man, is not natural to him, or one which he attains by birth, but acquired. He received it from his Father as a reward for his sufferings, and for his faithful performance of the whole work and discharge of all the offices intrusted to him by God for the good of men, Phil. ii. 9; Heb. ii. 9, 10. Christ learned by his sufferings to obey God, and do his will; and he who knows how to obey so well is also qualified to govern well. . . . . . . The phrase ["sitting at the right hand of God"] is never applied to Christ, except when his humanity is spoken of, or when he is mentioned as Messiah, vɛáveρwñоs. The language, "Christ left his seat at the right hand of the Father in order to become man," was first used by the fathers who lived after the fourth century. Such language never occurs in the New Testament. 66 Sitting at the right hand of God" is always there represented as the reward which the Messiah obtained from God, after his death and ascension, for the faithful accomplishment, when upon earth, of all his work for the salvation of man. It is the promised reward which the victor receives after a long contest: vide Acts ii. 31–36; Heb. xii. 2. Hence the Father is said to have placed Jesus at his right hand, Eph. i. 20. This phrase, therefore, beyond doubt, implies every thing which belongs to the glory of Christ considered as a man, and to the dominion over the entire universe, over the human race, and especially over the church and its members, which belongs to him as a king. This is the reward which he receives from the Father. The holding of the general judgment, as well as the raising of the dead, is commonly ascribed in the New Testament to Christ, and represented as a commission or plenipotentiary power, which the Father had given to the man Jesus as Messiah, Rom. ii. 16; John v. 22, 25; Matt. xvi. 27; Acts x. 42, xvii. 31. Christ himself assigns it as the reason why God had intrusted to him the holding of this judgment, that he is a man, John v. 27, coll. Acts xvii. 31. God has constituted him the Judge of men, because he is man, and knows from his own experience all the sufferings and infirmities to which our nature is exposed, and can therefore be compassionate and indulgent, Heb. i. 14-17, coll. 1 Tim. ii. 5. Abridged from GEO. C. KNAPP : Christian Theology, sect. xcviii.; sect. xcix. II.; sect. clv. I.

Of what nature is the kupióτng so often ascribed to the Saviour by Paul, and the other writers of the New Testament? Is it original or conferred? Does Christ as Messiah, and, in this capacity, as Lord of the church and of all things, possess original or delegated dominion? "God manifest in the flesh," the eternal Logos who "was with God,

this complex person might

and was God," in a word, God-man, have a kuρióτns that was delegated or conferred. Was this in fact so? Has Paul and his coadjutors taught us such doctrine? These questions I feel myself obliged to answer in the affirmative. The apostle, in Phil. ii. 5-11, states it as a ground of Christ's exaltation to be Lord of all, that "he became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross;" for, when he had made mention of this obedience, he immediately adds, "wherefore," i.e., because he was thus obedient, he was exalted to a throne of glory. Consequently, the dominion in question was the reward of obedience; i.e., it was conferred, bestowed, and not original. In exact accordance with this is the passage in Heb. ii. 10, which represents Christ as perfected in glory, advanced to the highest honor and happiness, as a consequence of his sufferings. Of the same tenor also are all those passages which speak of Jesus as exalted to the right hand of God, after his resurrection. So testifies also the beloved disciple: "Even as I (Christ) overcame, and am set down with my Father on his throne," Rev. iii. 21; i.e., his kupóτns, or being enthroned, was the consequence of his overcoming; viz., overcoming the temptations and trials of life, overcoming his spiritual enemies, and persevering even to the end in a course of entire duty and holiness. Again, John xiii. 3; xvii. 2; iii. 35; v. 26, 27; v. 22. With this testimony agree the declarations of Jesus as recorded by another disciple: “All things are delivered unto me of my Father," Matt. xi. 27. "All power is given unto me in heaven and on earth,”. Matt. xxviii. 18. These are only a few of the many texts which speak plainly on the subject of the Messiah's conferred dominion. It is impossible to set them aside. Whatever dominion he possessed as Messiah, as God-man, as Mediator, as Head of the church militant, it is one which is bestowed. Abridged from MOSES STUART, in Biblical Repository for October, 1831, pp. 749-51.

With the aid of Trinitarian divines, we showed, in preceding pages, that Jesus Christ, whether regarded as a superhuman being, who existed before his residence in the world, or as the Messiah with all the functions and qualifications requisite for his acting on earth in this character, received his existence, his possessions, and his powers, from his heavenly Father. In the present section, we have proved, with the same help, that our Lord, in that state of exaltation to which he was raised after the completion of his earthly course, was and is indebted to the same great Being for his regal power and dominion, for his authority as the Head and Sovereign of the universal church.

SECT. X.

CHRIST NOT TO BE WORSHIPPED WITH SUPREME VENERATION, BUT WITH THE HONOR DUE TO ONE WHO FAITHFULLY PERFORMED THE WILL OF GOD, AND DIED FOR THE SALVATION OF MEN.

§ 1. CIVIL, NOT DIVINE, HOMAGE PAID TO JESUS WHILE ON EARTH.

Should any one peruse the evangelical narratives with the requisite attention, he would hardly affirm that the persons who worshipped Christ while on earth acknowledged him to be the Son of God [in the Trinitarian sense, we suppose, is intended]. They believed, indeed, that he was a distinguished prophet, sent by the Almighty, by whose assistance he cured the blind, the deaf, and the lame; but they did not recognize him as the true Son of God. This is proved by the opinion of Nicodemus, John iii. 2; the confession of Peter and the other disciples, Matt. xvi. 13, 14; and the exclamation of the inhabitants of Nain, Luke vii. 16. Accordingly, the magi, the leper, the centurion, and others, though as yet they did not acknowledge Christ to be the Son of God manifest in the flesh, felt persuaded that the power of the Most High was exhibited in him; and therefore the wise men honored him as their King, and others sought aid and health from him as from a mighty Prophet of God. Exercitationes, lib. i. cap. 59.

