And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we saw his glory, the glory as it were of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

“(Hom. 2) Full of grace and truth. Of this the meaning is twofold. For it may be understood of the Humanity, and the Divinity of the Incarnate Word, so that the fulness of grace has reference to the Humanity, according to which Christ is the Head of the Church, and the first-born of every creature: for the greatest and original example of grace, by which man, with no preceding merits, is made God, is manifested primarily in Him. The fulness of the grace of Christ may also be understood of the Holy Spirit, whose sevenfold operation filled Christ’s Humanity. (Is. 11:2) The fulness of truth applies to the Divinity … But if you had rather understand the fulness of grace and truth of the New Testament, you may with propriety pronounce the fulness of the grace of the New Testament to be given by Christ, and the truth of the legal types to have been fulfilled in Him.”

“(x. de Trin. c. 21, 22) Some, however, who think God the Only-Begotten, God the Word, Who was in the beginning with God, not to be God substantially, but a Word sent forth, the Son being to God the Father, what a word is to one who utters it, these men, in order to disprove that the Word, being substantially God, and abiding in the form of God, was born the Man Christ, argue subtilly, that, whereas that Man (they say) derived His life rather from human origin than from the mystery of a spiritual conception, God the Word did not make Himself Man of the womb of the Virgin; but that the Word of God was in Jesus, as the spirit of prophecy in the Prophets. And they are accustomed to charge us with holding, that Christ was born a Man, notr of our body and soul; whereas we preach the Word made flesh, and after our likeness born Man, so that He Who is truly Son of God, was truly born Son of man; and that, as by His own act He took upon Him a body of the Virgin, so of Himself He took a soul also, which in no case is derived from man by mere parental origin. And seeing He, The Self-same, is the Son of man, how absurd were it, besides the Son of God, Who is the Word, to make Him another person besides, a sort of prophet, inspired by the Word of God; whereas our Lord Jesus Christ is both the Son of God, and the Son of man.”

“(Hom. xi. [x.] 1) Or thus, After saying that they were born of God, who received Him, he sets forth the cause of this honour, viz. the Word being made flesh, God’s own Son was made the son of man, that he might make the sons of men the sons of God. Now when thou hearest that the Word was made flesh, be not disturbed, for He did not change His substance into flesh, which it were indeed impious to suppose; but remaining what He was, took upon Him the form of a servant. But as there are some who say, that the whole of the incarnation was only in appearance, to refute such a blasphemy, he used the expression, was made, meaning to represent not a conversion of substance, but an assumption of real flesh. But if they say, God is omnipotent; why then could He not be changed into flesh? we reply, that a change from an unchangeable nature is a contradiction.”

“(P. iii. Hom. Theod. Ancyr. de Nat. Dom.) The discourse which we utter, which we use in conversation with each other, is incorporeal, imperceptible, impalpable; but clothed in letters and characters, it becomes material, perceptible, tangible. So too the Word of God, which was naturally invisible, becomes visible, and that comes before us in tangible form, which was by nature incorporeal.”

“(ad Nes. Ep. 8) The Word uniting to Himself a body of flesh animated with a rational soul, substantially, was ineffably and incomprehensibly made Man, and called the Son of man, and that not according to the will only, or good-pleasure, nor again by the assumption of the Person alone. The natures are different indeed which are brought into true union, but He Who is of both, Christ the Son, is One; the difference of the natures, on the other hand, not being destroyed in consequence of this coalition.”

“(in Joan. 1:1.) When we think how the incorporeal soul is joined to the body, so as that of two is made one man, we too shall the more easily receive the notion of the incorporeal Divine substance being joined to the soul in the body, in unity of person; so as that the Word is not turned into flesh, nor the flesh into the Word; just as the soul is not turned into body, nor the body into soul.”

