that abideth therein, whether they are strong or weak, few or many; and what the land is that they abide in, whether it is good or bad, and what cities they are that they dwell in, whether in camps or in strongholds; and what the land is, whether it is fat or lean, whether there are trees therein, or not' (Numb. xiii. 18-20). The report-no doubt, with all the minute information asked for-was drawn up, and communicated to Moses thirty-nine years before he promulgated the law, as a whole. So that he had ample means of information concerning the country where his laws were to come into operation. We see, then, that the ignorance of Moses with regard to the state of Canaan is the mere figment of a school, that wishes to pass off its own sickly dreams for the genuine realities of history.

A like observation will apply to the low degree of civilisation, which, without the slightest warrant from history, they attribute to the Hebrews under the administration of Moses. On this supposition, they object to the Mosaic origin of certain laws which seem to imply a much higher stage of material and mental development than they are willing to concede. Such is the long catalogue of unnatural crimes, against which Leviticus and Deuteronomy see fit to warn them, when they come to be settled in Canaan. And yet the history of Lot and of Sodom shows that unnatural crimes were prevalent in the country long before the time of Moses; and that high civilisation is not needed to develop the corrupt tendencies of a sensual people, inflamed and kept alive by a sensual religion. But what history is it that tells us that civilisation was so backward among the Hebrews? Real history shows us, that many centuries before Jacob's immigration, Egypt had attained the most incredible development in architecture and sculpture, in art and

manufacture, in science and in literature, in vice and in idolatry. And certainly the Hebrews had not been so long in Egypt, without becoming habituated to the civilisation of their hosts and of their masters: and the tabernacle and its furniture bear witness that they had made good use of their opportunities.

Discarding, therefore, as we may now do securely, all further notice of objections like these, we pass on to the chief arguments which our opponents advance against us on other grounds.

I.

:

The Deuteronomic laws on war Vater believes to have been dictated in Canaan. For he writes as follows:"When Deuteronomy xx. prescribes the rules to be observed in future wars, without adding the words, which elsewhere occur with such redundant frequency; when thou comest into the land which I have sworn to thy fathers, &c., to all appearance the law cannot have come from Moses. And when verse 15 adds: "Thus thou shalt do unto all the cities that are very far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations. But of the cities of these people. . . . the Hittites, and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perrizites, the Hivites and the Jebusites," &c., the probability increases, that this was written in the land of Canaan, not in the plains of Moab, where the people had not yet made the conquest of Canaan, nor attacked the nations thus mentioned.'1

It might have occurred to Vater, that after the conquest had been made, and the Hebrews peaceably settled in Canaan, there would have been small use to legislate on the manner they were to wage war on the already expelled populations. The laws were naturally made before, and

1 Commentar. iii. P. 658.

not after, the wars to which they refer. And although the redundant phrase does not occur in this precise passage, it is necessarily supposed, as vv. 16 and 17 speak of their future operations in the land. Why then add an additional redundancy?

The second reason has just as little weight as the first. For the Canaanites are spoken of as these nations, not because Israel was already in the midst of their country, but because they lay within a few miles of the Hebrews on the other side of the Jordan, and were destined for an immediate attack. This consideration would be enough to justify the expression. But when the contrast is expressly drawn between 'the cities which are very far off’ (v. 15) and 'the cities of these people which Jehovah thy God giveth thee' (v. 16), the oversight becomes unpardonable on the part of a critic and a commentator.

II.

The law regarding prophecy and prophets (Deut. xviii. 20-22) is said by Hitzig to have originated in a time when the prophetic office had become an institution of the country, that is, about the time of Samuel.1

This argument, or rather assertion, rests on a variety of suppositions, which are neither justified by fact nor accredited by probability.

1. It assumes that the law refers to a regular and ordinary office, and that it does not rather contemplate the case of an individual who has no official appointment. Yet the clause speaks of no body of men acting officially as prophets, but of any person whatsoever who should presume, without authority, to speak in the name of Jehovah.

2. Even were it question of a college, whose mem1 Welte, ib. p. 207.

bers either actually exercised the office, or sought to qualify themselves for it, why could not Moses make laws for it, as well as for the priesthood or any other class of the community?

3. It is said, indeed, that Samuel instituted the office. But assertion is not proof.

4. Granting, however, that the introduction of the office was due to Samuel, why could not Moses make a law to meet this future contingency, in the same way as he could lay down instructions to be followed by a future king?

III.

Davidson, after Vater, quotes against us the law of Deut. xix. 14: Thou shalt not remove thy neighbour's landmark, which they of old time have set in thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the land that the Lord thy God giveth thee to possess it.' On which he argues: This language obviously implies the time of peaceful settlement in Canaan. It does not comport with circumstances soon to be realised by the persons to whom Moses spoke; because they are exhorted to respect the landmarks set up by their forefathers in the country. They of old time cannot be referred to the wicked inhabitants about to be driven out. It presupposes a long abode in the land promised to their fathers."

Here there are three strange oversights on the part of our opponent.

6

1. The very law referred to speaks of the possession of the land as something yet to come, as thine inheritance, which thou shalt inherit in the land.' In this form the law could never run, if Israel had already obtained its inheritance.

2. The second oversight is, that the law, being made for the descendants of those who by conquest were to be the first among the Hebrews to acquire possession of the land, supposes these descendants in future ages looking back upon their forefathers of olden time setting up the landmarks, which are not to be removed; and consequently implies the time of peaceful settlement in Canaan,' and 'presupposes a long abode in the land promised to their fathers.'

3. Besides, the term D is not accurately translated they of old time. The Septuagint gives it of Taтépes σou, thy fathers; the Vulgate priores. And that is precisely the meaning, as Davidson himself will allow. The law, therefore, means, that no one was to remove his neighbour's landmarks, set up by the first occupiers of the soil, when once the conquest would enable them to distribute the land. There need not, surely, be any objection to the use of the past tense-have set up, as if at the time that the law was published, the setting up had really taken place. For here it is equivalent to the futurum exactum, the nature of which we have elsewhere had occasion to explain (pp. 411, 412).

IV.

To the same future time belongs the observance of the law in Exodus xxii. 29:- Thou shalt not delay to offer the first of thy ripe fruits, and thy liquors: the first-born of thy sons shalt thou give unto me.'

On which our opponent says:-This belongs to the first legal precepts delivered to Moses at Sinai. Yet the verse presupposes that the Israelites had already brought the first fruits of their fields and vines to the priests. No regulation is given respecting the manner of their offering; it is simply enjoined that the people should not delay