is distinguished from purely critical journals, whether Biblical, historical, or philosophical, by its endeavor to interpret the results of the best scholarship alike to ministers and laymen. It is distinguished from the popular monthlies which treat incidentally of social and ethical questions, by its treatment of the same questions from the religious point of view. The subject matter of the "Review" is embraced under four general departments 1. THEOLOGICAL. Articles are in preparation upon the Person of Christ, in the light of recent discussions, upon some of the Social and Ethical Aspects of Redemption, upon the Recasting of Creeds, as in the revision of the Westminster Confession, and upon several subjects designed to illustrate the Method and Progress of Biblical Criticism, especially of the Old Testa ment. 2. RELIGIOUS. In this department special attention will be given the coming year to Biblical instruction in the Sunday school, to the Liturgical Service of the Churches, to the enlargement and expansion of methods of Christian work, and to Missionary Problems. Mr. Starbuck will add to his graphic review of missionary operations a series of articles upon questions of vital concern in the Conduct of Missions. 3. SOCIOLOGICAL. The "Review" has already given a large space to the treatment of social subjects, but it now has increased facilities for work in this department, through the increase of its staff of contributors, through the enlargement of social study in the Seminary, and through the establishment of the Andover House in Boston to promote the specific ends of Social Christianity. Mr. Robert A. Woods, the Head of the Andover House, will report upon the work of the House and of similar institutions. 4. EDUCATIONAL AND LITERARY. The "Review" does not profess to be an educational or literary journal, but it finds occasion in every number to deal with some of the present moral aspects of education and literature. During the year articles have appeared from some of the foremost educators of the country, and literary articles have been supplemented by Professor Hardy's delightful papers on "Letters and Life." We give, subject to slight changes, the CONTENTS OF THE JANUARY NUMBER. THE GREAT Love. A study in theology founded upon the First Epistle of John. By Rev. Christian Van Der Veen, D. D. Dr. Van Der Veen is the author of the "powerful article" (so characterized by the reviewers) upon "The Preaching of the Gospel," in the November number of the "Review." No writer has a more direct approach to the heart of theology. THE MEDIATING FUNCTION OF THE CHRISTIAN MINISTER TO-DAY. By the Rev. Dr. Philip S. Moxom. A paper of exceeding timeliness, showing the new responsibility of the minister in his relation to society. CHANGES IN ELEMENTARY EDUCATION PROPOSED BY THE ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGE PRESIDENTS OF NEW ENGLAND. By Professor D. C. Wells. The changes proposed affect the mental training of the child from ten to fourteen. The article is of interest to all parents and teachers. THE APPRENTICE SYSTEM OF THE UNITED STATES NAVY. By Lieutenant A. V. Wadhams. Lieutenant Wadhams discusses the grave question of providing fit material for the new navy from the point of view of an officer intent upon the morale of his profession. THE EXPANSION OF THE LOCAL CHURCH. By Rev. A. E. Dunning, D. D. A topic which is awakening great interest in England, and which is becoming of practical concern to the churches of this country. Dr. Dunning was among the first to agitate the subject, and to show its practicability. MISSIONARY PROBLEMS IN THE TURKISH EMPIRE. By Rev. C. C. Starbuck. Mr. Starbuck writes from personal sources of knowledge of some of the most pressing problems in connection with the missions of the American churches in Turkey. EDITORIALS. The Place of the Teaching of Jesus in the Christian Revelation. The New Type of Prison Officials, with Special Reference to the DEPARTMENT OF BIBLICAL CRITICISM. The Rabbinical Education of Paul, by Rev. S. Weyler. SOCIOLOGICAL NOTES. By Mr. Robert A. Woods. BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTICES. The "Review" is now offered at $2.00, one half the regular price, to all Theological Students, to all Home and Foreign Missionaries, and to all Christian Associations and Charitable Organizations for their Reading Rooms. We apprise our readers of this fact, in the hope that some may add to their own subscription one or more names to be placed upon the list of special rates. THE DECISION OF THE SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT OF MASSACHUSETTS IN THE ANDOVER CASES. WE publish in this number of the "Review," from copy taken directly from the originals, and corrected in proof by the same standards, the decision of the Supreme Judicial Court in the Andover cases, together with the dissenting opinion of CHIEF JUSTICE FIELD. The manuscript giving the judgment of the Court is in the handwriting of MR. JUSTICE KNOWLTON, and bears his name. It is understood to have been concurred in by JUSTICES ALLEN, HOLMES, MORTON, LATHROP, and BARKER. We are keeping, it is believed, entirely within the bounds of truth and fact, when we affirm that no other result than that which has now been reached could command so general an approval. On the one hand, the dissenting opinion of the Chief Justice will be claimed to show that the cases involved questions respecting which there might fairly be dif ferences of judgment; on the other, the large number of his associates who concur in the decision gives to it a peculiar weight of authority and impression of finality. Probably some on each side of the controversy would have been glad if the court had given an opinion on other disputed points than those which are decided; but perhaps the general good will be more promoted by a result which concludes the contest, and at the same time leaves the participants free to indulge in many of their own cherished theories.1 The visitors are vindicated 1 It leaves, for instance, our friends of the Congregationalist free to remark: “Whether or not Professor Smyth has conformed in his teaching to the creed he has promised to maintain, is a question not touched upon [directly ?] by the court. That question is still in abeyance in the public mind." It does not, however, leave them equally free to say : "This decision does not imply that Professor Smyth did not have a fair hearing before them [the visitors]. . . . He had in effect the same hearing which he would have had if the Trustees had appeared." These statements are defective. The court says: "On questions so difficult that the members of the board of visitors were divided in opinion at the close of the hearing, we cannot say in the present case that a different result might not have been reached if the trustees had been heard.” That cannot be called, in any complete and impartial sense, a fair hearing," or "the same hearing," which deliberately excluded a rightful presentation of the case which might have changed the result. 