Particularly worthy of remark is the following instance; in which the same word is applied, at the same time, both to Jehovah and a creature. David having conferred the throne upon Solomon, all the congregation of the princes bowed down their heads and WORSHIPPED the Lord and the king.* They worshipped the Lord Jehovah, who in mercy had caused Solomon to become king; and they worshipped Solomon, who was anointed to the royal office, who sat on the throne of Jehovah, as king, instead of David his father. This passage our translators have rendered as above. Indisputable is it therefore, that the scriptures acknowledge two kinds of worship. Do the saints in heaven doxologize Him that sitteth upon the throne and the Lamb? So the saints of God's militant church, in the discharge of their sacred duty, worshipped Jehovah and king Solomon. Thus it is becoming to be done to him, whom God delighteth to honor with an important office in his visible kingdom. And are we to infer the supreme divinity of Solomon, because he was worshipped in conjunction with Jehovah! Neither is this to be inferred concerning Christ, because he is thus worshipped.

Did

Shall we adduce any more instances? Yes. For this is a subject on which some are very dull of hearing. "The king Nebuchadnezzar fell upon his face and WORSHIPPED Daniel, and commanded that they should offer an oblation and sweet odors unto him." Daniel forbid it? Look and see. Did Nebuchadnezzar mean to worship him as God? It immediately follows, "The king answered unto Daniel and said, of a truth it is that YOUR GOD is a God of Gods, and a Lord of kings, and a revealer of secrets, seeing thou couldst reveal this secret.§

Another instance of this kind of respect or worship, paid to a mortal, known to be such and by a good and pious man, is recorded in the history of the Apostles. "As Peter was coming in Cornelius met him, and fell down at his feet, and WORSHIPPED him."|| Peter, it seems, supposed he meant to pay him divine homage. I. Chron. xxix. 20.~~ + Verse 23.- + Dan. ii. 46.- § 47. Acts x. 25.

But, whatever Peter may have conjectured on the occa sion, Cornelius, it is evident knew perfectly well who Peter was. He had, just before, been favored with a heavenly vision, in which he was commanded to send men to Foppa and call for one Simon, whose sirname is Peter, and was informed he lodgeth with one Simon a tanner, whose house is by the sea side; he shall tell thee what thou oughtest to do. Without hesitation the good Cornelius, as directed, sent for Peter; and, having called together some friends, impatiently waited his arrival. As soon as he had entered the threshold of his door, the heart of the good Cornelius, whose prayers and alms had ascended before God as an acceptable memorial, and who gladly looked for instruction at the mouth of an Apostle of the Lord, leaped with exultation. He fell down at the feet of Peter, and WORSHIPPED him, knowing him to be Peter from Joppa. The fact is, this was the custom of the country, whenever they would pay respect to an official character, or to a public teacher. It was on this ground, solely, that the numerous instances of worship, which we have mentioned, were rendered. Solely on this ground, those, who were persuaded that he was the predicted king of the Jews, some great prophet, or the Messiah, worshipped Christ. In no instance does it appear, that any thing, beyond this customary respect, was intended, or was supposed by Christ to be intended. On the other hand, we have recorded an instance in which it is plain, that even this respect was paid in ridicule and contempt. And they clothed him with purple, and platted a crown of thorns and put it about his head, and began to salute him, Hail king of the Jews!—and bowing their knees WORSHIPPED him.* Ironically they paid that respect to him, which it was customary to pay to a king.

One more instance and we have done. Jesus Christ himself, declares to the church of Philadelphia, who had not denied his name, Behold I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews and are not, but do lie, behold I will make them to come and WORSHIP BEFORE THY FEET, and to know that I have loved

I

* Mark xv. 17-19.

thee.* Does our Lord advocate idolatry! Does he not suppose a worship which is not divine? Let us then hear no more of this boasted argument, in favor of the divinity of Christ, from the consideration that he was worshipped. Nor let any man accuse him of idolatry, who, believing that God has conferred upon Christ the first honors and dignities of his immortal kingdom, bows the knee before him, and pays him the homage of his high, though not supreme, respect. Do not the scriptures declare, that for his humiliation "God hath highly exalted him and given a name which is above every name, that, at the name of Jesus, every knee should bow of those in heaven, and of those in earth, and of those under the earth; and that every tongue should confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father ?+ He that honoreth not the Son honoreth not him that sent him, and who has set him King, upon his holy hill of Zion; angels, principalities and powers being made subject unto him."

Rev. iii. 9. + Phil. ii. 9-11.

SECTION IX.

ANOTHER consideration, urged in proof of the supreme divinity of Christ, is the NAMES or TITLES, by which God is known to his creatures, and by which he is distinguished from every other being, whether imaginary or real. It is contended, that Christ is styled GOD.

Were it true, that he has this title in the scriptures, yet it ought not to be considered proof, that he is the supreme Divinity. The word, God, in itself considered, denotes authority, power, and government only, whether derived or underived, real or imaginary. Hence, Angels, Heathen Deities, Jewish rulers, and those who governed other nations, are styled Gods in scripture. Our Saviour himself says, that they are styled Gods, to whom the word of God came.* Jehovah says to Moses, I have made thee God to Pharaoh.† Joseph in view of his station as Governor of Egypt, is called God. The word, God, is not restricted to signify the supreme Being. Therefore, the application of this word to Christ is not that evidence, which our opponents contend. It is evidence only, that he is exalted to a station of rule and government. It is of the same import with Lord; which no one supposes to indicate the supreme divinity of the multitudes to which it is applied, but to denote only, that they are masters, rulers, or governors. As the great Father of all is a ruler or governor, in the highest and most proper sense, the terms, Lord and God, are peculiarly applicable to him. They may also, be very properly bestowed upon Christ, whose power is derived from the Fountain of all power, and whom the great Father of all has been pleased to exalt to the government of his people.

But how, then, shall it be known when these terms are intended to designate the supreme and independent Divinity?

.

This is very easily known. When they are not connected with any circumstances, which would limit them in their application, to one known to be derived and dependent, but are used in a general or unlimited way, they are evidently to be considered as indicating the great Supreme. When it is said, that the Lord, or God, did thus and so, and there is nothing, in the connexion, to confine the action to any besides the great Supreme, it is very natural to consider these terms as bringing Him to our view; because there is, properly speaking, only one Lord or God, though there are many so called. He is self existent, independent, omnipresent, and underived. But when it appears, from the connexion, that these names are applied to one, who is, either there or elsewhere, distinguished from the great Supreme, and represented inferior to him or dependent upon him, then these terms are to be considered as so applied, to denote that he is a being exalted to the station of rule, authority, or government.

These observations, we think, must gain credit with all; for they are founded in common sense. According to this rule, there can never be any difficulty in distinguishing the Supreme from all others; though they may, here and there, have the same style of Lord and God, which is more justly and peculiarly applicable to him. Beings are much better and more easily discriminated by a description of their qualities, properties, powers, or characters, than they can be by any names, which language may furnish. When, therefore, any one is styled Lord or God, we have only to consider the general description, which the scriptures give of him, and we shall be at no loss to determine in what sense he is Lord, or God. If there be any thing in the description, which indicates dependence, derivation, natural or moral imperfection, we may rest assured, let his title be ever so high, that he is not the infinite One, who is LORD and GOD SUPREME. If this rule be not allowed, it would be impossible to prove, that any, who are styled Lord or God, are not the infinite Supreme.

Were it granted then, that the titles God, Jehovah, and other titles of the kind, are applied to Christ, we are