The Grounds of the Christian Faith, Book 2 · Chapter 7
CHAP. VII. The eternity of the Law of Moses discussed.
The second case wherein miracles may be expected, when a Divine positive Law is to be repealed, and another way of worship established in stead of it.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 Iews: 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 his confession: the precepts of the Ceremonial Law frequently dispensed with while the Law was in force. Of the Passeover of Hezekiah, and several other instances. It is not inconsistent with the wisdom of God to repeal such an established Law. Abravanels arguments answered. Of the perfection of the Law of Moses, compared with the Gospel. Whether God hath ever declared he would never repeal the Law of Moses. Of adding to the precepts. Of the expressions seeming to imply the perpetuity of the Law of Moses. Reasons assigned why those expressions are used, though perpetuity be not implyed. The Law of Moses not built upon immutable reason, because many particular precepts were founded upon particular occasions, as the customs of the Zabii; many ceremonial precepts thence deduced out of Maimonides; and because such a state of things was foretold, with which the observation of the Ceremonial Law would be inconsistent. That largely discovered from the Prophecyes of the old Testament.
I Now come to the second case wherein miracles may be Sect. 1.justly expected, which is, when something which hath been before established by Divine Law, is to be repealed, and some other way of worship to be set up in stead of it.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 Gods intention of repealing a former Law. These two contain the main foundation of the dispute between the Iews 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 Gods 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 I begin with the first, whether a Divine Law in general, or the Law of Moses in particular may be abrogated or repealed, after God himself hath made it evident that the promulgation of it was from himself.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 Iews 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 subtilty by their great R. Abravan…l, who spends his whole 13. 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 his Author, must therefore derive from him an eternal and immutable obligation.
First then as to the matter of the Law; and here it must be Sect. 2.supposed, that in the matter of controversie between us and the Iews, the question is not of any of those things which are therefore commanded, because they are intrinsecally 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 meerly positive, whose worth and value ariseth not from the intrinsick 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 Iews we suppose all the rites and ceremonies of the Law to be; viz. circumcision, distinction of meats and days, customes of sacrificing, and such like, and whatever other Laws respected them as a distinct and peculiar Common-wealth. All these we say are such as do not carry an immutable obligation along with them; and that on these accounts.
First, because these things are not primarily required for 1.themselves, but in order to some further end. Things that are required upon their own account, carry an indispensable obligation in them to their performance; but where things are commanded not for themselves, but the Legislator doth express some particular grounds of requiring them, there the end and intention of the Legislator is the measure of their obligation. To which purpose Maimonides excellently speaks when he saith, That the particular manner of worship among More Nevoch. p. 3. c. 32.the Jews, as sacrifices and oblations, were secundum intentionem secundam Dei, Gods secondary intention and design; but prayer, invocation, and the like, were nearer Gods primary intention: Now, saith he, for the first, they are no further acceptable to God, then as all the circumstances of time, place, and persons are observed, which are prescribed by God himself; but the latter are acceptable in any person, time, or place. And for this cause, saith he, it is that we find the Prophets often reproving men for their too great sedulity in bringing oblations, and inculcating this to them, that God did not intend these as the principal instances of his worship, and that God did not need any of these things. So 1 Sam. 15. 22. Behold to obey is better then sacrifice, and to hearken, then the fat of rams: Isa. 1. 11. To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? saith the Lord. And especially Ierem. 7. 22, 23. For I spake not to your Fathers, nor commanded them in the day that I brought them forth out of the Land of Aegypt, concerning burnt-offerings; but this thing I commanded them, saying. Obey my voice, and I will be your God, and ye shall be my people. Of which words Maimonides saith, Scrupulum moverunt omnibus, quos mihi videre aut audire contigit; For say they, how can it be that God did not commandthem concerning sacrifices, when great part of the Law is about them? But Maimonides well resolves the doubt thus, That Gods primary intention, and that which he chiefly looked at was obedience; but Gods intention in sacrifices and oblations, was only to teach them the chief thing, which was obedience. This then is of the number of those things which are spoken absolutely, but to be understood comparatively, as, I will have mercy and not sacrifice. My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. It is not you that speak, but the holy Ghost, &c. So that we see all the goodness which is in these things, is conveyed into them by that which is morally good, which is obedience; and God did never regard the performance of those Laws any further then as it was an expression of obedience; and it was conjoyned with those other moral duties which were most agreeable to the Divine nature. And in this sense many understood that difficult place, Ezek. 20. 25. And I gave them foreign statutes that were not good, i. e. say they, comparatively with these things which were simply and in themselves good; to which purpose they give this rule, aliquid negatur inesse alicui, quod alterius comparatione existimatur exiguum. But I rather think that which the Chaldee Paraphrast suggests, and others explain further, to be the meaning of that place, viz. that by the precepts that were not good, is meant the cruel and tyrannical impositions of those enemies God for their sins did deliver them over to, which were far from being acceptable to them, which is frequently the sense of good in Scripture. Thus we see one reason why the ceremonial precepts do not in themselves imply an immutable obligation, because they are not commanded for themselves, but in order to a further end.
