BOOK earth, but in Israel; by which instances it is demonstraII. ble, that either the faith of all these persons was built upon weak and insufficient grounds, or that a power of miracles is an evident confirmation of the truth of that religion which is established by them. For this we see was the great end for which God did employ any of his prophets to work miracles, viz. to be as an evident demonstration of the truth of what was revealed by him. So that this power of miracles is not merely a motive of credibility, or a probable inducement to remove prejudice from the person, as many of our divines speak, but it doth contain an evident demonstration to common sense, of the truth of that religion which is confirmed by them.

XVI.

And thus we assert it to have been in the case of Moses; the truth of whose message was attested both among the Egyptians and the Israelites, by that power of miracles which he had. But herein we have the great patrons of Moses our greatest enemies, viz. the present Jews, who by reason of their enmity to the doctrine of Christ, which was attested by unparalleled miracles, are grown very shy of the argument drawn from thence; insomuch that their great doctor Maimonides lays down this

משה רכינו לא האמינו בו ישראל מפני,Maim. de for a confident maxim

Fund. Leg. : the Israelites did not believe in Moses our Master

c. 8. s. I. for the sake of the miracles which he wrought. Did they

Jos. Albo. 1. i. c. 18.

not? the more shame for them; and if they did, the more shame for this great Rabbi thus to belie them. But the reason he gives for it is, Because there may remain some suspicion in one's mind, that all miracles may be wrought by a power of magic or incantation. Say ye so? What, when Moses confounded all the magicians in Egypt, and made themselves, who were the most cunning in these things, confess it was the finger of God, and at last give out as not able to stand before Moses? Might one still suspect all this to be done by a magical power? Credat Judæus Apella, non ego. This is much like what another of their doctors says, whom they call the Divine Philosopher, that Elisha's raising the child to life, and curing Naaman's leprosy; and Daniel's escaping the lions, and Jonas out of the whale's belly, might all come to pass by the influence of the stars, or by pythonism. Very probable! But it is most true which G. Vorstius there observes of the Jews, Nihil non nugaciffimi mortalium fingunt ne cogantur agnoscere virtute ac digito quasi ipsius Dei Jesum nostrum effecisse miracula sua. All their de

VI.

sign in this is, only to lessen the miracles of our blessed CHA P. Saviour, and to derogate all they can from the belief of them. Hence they tell us, that nothing is so easy to be done as miracles. The mere recital of the Tetragrammaton will work wonders; and that by this Jeremiah and our Saviour did all their miracles. It is well yet that he did no more than one of their own prophets had done before him but where, I wonder, do we read that ever the pronouncing of four letters raised one from the dead, who had lain four days in the grave? Or by what power did Christ raise himself from the dead? (which was the greatest miracle of all.) Could his dead body pronounce the Tetragrammaton to awaken itself with? But Maimonides further tells us, that the miracles which Moses wrought among the Israelites were merely for necessity, and not to prove the truth of his Divine commission; for which he instanceth in dividing the Red Sea, the raining of Manna, and the destruction of Corah and his complices. But setting aside that these two latter were the immediate hand of God, and not miracles done by Moses, yet it is evident that the intent of them was to manifest a Divine presence among them: and in the trial of Corah Moses appeals to God's immediate Providence, to manifest whether God had immediately employed him or no : for it is evident by the text, that the main charge they laid against Moses, was ambition and usurpation. Is it a Numb. xvi, small thing, say they, that thou hast brought us up out of a 13. land that floweth with milk and honey, to kill us in the wilderness, except thou make thyself altogether a prince over us? Whereby it is evident they thought that Moses acted out of a private design, and aimed at his own honour and authority; which was an imputation of the highest nature that could be alleged against him. Now see how Moses proceeds to clear himself, (which is sufficient to stop the mouths of these incredulous Jews; for he lays the greatest evidence of his Divine commission upon a present miracle. And Moses said, Hereby shall ye know V. 28, 29, that the Lord hath sent me to do all these works; for I have not done them of mine own mind: if these men die the common death of all men, then the Lord hath not sent me, &c. Can any thing be more plain than that the only intent of this miracle was to make it appear, that Moses took not his office upon him, but was immediately sent and employed by God in what he did? But that which will put an end to this controversy, is, God's giving Moses a power to work miracles, for that very end that the

9.

