qualis et quanta nonnisi Filii Dei esse potest. He gives from Chrysostom, as an illustration, the common expression, He walks as a King; that is, as becomes a King.

כָבוֹד

The word dia is here to be taken for all the perfections of the Logos; and if the Logos is God, as John asserts in the first verse, then dia is the sum of the divine excellence. It is in this sense that is very frequently used in the Old Testament. It expresses all God's perfections as manifested to his creatures. The word is here, therefore, not to be restricted to the display of divine power made in the miracles of Christ, or to the exhibition of his glory in his transfiguration; but the apostle means to say, that he had seen a fulness of excellence, wisdom and power, in Christ, that could belong to no creature.

Μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρὸς. It seems hardly necessary to remark, that vio is to be supplied after the first word in this phrase, as this is so evident from the import of the word povoyevns itself, and from the fact that John so frequently uses the full phrase, "only begotten Son," as chap. iii. 16, and elsewhere. As no part of our argument from this passage rests on the meaning of the word povoyevns (if vios be supplied), we might admit that it may be translated "only" or "beloved." We would remark, however, that the reasons commonly assigned for giving it the second sense just mentioned, appear to us very unsatisfactory. It very often happens, it is true, that, in compounds, their strict etymological sense is in common usage neglected or considerably modified. And this is, no doubt, so far the case with the word before us, that the idea expressed by the first part of the word is sometimes mainly or solely retained, as in Psalm xxv. 16, where it is used for povos; hence povoyevís vios is, in the scriptures at least, an only son, whether an only surviving or only begotten son, or the only son by the same mother. It is in this sense that it corresponds to the Hebrew word alone, only. That this Hebrew word is sometimes translated in the LXX. by yarnròs, does not prove that povoyevns and ȧyannros are synonymous, but merely that is sometimes taken in the sense of the one, and sometimes in that of the other, of these Greek words. We are inclined, therefore, to think that povoyevis as applied to Christ, can only, with propriety, be rendered unigenitus or unicus; i. e., unus in suo genere.* It matters not, however, for our purpose, how this word is rendered. Christ is the povoyevńs Tapà Ħatpòs,

As to the classical use of this word, which is, indeed, of less weight in the present instance, it may be well to quote part of a note given by Lücke in his Comment, page 422, from Prof. Näke, of Bonn. "From the earliest Grecian poets, in philosophical language (as in Plato's Timaeus), to the writers in the time of the Emperors, of different centuries, after Christ, μονογενης retained its full meaning ; μόνος γενομενος Οι μονος γεγονως, for example, μονογενης παις (in Hesiod and later writers), the only son, that is, the only son born to its parents, so that the only surviving son of two or more cannot be called povoyevns. The only departure from the usual sense of the word, he says, is found in its application to Minerva, born of only one parent.” This, however, relates to the first, and not to the second, part of the compound.

the Son, unus in suo genere, such as no other being in the universe is; and is so called in distinction from the υἱοι τοῦ Θεοῦ Οι τέκνα τοῦ Θεοῦ. He is the only son, in the sense in which the apostle uses the expression. This, of course, does not decide in what sense he is thus peculiarly the Son of God; and, therefore, we lay no stress on the use of this particular word, except so far as it expresses the idea just mentioned.

Any one, who will throw his eyes on the passage under consideration, will see that the words Tapà Tarpòs are much more naturally connected with povoyEvous than with digar. According to the latter method of construction, the sense would be, We saw his glory, a glory (dotica) given by the Father; so Erasmus and Grotius. This is unnecessary and forced. Those, however, who connect them with povoyeros, explain the phrase variously. Beza supplies išeλóvros, others or but neither is necessary. Noesselt (Opuscula Fasciculus, ii., p. 179) translates apà arpos, apud Patrem; majestatem tanquam unici filii, qui erat apud Patrem. This gives a sense well suited to the analogous passages, v. 1, and v. 18; but it would seem that rapa, in this sense, would require the dative or accusative. It is better, therefore, to take rapà rarpos for the simple genitive, as may, with strictest propriety, be done; see Rom. xi. 27. ǹ map' ¿poò diabкn for

διαθήκη μου.

The whole question to our purpose, as it regards this passage, is, who is the poroyevis napà núтpós? We think the Aoyos is such. This appears clearly from the passage itself. The Logos became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld his glory; that is, the glory of the Logos, which was as of the only begotten of the Father. The meaning is, we saw a glory which could belong to no other being than the Logos, who is God, the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth. It seems evident that John uses the words λόγος and μονογενὴς παρὰ πατρός in the same sense, exchanging the one expression for the other; and, if this is the case, then is the Logos the Son of God.

