230 THE ARIAN INTITED TO ORTHODOX FAITH. This sort of worship is given to knights, baronets, and several societies of men in our natiòn. This kind of worship was paid to king David ; 1 Chron. xxix. 20. " They wor- shipped the king." And it is the same whichmay be supposed to bepaid by the debtor to his lord ; Mat. xviii. 20. The servant fell down and worshipped his lord. So Christ tells the church of Sardis, he would make her adversaries come and worship be- fore her,feet ; Rev. iii. 9. And, perhaps, some who knew not that Christ was God, might pay this sort of worship to him as a very extraordinary man in the days of his humiliation. III. " Religious worship is generally described to be divine honour paid to some superior being, of the account of some sup- posed divine excellencies andpowers belongingto it." I cannot boldly affirm, that all religious worship implies the absolute supremacy, the complete omnipotence, and sovereign godhead of the object of it, in the common sense of mankind. The heathens paid religious worship to inferior deities, and to household gods, whose power they did not imagine to he abso- lutely supreme ; nay, they believed their influence to have a nar- row and limited extent, though it was superior to human Bút still they imagined it to be a sort of divine power, so far as it reached ; and consequently the worship which they paid these inferior deities was divine worshp. But God, in his word, has forbidden all this sort of worship to be given to any being be- neath, and beside himself, as we shall see immediately. Indeed, the learned Dr. Waterland, in his " First Defence of his Sixteenth, and Following Queries," maintains, " that whatever has been, or may be, the sense of men, and their no- tions of worship, yet the great. God has determined the mean- ing of religious worship in scripture to include the divinity, supremacy, eternity, &c. of the object:" !See page 239, 240, &c. and has said several valuable things on this subject, worthy of a diligent perusal, and ofgreat importance in thiscontroversy. Our author the appellant, utterly refuses this account, " for, says he, if religious worship imply the supremacy and divinity of the object, who will dispute it, whether it can belongonly to the supreme God ? But is not this plainly begging the ques- tion, and going in a circle ?" " Sober Appeal." But T. ask leave to differ from his sentiment : nor can I :think this is arguing in a circle, .nor begging the question ; for if Dr. Waterland has proved, that the sense of religious woi<- ship, in scripture always includes the proper godhead, the supre- macy and eternity of the object of it, then by the proof of this sense he cuts off all other inferiorsenses of religious worship, from the scriptural use of the word, 'and effectually maintains, that it must belong to God alone according to scripture. And 'when the appellant has againperused what this learned author
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=