“Having set down the necessity of the coming of the Word into flesh, and also its usefulness, the Evangelist consequently makes manifest the manner of the coming, saying, "And the Word was made flesh." And according to this it is connected to what he had said, "He came unto his own"; as if to say: the Word of God came unto his own. But lest you should believe that he came by changing place, he shows the manner in which he came, namely, through the incarnation: for he came in that manner in which he was sent by the Father, by whom he was sent inasmuch as he was made flesh. Galatians IV, 4: "God sent his Son, made of a woman," etc., where Augustine says: "he was sent in the same way in which he was made." But according to Chrysostom it is connected to that, "he gave them power," etc.; as if to say: if you ask whence he was able to give this power to men, that they should become sons of God, the Evangelist answers that "the Word was made flesh," and gave us that we might become sons of God. Galatians IV, 5: "God sent his Son, that we might receive the adoption of the sons of God." But according to Augustine it is connected in this way to what he had said, "but they were born of God": for since it seemed hard, as it were, that men should be born of God, therefore, as if in argument of this saying, namely that it might be believed that he is the Word, the Evangelist adds that which seems less believable, namely, that "the Word was made flesh." As if to say: do not marvel if men are born of God, because "the Word was made flesh," that is, God was made man. It must be noted that from this which is said, "the Word was made flesh," certain persons, understanding it badly, have taken occasion for error. For some have held that the Word was so made flesh that either it itself or something of it was converted into flesh, just as when flour becomes bread, and air becomes fire. And this was Eutyches, who posited a mingling of the natures in Christ, saying that in him there was one and the same nature of God and of man. But the falsity of this opinion appears manifestly, because, as was said above, "the Word was God." But God is immutable, as is said in Malachi III, 6: "I am God, and I change not," whence in no way can it be that he should be converted into another nature. It must therefore be said, against Eutyches, "the Word was made flesh": the Word assumed flesh, not that the Word itself is the flesh itself; just as if we should say: a man was made white, not that he himself is the whiteness itself, but that he assumed whiteness. There were also others who, although they believed that the Word was not changed into flesh but that it assumed it, nevertheless said that it assumed flesh without a soul; for if it had assumed ensouled flesh, the Evangelist would have said: the Word was made flesh with a soul. And such was the error of Arius, who said that in Christ there was no soul, but the Word of God was there in place of a soul. And the falsity of this position appears, both because it is repugnant to Sacred Scripture, which in many places makes mention of the soul of Christ, as that in Matthew XXVI, 38: "My soul is sorrowful even unto death"; and also because certain passions of the soul are recounted of Christ, which can in no way be in the Word of God, nor even in the flesh alone, as that in Matthew XXVI, 37: "Jesus began to grow sorrowful and to be sad"; and also because God cannot be the form of any body; nor can even an angel be united to a body in the manner of a form, since according to its nature it is separated from a body; but the soul is united to the body as a form. Therefore the Word of God cannot be the form of a body. Furthermore, it is established that flesh does not attain the species of flesh except through the soul: which is clear, because when the soul withdraws from the body of a man, or of an ox, the flesh of the man or of the ox is not called flesh except equivocally. If therefore the Word did not assume ensouled flesh, it is manifest that it did not assume flesh. But "the Word was made flesh"; therefore it assumed ensouled flesh. There were, however, others who, moved by this, said that the Word did indeed assume ensouled flesh, but with a sensitive soul only, not an intellective one, in place of which they said the Word was in the body of Christ. And this was the error of Apollinaris, who at one time followed Arius, but at length, on account of the aforesaid authorities, was compelled to posit some soul in Christ, which could be the subject of these passions, yet in such a way that it lacked reason and intellect, but in place of these the Word was in the man Christ. But this manifestly appears to be false, because it is repugnant to the authority of Sacred Scripture, in which certain things are said of Christ which can be found neither in the divinity, nor in the sensitive soul, nor in the flesh: such as that he marveled, as is said in Matthew VIII, 10; but marveling is a passion of the rational and intellective soul, since it is a desire of knowing the hidden cause of an effect that is seen. So therefore, just as sorrow compels us to posit in Christ the sensitive part of the soul, against Arius, so marveling compels us to posit in him the intellective part of the soul, against Apollinaris. The same also appears through reason. For just as there is no flesh without a soul, so there is no true human flesh without a human soul, which is the intellective soul. If therefore the Word assumed flesh ensouled with a sensitive soul only, and not a rational one, it did not assume human flesh: and so it could not be said, "God was made man." Furthermore, the Word assumed human nature