or spell. Then only could they hope that the Lord of Abraham and Isaac
would give them "great and goodly cities, which thou buildedst not, And
houses full of all good things, which thou filledst not, and wells digged,
which thou diggedst not, vineyards and olive trees, which thou plantedst
not." [Footnote: Deut. VI, 10, 11.]

Very obviously, if the theory which Moses propounded were sound the assets
which he offered as an inducement for docility could be obtained, at so
cheap a rate, in no other way. All Moses' moral teaching amounted,
therefore, to this--"It pays to be obedient and good." No argument could
have been better adapted to Babylonish society, and it seems to have
answered nearly as well with the Israelites, which proves that they stood
on nearly the same intellectual plane. The chief difficulty with which
Moses had to contend was that his countrymen did not thoroughly believe in
him, nor in the efficacy of his motor. They always were tempted to try
experiments with other motors which were operated by other prophets and by
other peoples who were, apparently, as prosperous as they, or even more
so. His trouble was not that his followers were nomads unprepared for a
sedentary life or a moral law like his, or unable to appreciate the value
of the property of a people further advanced in civilization than they
were. The Amalekites would have responded to no such system of bribery as
Moses offered the Israelites, who did respond with intelligence, if not
always with enthusiasm.

The same is true of the Mosaic legislation which Dr. Budde curtly
dismisses as impossible to have come from Moses, [Footnote: _Religion of
Israel to the Exile_, 31.] as presupposing a knowledge of a settled
agricultural life, which "Israel did not reach until after Moses' death."

All this is an assumption of fact unsupported by evidence; but quite the