fallacy in these assertions. One may enthusiastically believe doctrine, and yet be opposed to forcing it upon another. Religious liberty does not mean that interest in religion is extinguished. A national college in America must be tolerant. In all colleges students should be taught to respect the forms of religion as well as religion itself. A fruitful source of irreligion is mutual denunciation among sects. Nobody knows how to teach morality effectively without religion. In the classroom the teachers can demonstrate that science is creating a very spiritual idea of God, and that there is no real incompatibility between religion and science."

President McCosh, of Princeton, in reply: "There is an increasing tendency to leave out religion in the teaching of our colleges, and as a consequence the character of the highly educated men who graduate from our colleges and erect such a powerful influence on the community is becoming irreligious. It is agreed that morality can not be taught without religion, so let religious truth be distinctly taught. The term, 'non-sectarian college,' practically means this: 'All Knowledge Imparted Here Except Religious.' The position that young men are likely to take under such a loose, half-hearted religious system, is that of agnosticism. The place occupied by religion should be honorable and unmistakable. Never has the question 'Is life worth living' been asked with such persistency as now. The college teacher should answer it, when questioned by the student under his charge. More than eight hundred Harvard students have petitioned not to be required to attend prayers, and they are supported by the faculty. It must be difficult to maintain a religious feeling in such a state of affairs."