for this purpose, that it might repair it. Therefore it repaired that which it assumed. If therefore it did not assume a rational soul, it would not have repaired it: and so no fruit would come to us from the incarnation of the Word, which is false. Therefore "the Word was made flesh," that is, it assumed flesh ensouled with a rational soul. But perhaps you say: if the Word assumed flesh thus ensouled, why did the Evangelist not make mention of the rational soul, but only of the flesh, saying, "the Word was made flesh"? I answer that it must be said that the Evangelist did this for four reasons. First, to show the truth of the incarnation against the Manichees, who said that the Word did not assume true flesh, but only phantasmal flesh, since it would not be fitting that the Word of the good God should assume flesh, which they said to be the creature of the Devil. And therefore the Evangelist, in order to exclude this, made mention especially of the flesh; just as Christ also, in Luke XXIV, 39, when the disciples thought him to be a phantasm, showed the truth of the resurrection, saying: "A spirit hath not flesh and bones, as you see me to have." Second, to demonstrate the greatness of God's kindness toward us. For it is established that the rational soul is more conformed to God than the flesh, and indeed it would have been a great sacrament of piety if the Word had assumed a human soul, as being conformed to itself; but to assume also flesh, so far removed from the simplicity of its own nature, was an indication of a much fuller, indeed inestimable, piety; according to which the Apostle says in 1 Timothy III, 16: "And evidently great is the sacrament of piety, which was manifested in the flesh." And therefore, in order to show this, the Evangelist made mention only of the flesh. Third, to demonstrate the truth and singularity of the union in Christ. For to other holy men God is indeed united, as regards the soul only; whence it is said in Wisdom VII, 27: "Through nations she conveyeth herself into holy souls, making them the friends of God and prophets." But that the Word of God should be united to flesh, this is singular in Christ, according to that in Psalm CXL, 10: "I am alone until I pass"; Job XXVIII, 17: "Gold shall not be equalled to it." Wishing therefore to show this singularity of the union in Christ, the Evangelist made mention only of the flesh, saying, "the Word was made flesh." Fourth, to intimate the fittingness of human reparation. For man was made weak through the flesh, and therefore the Evangelist, wishing to intimate that the coming of the Word was fitting to our reparation, made mention especially of the flesh, in order to show that the weak flesh was repaired through the flesh of the Word; and this is what the Apostle says, Romans VIII, 3: "For what was impossible to the law, in that it was weak through the flesh, God, sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and of sin, condemned sin in the flesh." But it is asked, why did the Evangelist not say, the Word assumed flesh, but rather, "the Word was made flesh"? I answer that it must be said that he did this in order to exclude the error of Nestorius, who said that in Christ there were two persons, and two sons, and that the son of the Virgin was another; whence he did not grant that the Blessed Virgin was the mother of God. But according to this God would not have been made man; because it is impossible that of two singulars, which are diverse according to supposit, one should be predicated of the other. Whence if the person, or supposit, of the Word is one, and the person, or supposit, of the man in Christ is another, then it will not be true, as the Evangelist says, that "the Word was made flesh." For something is made in order that it may be; if therefore the Word were not man, it could not be said that the Word was made man. And therefore the Evangelist significantly said "was made," and did not say "assumed," in order to show that the union of the Word to the flesh is not such as is the assumption of the prophets, who were not assumed into the unity of the supposit, but to the prophetic act: but it is such as would truly make God man, and man God, that is, that God should be man. There were also others who, not understanding the manner of the incarnation, held indeed that the aforesaid assumption terminated at the truth of the person, confessing in God one person of God and man; but nevertheless they say that in him there were two hypostases, or two supposits, one of the human nature, created and temporal, the other of the divine, uncreated and eternal. And such is the first opinion which is set down in Book III of the Sentences, distinction VI. But according to this opinion this proposition does not hold true: God was made man, and man was made God. And therefore this opinion was condemned as heretical in the Fifth Council, where it is said: if anyone should say in the Lord Jesus Christ one person and two hypostases, let him be anathema. And therefore the Evangelist, in order to exclude every assumption which does not terminate at the unity of the person, uses this word "was made." But if you ask, how is the Word man, it must be said that it is man in that manner in which any other is man, namely, having a human nature. Not that the Word is the human nature itself, but it is a divine supposit united to a human nature. But this which is said, "the Word was made flesh," does not signify any change in the Word, but only in the nature newly assumed into the unity of the divine person. And "the Word was made flesh," through the union to the flesh. But union is a certain relation. Now relations newly