A reference to the context will make this still more obvious, and will show that no relief is obtained by saying that it is only the Logos as incarnate that is called the Son of God.* The apostle's object is, to set forth the true nature of Christ. He, therefore,

If this were the case, it could not be on account of the miraculous conception of the human nature of Christ that he is here called the Son of God; for the incarnation of the Logos, and the miraculous production of Christ's human nature, are two very different things. Another reason, therefore, beyond those usually assigned for the application of this name, must, in this case, be assumed, viz, the union of the divine with the human nature; or, as Storr, in his note on Hebrews, i. 5, expresses it, "Because he, who, before all things, was with the Father, and in his bosom, becaine man; or, because he, who, before the foundation of the world, was the beloved of the Father, God's dear Son, has united himself in one person, with the miraculouslyconceived man Jesus." Weil der, am Anfange der Dinge bei (John i. 1), dem Vater (1 John, i. 2), in seinem Schoos war (John i. 18), Mensch worden ist, oder weil sich der von dem Vater (17, i. 5), vor dem Daseyn der Welt Geliebte (v. 24.)—der liebe Sohn Gottee-mit dem übernatürlicher Weise empfangenen Jesu zu Einer Person verbunden hat.

says, that the Logos was in the beginning with God, and was God, the creator of all things, the source of all light, and the fountain of life. This divine Being became man, and we (the apostles) saw, even under this veil, the glory of the Godhead, of the Logos, for it was such as could belong to none other than the only begotten of the Father; i. e., to one who was partaker of the divine nature and attributes. We think nothing can be clearer than that John interchanges Ayos and povoyevhs Tapà Tarpos, and, consequently, calls the Logos the Son of God, which is all that we are contending for. We think that it is also clear, from this passage, that John intends, by the name Son of God (or, which is the same, only begotten of the Father), one who is of the same nature with the Father; not one who is derived from him, nor exalted by him, but one who is what he is, knows what he knows, and does what he does; one who stands in the most intimate of all relations to him. We shall have occasion to refer to some passages, in which Christ evidently uses this name in the same sense.

If authority was of any weight with our readers, we might quote the opinions of critics of every description to prove that the Logos is here called the only begotten of the Father. The opinion of the older, though not on that account less estimable, commentators would probably be set down to the score of theological prejudice. We shall, therefore, only remark, that the view of this passage given above is presented by almost all the German critics of any note with whom we are acquainted. Kuinoel, on this verse, after explaining poroyevis cui nemo par, nec Deo carior, remarks: "Respexit vero etiam Johannes sublimiorem Christi naturam, interiorem To Aoyou a Deo prognati, cum Deo conjunctionem." Lücke, now Professor in Göttingen, after speaking, in no very measured terms, in reference to the modern interpretations of the word povoyers, and quoting from Hermann a cutting reproach against the recent theologians for their numerous perversions of the language of scripture, says, that all that Paulus, in his commentary, has said to show that povoyers means unique (einzig in seiner Art), at most proves that it can be so rendered; but that this is nothing to the purpose, until he proves, from the usage of the New Testament, that "when applied to Christ, to the Logos, to the Son of God," it does not contain the idea of sonship. See his Comment. über die Schriften des Evangelisten Johannes, vol. i., p. 420, et seq. Tittmann, in his remarks on this verse, after stating that some would refer the name, Son of God, to the office, and not to the nature of Christ; to his mission, and not to his union in nature with the Father; and thus make it equivalent with Messiah, says: Verum hæc interpretatio est haud dubie alienissima a mente Apostolorum et Domini ipsius. And, as the conclusion of his argument on this subject, adds, Igitur viov rov Ocoũ, isque povoyevis, est Filius Dei in suo genere unus, quatenus talis est, qualis est Pater, idem est, qui Pater, eadem habet, quæ Pater, eadem facit quæ Pater, cui eadem competunt, quæ Patri. See his Meletemata Sacra, p. 59,'

seq. Tholuck, although his manner of speaking on this particular passage is undecided, yet, on John ix. 35, says expressly, that the phrase, Son of God, is used in a higher and lower sense in the New Testament. On the one hand, it denotes the divine nature in Christ, the Logos (einerseits bezeichnet es das Göttliche in Christo, den Logos); and, in the other, is a name of the Messiah. In proof of the first point, he refers to the passage before us, and, of course, understands it as it has just been explained. So also Knapp, as before quoted, appeals to this passage to prove that Christ, in his divine nature, is the Son of God. And even Paulus, who, of all commentators with whom we are acquainted, has laboured hardest to remove everything miraculous or mysterious, and, in fact, everything elevated and characteristic from the sacred writings, considers John as here calling the Logos the μονογενής παρὰ πατρός. The Logos, he says, in the theology of the Alexandrian Jews, was a Spirit sui generis, which had proceeded from the Eternal Father; and, accordingly, the sense of this passage is: "The more closely we could observe Jesus, the more did we see that all his excellent attributes were like the excellence of a Spirit sui generis, that had proceeded from God."* From this, it is clear that the povoyevs Tapà margos is, in his opinion, the Logos, whatever may be thought of his view of the passage in other respects. Our object in making these quotations is merely to show that it is a mistake to suppose that the divine Sonship of Christ is an antiquated notion, believed only by those who are held fast in the trammels of obselete systems.

