THE Harvard Divinity School has again become the theme of discussion, owing to some statements about it in President Eliot's Report. The facts of the case are these, - to put them briefly, - the School aims to be unsectarian, and is not. A writer in the Nation for Feb. 12 points out some of the causes for this discrepancy between the profession and practice there. The course of instruction, while it assumes to give a "free inquiry into theology," in reality obliges every student to follow out prescribed studies, and offers no electives. Owing to this, many members of the School are obliged to go over ground with which they are already familiar, as no equivalent is offered, and a degree is conferred on those only who have followed the beaten track. Hebrew, which we might expect to have thoroughly taught in a department where a competent knowledge of the Bible is the foundation-stone, is undoubtedly best known by Jewish scholars. To employ one of these in teaching would be carrying out the unsectarian principles of the School to the letter; but, as far as we know, such a step has never been thought of by the Faculty. The general impression is that a Divinity School cannot be unsectarian, and the failure of our own to maintain this character would seem to confirm this impression. But we see no reason why the abstract questions of theology should not be taught and discussed in an unbiassed manner, as well as those of philosophy and psychology, and we trust that Harvard may succeed in proving the possibility of such a system of instruction.