Albo, in criticising the principles of faith as laid down by Maimonides, objects also to the Ninth Principle, and contends that it is not fundamental, since the belief in the Divine origin of the Law does not necessarily imply the belief in its eternity. But although the possibility of a second revelation superseding the first is admitted in principle or theory, it does not follow that such revelation has in reality been made. If any person asserts that he is sent by God to repeal the old laws or to alter them, he must prove his Divine mission before he can be believed. We are fully convinced of the Divine mission of Moses, and our conviction of the Divine mission of the new prophet must at least be equally strong. The Divine character of the mission of Moses was revealed to the Israelites by God Himself; and only such direct revelation could satisfy us as to the trustworthiness of the new prophet (Ikkarim III. xix.). R. Abraham ben David, in his book Emunah-ramah, finds in various passages of the Bible indications that the Torah was to remain in force permanently. Thus Isaiah and Zechariah, speaking of the remote future, refer respectively to the celebration of Sabbath and New-moon, and to the celebration of Sukkoth. Again, in refuting the claims of Christians on behalf of Jesus, and of Mohammedans on behalf of Mohammed, to a Divine mission to substitute a new covenant for the old one, Rabbi Abraham argues thus: “The divinity of the old covenant, or the Torah, has been admitted by both Jesus and Mohammed; we need not prove it. But the Divine authority asserted by them for its abrogation or change is not admitted by us; it must be proved; and since no proof has been given, it must be rejected” (Fifth Principle, chap. ii.). On the Tenth Principle, p. 148. It is noteworthy that this principle is exceptionally supported by a Biblical verse. The same may be noticed in the book Cuzari (V. xviii.), in the enumeration of the principles of faith according to the methods of Mohammedan Theologians (Medabberim); the principle of God’s Omniscience is supported by a Biblical verse, only with this difference, that in the Cuzari it is not exactly the principle of God’s Omniscience, but its proof derived from the Creation, that is supported by a quotation from Ps. xciv. The reason of the anomaly is this: Some of the opponents of this principle contend that it would be derogatory to the greatness of God if He were to take notice of the doings of each individual being. To this the reply is given: The Psalmist, who was far from saying anything derogatory of God, declared that God knows the deeds and the thoughts of each individual.