Because God hath frequently dispensed with the ceremonial precepts when they were in greatest force, if the end of them Sect. 3. 2.could be attained without them. Thus the precept of circumcision slept during the Israelites travels in the wilderness. Thus David eat of the shew-bread, which is expresly forbidden in the Law; the Iews think to evade this by distinguishing Exod. 29. 33.between the bread of confession in the Eucharistical offering mentioned Levit. 7. 13. and the proper shewbread: Now they say David eat only of the first, and not of the second; but this is glossa Aurelianensis, which overthrows the Text; for it is expresly said, that the ground why the Priest gave him holy bread, was because there was none there but foreign the shew-bread, 1 Sam. 21. 6. A like violation of the Law without reproof, is commonly supposed by the Iews to have been in the siege of Iericho, viz. in the case of the Sabbath. But it is more plain in that Anomalous Passeover observed by Hezekiah, which many of the Iews themselves acknowledge was not observed as the second Passeover provided by the Law to be celebrated on the 14 day of the second monethmonth by those who were debarred of the first for their legal uncleanness; but they suppose it to have been intended for the legal Passeover; only because the fourteenth Numb. 9. 11.of Nisan was passed before the sanctification of the Temple was finished, lest they should celebrate none at all that year, they tell us that Hezekiah with the consent of 2 Chron. 29. 17.the Rulers, did make an Intercalation that year of a whole monethmonth, and so Nisan was reckoned for the second Adar. and Iiar for Nisan, from whence they say that Hezekiah did intercalate Nisan in Nisan, that is, added another Nisan V. Selden. de Amo civili Jud. cap. 9.to the first. But where do we read any such thing permitted in the Law as the celebrating the first Passeover the 14 of the second monethmonth? But granting that it was observed as a second Passeover, because of the want of legal sanctification both in Priests and people; yet we find great irregularities in the observation of it; for it is expresly said, That a multitude of the people had not cleansed themselves, yet they did eat the Passeover otherwise then it was written. 2 Chron. 30. 18.And yet it is said upon Hezekiah's prayer, that the Lord hearkened to Hezekiah, and healed every one. So that we see God himself did dispense with the strict ceremonial precepts v. 20.of the Law, where men did look after the main and substantial parts of the worship God required from them. Nay God himself hath expresly declared his own will to dispense with the ritual and ceremonial Law, where it comees to stand in competition with such things as have an internal goodness in them, when he saith he desired mercy and not sacrifice, and the knowledge of God more then burnt-offerings. Thus Hos. 6. 6.we plainly see that the ceremonial Law, however positive it was, did yield as to its obligation, when any thing that was moral, stood in competition with it. And so the Iews themselves suppose an open violation of the judicial Law to have been in the hanging up of Sauls sons a long time together, directly contrary to Deut. 21. 23. which they conceive 2 Sam. 21. 9, 10.to have been from the 16. of Nisan to the 17. of Marchesvan, which is as much as from our March to September, whereas the Law saith expresly that the body of one that is hanged shall not remain all night upon the tree, but thou shalt in any wise bury him that day. One of the Iewish Rabbies, as G. Vorstius tells us, is so troubled at this, that he Not. in Aboav. c. 13.wisheth that place in Samuel expunged out of Scripture, that the name of God might be sanctified. But whether this were done foreign by the command of the Oracle or no, or whether only by a general permission, we see it was acceptable unto God; for upon that the Gibeonites famine was removed, and God was intreated for the Land. Thus we have now proved that there is no immutable and indispensable obligation which ariseth from the things themselves.
