112 YEN. ARCHDEACON WILLIAM SINCLAIR, D.D., ON 



the books themselves to be written by Moses. But the Jewish 

 tradition pointing that way is so persistent and so universal, 

 that it is extremely probable that it rests on some foundation 

 of fact. Nobody would deny that the books of the Bible have 

 been edited and re-edited in different ages, ^^obody would 

 deny that all the historical books of the Bible profess to be 

 compilations. But to insist that the greater part of those five 

 books is a late and fabricated compilation is contrary to all 

 probability. Perhaps the ablest and truest verdict on this 

 subject has been pronounced by the present Dean of 

 Canterbury : 



" The origin and composition of the Pentateuch, according to 

 these theories, is of so unexampled and extraordinary a character 

 that the most positive historical evidence would be required to 

 justify our acceptance of the results of it. There is no instance of 

 an ancient book of history being composed like a tessellated 

 pavement ; in which several unknown sources are dovetailed into 

 one another, sometimes in the most minute pieces. Still less is there 

 any instance of an elaborate historical and legislative work being 

 composed with the object of confusing, if not preventing, a nation's 

 traditions of its own history and its ancient laws ; still less of such a 

 work succeeding in the attempt. If such a scheme were difficult with 

 an 3^ nation, it would be tenfold more difficult in the case of the Jews, 

 one of whose chief characteristics, at once their strength and their 

 danger, is their intense tenacity, and who were always, for good or 

 for harm, ' a stiff-necked people.' But it is impossible not to add 

 that most improbable, if not most monstrous of all, is the 

 supposition that such a pious fraud was committed at the instigation 

 of the God of truth, and that the books which are its record and its 

 instrument can be regarded as inspired by Him." 



True Points in Reverent Criticism. 



There are, of course, many important points on which we 

 can agree with the reverent and Christian school of critics. 

 We can insist that Holy Scripture was intended to teach 

 morality and religion, not science ; we insist in fact with 

 St. Paul that all Scripture given by inspiration of God is 

 profitable also for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for 

 instruction in righteousness and not for scientific purposes. 

 We can maintain a fact which ought never to have been over- 

 looked, that it is a library of books covering a period of' 2,000 

 years, not one single book. We are bound to remind critics 

 as well as ordinary readers that, as I have already stated, every 

 historical book expresses its obligations to existing records ; 



