regular, and vary from sixty-five to one hundred and eighty-seven. But the versions seek to bring them into closer conformity, and to introduce something like a regular gradation. The Septuagint proceeds on the assumption that patriarchs of such enormous longevity should be nearly two centuries old at the birth of their son. Accordingly, when, in the Hebrew, they fall much below this standard, one hundred years are added to the number preceding the birth of the son and the same amount deducted from the number following his birth; the total length of each life is thus preserved without change, the proportion of its different parts alone being altered. The Samaritan, on the other hand, assumes a gradual diminution in the ages of successive patriarchs prior to the birth of their son, none rising to a century after the first two. When, therefore, the number in the Hebrew text exceeds one hundred, one hundred is deducted and the same amount added to the years after the son was born. In the case of Lamech the reduction is greater still, in order to effect the necessary diminution. Accordingly the years assigned to the several antediluvian patriarchs before the birth of their son in these several texts is as follows:

A simple glance at these numbers is sufficient to show that the Hebrew is the original, from which the others

1The number varies in different manuscripts.

diverge on the one side or the other, according to the principle which they have severally adopted. It likewise creates a strong presumption that the object contemplated in these changes was to make the lives more symmetrical, rather than to effect an alteration in the chronology.

5. The structure of the genealogies in Gen. v. and xi. also favors the belief that they do not register all the names in these respective lines of descent. Their regularity seems to indicate intentional arrangement. Each genealogy includes ten names, Noah being the tenth from Adam, and Terah the tenth from Noah. And each ends with a father having three sons, as is likewise the case with the Cainite genealogy (iv. 17-22). The Sethite genealogy (chap. v.) culminates in its seventh member, Enoch, who "walked with God, and he was not, for God took him." The Cainite genealogy also culminates in its seventh member, Lamech, with his polygamy, bloody revenge, and boastful arrogance. The genealogy descending from Shem divides evenly at its fifth member, Peleg; and "in his days was the earth divided." Now as the adjustment of the genealogy in Matt. i. into three periods of fourteen generations each is brought about by dropping the requisite number of names, it seems in the highest degree probable that the symmetry of these primitive genealogies is artificial rather than natural. It is much more likely that this definite number of names fitting into a regular scheme has been selected as sufficiently representing the periods to which they belong, than that all these striking numerical coincidences should have happened to occur in these successive instances.

It may further be added that if the genealogy in chap. xi. is complete, Peleg, who marks the entrance of a new period, died while all his ancestors from Noah onward were still living. Indeed Shem, Arphaxad, Selah, and Eber must all have outlived not only Peleg, but all the

generations following as far as and including Terah. The whole impression of the narrative in Abraham's days is that the Flood was an event long since past, and that the actors in it had passed away ages before. And yet if a chronology is to be constructed out of this genealogy, Noah was for fifty-eight years the contemporary of Abraham, and Shem actually survived him thirty-five years, provided xi. 26 is to be taken in its natural sense, that Abraham was born in Terah's seventieth year. This conclusion is well-nigh incredible. The calculation which leads to such a result, must proceed upon a wrong assumption.

On these various grounds we conclude that the Scriptures furnish no data for a chronological computation prior to the life of Abraham; and that the Mosaic records do not fix and were not intended to fix the precise date either of the Flood or of the creation of the world.

ARTICLE VIII.

THE AMERICAN BOARD AND RECENT
DISCUSSIONS.

THERE are some indications that the controversy which for some years past has agitated the constituency of the American Board is about to pass into a new phase or to be merged into a wider movement of thought. The time is, therefore, opportune for a brief review of the merits of this controversy and a careful statement of the results, so far as they have yet been realized. Such a study is of more than temporary interest and value, since the matters in debate have touched the effective working of one of the most venerable and successful missionary organizations of the times, and have also been closely related to one of the great theological movements of this generation. It is these wider bearings of the questions in review which have attracted the general interest of Protestant Christendom; something more has been seen to be at stake than the fortunes of a few missionary candidates or of the officials in a missionary society, something which affects radically the whole missionary enterprise of the age and the general interpretation of the gospel and the Christian faith. Whatever part purely personal considerations or mere partisanship may have played in the events here reviewed, it is not these which have made the movement memorable, or which have drawn toward it the thoughts of so many men of weight in other communions and in other lands. Agencies and methods for evangelizing men and nations, involving the highest temporal and eternal

interests of vast populations as well as the forms and power of civilized life over the greater portion of the habitable globe, are under inquiry and are subjected to the severest tests. The meaning and the validity of the divine message which the Master has commissioned us to proclaim, the warp and woof of the Christian faith by which we live and which is the one supreme treasure of human hearts in all generations, -it is these transcendent themes which are in debate, it is these ineffable interests which have been cast into the balances of thought and discussion.

Let us take a brief survey of the salient features of the movement,that the facts may be familiar and that the grounds and significance of the criticisms we offer may be plainly in mind. Before we begin, it may be needful to say that the general doctrinal ferment of these later years is not specifically in view. We recognize it, we notice its connection with the events we are to study at more or fewer points, we are not insensible to the logical relations which subsist between these two movements; but for obvious and sufficient reasons we confine our present study to the agitations which have been directly connected with the American Board and its administration during the past four years. The much-censured speeches on the platform of the Board at Portland in October, 1882, the excitement connected with the election of Dr. Newman Smyth to the chair of theology in Andover Theological Seminary, and the commotion involved in the settlement of Rev. George A. Gordon over the Old South Church of Boston, are often referred to as parts of that course of events which we purpose to examine; but for obvious reasons they must all be left out of view. Up to the early months of 1886 the constituency of the Board, so far as the internal history of the Society is concerned, had continued united and harmonious in approval of what the Board or its Committee and Officers had done; the