said of God in respect to creatures do not imply a change on the part of God, but on the part of the creature relating itself to God in a new manner. There follows, "and dwelt among us"; which indeed is distinguished from the foregoing in two ways. First, so that it is said that above the Evangelist treated of the incarnation of the Word, saying, "the Word was made flesh"; but here he intimates the manner of the incarnation, saying, "and dwelt among us." For according to Chrysostom and Hilary, through this that the Evangelist says "the Word was made flesh," someone might understand that it was converted into flesh, and that there are not two distinct natures in Christ, but only one nature commingled out of the human and the divine; therefore the Evangelist, excluding this, added "and dwelt among us," that is, in our nature, yet in such a way that it remained distinct in its own. For that which is converted into something does not remain, from that into which it is converted, distinct according to nature; but that which is not distinguished from something does not dwell in it; because to dwell implies a distinction of the one dwelling and that in which it dwells. But the Word dwelt in our nature; therefore it is naturally distinct from it. And therefore, inasmuch as the human nature was distinct in Christ from the nature of the Word, it is called the dwelling-place of the divinity and the temple, according to that below, II, 21: "But he spoke of the temple of his body." And indeed, although this is soundly said by the aforesaid saints, the calumny is nevertheless to be guarded against which some incur from this. For the ancient doctors and saints so pursued the errors arising concerning the faith that sometimes they seemed to slip into contrary errors; just as Augustine, against the Manichees, who destroyed the freedom of choice, disputes in such a way that he seems to have fallen into the heresy of Pelagius. In this manner therefore the Evangelist John, lest by this that he had said, "the Word was made flesh," there should be understood in Christ a confusion or transmutation of the natures, added "and dwelt among us": from which word Nestorius, taking occasion for error, said that the Son of God was so united to man that nevertheless there was not one person of God and man: for he wished that the Word was united to the human nature by indwelling alone through grace. But from this it follows that the Son of God is not man. For the elucidation of these things, it must be known that in Christ we can consider two things, namely, nature and person. But in Christ the distinction is regarded according to nature, not according to person, which is one and the same in the two natures; because the human nature in Christ was assumed into the unity of the person. The indwelling, therefore, which the saints posit, is to be referred to the nature, so that it is said that "he dwelt among us," that is, the nature of the Word dwelt in our nature, not according to hypostasis or person, which is the same for both natures in Christ. But that which Nestorius blasphemes is evidently refuted by the authority of Sacred Scripture. For the Apostle, in Philippians II, 6, calls the union of God and man an emptying, saying of the Son of God: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God; but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant." But God is not said to empty himself God from the fact that he indwells a rational creature through grace, because thus the Father and the Holy Spirit would be emptied, since they too are said to indwell man through grace; for Christ says, speaking of himself and of the Father, below XIV, 23: "We will come to him, and will make our abode with him." But of the Holy Spirit the Apostle says, 1 Corinthians III, 16: "The Spirit of God dwelleth in us." Furthermore, if Christ were not personally God, he would have said most presumptuously: "I and the Father are one"; and, "before Abraham was made, I am." But "I" indicates the person of the one speaking; and it was a man who spoke; who, as one with the Father, pre-existed before Abraham. It can also be connected in another way, so that it is said that above he treated of the incarnation of the Word, but now he treats of the manner of life of the incarnate Word, saying, "and dwelt among us," that is, he conversed familiarly among us apostles, according to what Peter says, Acts I, 21: "In all the time in which the Lord Jesus came in and went out among us." Baruch IV, 38: "Afterwards he was seen upon earth." But the Evangelist added this on account of two things. First, in order to show the wonderful conformity of the Word to men, among whom he so conversed that he seemed as if one of them. For he willed not only to be made like to men in nature, but also willed to be together with them in living together and in familiar converse, without sin, so that thus he might draw to himself men allured by the sweetness of his converse. Second, in order to show the truth of his testimony. For the Evangelist had said above certain great things concerning the Word, and was still going to say many wonderful things concerning him, and therefore, in order that his testimony might be made more credible, he took, as it were in argument of the truth, that he had conversed with Christ, saying, "and dwelt among us." As if to say: I can well bear testimony concerning him, because I conversed with him; 1 John I, 1: "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the word of life," etc., and Acts X, 40: "he gave him to be made manifest, not to all the people, but to witnesses preordained by God," that is, to us who ate and drank with him.”