Secondly, it is no ways inconsistent with the wisdom of Sèct. 4.God to repeal such a Law when once established. The main argument of that learned R. Abravanel, whereby he would establish the eternity of the Law of Moses, is fetched from Rosh Amanana …. 13.hence, That this Law was the result of the wisdom of God, who knows the suitableness of things he appoints to the ends he appoints them for, as God hath appointed bread to be the food of mans body: Now we are not to enquire why God hath appointed bread and no other thing to be the food of man; no more, saith he, are we to enquire why God hath appointed this Law rather then another for the food of our souls; but we are to rest contented with the counsels of God, though we understand not tht reasons of them. This is the substance of that argument, which he more largely deduceth. To which we answer, that his argument holds good for obedience to all Gods positive precepts of what kind or nature soever they be, so long as we know their obligation to continue; but all the question is, whether every positive precept must always continue to oblige. And thus far his similitude will hold good, that whatever God doth command, we are to look upon it to be as necessary to our souls, as bread to our bodies; but hence it follows not that our souls must be always held to the same positive precepts, any more then our bodies to the same kind of food. Nay, as in our bodies we find some kind of food always necessary, but the kind of it to alter according to age, health, and constitutions; so we say some kind of Divine revelation is always necessary; but God is graciously pleased to temper it according to the age and growth of his people; so he fed them as with milk in their nonage, with a ritual and ceremonial Law, and trained them up by degrees under the Nursery of the Prophets, till the Church was grown to age, and then God fed it with the strong meat which is contained in Gods revelation of his will by the Gospel of his Son. And therein was abundantly seen Gods foreign, his variegated wisdom, that he made choise of such excellent and proportionable wayes to his peoples capacity to prepare them gradually for that full and compleat revelation which was reserved for the time of the appearance of the true Messias in the world. For can any thing be more plain then the gradual progress of Divine revelation from the beginning of the world? That fair resemblance and portraicture of God himself, and his will upon his word (if I may so express it) had its ground work laid upon mans first Apostacy, in the promise made Gen. 3. 15. whereon some further lines were drawn in the times of the Patriarchs; but it had its foreign, it was shadowed out the most in the typical and ceremonial Law, but was never filled up to the life, nor had its perfect foreign, till the Son of God himself appeared unto the world. If then it be inconsistent with the wisdom of God to add any thing to the Law of Moses, why not to the revelation made to Adam or the Patriarchs? or especially to the seven precepts of Noah, which they suppose to have been given to all mankind after the flood? If it were not repugnant to the wisdom of God to superadd rituals and ceremonials to morals and naturals, why shall it be to take down the Scaffolds of Ceremonies, when Gods spiritual Temple the Church of God is come to its full height? Is there not more reason that rituals should give place to substantials, then that such should be superinduced to morals?
There are only two things can be pleaded by the Iewes why it should be more repugnant to the wisdom of God to Sect. 5.add to the Law of Moses, then to any former revelation, which are the greater perfection they suppose to be in this revelation above others, and that God in the promulgation of it did express that he would never alter it. But both these are manifestly defective and insufficient in order to the end for which they are produced. For first, what evidence is there that the Law of Moses contained so great perfection in it, as that it was not capable of having any additions made to it by God himself? We speak not now of the perfection of the Moral Law, which it is granted contained in it the foundation of all positive precepts; for this we never contend Ps. 19. 10.for the abrogation of, but the ritual Law is that we meddle with; and is it possible any men should be so little befriended by reason as to think this to be the utmost pitch of what God could reveal to the world as to the way of his own worship? Let any indifferent rational person take the precepts of the Gospel, and lay them in the ballance with those of the Ceremonial Law, and if he makes any scruple of deciding on which side the over-weight lies, we may have cause to suspect him forsaken of that little reason which gave him the name of man. Let but the fifth of Matthew be laid against the whole book of Leviticus, and then see whether contains the more excellent precepts, and more suitable to the Divine nature? I speak not this to disparage any thing which had once God for the Author of it, but to let us see how far God was from the necessity of natural agents to act to the height of his strength in that discovery of his Will. God is wise as well as righteous in all his wayes; as he can command nothing but what was just; so he will command nothing but what is good, nay excellent in its kind. But though all the Starr… be in the same firmament, yet one star differs from another in glory; though they may be all pearls, yet some may be more orient then others are; every place of holy Scripture may have its crown, but some may have their aureolae, a greater excellency, a fuller and larger capacity then the other hath; every parcel of Divine revelation may have some perfection in its kind, yet there may be some monstra perfectionis in Scaligers expression, that may far outvy the glory and excellency of the rest. Can we think the mists and umbrages of the Law could ever cast so glorious a light as the Sun of righteousness himself in his Meridian elevation? As well may we think a dark shady passage more magnificent and glorious then the most Princely Pallace, a picture drawn in Charcoale more exquisite and curious then the lines of Apelles, some imperfect rudiments more exact and accurate then the most elabarate work, as go about to compare the Law of Moses with the Gospel of Iesus Christ in point of excellency and perfection. Let the Iews then boast never so much of their gradus Mosaicus, and how much it exceeded the degree of revelation in other Prophets, we know if his light be compared with what the Gospel communicates, Moses himself saw but as in a glass darkly, and not in speculo lucido, as the Iews are wont to speak. We honour Moses much, but we have learnt to honour him at whose transfiguration he was present more; neither can that be thought any disparagement to him who accounted the reproach of Christ greater riches then the treasures of Aegypt.
