subject, in another sense he is equal. The son of a king may be the equal of his father in every attribute of his nature, though officially inferior. So the eternal Son of God may be coequal with the Father, though officially subordinate. What difficulty is there in this ? What shade does it cast over the full Godhead of our adorable Redeemer ? The subordination, however, here spoken of, is not that of the human nature of Christ separately considered, as when he is said to suffer, or to die, or to be ignorant ; but it is the official subordination of the incarnate Son to God as God. The words avros 6 vtds, the Son himself^ here designate, as in so many other places, not the second person of the Trinity as such, but that person as clothed in our nature. And the subjection spoken of, is not of the former, but of the latter, i. e. not of the Son as Son, but of the Son as incarnate ; and the subjection itself is official and therefore perfectly consistent with equality of nature.
There is another difficulty connected with this verse which it may be well to notice. According to the Scriptures and the creeds of all the great historical churches (Greek, Latin, Lutheran and Reformed), the term Son, as applied to Christ, designates his divine nature. It is a term of nature and not of office. He was from eternity the Son of God. Yet it is of the Son that subjection is here predicated. This is urged as an argument against his eternal sonship. The fact, however, is, that the person of Christ may be designated from one na- ture, when the predicate belongs either to the opposite nature or to the whole person. That is, he may be called God when what fs said of him is true only of his human nature or of his complex person as God and man ; and he may be called man, when what is said is true only of his divine nature. Thus he is called the Son of Man when omnipresence and omniscience are ascribed to him ; and he is called God, the Son of God, the Lord of glory when he is said to die. These passages do not prove that the human nature of Christ is every where present ; or that his divine nature suffered and died. Neither do such expressions as that in the text prove that the Son as such is inferior to the Father, nor that the term Son is not a scriptural designation of his divine nature. The principle here adverted to is so important, and serves to explain so many passages of Scripture, that it will bear to be often repeated.
That God may he all in all. Before the ascension of Christ, God reigned as God ; after that event he reigned and still reigns through the Theanthropos ; when the end comes,