“And the word was made flesh,.... The same word, of whom so many things are said in the preceding verses; and is no other than the Son of God, or second person in the Trinity; for neither the Father, nor the Holy Ghost, were made flesh, as is here said of the word, but the Son only: and "flesh" here signifies, not a part of the body, nor the whole body only, but the whole human nature, consisting of a true body, and a reasonable soul; and is so called, to denote the frailty of it, being encompassed with infirmities, though not sinful; and to show, that it was a real human nature, and not a phantom, or appearance, that he assumed: and when he is said to be "made" flesh, this was not done by the change of one nature into another, the divine into the human, or the word into a man; but by the assumption of the human nature, the word, taking it into personal union with himself; whereby the natures are not altered; Christ remained what he was, and became what he was not; nor are they confounded, and blended together, and so make a third nature; nor are they separated, and divided, so as to constitute two persons, a divine person, and an human person; but are so united as to be but one person; and this is such an union, as can never be dissolved, and is the foundation of the virtue and efficacy of all Christ's works and actions, as Mediator: and dwelt among us; or "tabernacled among us"; in allusion to the tabernacle, which was a type of Christ's human nature: the model of the tabernacle was of God, and not of man; it was coarse without, but full of holy things within; here God dwelt, granted his presence, and his glory was seen; here the sacrifices were brought, offered, and accepted. So the human nature of Christ was of God's pitching, and not man's; and though it looked mean without, the fulness of the Godhead dwelt in it, as well as a fulness of grace and truth; in the face of Christ the glory of God is seen, and through him, even the vail of his flesh, saints have access unto him, and enjoy his presence; and by him their spiritual sacrifices become acceptable to God: or this is observed, in allusion to the feast of tabernacles, when the Jews dwelt in booths, in remembrance of their manner of living in the wilderness: the feast of tabernacles was typical of Christ, and of his tabernacling in our nature. Solomon's temple, which was also a type of Christ, was dedicated at the time of that feast; and it seems probable, that our Lord was born at that time; for as he suffered at the time of the passover, which had respect unto him, and the pouring forth of the Spirit was on the very day of Pentecost, which that prefigured; so it is highly probable, that Christ was born at the time of the feast of tabernacles, which pointed out his dwelling among us; and is therefore very pertinently hinted at, when mention is here made of his incarnation. However, reference is manifestly had to the Shekinah, and the glory of it, in the tabernacle and temple; and almost the very word is here used. The Targumists sometimes speak of the Shekinah of the word dwelling among the Israelites: so Onkelos in Num 11:20 where the Israelites are threatened with flesh, until they loath it; because, says the paraphrast, "ye have loathed "the word of the Lord", whose Shekinah dwelleth among you. Jonathan ben Uzziel, on the same place, expresses it thus, "because ye have loathed the word of the Lord, the glory of whose Shekinah dwelleth among you. And it follows here, and we beheld his glory; the glory of his divine nature, which is essential to him, and underived, is equal to the Father's glory, is transcendent to all creatures, and is ineffable, and incomprehensible; some breakings forth of which there were in his incarnate state, and which were observed by the evangelist, and his companions; who, in various instances, saw plainly, that Christ was possessed of divine perfections, such as omniscience, and omnipotence; since he knew the thoughts of the heart, and could do the things he did: his Father declared him to be his beloved Son; and the miracles he wrought, and the doctrines he taught, manifested forth his glory; and not only there were some beams of his glory at his transfiguration, which were seen by the apostles, among which the Evangelist John was one, and to which he may have here a particular reference; but even at his apprehension, and death, and especially at his resurrection from the dead. The Jews speak of the glory of the Messiah to be seen in the world to