DISSERTATION III. 251 after it, and it is neither unfair nor unfriendly to give them a hint of it. To conclude this part of the argument, to prove the ever- lasting obligation of this command, to worship God only, I beg leave to transcribe a few lines from Mr. Boyse, in his excellent "Vindication of the True Deity of our blessed Saviour," page 142. edition the third. Upon the whole, the opinion and prac- tice of the Unitarians plainly re-advances that creature-worship, which is one great design of the christian religion to overturn and abolish. It undermines that grand article of the everlasting gospel that was to be preached to every nation, and kindred, and tongue, and people; fear God, and give glory to him, for the hour of ,his judgment is come, and worship him that made heaven and earth, and the sea and thefountains of waters ; Rev. xiv. 6, 7. And this it does by setting up as an object of reli- gious worship a creature, to whom neither the divine perfections nor works belong. Thus I have confirmed this argument for the divinity of Christ, which is drawn from religious worship paid to him, byanswering the objection which supposes religious worship not forbidden to a creature under the New Testament, though it was under the Old : And I think it is made pretty evident, that the same prohibition stands still in force under the New Testa- ment, and that the first command obliges christians as well as Jews, viz. Thou shalt have no other gods before me: And there- fore if Christ is a God, or an object of religious worship, though lie be another person, yet he is not another God, but one and the same God with the Father, or the God of Israel, for we must hàve no other God but the God of Israel, we must not have two Gods. A second objection which is used by the refiners of the Arian scheme, against the appropriating all religious worship to God alone, is, that " this doctrine absolutely precludes God himself from all right of appointing any person to be adored with any religious worship at all, whatsoever exalted station he may be raised to in the divine economy, unless he has true and eternal godhead in him, that is, unhss he lias the same inherent and independent right to this worship as God the Father him- self has." Answer. Suppose it be granted, that this doctrine does pre- clude it ; but then let it be considered, it is God himself has precluded it in his own own word, whence this our doctrine is derived. I will not,say, this is absolutely precluded in the na- ture of things; but if God himself, in every part of his word, both in the Old and New Testament, has confined religious wor- ship to himself as his own prerogative ; and rather than let any mere creature be worshipped, if he condescends himself in the person of his Son, or ill union with the man Christ Jesus, to
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=