But it may be, though the Law in its self be not so absolutely perfect, yet God may have declared he will never alter it, and Sect. 6.then it is not consistent with Divine wisdom to repeal it. Very true: God will never alter what he hath said he will not; but where is it that he hath thus bound up himself? Is it in that noted place to this purpose, Thou shalt not add thereto nor diminish from it. So indeed Maimonides argues; but Deut. 12. 32. De sund. leg. c. 9. s. 1. Ikkarim. l. 3. c. 14.therein more like a Iew then himself; and yet one of his own Nation therein far more ingenuous then he, gives a most sufficient answer to it, which is R. Ios. Albo whose words are thus produced by Vorstius and others; the Scripture only admonisheth us, that we should not add to nor diminish from Gods commands according to our own wills; but what hinders saith he, but God himself may according to his own wisdom add or diminish what he pleaseth? But are they in good earnest when they say God bound up himself by this speech? whence came then all the Prophetical revelations among the Iews? did these add nothing to the Law of Moses, which was as much the will of God when revealed by them; as any thing was revealed by Moses himself? or will they say that all those things were contained for the substance in the Law of Moses, as to what concerned practice? very true; but not in the Ceremonial, but the Moral Law; and so we shall not stick to grant that the whole duty of man may be reduced to that. But if adding to the precepts be the doing of Gods commands in another way then he hath prescribed, and diminishing from them be meerly not to do what God hath commanded, as some conceive, then these words are still more remote from the sense affixed on them by the incredulous Iews. For why may not God himself add to his own Laws or alter the form of them, although we are alwayes bound directly to follow Gods declared will? May not God enlarge his own will, and bring his Schollars from the rudiments of their nonage to the higher knowledge of those who are full grown? or must the world of necessity do that which the old Roman so much abhorred, senescere in elementis, wax gray in learning this A, B, C? or was the Ceremonial Law like the China Characters, that the world r…ight spend its age in conning of them? But it appears that there was no other meaning in that strict prohibition, then that men should not of their own heads offer to finde out new ways of worship as Ieroboam did, but that Gods revelation of his own will in all its different degrees was to be the adaequate rule of the way and parts of his own worship. And I would fain know of the Iews whether their own severe and strict prohibitions of things not at all forbidden in the Law of God, and that on a religious account, as foreign a boundary to the Law, come not nearer the adding to Gods Law, then Gods own further declaration of his will doth? All the dispute then must be, not whether God may add to his own Law, but whether the Gospel be a prohibited addition to the Law of Moses, that is, whether it be only the invention of men, or it be the express declaration of the will of God? As to which controversie, he is no true Christian who dare not readily joyn issue with them, and undertake to prove by all the arguments by which they believe the Law of Moses to have been of Divine revelation, that the Gospel of Christ is a clear manifestation of the Will of God. But of that afterwards.
From hence it is evident that God hath not by this place Sect. 7.tyed up himself from any surther manifestation of his mind beyond the Law of Moses; but it may be they may put greater confidence in those expressions which seem necessarily to imply a perpetual and unalterable obligation in the Law of Moses: For, saith the late learned Rabbi Manasse Ben Israel, If by such expressions as those are used in Scripture Concil. in Levil. 9. 7.which seem to import the perpetuity of the Law of Moses, somewhat …lse should be meant then they seem to express; what did Moses and the Prophets in using them but lay a stumbling block in the wayes of men, whereas they might have spoken clearly and told us there should a time come when the Ceremonial Law should oblige no longer? This being a charge of so high a nature, must not be dismissed without a particular enquiry into the expressions which are the ground and reason of it. The places most insisted on by the Iews, are Deut. 29. 29. Things which are revealed belong to us and to our children foreign for ever. So Levit. 23. 14. the precept of offering the first fruits is there called foreign a statute for ever; and that of the Passover, Exodus 12. 17. where the same expression is used. From hence they infer that no alteration can happen as to the Ceremonial Law since God himself hath declared that it shall continue for ever. To this common argument of the Iews, it is in general replyed that the word in which the main force of the argument lyes, doth not carry with it an absolute perpetuity, but it signifies according to the subject it is joyned with. So when it is applyed to God, it signifies oternity, not so much from the meer importance of the word, as from the necessary existence of the Divine nature. Thence Maimonides himself can say, Proinde sciendumest quod Olam non necessario significet aeternitatem, More Nevoch. p. 2. c. 28.nisi ei conjungatur Ed (foreign vel foreign) idque vel post illud ut Olam vaed vel ante Ad Olam. Although this rule of his hath no certainty at all in it, as appears from his collection of it, which is because it is said, Psal. 10. 16. The Lord he is King Olam vaed, for ever… and ever: but as I said already, that is not from the signification of the word, but the nature of the thing. And it is most plain in Scripture that foreign is so far from implying a necessary p…rpetuity, that it is applyed to such things as can have no long duration, as Exodus 21. 6. and he shall serve him foreign that is (as the Iews themselves expound it) to the next Iubil…e though it were near or far off. So 1 Samuel 1. 22. Where Samuel is said to abide before the Lord foreign for ever, where we finde Maimonides his Ad Olam in a sense very far short of eternity; this is so plain that the formerly cited R Ioseph Albo doth in terms confess it, and produceth a multitude of other places to the same purpose. …or which though he be sufficiently censured by his Brethren, yet we may see there may be some ingenuity left in a Iewish Rabbi, even in the grand dispute concerning the eternity of the Law of Moses.