come. They say (h), "If a man is worthy of the world to come, (i.e. the times of the Messiah,) he shall "see the glory" of the King Messiah. And of Moses, they say (i), "there was (or will be) no generation like that in which he lived, until the generation in which the King Messiah comes, which shall "behold the glory" of the holy, blessed God, as he. This our evangelist, and the other disciples of Christ have seen: the glory, as of the only begotten of the Father; a glory becoming him, suitable to him as such; the very real glory of the Son of God; for the "as", here, is not a note of similitude, but of certainty, as in Mat 14:5 and the word is here called, "the only begotten of the Father"; which cannot be said of Christ, as man; for as such, he was not "begotten" at all: nor on the account of his resurrection from the dead; for so he could not be called the "only begotten", since there are others that have been, and millions that will be raised from the dead, besides him: nor by reason of adoption; for if adopted, then not begotten; these two are inconsistent; besides, he could not be called the only begotten, in this sense, because there are many adopted sons, even all the elect of God: nor by virtue of his office, as magistrates are called the sons of God; for then he would be so only in a figurative and metaphorical sense, and not properly; whereas he is called God's own Son, the Son of the same nature with him; and, as here, the only begotten of the Father, begotten by him in the same nature, in a way inconceivable and inexpressible by us: full of grace and truth; that is, he dwelt among men, and appeared to have a fulness of each of these: for this clause is not to be joined with the glory of the only begotten, as if this was a branch of that; but regards him as incarnate, and in his office, as Mediator; who, as such, was full of "grace"; the Spirit, and the gifts of the Spirit; of all the blessings of grace, of justifying, pardoning, adopting, sanctifying, and persevering grace; of all the promises of grace; of all light, life, strength, comfort, peace, and joy: and also of truth, of all Gospel truths; and as he had the truth, the sum, and substance of all the types and prophecies concerning him in him; and as he fulfilled all his own engagements, and his Father's promises; and as possessed of sincerity towards men, and faithfulness and integrity to God, (h) Gloss. in T. Bab. Beracot, fol. 58. 1. (i) Zohar in Lev. fol. 9. 4.”

“And the Word was made flesh - That very person who was in the beginning - who was with God - and who was God, Joh 1:1, in the fullness of time became flesh - became incarnated by the power of the Holy Ghost, in the womb of the virgin. Allowing this apostle to have written by Divine inspiration, is not this verse, taken in connection with Joh 1:1, an absolute and incontestable proof of the proper and eternal Godhead of Christ Jesus? And dwelt among us - Και εσκηνωσεν εν ἡμιν, And tabernacled among us: the human nature which he took of the virgin, being as the shrine, house, or temple, in which his immaculate Deity condescended to dwell. The word is probably an allusion to the Divine Shechinah in the Jewish temple; and as God has represented the whole Gospel dispensation by the types and ceremonies of the old covenant, so the Shechinah in the tabernacle and temple pointed out this manifestation of God in the flesh. The word is thus used by the Jewish writers: it signifies with them a manifestation of the Divine Shechinah. The original word, σκηνοω, from σκια, a shadow, signifies: 1. To build a booth, tent, or temporary hut, for present shelter or convenience; and does not properly signify a lasting habitation or dwelling place; and is therefore fitly applied to the human nature of Christ, which, like the tabernacle of old, was to be here only for a temporary residence for the eternal Divinity. 