66 Nor is the Congregationalist any longer free to say: "The only decision affecting Professor Smyth on that matter [namely, conformity to the creed] is the moral one involved in the fact that the visitors sustained the complaint made by the prosecutors against him." The court affirms by necessary implication that the trustees are "primarily responsible for the affairs of the seminary," and subsequently, by explicit declaration, that "the power and duty to remove a professor who teaches doctrines contrary to the statutes is in the trustees." It also states that the visitors "were divided in opinion" in their finding. The "moral" decision, therefore, is this (adding to the statement of the court simply facts of public record or otherwise indisputable, particu as respects their legal existence, while their powers are more carefully defined and their methods of procedure strictly limited; the trustees are justified in their contention for their administrative rights, while, within determinate limits, a supervisory power is accredited to the other board; the professors, though still subject to the authority of the visitors, can no longer be directly and summarily dealt with, but only through processes which secure ample opportunities for a fair appreciation of their work and their claims. The seminary remains intact on its original basis, and at the same time is freer than ever before to adjust itself to its work. On the whole, we believe that all parties will find increasing satisfaction in the result, and that it marks, therefore, a new and important stage in the history of the seminary, and will not be without influence on other institutions of sacred learning and in the wide fields of religious thought and life. The decision of the court respecting the legality of the board of visitors is so compact in its reasoning that we may fail to appreciate its argumentative force. If we rightly apprehend it, the question is approached with a degree of hesitation, and is met, however decisively, with an appreciation of its difficulty. It is essentially a federal question; though we suspect that any desire to treat it as such will be forestalled, both by the just weight of authority which belongs to the tribunal before which it has been argued and the unanimity of the bench, and also by the praclarly the fact that the trustees, under their official responsibility, pronounced a formal and recorded decision in the case of Professor Smyth [see Andover Review, vol. viii. pp. 72–80] ) : — For Professor Smyth: Pres. Julius H. Seelye, D. D., LL. D. Edward Taylor, Esq. Rev. C. F. P. Bancroft, Ph. D. Thomas H. Russell, Esq. Hon. Joseph S. Ropes. Rev. Alexander McKenzie, D. D. Rev. William H. Willcox, D. D., LL. D. Hon. Robert R. Bishop. Pres. Franklin Carter, LL. D. Alpheus H. Hardy, Esq. Rev. James G. Vose, D. D. Hon. Horace Fairbanks. Against Professor Smyth: Rev. William T. Eustis, D. D. We should also, perhaps, recall, as related to the "moral" result, the further fact, that the decision of the visitors, at the same meeting, upon precisely the same evidence, was four times reversed. The only question, therefore, would seem to be, supposing that attention be directed solely to the action of the visitors, whether four subsequent decisions by the same body, at the same meeting, on the same evidence, equal in "moral" weight one antecedent decision; unless, indeed, it be, what "moral" weight is there anyway in an absurdity? tical removal — through the limitation put by the further action of the court upon the proceedings of the supervisory board of the more serious exposures to collision. The court appears to hold that the theological institution in Phillips Academy is sufficiently cognate to the purpose of the original founders to come under the charter, yet that it is also sufficiently distinct to admit of a separate supervision of such professorships in it as may be founded under this stipulation. The influence of such a decision must be to emphasize, in administration, the relative independence of the seminary, as this has hitherto been maintained. The remainder of the decision deals at length, and with marked clearness and cogency of reasoning, with the question of visitatorial procedure. For the first time in American law, this subject has been thoroughly and judicially expounded. That the visitors should have mistaken their course is not so much to be wondered at when locked at from this point of view. They seem to have treated it mainly as a matter of statutory prescription, and to have overlooked the relation of these statutes to earlier precedents and practices, and, above all, to the principles on which those usages rest. The more thorough examination of the subject conducted abroad by Judge Bishop and others, together with a more careful scrutiny of the Andover statutes and the history of legal training and practice in this country, put the proper construction of the prescribed duties of the board of visitors in a new light. When once discovered, it was easy to see that the historical requirements were clearly and wholly in the line of essential justice and of common sense. The simple principle that the agents of a corporation should not be liable to removal without notice to the corporation, that the responsible management of an institution should not unawares be deprived of those through whom it conducts its affairs, will commend itself to the general judgWe cannot but express some modest surprise that a jurist so learned and accomplished as our admirable Chief Justice, and so capable of the ingenious and penetrating reasoning displayed in his dissenting opinion, should affirm that because Professor Smyth's case was ably and thoroughly argued, both pro and contra, by the respective counsel, the trustees had no claim to be heard, unless it was absolutely necessary, a strict matter of law," that they should be thus represented in order that the visitors might take jurisdiction. Waiving for the moment what the law requires, there is clearly an injustice, of which it would seem that the court must take cognizance, in holding the trustees to strict responsibility for the management of the seminary, and at the same time subjecting them to the entire removal of their agents without opportunity so much as to remonstrate. The mill must work, and the management be held accountable if it does not, yet at any moment, without notice, another power can withdraw every hand they have engaged to run it. Happily, according to the researches of counsel and the opinion of the court, this is not the law of visitation. This proceeds upon the theory ment. as |