249. THE ARIAN INVITED 'ro ORTHODOX FAITH. repealed under the gospel, as to admit another, even an 'inferior object of worship, viz. " Our Lord Jesus Christ, as the fourth command in the decalogue is repealed, so far as concerns that seventh day which the Jews were required to keep as their sabbath." Here the appellant speaks his sentiments with freedom, in plain language, and confesses the necessity he is driven to, of supposing the first commandment to be in part repealed. He seems to be conscious that these words, " Thou shalt have no other gods, no other Elohim before me," exclude all other gods, both inferior and subordinate as well as supreme, beside the one Jehovah, the Lord God of the Jews. Nor can he account any tither way for the worship of Christ, as an inferior god, but by repealing in part the first commandment. Now to prove that the first command is not repealed, neither in whole nor in part*, I hive these six reasons : - Reason I. The very grounds upon which this ancient com- mand, of worshippingone God only, and the prohibition ofother gods, is founded, abide the same under the gospel, and the rea- sons by which it was enforced under the Old Testament, seem to remain the same underthe New, viz. his being the one God, the one Jehovah, the Eternal, the Almighty, the Creator of all things, his jealousy of his own honour, his deliverance of his people from bondage, his being the Author of the salvation of his people and his sovereign authority over them; with his all - sufficiency for their help and happiness. Now, is not -God the same only Lord God, and one Jehovah, the same Eternal, Al- mighty, andCreator of all things ? Is not God as jealous of his own honour under the gospel, as he was 'under the law ? Is he not that Being who has delivered his people from spiritual bondage, which was typified by the lanci of Egypt ? Is he not the same one God under the New Testament. Which he Was un- der the Old ? Is he not that God uponwhom hispeople as much depend fordeli veranee and salvation ? And therefore to admit any other God under the New Testament to be the proper object of worship, seems to be as inconsistent with the unity, the holyjea- lousy, and the all sufficiency of God, under the gospel, as it was in the days of judaism. There are also several otherexpressioris of the prophet Isaiah, and the other prophets, wherein God asserts his own unity, his own peculiar prerogative and right to religious wor- ship, in opposition to all other gods, or other objects of worship, not only because he alone is the Creator of all things, but he s. I are not, indeed, how it is possible for this first command to be repealed in any part, unless it be wholly repealed; for the form of it is negative, and rhos it excludes, any other god or gods whatsoever. Now if any other god be ad- mined under the NewTestament, I think the whole command is repealed.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=