2. It signifies to erect such a building as was used on festival occasions, when a man invited and enjoyed the company of his friends. To this meaning of the word, which is a common one in the best Greek writers, the evangelist might allude, to point out Christ's associating his disciples with himself; living, conversing, eating, and drinking with them: so that, while they had the fullest proof of his Divinity by the miracles which he wrought, they had the clearest evidence of his humanity, by his tabernacling among, eating, drinking, and conversing with them. Concerning the various acceptations of the verb σκηνοω see Raphelius on this verse. The doctrine of vicarious sacrifice and the incarnation of the Deity have prevailed among the most ancient nations in the world, and even among those which were not favored with the letter of Divine revelation. The Hindoos believe that their god has already become incarnate, not less than nine times, to save the wretched race of man. On this subject, Creeshna, an incarnation of the supreme God, according to the Hindoo theology, is represented in the Bhagvat Geeta, as thus addressing one of his disciples: "Although I am not in my nature subject to birth or decay, and am the Lord of all created beings, yet, having command over my own nature, I am made evident by my own power; and, as often as there is a decline of virtue and an insurrection of vice and injustice in the world, I make myself evident; and thus I appear from age to age, for the preservation of the just, the destruction of the wicked, and the establishment of virtue." Geeta, pp. 51, 52. The following piece, already mentioned, Luk 1:68, translated from the Sanscreet, found on a stone, in a cave near the ancient city of Gya in the East Indies, is the most astonishing and important of any thing found out of the compass of the Sacred Writings, and a proper illustration of this text. "The Deity, who is the Lord, the possessor of all, Appeared in this ocean of natural beings, at the beginning of the Kalee Yoog (the age of contention and baseness.) He who is omnipresent, and everlastingly to be contemplated, the Supreme Being, the eternal One, the Divinity worthy to be adored - Appeared here, with a Portion of his Divine Nature. Reverence be unto thee in the form of (a) Bood-dha! Reverence be unto the Lord of the earth! Reverence be unto thee, an Incarnation of the Deity, and the Eternal One! Reverence be unto thee, O God! in the form of the God of mercy! the dispeller of Pain and Trouble, the Lord of All things, the Deity who overcometh the sins of the Kalee Yoog, the guardian of the universe, the emblem of mercy towards those who serve thee! (b) O'M! the possessor of all things, in Vital Form! Thou art (c) Brahma, (d) Veeshnoo, and (e) Mahesa! Thou art Lord of the universe! Thou art under the form of all things, movable and immovable, the possessor of the whole! And thus I adore thee! Reverence be unto the Bestower of Salvation, and the ruler of the faculties! Reverence be unto thee, the Destroyer of the Evil Spirit! O Damordara, (f) show me favor! I adore thee who art celebrated by a thousand names, and under various forms, in the shape of Bood-dha, the God of mercy! Be propitious, O most high God!" Asiatic Researches, vol. i. p. 284, 285. (a) Bood-dha. The name of the Deity, as author of happiness. (b) O'M. A mystic emblem of the Deity, forbidden to be pronounced but in silence. It is a syllable formed of the Sanscreet letters a, o o, which in composition coalesce, and make o, and the nasal consonant m. The first letter stands for the Creator, the second for the Preserver, and the third for the Destroyer. It is the same among the Hindoos as יהוה Yehovah is among the Hebrews. (c) Brahma, the Deity in his creative quality. (d) Veeshnoo. He who filleth all space: the Deity in his preserving quality. (c) Mahesa. The Deity in his destroying quality. This is properly the Hindoo Trinity: for these three names belong to the same God. See the notes to the Bhagvat Geeta. (f) Damordara, or Darmadeve, the Indian god of virtue. We beheld his glory - This refers to the transfiguration, at which John was present, in company with Peter and James. The glory as of the only begotten - That is, such a glory as became, or was proper to, the Son of God; for thus the particle ὡς should be here understood. There is also here an allusion to the manifestations of God above the ark in the tabernacle: see Exo 25:22; Num 7:89; and this connects itself with the first clause, he tabernacled, or fixed his tent among us. While God dwelt in the tabernacle, among the Jews, the priests saw his glory; and while Jesus dwelt among men his glory was manifested in his gracious words and miraculous acts. The only begotten of the Father - That is, the only person born of a woman, whose human nature never came by the ordinary way of generation; it being a mere creation in the womb of the virgin, by the energy of the Holy Ghost. Full of grace and truth - Full of favor, kindness, and mercy to men; teaching the way to the kingdom of God, with all the simplicity, plainness, dignity, and energy of truth.”

