the two tables, as they were given to the people of Israel by Moses, are of perpetual obligation, and extend even to us Christians. Hieronymus Zanchius, operum tom. iv. lib. 1. c. 11. maintains at large and by several arguments, that we Christians have nothing to do with the moral precepts, as they were given to the Israelites by Moses; but only in so far as they agree with the Jaw of nature, common to all nations, and were confirmed by Christ, whom we acknowledge to be our King. And Musculus writes to the same purpose, Loc. commun. de abrogatione legis Mosaica. But while David Pareus gives his opinion about the opposite opinions of Dominicus a Soto and Bellarmine, the former of whom denied, that we are subject to the law of the decalogue, as it was delivered by Moses; but the latter, on the contrary, maintained, that the law, as given by Moses, was also binding on us; though he premises (ad libr. Bellarmini de justificatione iv. c. 6.) that it is of small importance to dispute about the ministry of Moses, by which the law was formerly promulgated, provided the law, and the obedience thereof, be in vigour or force in the church: yet he says, that Bellarmine's opinion is to be retained, as the safer and more preferable. Rivet, in explicat. decalog. thinks, that the difference is not in the thing, but in the manner of expression: for all agree, that all the moral duties contained in the law, are of perpetual observance among Christians, in so far as they are natural precepts imprinted on the minds of all, by God, the author of nature; and as, by way of instruction, they are con- . tained in the written laws, they are a great, nay a necessary help to our weakness and ignorance. Yet he rather seems to incline to the sentiment of Zanchius and Musculus. We shall comprehend our own opinion in the following positions.

XXVIII. 1. Seeing the decalogue contains the sum of the law of nature, and, as to its substance, is one and the same therewith, so far it is of perpetual and universal obligation. And thus far all divines are agreed, the Socinians themselves not excepted. See Volkel. lib. iv. c. 5.

XXIX. 2. We are not only to perform the duties which it requires, because they are agreeable to reason; and to abstain from the contrary vices, because reason declares them to be base and vile; but also under this formal notion, because God has enjoined those duties, and prohibited those vices; that his authority, as Lawgiver, may be acknowledged, and our goodness have the nature of an obedience; which, as such, is founded on the alone authority of him who commands. And who can doubt, that it is the duty of a rational creature, to acknowledge God as his supreme Lord and Governor, to whose will, without any further examination, he ought to submit, saying, Lord, what wouldst thou have me to do?

XXX. 3. The Gentiles, who had heard nothing of the giving of the law in the wilderness, were not bound to the observance of that law, as it was published to the Israelites, but only as inscribed on their own consciences. Hence the apostle says, that as many as have sinned without law, namely, the written law, shall also perish without law, Rom. ii. 12. that is, shall not be condemned in consequence of the law, as delivered to Israel in writing, but of the violation of the natural law. However, if any of the Gentiles came to have any knowledge of the giving of this law, they were to believe, that the precepts of it were spoken to them no less than they were to Israel; nor could they neglect them without throwing contempt on God, and incurring the forfeiture of salvation.

XXXI. 4. Though the precepts of common honesty, in some special manner, and with some particular circumstances, were originally appointed for a peculiar people, yet they are still binding, by a divine authority on all those who come to know, that God formerly enjoined them to their neighbours. For instance, what Paul wrote to the Romans, is no less binding on us, than it was on them; because the obligation is founded on the manifestation or discovery of the divine will and pleasure. When therefore God has said to any particular person, that this or that duty is incumbent upon him, as a rational creature, who ought to bear a resemblance to the divine image; all other men, who hear this, are as much bound to that duty, as he to whom it was first proposed; not only because they apprehend the matter of that precept to be consonant to reason; but also because that command was given by God, no matter to whom it was given at first.

XXXII. 5. Common precepts, which bind all to whom they are made known, on account of the authority of him who enjoins them, may be pressed upon some by certain peculiar reasons. For instance, the precept concerning constancy in the faith of the gospel, might be pressed on Jews and Gentiles from different motives; and yet the precept remain common to both. Thus, when God published the decalogue to the Israelites, he annexed some reasons, which, according to the letter, were peculiar to them alone: because what was a common duty to all, he was pleased, in an especial manner, to recommend to them. Yet in his wisdom he published those reasons, in such a manner, as to concern others also, by way of analogy, and in their 'mystical signification.

XXXIII. 6. As the people of Israel constituted the church at that time, and as Jesus Christ the Son of

God, and King of the church, prescribed the decalogue to them, it follows, that the same law retains its force in the church, till it be abrogated again by the King of the church. We are not to think, that the church of the Old Testament, which consisted of Israelites, and that of the New, though, for the greatest part, made up of Gentiles, were a quite different people. They ought to be looked upon as one kingdom of Christ, who made both one, Eph. ii. 14. and who graffed us, when wild olives, into that fat olive, Rom. xi. 17. And consequently, the laws, which were once given to the church by Christ the King, are always binding on the whole church, unless Christ shall declare, that he has abrogated them by some other institution. But it is absurd to imagine, that Christ abrogated the moral law, in so far as he gave it, by the mediation of Moses, to the church of Israel, and directly confirmed the same law to the Christian church. For seeing it is the same. law of the same King, in one and the same kingdom, though that kingdom is enriched with new accessions and new privileges; why should we suppose it abrogated, and ratified again almost in the same breath? Nay, many considerations persuade us to believe, that the law of the decalogue was given to the church, in order to be a perpetual rule, from the manner in which it was. given.

XXXIV. For as these commandments were published before the assembly of the whole church, in the hearing of all, while the other precepts were given to Moses alone in his sacred retirement; as they were engraved on tables of stone by the finger of God, to the end that, as Calvin remarks, this doctrine might remain in perpetual force; and seeing they, and they alone, were put in the ark of the covenant, under the wings and guardianship of God himself; God plainly

shewed, by so many prerogatives, that the reason of those precepts was far different from that of the others, which were only imposed on the church for a time.

XXXV. From these things the rashness of a late catechist appears, who maintains, that the ten commandments were written on tables of stone, to shew, that they were to continue in force while those tables lasted; but that when the tables were lost, the law, that was written upon them, was to be abrogated; and that they were laid up in the ark of the covenant, to signify, that they were of the same nature with that ark, and that covenant, that is, of a fading or perishing nature. But if this was true, it will follow, that the Israelites, from the destruction of the first temple, when the ark with the tables of the law was lost, were set free from the binding power of the decalogue; and that there was no difference between the decalogue and the other ceremonies, the ark being, as it were, the centre of the ceremonies; nay that the decalogue was in this respect inferior to the other ceremonies, as the latter continued. to the coming of Christ, but the decalogue was abrogated by the Babylonish captivity. All which notions are so false, and so distant from all sound divinity, that they have almost an air of impiety.

XXXVI. We may add, that Christ has declared, he was not come to destroy, but to fulfil the law, Matth. v. 17. To destroy, signifies there, to abrogate, and to free men from the obligation of it, as appears from ver. 19. But that Christ speaks of the law of the decalogue, we gather from what follows, where he explains the precepts of that law, and recommends them to his disciples. And when Paul, Rom. xiii. 9. and James, chap. ii. 8, 11. inculcate the precepts of the law on Christians, in the same terms in which they were delivered by Moses to Israel, they don't insist upon this