ing to "The New York Christian Union," "of not more than local repute," while Dr. Seelye, the third Visitor, a man of great eminence as a scholar and thinker, voted for the acquittal of Dr. Smyth. When the other professors had to be dealt with, Dr. Eustis declined to act, as he had not heard their defence, and, the votes of the remaining two Visitors neutralizing each other, the charges were declared, in their cases, not to be sustained. It will seem, therefore, that Dr. Smyth has been condemned for the writings of colleagues for whom Dr. Eustis opened, whether intentionally or not, a door of escape.

We have but little room left for commenting upon these painful proceedings, whilst the fact that the whole case will probably go before the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, and may lead to years of litigation, also checks our pen. It may be that the Board of Visitors are legally right, and that the professors have, even by setting forth in a magazine views not in perfect harmony with the ancient creed of the college, rendered themselves liable to dismissal from their office. But if so, the mischief wrought by trust-deeds which fetter the movements of intellectual and spiritual life becomes sadly evident. Such trust-deeds in connection with theological colleges, in which every influence that can develop the growth of religious thought should be welcomed, are even worse in their operation than when crushing out the life of individual churches. For a ministry trained to concealment of ideas, or taught to distrust every effort to enlarge the realms of truth, may blight the Christianity of a generation.

The Christian World, July 7, 1887.

CHRISTIAN FREEDOM IN AMERICA.

The Andover Case, which we have repeatedly had occasion to bring before our readers, has arrived at what may be called a provisional termination. The Board of Visitors, who claim to have supreme authority over the institution, have deprived Professor Egbert C. Smyth, D. D., of the Chair of Ecclesiastical History in Andover Theological Seminary, and have dropped the charges which were brought against Dr. Smyth's colleagues, Professor Tucker (Sacred Rhetoric), Professor Churchill (Elocution), Professor Harris (Christian Theology), and Professor Hincks (Biblical Theology). This looks something like finality. But the Trustees of Andover contest both the rightness of the decision of the Visitors and its legal conclusiveness. They hold that no decision adverse to the position of Dr. Smyth ought to have been pronounced, and it is considered possible, if not probable, that they will appeal against the decision of the Visitors to the Supreme Court of Massachusetts. No one, however strongly he may disagree with Professor Smyth, is likely to exult in the victory won by his adversaries, or to find much comfort in the illusion that he and his opinions have been snuffed out. On the other hand, the failure of the attack, in so far as the other Professors were concerned, can yield but scant satisfaction to any one. It is not denied that the four who escaped are of the same mind with the one who is compelled to vacate his chair.

We shall be much surprised if the general contention of the Trustees, as stated by themselves with lucidity and force, does not commend itself to a large majority of religious persons, and in particular to a large majority of Congregationalists in this country. They protest, in the first place, against the manner in which they have been left out in the cold by the Visitors. The constitution of Andover bestows upon the Board of Trustees important duties of a judicial character. "No man shall be continued a Professor in this

institution who shall not continue to approve himself to the satisfaction of the Trustees, a man of sound and orthodox principles in Divinity." The Visitors were meant to be "a second Board, whose duties should be supervisory and appellate," "a safeguard, not a substitution." The Trustees maintain, therefore, that they ought to have been invited to play an official part in the trial of the professors, and not to have been "refused a standing at the hearing before the Visitors." But they could not consider themselves thus relieved from their obligations under the constitution. "Accordingly we have carefully weighed," they say, "the evidence both of the complainants and the respondents presented at the trial, and have sought light from all other accessible sources; and our judgment is that the charges brought against the professors are not sustained." Having carefully examined the opposite contention as presented with great ability by Dr. Dexter, we are bound to say that the arguments by which the Trustees support this assertion seem to us exceedingly strong. The charges against the professors admit of brief statement. They are alleged to deny that the Bible is "the only perfect rule of faith and practice," holding it to be "fallible and untrustworthy, even in some of its religious teachings," and to affirm that the hope of salvation is not forbidden even with reference to those who do not in this life accept Christ, it being possible that Divine grace may renew them in spiritual life in the world beyond the grave. Such are the charges by which, in democratic America, in the nineteenth century of modern enlightenment, that Christian denomination which plumes itself upon its devotion to progress and its audacity of freedom has been deeply moved. It cannot, with any reasonableness, be alleged that Dr. Smyth and his brethren deny the inspiration of Scripture. They merely — as the Trustees urge decline to "adopt a certain theory of inspiration."