All the difficulty now is to assign some rational accounts why such precepts which God did not intend should be alwayes Sect. 8.obligatory, yet should be enforced upon them in such expressions which may seem at least to imply a perpetuity. Of which these may be given. First, That these precepts to which these expressions are annexed, should not be looked on as meer ambulatory Laws that did only concern them in their travels through the wilderness, and not continue obligatory when they were setled in Canaan. For which purpose we are to observe, that though all the Laws were given in one body in the wilderness, yet the obligation to all of them did not commence at the same time, neither were they to continue for the same duration; these three sorts of precepts may be observed among them; first such as concerned them only in their present condition, as that about the Tabernacle, which was then a moveable Temple among them, suitable to their condition; but when they were setled, God was to have a setled house too. So that precept of going without the camp, Deut. 23. 12. had an immediate respect to their peregrination. Secondly, such precepts as were given them, but they were not bound to perform them till their setlement in Canaan, as driving out the Canaanites, Numb. 33. 52. building the Temple in the place which God should choose, erecting judicatories in their several Cities, choosing a King, &c. Thirdly, there were such precepts as concern them where ever they were, whether in the wilderness or in Canaan; now these are the precepts which are said to be perpetual. This is the account given of it by H. Grotius; but because De Verit. Rel. Christ. l. 5. s. 7.this may be lyable to some exceptions, I therefore add, Secondly, That the reason of those expressions being annexed to the precepts of the Ceremonial Law, is, because they were to continue obligatory till such a remarkable period of time came which should alter the state of things among them. And such a period of time the coming of the Messias is by themselves supposed to be, when in their famous computation they make three Epocha's, before the Law, un…er the Law, and the coming of the Messias. And it is evident yet by them, that they do still expect a wonderful alteration of the State of things when the Messias comes; doth it not therefore stand to reason that foreign should be added to such things which were to continue till so great an alteration as should be on the coming of the Messias, especially if the coming of the Messias had been deferd so long as they falsly suppose it to be? But however, granting that a new series of times or foreign is to commence from the Messias, there is very great reason why that expression should be added to those things which were to continue as long as the foreign did, i. e. till M…ssias came, which we freely acknowledge. And in this sense is foreign often taken for such a duration of things which had some remarkable period to conclude it, as in the case of the Iubilee in the servant mentioned, and the special employment which God called Samuel to in his case, as to the event, or the end of his life in Hannahs designation, when she said he should attend upon the Lord for ever. Thirdly, These precepts are said to endure for ever, which would still have continued obligatory, unless God himself had altered the obligation of them, by a new revelation of his will. For in this case it is most certain that all positive precepts coming immediately from God, do carry with them an unalterable obligation, unless the Legislator himself do in as evident a way repeal them as he did once establish them; that is, in such Laws which depend meerly upon Gods positive and arbitrary will. For in this case God allows none to alter any thing concerning his Laws; but indispensable obedience is our duty till God himself repeal his former Laws. And this we assert to be the case in the Gospel. So that it appears plainly that it implyes nothing inconsistent with the wisdom of God to repeal an established positive Law, though some expressions to prejudiced minds seem to imply a perpetuity in it.