ABRAHAM SCULTET:

I do not, in proof of this [that Christ is the object of divine worship], urge the instances of those who fell down at Christ's feet and worshipped him while he was on earth; for it may be well answered to that, that a prophet was worshipped with the civil respect of falling down before him, among the Jews, as appears in the history of Elijah and Elisha. Nor does it appear that those who worshipped Christ had any apprehension of his being God: they only considered him as the Messias, or as some eminent prophet. BISHOP BURNET: Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles, Art. I.

The bishop, however, excepts from such instances those in which the disciples are said to have worshipped Christ at his ascension.

Doing reverence by prostration is not only an act of worship paid to God, but often to kings and great men in the Old Testament, according to the custom of Eastern countries: see 2 Sam. ix. 6; xiv. 33. It was likewise an expression of reverence paid to prophets, on the account of the sanctity of their office, and not refused by them: see 1 Kings xviii. 7. Of this kind probably was the worship paid by the leper to Christ (Matt. viii. 2), whom he took for a prophet. · WILLIAM LOWTH on Dan. ii. 46.

Those who render, "they adored him," suppose that the magi were acquainted with the mystery of the Saviour's Incarnation and Divinity, which the apostles obtained only after his resurrection. I do not say this in order to favor a Christian sect that has false opinions on the person of the Saviour. It is certain that the Jews paid the homage of prostration to persons of dignity whom they respected. ISAAC DE BEAUSOBRE on Matt. ii. 11: Remarques, tom. i. p. 10.

“To do him homage,” πроσкννñσaι avтw. The homage of prostration, which is signified by this Greek word in sacred authors as well as in profane, was, throughout all Asia, commonly paid to kings and other superiors, both by Jews and by Pagans. It was paid by Mosesto his father-in-law (Exod. xviii. 7), called in the English translation "obeisance." The instances of this application are so numerous, both in the Old Testament and in the New, as to render more quotations unnecessary. When God is the object, the word denotes adoration in the highest sense. In old English, the term "worship" was indifferently used of both. It is not commonly so now. DR. GEORGE CAMPBELL on Matt. ii. 2.

Пpоσкνvεiv, in the New Testament, particularly denotes, "with the head and body bent, to show reverence and offer civil worship to any one; to salute any one, so as to prostrate the body to the ground, and touch it even with the chin; " a mode of salutation which was almost universally adopted by Eastern nations. IIpoσkvvetv also signifies “to bend the knee in reverence and honor, or in supplication; corresponding, in this sense, to the Hebrew word,, "he bent" or prostrated himself at the feet of any one for the sake of honor and reverence; for which it is used in the Septuagint, Gen. xviii. 2; xxiii. 7, 12; xix. i. Esth. iii. 2, 5, &c. . . . See Matt. ii. 2, 8, 11; viii. 2; ix. 18, comp. Mark v. 22 and Luke v. 12. Matt. xv. 25; xviii. 26; xx. 20; xxviii. 9, 17. Mark v. 6; xv. 19. John ix. 38. Acts x. 25. — J. F. SCHLEUSNER: Lexicon in Novum Testamentum, art. Προσκυνέω, 3.

§ 2. SECONDARY, NOT SUPREME, HOMAGE PAID, OR REQUIRED TO BE PAID, TO CHRIST, AFTER HIS EXALTATION TO HEAVEN.

The former kind of worship [to Jesus as God] is not different from that which is exhibited to God the Father: the latter worship is not absolutely supreme, and is suitable to Christ as Mediator, but subordinate to that of the Father, by whom it has been graciously communicated to Christ, and is expressly commanded in Scripture to be paid to him. It therefore follows, that this worship does not terminate in Christ himself, but tends to the glory of God the Father, to whom it is either expressly or tacitly referred; just as the honor which is manifested towards a legate does not terminate in him, but tends to the glory of the king by whom he is sent. Thus, Phil. ii. 11: "That every tongue should confess the Lord Jesus, to the glory of God the Father." The Lord Jesus is to be worshipped, because in his name every knee must bow, and every tongue confess him to be Lord; and because the basis of this worship is his exaltation by the Father, for having suffered the death of the cross. But surely these circumstances are suitable to him, not as God, but as man, and directly refer to his office of Mediator. The whole of this adoration is subordinate to that of the Father, and terminates in him; which is proved from the concluding words, " to the glory of God the Father.” To this passage, and John v. 22, 23, may be added Heb. i. 6 from Ps. xcvii. 7.—PHILIP LIMBORCH: Theol. Christ., lib. v. cap. 18, § 2, 5.

This unparalleled act of obedience God hath rewarded, by advancing his human nature to universal dominion, that the man Christ Jesus should now rule over, and be adored by, all creatures; that all nations should acknowledge this king, and, by submitting to his laws and government, promote the glory of God the Father, who delights to be honored in the belief and obedience paid to his blessed Son and his gospel. DR. GEORGE STANHOPE on Phil. ii. 9-11: Comment on the Epistles and Gospels, vol. ii. p. 433.

As the fundamental reason for which God the Father receiveth worship of the Jews and Gentiles is because he hath created all things, and preserves them by his will, to have it perfected and executed on them; so the fundamental reason for which the Son is worshipped is because he was slain, and shed his blood to redeem thereby all mankind. CHARLES DAUBUZ on Rev. v. 9.

This writer afterwards endeavors to explain this Unitarian remark in conformity with Trinitarianism.