The harmony of the Old and New Testament and the obscure texts explained with a relation especially to the times that preceded Christ and how they meet in him, his genealogie and other mysteries preparatory to his first coming / written in French by John d'Espagne ... ; and published in English by his executor.

The Examination.

THis good Rabbine dares not openly say, that the Law is imperfect, but onely that it seems to be so. But if it falsly seems to him to be so, he ought to accuse his own imperfection, and not im∣pute it to the Law of God. But his de∣sign (as well as of his Colleagues) is, to authorize the Opinions and the Traditions of the Rabbins, as necessary supplements to what is wanting (as they pretend) in the Law of Moses.

What are these wants? These are the chiefest they do alleage: When the Law speaks of the month of the year, it men∣tions not whether they be Solary or Lu∣nary; a distinction necessary, that the true time for the celebration of the Feasts may

be known, Exod. 12.2. It mentioneth not what are those parts of the Beast, whose fat is prohibited, Levit. 3.17. It expresseth not the signes whereby they might discern the unclean Birds, Levit. 11.13. It determines not the place where they should keep the Sabbath-day, whether in the House, or in the Court, or in the City, or in any other place of greater ex∣tent, Exod. 16.29. It particularizes not the works which are lawful or unlawful on the Sabbath-day, Exod. 20. It mentioneth not whether the father may be the heir of his son, Numb. 27. It forbids not the mariage of a man with the wife of his father, or with the mother of his mother.

These are the most remarkable points wherein they say the Law is defective. Now most of these things are Ceremonial, and their time is expired; and though it it were necessary to know all these mea∣sures, we can shew, that there is not one of them which are not found in the com∣pass of that Ceremonial Law.

But the two last points require two words of answer. On the first, This Philo the Jew, a famous Writer, and antienter then the Talmud, saith, that Moses hath been silent of the succession of parents to their children, because such cases are un∣lucky, by the course of Nature children rather succeeding their parents: Never∣theless

it hath preserved the right of pa∣rents; for indirectly it calls them to the same right it hath given to uncles. It giveth therefore the succession, 1 to the sons; 2 for want of them, to the daugh∣ters; 3 to brothers; 4 to uncles on the fathers side. Wherein it appears, that a fa∣ther may have a better right to be the heir of his own children. So saith Philo, in the Treatise of the Laws. By which it appears, that the antient Jews do contradict the modern Jews, for they did not believe the Law to be defective in this case.

As for the other, is it not most evident, that the same prohibition which forbids the son to marry his own mother, forbids him also to marry his grandmother? and if it was needful the Law should expresly name the grandmother, would it not have been likewise necessary it should name the great-grandmother, and all the an∣cesto••s of a man to infinity? We had not then known, that the mariage of a man with his grandmother was unlawful, unless the Rabbins had told us so. They have taught us that which neither the Law of Nature, nor the Law of Moses did ever teach. Where is the shame of those men!

But because they use such pretences to cover their enormities, when they say, the Law is defective, 'tis requisite we should know, that they contradict one another.

For their famous Rabbine, Moses, in the Book vve have alleaged, saith in express terms, That the Law of Moses is perfect, and that there is nothing in it that's su∣perfluous or defective; and thereupon he brings the vvords of Psal. 19.8. We see then, that the Jews do not agree, neither vvith God nor vvith themselves.