We come therefore to the third thing which may make a positive Law unalterable, which is, when the reason of it is Sect. 9.immutable; for then, say they, it would argue mutability in God to repeal it. If we can therefore make it evident that the ceremonial Law was not established on an immutable reason, and that the reason on which it was established doth suppose a state of things to come, in which it should expire, then there cannot be the least pretence of mutability in God on the repeal of such a Law. First, that it was not established upon an immutable reason: The immutable reason of a Law must either be fetched from the nature of the things commanded, or the grounds of the establishing of it; we have already proved that the nature of the positive precepts of the ceremonial Law do not carry in them an intrinsecal goodness. And here the Sophistry of the Jew… is apparently discovered, that when they are pressed with this, they take sanctuary in the Decalogue, or some spiritual precepts, which comprehend in them the general foundation of the Law, as Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, &c. whereas these are very remote from the matter in controversie, which concerns not what precepts were moral in their Law, but what were purely ceremonial; which were so far from being founded on an immutable reason that the particular occasions of the giving of many of them, is particularly assigned by their own Writers; especially in the main parts of the ceremonial worship of God among them, the reasons of which Maimonides saith may be deduced from the customs of the Zabaists, the knowledge of whose opinions and customs, he tells us, is porta magna ad reddendas praeceptorum More Nevoch. l. 3. cap. 29.causas, gives much light to the Law of Moses; and particularly of himself he saith, quòd multarum legum rationes & causae mihi innotuerint ex cegnitione fidei, rituum & …ultus Zabiorum; that he came to the right understanding of many of the Laws of Moses by his knowledge in the rites and customs of these Zabaists. Granting therefore the hypothesis of this learned Rabbi, that the precepts of the Law had most of them a particular respect to the Idolatrous customs of these people; what will hence follow but only this, that the reason of the ceremonial precepts did respect the customs in use when they were given, and so are not founded upon an immutable reason? And the more the precepts are whose reason is to be fetched from hence, the more plain and evident is the thing we intend by it, viz. that the ceremonial Law is not founded upon an unalterable reason.
Now from this one head of the Idolatrous customs of those Sect. 10.Nations about them hath that learned Author deduced the reasons of very many of the most obscure commands of the ceremonial Law: As that concerning rounding the corners Lev. 19. 27.of their heads, which Herodotus tells us was the custom of the Arabians, and others of the Babylonian Priests; by both V. Voss. in Maim. de Idol. c. 12.which the Zabii may be meant, the superstition of the Zabii being Chaldean, as I have shewed already, and their name, as some conceive, from Saba the son of Chus, whose posterity were seated in Arabia, near to the red Sea; and that which confirms this opinion, is, that the Sabeans did as Philostorgius saith, worship the Sun and Moon, as the Zabaists did in Maimonides; and withall Bochart us makes it evident from Strabo, that some of the Babylonians called Gerrhaei, Phaleg. l. 4. cap. 8.possessed themselves of the Country of the Sabaeans, whereby this originally Chaldaick superstition might spread its self in these parts near the confines of Iudea, which might be the cause why all those rites which were used by these Idolatrous people, are so severely forbidden to the Iewes: God thereby setting up a wall of separation between his people and the Nations round about them, by making the customs of the Iewes almost Antipodes to theirs; as those of Iapan are to them of China. Upon the same ground it is supposed that other precept was made against wearing a garment Lev. 19. …. 19.of linnen and woollen, because the Idolatrous Pri…sts used to go so cloathed, as Maimonides tells us out of their books, and likewise that prohibition of a womans wearing the gar…ns of a More Nev…ch l. 3. c. 37. Deu 22. 5.man, and a mans wearing the garments of a woman, is very probably supposed to have had its original from that Idolatrous custome mentioned by the same Author, ut vir gestet V…stimentum muliebre coloratum quando stat coram stella Veneris; simili…er ut muli…r induat loricam & arma bellica quando stat V. Seld…n de Das yris, sy…. 2. c…p 4.coram stella Martis; but that Author doth not deny a further reason to be couched in it for the preservation of publick honesty. Many other precepts are drawn from the same fountain by that same Author, as the sowing of divers seeds in the same ground; the forbidding the eating of the fruit of Lev. 19. 19.their trees for the first three years after they came to Canaan; that being the furthest time wherein the trees of their own Lev. 19. 23.plantation would begin to bear in that Country. Now it was the custome of all those Idolatrous people, that the first time an… tree did bear, part of the fruit was to be burnt up in an offering to the Idol, and the other part eaten in the Idol-temple; or else they supposed their trees would never prosper: Now in opposition to this, God bids them bring the fruit of the fourth year to him, a…d eat of the fifth themselves, that it may yield unto you the increase thereof. So the Idolaters threatned all parents that their children would never Lev. 19. 24, 25.live, unless they caused them to pass thorough the fire; from which custome Main-onides sa…h, some even in his time would take the children that were new born, and move them up and down over a fire wherein odoriferous smels were cast: Thence comes that strict prohibition of giving the children to Moloch, which was by that custome of passing thorough the fire. To this same Head, the sa…e Author refers that of not eating Lev. 20. 2, 3. Gen. 9. 