The Andover creed runs thus: "I believe that the Word of God, contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament, is the only perfect rule of faith and practice." Nothing is here said "about the way or method in which the Bible became a perfect rule of faith and practice." In other words, add the Trustees, "it prescribes no theory of inspiration." In particular, it does not allege that there is an essential difference between the inspiration of the Spirit in the Bible and the inspiration of the Spirit in the soul and character of the believer. The professors explicitly affirm "that we have in the Bible a trustworthy and authoritative expression of the mind and will of God." Professor Smyth publicly said last October: "I know of no professor at Andover who has ever thought of questioning the supreme authority of the Scriptures as the record of special Divine revelation, and the only perfect rule of faith and practice." It is profoundly depressing to know that a man who, honestly and cordially, speaking for himself and his colleagues, could thus express his faith in Scripture, should be arraigned in free America for unsoundness in his view of inspiration. Turning to the second of the so-called errors for which Professor Smyth has been driven from his Chair, we find, strange and paradoxical as the statement may appear, that it is in the intensely orthodox and evangelical character of Professor Smyth's theology, that his fond clinging to the hope that those, or some of those, who die without believing in Christ, may after all be saved, has its origin. He holds in its extreme form the old Protestant dogma of the impotence of human nature for all spiritual good. He believes that no man can be saved by merely following the light of natural reason, and obeying the law within. Only by renewing in the image of God, through faith in Christ, can salvation be wrought. Heathen, therefore, how

ever worthy they may be of honor on account of their natural virtues, cannot, he holds, be saved in this life if they never have heard the name of Christ. The idea of their being lost eternally is too horrible; and, therefore, he will not relinquish the hope that, in the period succeeding death, they may hear of Christ, or see him, and be converted and healed. Surely, if this be heresy or error, it is the mildest and most innocent and beautiful form of faith that ever bore those evil names! Dr. Smyth has lost his Chair mainly for believing that, in this life, man, without knowledge of Christ, cannot save himself, and for hoping that, after death, the omnipotent God who made him will save him. The British Weekly, July 1, 1887.

The decision in the Andover Case has at last been announced, and is very peculiar. Dr. Egbert C. Smyth has been removed, and the other four professors acquitted on a purely technical ground. There were three Visitors — Dr. Eustis, President Seelye, and Mr. Marshall. Of these, Dr. Eustis and Mr. Marshall voted to have Dr. Smyth removed on the ground that he taught contrary to the creed and statutes of the institution, "that the Bible is not the only perfect rule of faith and practice, but is fallible and untrustworthy even in some of its religious teachings; that no man has power or capacity to repent without knowledge of God in Christ; that there is, and will be, probation after death for all men who do not decisively reject Christ during this earthly life." The extraordinary thing is that the articles from which the citations were made to convict Professor Smyth were not written by him, but by the other professors, and yet these get off. It happened thus. Dr. Smyth's case was finished on a Saturday. On the Monday following, Dr. Eustis had a funeral to attend, but intimated his willingness that the case of the other professors should be decided in his absence. This was done, and the result was a tieDr. Seelye on one side and Mr. Marshall on the other. So the professors remain. On the face of it this seems like wanton trifling with great and sacred interests, and it is not surprising to hear that the case goes to the Supreme Court. Unless some explanation is forthcoming of the scandalous farce of Monday, all the Visitors will be justly held unfit for any position of responsibility. The Board of Trustees, with one exception, issue a declaration in favor of the professors.

The decision, so long and anxiously waited for, will be received on all sides with indignation and contempt. If the Visitors had wished to aggravate the difficulty, to displease everybody, and to make themselves supremely ridiculous, they could not have gone to work in a better way. By a majority of two to one they removed Dr. Egbert C. Smyth. Then they agreed to take the charges against the other professors in the absence of one orthodox member at a funeral. They knew that the other professors were exactly in the same case as Dr. Smyth. They knew that the two Visitors who were to try them would differ, as they did about Dr. Smyth. Yet the farce went on. And so Dr. Smyth is removed for indorsing passages written by men who are retained as professors. The writing is condoned; the indorsing is condemned. And all this to save one day of time, months of which have already been shamefully wasted. The result will be, in all probability, years of disastrous and embittered controversy.

We have given in the above quotation from the "British Weekly" all that has come under our notice from that paper, but we judge from the

following reference in the "Watchman" (Boston) of July 28, that the "Weekly" has elsewhere treated the subject more fully. The "Watchman" may be relied upon in its quotation of adverse criticism upon Andover theology, and the passage quoted will at least show that the "British Weekly" is an impartial critic:

"The 'British Weekly' comments on the Andover case, impartially disparaging the Visitors and the professors, and by implication the complainants. Of the professors and their theology it speaks with contempt. They are Christian men of letters rather than scholars.' And as to their doctrine it is derisively remarked:

"There is an unbelief which must be treated with earnest considerationin speaking of which contemptuous flippancy is unpardonable; but the American "new theology we respect little, and fear not at all. Much of it is as easy to manufacture as a summer cooling drink. Take equal parts of Kingsley, Carlyle, the easy bits of Herbert Spencer, and the "Nineteenth Century," flavor with Scripture according to taste, and serve up with scraps of Tennyson and Matthew Arnold.'"