There is another passage in this chapter, which we think is equally clear in proof of our position, that the Logos is the Son of God, and that is the 18th verse: Osòv ovdsis kúpaze núñore' ó povoyevns viòs, i ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρὸς, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο. The diversity of reading which exists as to the second clause of this verse, some MSS. having povoyerýs viòs, others povoysvís Osòs (and so, many of the Fathers), others ov, and others vios roù beo, does not affect the force of the passage, as far as our purpose is concerned; since povoyers is retained in all, and vids, if not expressed, is implied. In the words ó v sis TOV KóλTOV, the accusative with sis is probably to be taken for the dative with iv, as is frequently the case in the New Testament Greek. The

is by Erasmus, Bengel, Tittmann and many others, taken for bs," who was in the bosom of the Father," agreeably to the frequent use of Hebrew participles. There is, however, no necessity of departing from the common use of the present, either here, or in iii. 13 (ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, ὁ ὢν ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ). The intimate relation expressed by the figurative expression," in the bosom of the Father," is a perpetual and unchanging relation. The Apostle had said, v. 17, that the Law came by Moses, but grace and truth through Jesus Christ;

So war der Gott-Logos in der jud. alex., Theologie ein aus dem ewigen Vater hervorgegangener, ganz eiziger Geist ohne seinesgleichen. Sinn: je genauer wir Jesus beobachten konnten, desto mehr war uns der Unfang all seiner vortrefflichen Eigenschaften der Vortrefflichkeit eines in seiner Art einzigen, von Gott hergekommenen Geistes gleich. See Commentar über das neue Testament.

and then in the 18th, states how it is that the most precious revelation of the divine character and purpose, came to be made by him. No other has ever seen God, or has that knowledge of his being and counsels, which was possessed by Jesus Christ. The only begotten Son, who sustains the most intimate of all relations to the Father, he has revealed him and his purposes. Or (as others would supply after ἐξηγήσατο, τὴν χάριν καὶ τὴν ἀλήθειαν), has revealed his grace and truth. The Son is the divine Exegete (išnynris) of the Father, his Word, the Logos.

We are aware, that no decisive argument can be derived from this passage, taken by itself, to prove that the Logos is called the Son of God. We know, that even if the words povoyevs vids primarily and properly designated the human nature of Christ, they might be used for the whole person of the Redeemer, as is the case with the name, Son of man, as used in John iii. 13, just quoted. But still we think that the context affords clear evidence that John here intended to designate, by these words, the divine nature that became incarnate. For, in the first place, his object renders such an interpretation peculiarly appropriate. He designs to tell us, why the revelation made by the Redeemer was so superior to any that preceded it. No man had ever seen God, but the Son, who now and ever exists in the most intimate union with him, who knows all the purposes of the Father, has appeared on earth in human form, and made them clearly known. Secondly, it should be recollected, that from the 1st to the 18th verse inclusive, is one continued discourse on the dignity of Christ. These verses constitute the prologue to the whole Gospel, and are intimately connected. It is not probable, therefore, that the same expression should occur in two different senses in so short a passage. Hence, if John, in verse 14th, calls the Logos the povoyevhs rapa arpos, we may infer with confidence that the Logos is intended by the povoyevis viòs in the 18th verse. No man hath seen God, but the Logos, the only begotten Son, he has seen him, and sustains the most intimate of all relations to him. He therefore can reveal his purposes fully. A third reason for this interpretation is, the striking analogy between this and the first verse of this chapter. There it is said, "The Logos was with God," and here, "The only begotten Son, who is (or was) in the bosom of the Father." The same idea is expressed by the words, "with God," as is intended by being "in the bosom of the Father." They both express intimate relationship, or union. In the one case, this union is said to be between the Logos and God; in the other, between the Son and Father. This analogy between the two passages, taken in connection with the 14th v., where the terms Logos and only begotten of the Father are evidently interchanged, we think prove that John intended to designate the divine nature of Christ, by the words

μονογενής υἱός.

In John v. 17, we find another instance in which Christ is called, Son of God, in reference to his divine nature; or, what amounts to