4.the member of a living creature, which we render flesh with the life thereof; which was forbidden, as he elsewhere tells us, not only for avoiding cruelty but because the Heathen Nations were wont in their Idolatrous Feasts to take a More Nevoch. p. 3. cap. 48.member off from a living creature, and eat it afterw…rds; and in them likewise he supposeth they used the boyling the flesh and the milk together, which, saith he, besides that it affords a most gross nourishment savours of their Idolatrous practices too, and therefore, saith he, it is observable that twice where this precept is mentioned, it follows that of the solemn appearance of Exod. 23. 17, 19. 34. 26.the Males at Jerusalem thrice a year, whereby it seems to be implyed, that this action had relation to some great solemnity. These and several other precepts of the Law of Moses are deduced by that very learned Rabbi from Idolatrous customs, as the occasions of them; which seem to have the more reason in them, because that God did in the general so strictly forbid the Iews to walk after the Lev. 20. 23. c. Celsum. l. 4.custom of the Nations about them. Thence Origen takes notice of the foreign; for which he saith, they were foreign, reproached by the Heathens, because their Laws and Polity were so different from the custom of other Nations. Thus we see then that many precepts of the Ceremonial Law were founded, neither on the goodness of the things themselves, nor on any unalterable reason, but were enforced on a peculiar reason on the people of the Iews at that time, as they were a people separated from the rest of the world for the worship of the true God. And for the other great offices wherein their Religion did so much consist, viz. Sacrifices, distinction of meats, observation of Festivals, circumcision, and such like, The particular account and reason of them is either evident in the Law its self, or fully acknowledged by their own Writers, that it is here superfluous to insist on them: Especially since so many have done that so largely De verit. Rel. Christianae l. 5.already (particularly Grotius) whose Labours I intend not to transcribe.
I come therefore to the second thing, which is, that the Sect. 11.Ceremonial Law was so far from being founded on an immutable reason, that while it was in its greatest force such a state of things was plainly foretold, with which the observation of that Law would be inconsistent. For which we are to consider, that though the Law of Moses seemed outwardly to respect the temporal advantages of the people embracing it in the Land of Canaan; yet there was a S…ring of Spiritual Promises whose head was higher then Iordan was, that ran down from the Patriarchs, was more and fully opened to some of them, which …ough it seemed to run under ground in the midst of the Ceremonial observations of the Law; yet it frequently brake forth and opened its self in the midst of them, and by degrees in the Prophetical Age did make its self a larger Channel, till in the time of the Messias by its force and violence it overthrew those banks which stood in the way of it, and overspread the face of the whole earth. It is evident by the whole series of the Scripture of the Old Testament, that Gods ultimate intention was not to confine the saving knowledge of his will only to the Iews; for the great promise to Abraham was, That in his seed all the nations of the earth should be blessed; And as Abraham rejoyced to see that day afar off; so good Iacob when he leaned on his Iacobs staff, took the height of that day-star from on high, which though like some of the fixed stars, he might not for some time be visible to the inferiour world; yet he foretold the time when he should descend into a lower orb, and become conspicuous in our Horizon. And consequently to his appearance in the world, would be the drawing not so much the eyes as the hearts of the world to him; for no sooner is it mentioned that Shiluh comes when the Scepter departs from Iudah; but it immediatly follows, and to him shall the gathering of the Gen. 49. 10.people be. Thus we see before ever the Law of Moses came to inclose the people of the Iews as Gods peculiar people, there was a design on foot, for inlarging the bounds of Gods inheritance, and making the uttermost parts of the earth his Sons possession. Can we then think that the Law which came afterwards, could disanull the Covenant made 430. years before, as the Apostle excellently reasons? Can we believe the Gal. 4. 17.Mosaical dispensation was the utmost of what God did intend, when God had before promised that the blessing of Abraham should come upon us Gentiles also? to which purpose it is very observable that Abraham was justified not in circumcision, but in uncircumcision; for he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness of faith, being uncircumcised, Rom. 4. 10, 11.that he might be the Father of all them that believe, though they be not circumcised; that righteousness might be imputed unto them also. Whereby it is evident that the great blessin…s promised to Abraham, did not respect him meerly as Progenitor of the Israelites, but in a higher capacity, as Father of the faithfull; and that the ground of his acceptance with God did not depend on any Ceremonial Rite, such as circumcision was, God imputing his faith for righteousness before his being circumcised. But because the time was not yet come wherein that grand mysterie of mans salvation by the death of the Son of God was to be revealed; therefore when God called the Nation of the Iews from their bondage, he made choice of a more obscure way of representing this mysterie to them through all the umbrages of the Law: And withall inforced his precepts with such terrible sanctions of curses to all that continued not in all that was written in that Law to do it, to make them the more apprehensive that the ground of their acceptance with God, could not be the performance of the precepts of that Law, but they ought to breath after that higher dispensation wherein the way and method of mans salvation should be fully revealed when the fulness of time was come. Now therefore God left them under the Tutorage and Paedagogy of the Law, which spake so severely to them, that they might not think this was all God intended in order to the happiness of men, but that he did reserve some greater thing in store to be enjoyed by his people when they were come to age.
