334 



E J R0F. H. EDOUABD NAY1 LLE, D.C.L., LL.D.. OX 



of Canaan .... and I have remembered My covenant " 

 (Exodus vi. 2 ). 



Moses is the witness who has to teach the children of Israel 

 what this covenant is, and constantly to remind them of its 

 existence ; and since the Lord tells him that He is the God of 

 Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, he has to leave to the Israelites a 

 record of how this covenant was made with their forefathers, he 

 has to relate to them who was first chosen among the nations, 

 and who received the promise that his seed should be like the 

 stars of heaven. Moses has to draft their titles of nobility, he 

 has to show them how among the nations one man was set apart, 

 how he had to settle in a foreign country, who were his descend- 

 ants, and how this select family became a select nation. He 

 has to explain to them that from the beginning events were 

 directed towards that purpose : the setting apart of the Israelites 

 to be the worshippers of Jehovah. This he can narrate only in 

 a book, the form of which is mainly historical, and this book is 

 Genesis. As Professor Skinner says, " the whole converges 

 steadily on the line of descent from which Israel sprang, and 

 which determined its providential position among the nations of 

 the world." 



Now this is a plan, the lines of which are clearly marked, 

 easily recognizable, and from which, as we shall see, the author 

 of the book does not deviate in the least. This plan, many of 

 the critics either have not recognized, or do not take into 

 consideration. For them it does not exist, and it cannot exist, 

 for it would be the negation of their systems. For them, 

 Genesis is a collection of so many loose stODes gathered from 

 various places, out of which they make one building or several, 

 but certainly not the temple erected in the place chosen by 

 the Lord. 



But let us consult the critics who approach and study the 

 question with a spirit of reverence lor the "Word of God. 

 Professor Skinner, whom for this reason the present writer will 

 quote in preference to any other critic, says that it is an error 

 to confuse unity of plan with unity of authorship. " The view 

 generally held reconciles the assumption of a diversity of sources 

 with the indisputable fact of a clearly designed arrangement of 

 the material : three main documents following substantially the 

 same historical order are held to be combined by one or more 

 redactors ; one of these documents, being little more than an 

 epitome of the history, was specially fitted to supply a frame- 

 work into which the rest of the narrative could be fitted, and 

 was selected by the redactor for this purpose ; hence the plan 



