Harvard Religion.

The readers of the CRIMSON enjoyed, a few weeks ago, a friendly combat between the religious editor of the paper and an anonymous correspondent in the Nation, who had taken the trouble to misrepresent, in religious matters, evidently as unintentionally as ignorantly, the university of which he claimed to be an "alumnus." But the evil work had been accomplished. Word had gone forth from our very doors that, religiously speaking, fair Harvard, to put it mildly, was rotten to the core. No words that might be uttered could avail. Jealous colleges, uttered the Pharasaical "Ah, ha!" Papers of which the past existence and actions had been anything but religious, caught the infection and sneered at that of which they knew nothing, and having used their war-worn phrases, passed them on to the Bungtown Clarion and sheets of a like stamp which flourish on the plains of Texas. According to this highly tinted fiction, Harvard is a hot-bed of incipient Nihilism and irreligion. Let us look at the question of irreligion for a moment. The statement on its face is a reproach, if not an insult, to the parents and friends of every Harvard student. For by their advice he has been led, not metaphorically speaking, to enter the den of thieves. But is it true? Can any one justly say that student feeling at Harvard is distinctly irreligious? Are we, simply because we are Harvard students, and that is for the most part the argument advanced, hardened followers of Mammon? The writer has frequently heard that glorious gray-haired fable of the Harvard infidel, but he never met the unbeliever but once. The young atheist in question laughed at Christianity and boasted that Buddhism even was a more perfect faith. An older companion proved by three questions that the would-be Buddhist knew nothing of either religion, and that his state of mind was purely a result of improper home-training. Yet semi-religious and multo religious papers still echo the cry of "Harvard irreligion!" Is it that our alumni are sceptics? More Harvard graduates to-day fill our prominent pulpits than the graduates of any two other colleges in the land. Is it that our teaching is purely secular? Why did we come to Harvard above all other colleges, but to get teaching that was secular, free from the eternal theological dogmas and cant which distinguish so many of our sister-colleges? Is it that the tone of student thought is unhealthy and opposed to more sacred things? Here we are on difficult ground, but student thought is not opposed to religion. It is true that we do not have revivals; nor do we turn our Mott Haven team into a Salvation guard. But where is the sensible, rational person who will claim that external observances prove inward convictions? What right has any one to prefer upon mere hear-say the gravest accusations that intimate knowledge can justify? We have probably, in full abundance, all the vices of other young men, but what justice is there in stopping there in denying us per se the virtues of other college students? We have been as carefully trained in our homes, and are possibly as honest as other students. There are few (or none) of the ordinary college religious exercises that we do not attend; we have religious societies; we listen to good preaching. It is true that we have our little dissenters and deists, our little men of every stamp, but we have also men and students who are not little, who do not affect an unnatural unbelief. And they represent Harvard opinion. Any claim to the contrary is a misrepresentation of us and of the truth. If cheap publications must comment on us, let them do it with at least some knowledge of facts and less use of the perverted.