So that though the ceremonies of the Law had not a Sect. 12.mouth to speak out Christ; yet tbey had a hand to point to him; for they were the shadow or dark representation of that which was to be drawn afterwards to the greatest life. And this was understood by all those whose hearts were carried beyond the outward, sapless Letter of the Law, to the more inward and spiritual meaning of it (there being an foreign & foreign in the Law as well as Philosophy) and these mysteries were not so vailed and hidden, but all that were foreign fully initiated, might fully understand them; which made up that true spiritual Cabala, which was constantly preserved among the true Israelites, which was more largely commented on by the Prophets of succeeding Ages; whose care it was to unlock this Cabala, and to raise up the hearts of the people in a higher expectation of the great things which were to come. Thence we not only read of the solemn prayer of the Church of the Iews, that the knowledge of God might be dispersed over all the Nations of the earth, but we have many prophecies that when the mountain Psal. 67. 2.of the Lords house should be exalted, all nations should flow unto it: that from the rising of the Sun to the going Isa. 2. 2.down thereof, Gods name shall be great among the Gentiles, and in every …lace incense should be offered to his name, and a Mal. 1. 11.pure offering; for his name shall be great among the Heathen. That the Inscription on the High Priests forehead, Holiness to the Lord, should by reason of the large diffusion of a Spirit of Holiness in the days of the Gospel, be set upon the bells of Horses, and that the pots in the Lords house should Zach. 14. 20.be as bowls before the altar, i. e. that when the Levitical service should be laid aside, and that Holiness which was that appropriated to the Priests and Instruments of the Temple, should be discerned in those things which seemed most remote from it. That a Priesthood after another order then that of Aaron should be established, viz. after the order of Melchisedek; Psal. 110. 4, 5. 6.and that he that was the Priest after this order, should judge among the Heathen, and wound the heads over many Countries; that in the day of his power the people should (not be frighted to obedience with thunderclaps, and earthquakes, Ver. 3.as at Mount Sinai) but should come and yield themselves as a free-will offering unto him, and yet their number be as great as the drops of the dew which distill in the morning. That God out of other nations would take unto himself for Priests and for Levites; that the desire of all Nations …sa. 66. 21. Hag. 2. 7. Mal. 3. 1.should speedily come; that the Messenger of the Covenant should come into his Temple; nay that seventy weeks are determined upon thy people, and upon thy holy City; that then the vision and prophecie should be sealed up; that the Sacrifice Dan. 9. 24. 26, 27.and oblation should be caused to cease; that the City and the sanctuary should be destroyed, and the end thereof shall be with a flood, and unto the end of the War desolations are determined; that after three score and two weeks Messias should be cut off, but not for himself; that by him transgression should be finished, and reconciliation for iniquity should be made, and everlasting righteousness should be brought in. And least all these things should be apprehended to be only a higher advancing of the Levitical worship, and the way of external Ceremonies, God expresly saith, that he would make a New Covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah; not according to the Covenant that I made Jer. 31. 31, 32.with their Fathers, in the day I took them by the hand to bring them out of the Land of Egypt, which my Covenant they brake, although I was an husband to them, saith the Lord: But this shall be the Covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my Law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and will be their God, and they shall be my people. Can any one that now considers seriously the state of things thus described as it should come to pass, ever imagine that the Levitical service was ever calculated for this State? Was Gods Worship to be confined to his Temple at Ierusalem, when all the Nations of the earth should come to serve him? Was the High Priest to make an attonement there, when an order of Priesthood different from the Aaronical should be set up? Must the Tribe of Levi only attend at the Temple when God would take Priests and Levites out of all Nations that serve him? What would become of the Magnificence and glory of the Temple when both City and Sanctuary shall be destroyed, and that must be within few prophetical weeks after the Messias is cut off? And must the Covenant God made with the Israelites continue for ever, when God expresly saith, he would make a New one, and that not according to the Covenant which he made with them then? It is so evident then, as nothing can well be more, that under the Old Testament, such a state of Religion was described and promised, with which the Levitical worship would be inconsistent; and so that the Ceremonial Law was not at first established upon an immutable reason, which was the thing to be proved.