BIBLICAL AND HISTORICAL CRITICISM.

EVIL, OR THE EVIL ONE? MATT. vi. 13.

THE change from "evil" to "the evil one" in the revised version of The Lord's Prayer has caused no little dissatisfaction. Upon this may have turned in the minds of some the refusal to accept the work of the revisers. But this is sheer prejudice, and should be overcome, provided the change was made on adequate grounds. I shall try to state the case so that a careful reader will be able to form an intelligent opinion.

"Evil" and "the evil one " are two renderings of a singular form, common to the masculine and the neuter gender of the attributive adjective ponēros employed substantively with the definite article. The general meaning of poneros corresponds with that of the English adjective "evil." It occurs in the New Testament seventy-eight times,' and in the version of King James is translated "evil" fifty-one times, "wicked" nineteen times, "bad "malicious once, "lewd" once, once, "grievous once, "that which is evil" twice, " "wickedness once, "harm" once. My present purpose does not require me to consider the shades of meaning the adjective may have, but only its interpretation as used substantively with the article, and in the singular, masculine, or neuter. The usages of Greek attributive adjectives used substantively with the article are not altogether the same without regard to gender; and when they are the same, gender affects interpretation. In the first place I shall show that regarding form alone. Not two interpretations only, but

Six different Interpretations are possible, the most of which may be amply illustrated from parallel usages in English.

(1.) In Greek, the masculine singular of an attributive adjective with 1 The most approved texts omit the last clause of Luke xi. 4, but have ponēros in Acts xxv. 18.

...

the wicked The wicked,

the article is regularly employed, generally to represent a class of persons. The same usage occurs scores of times in the English Bible. Thus, "The wicked in his pride doth persecute the poor, boasteth of his heart's desire, and blesseth the covetous. through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God." (Ps. x. 2, 3, 4.) It is, however, much more common in English to annex a noun, or to employ the plural number or an antecedent pronoun with a relative clause; as, "The virtuous man is respected," or, "The virtuous are respected," or, "He that is virtuous is respected."

(2.) In Greek, the masculine singular of an attributive adjective with the article is regularly employed to represent a particular individual already mentioned. I can present nothing quite parallel in English, but "the aforesaid," as sometimes used in formal papers, may serve as an illustration.

(3.) In Greek, the singular of an attributive adjective with the article, as well as of a noun or a noun and an attributive adjective with the article, is regularly employed to represent an object as the one of its kind in special relation to the circle to which the speaker belongs, or as the preeminent individual of those which can receive the same designation. This can be illustrated from English common nouns with the article, if not from English attributive adjectives; as, the square, the jail, the courthouse, the railroad station. We are constantly distinguishing in this way what has a special relation to our circle. "The doctor," is our family physician. "The cat," is our household cat. Contrast this use with the generic use. telligent animal." "The dog is on the rug." faithful friend." "The cat wants to come in." ture." There have been many saviors; but we preeminence" the Saviour." In the conceptions of men there is an indefinite number of devils; but when we speak of "the devil," we so designate one by a signal preeminence.

"The horse must be fed."

"The horse is an in"The dog is man's most "The cat is a sly creacall only one by way of

(4.) In Greek, the neuter singular of an attributive adjective with the article is sometimes used generically to represent a class of things. This rarely occurs in English, yet the proposition, "There is but a step from the sublime to the ridiculous," presents two examples of it, for “the sublime" is equivalent to "that which is sublime," and "the ridiculous" is equivalent to "that which is ridiculous." The terms are concrete, not abstract.

(5.) In Greek, the neuter singular of an attributive adjective with the article may be used according to (2) and (3) above.

(6.) In Greek, the neuter singular of an attributive adjective with the article may be used to represent an idea purely abstract, as is often the case in Paul's Epistles. This is rare in English, but in the words, “A Treatise on the Beautiful and the Sublime," there are two examples of it.

The first ground of decision between these different interpretations is, that an adjective with an article of a form common to both the masculine and the neuter gender is legitimately presumed to be masculine when it is not required to be neuter by other elements of the thought, or by the

context.

The second consideration is, that in the view of Christ and his first disciples, as well as in that of their successors, Satan was the prince of numberless fallen angels ready to perform his behests, and that he was