BOOK Israelites should believe him, Exodus viii. 8, 9. And can II. we think they would have ever left Egypt as they did, and followed Moses into the wilderness, unless they had been fully convinced he was a deliverer sent from God? It is true (that which the Jews speak so much of) the statio in monte Sina was a great confirmation both to their own faith and to Moses's, according to what God had told him, Exod. iii. 12. but yet it follows not hence they had no firm bottom for their faith to stand on before, (for then they might have been drowned in the Red Sea as well as the Egyptians ;) but God knowing their incredulity, and readiness to disobey his law, did at the promulgation of it testify to their eyes and ears his own preExod. xix. sence in the midst of them. And this certainly was one of the greatest miracles of all; and therefore to oppose this to the evidence that is produced by miracles, is only to oppose a power of working miracles to a power of doing them. So vain and empty then, so false and fallacious, yea so directly contrary to Holy Scripture is that axiom of the Jews, Prophetiæ veritas non confirmatur miraculis for miracles are sufficient evidences of Divine revelation in any whom God employs, to all but such as are resolved not to, believe them; and as one well saith, Pertinaciæ nullum remedium posuit Deus; God never works miracles to convince obstinate Atheists and wilful Infidels. This now is the first case wherein miracles are to be expected; which is, when God employs any upon an extraordinary message, to be as credentials to confirm their Divine commission.

CHAP. VII.

The Eternity of the Law of Moses discussed.

I. The second Case wherein Miracles may be expected; when a Divine positive Law is to be repealed, and another way of Worship established instead of it. The Possibility in general of a Repeal of a Divine Law asserted; the particular Case of the Law of Moses disputed against the Jews: II. The Matter of that Law proved not to be immutably obligatory; because the ceremonial Precepts were required not for themselves, but for some further End; that proved from Maimonides's Confession: III. The Precepts of the Ceremonial Law frequently dispensed with while the Law was in Force. Of the Passover of Hezekiah, and several other Instances. IV. It is not inconsistent with the Wisdom of God to repeal such an established Law. Abravanel's Arguments answered. V. Of the Perfection of the Law of Moses, compared with the Gospel. VI. Whether God hath ever declared he would never repeal the Law of Moses. VII. Of adding to the Precepts. VIII. Of the Expressions seeming to imply the Perpetuity of the Law of Moses. Reasons assigned why those Expressions are used, though Perpetuity be not implied. IX. The Law of Moses not built upon immutable Reason, because many particular Precepts were founded upon particular Occasions, as the Customs of the Zabii; X. many ceremonial Precepts thence deduced out of Maimonides; XI. and because such a State of Things was foretold, with which the Observation of the Ceremonial Law would be inconsistent. XII. That largely discovered from the Prophecies of the Old Testament.

VII.

1.

I NOW come to the second case wherein miracles may CHAP. be justly expected; which is, When something which hath been before established by Divine law is to be repealed, and some other way of worship to be set up instead of it. Two things are very necessary to be spoken to for the clearing of this proposition: First, Whether a law once established by God himself, be capable of a repeal? Secondly, What necessity there is of miracles to manifest God's intention of repealing a former law? These two contain the main foundation of the dispute between the Jews and us, viz. Whether the law of Moses was ever to be laid aside, and whether the miracles of our Blessed Saviour were sufficient evidences of God's intention by him to repeal the former law established by Moses? I begin with the first, Whether a Divine law in general, or the law of

II.

BOOK Moses in particular, may be abrogated or repealed, after God himself hath made it evident that the promulgation of it was from himself? This must be confessed the strongest and most plausible plea the present Jews have for their infidelity, and therefore the eternity of the law of Moses is made by them one of the fundamental articles of their present Creed, and is pleaded for with the greatest subtlety by their great R. Abravanel, who spends his whole 13th chapter de Capite Fidei upon it; but with what success, will be seen in our clearing of it. There are but three things can be supposed as the grounds why a law, once promulged by God himself, should not be capable of repeal; and those are either first, Because the things themselves commanded in that law are of such a nature that they are not capable of being dispensed with; or secondly, that it is not consistent with the wisdom of God to repeal a law once established; or thirdly, that the reason of the law continuing always the same, it would argue mutability in God to revoke that law, and establish another instead of it: if we can therefore demonstrate, that the matter of the law of Moses is of a positive and mutable nature, that it is suitable to the wisdom of God to alter it, and that sufficient account in reason may be given for the alteration of it, then there can be no imaginable necessity that a law once having God for its author, must therefore derive from him an eternal and immutable obligation.

II.

First, then, as to the matter of the law and here it must be supposed, .that, in the matter of controversy between us and the Jews, the question is not of any of those things which are therefore commanded, because they are intrinsically good, as the precepts of the natural or moral law, but of those things which are therefore only good because God commands them, i. e. things merely positive, whose worth and value ariseth not from the intrinsic weight of the things, but from the external impress of Divine authority upon them. Now it is no question on either hand, whether God may require these things or no, nor whether these things will be acceptable unto God, so long as he requires them; but whether, when once required, the obligation to them can never cease. Such kind of things among the Jews we suppose all the rites and ceremonies of the law to be, viz. circumcision, distinction of meats and days, customs of sacrificing, and such like; and whatever other laws respected them as a distinct and peculiar common