“And the word was made flesh. This word, or Son of God, who was in the beginning, from all eternity, at the time appointed by the divine decrees, was made flesh, i.e. became man, by a true and physical union of his divine person, (from which the divine nature was inseparable) to our human nature, to a human soul, and a human body, in the womb, and of the substance, of his virgin Mother. From the moment of Christ’s incarnation, as all Christians are taught to believe, he that was God from eternity, became also true man. In Jesus Christ, our blessed Redeemer, we believe one divine Person with two natures, and two wills; the one divine, the other human: by which substantial union, one and the same Person became truly both God and man; not two persons, or two sons, as Nestorius, the heretic, pretended. By this union, and a mutual communication of the proprieties of each nature, it is true to say, that the Son of God, remaining unchangeably God, was made man; and therefore that God was truly conceived and born of the virgin Mary, who, on this account, was truly the Mother of God: that God was born, suffered, and died on the cross, to redeem and save us. The word, in this manner made man, dwelt in us, or among us, by this substantial union with our human nature, not morally only, nor after such a manner, as God is said to dwell in a temple; nor as he is in his faithful servants, by a spiritual union, and communication of his divine graces; but by such a real union, that the same person is truly both God and man. — And we saw his glory, manifested to the world by many signs and miracles; we in particular, who were present at his transfiguration. (Matthew xvii.) — Full of grace and truth. These words, in the construction, are to be joined in this manner: the word dwelt in us, full of grace and truth; and we have seen his glory, &c. This fulness of grace in Christ Jesus, infinitely surpassed the limited fulness, which the Scripture attributes to St. Stephen, (Acts vi. 8.) or to the blessed virgin Mother: (Luke i. 28.) they are said to be full of grace, only because of an extraordinary communication and greater share of graces than was given to other saints. But Christ, even as man, had a greater abundance of divine graces: and being truly God as well as man, his grace and sanctity were infinite, as was his person. — As of the only begotten of the Father. [3] If we consider Christ in himself, and not only as he was made known to men by outward signs and miracles, St. Chrysostom and others take notice that the word as, no ways diminisheth the signification; and that the sense is, we have seen the glory of him, who is truly from all eternity the only begotten Son of the Father: who, as the Scriptures assure us, is his true, his proper Son, his only begotten, who was sent into the world, who descended from heaven, and came from the Father, and leaving the world, returned where he was before, returned to his Father. We shall meet with many such Scripture texts, to shew him to be the eternal Son of his eternal Father; or to shew that the Father was always his Father, and the Son always his Son: as it was the constant doctrine of the Catholic Church, and as such declared in the general council of Nice, that this, his only Son, was born or begotten of the Father before all ages … God from God, the true God from the true God. It was by denying this truth, “that the Son was the Son always, and the Father always, and from all eternity, the Father;” that the blaspheming Arius began his heresy in his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia, against his bishop of Alexandria, St. Alexander. See the letter copied by St. Epiphanius, Hær. 69. p. 731. Ed. Petavii. (Witham) — Dwelt among us. In a material body, like ours, clothed with our nature. He is become mortal, and like us in every thing, but sin and concupiscence. The Greek literally translated, is, he has pitched his tent amongst us, like a stranger and passenger, who makes no long stay in one place. The body in Scripture, is sometimes called a tent or tabernacle, in which the soul dwells, as 2 Peter i. 14. (Calmet)”

“And the Word, &c.--To raise the reader to the altitude of this climax were the thirteen foregoing verses written. was made flesh--BECAME MAN, in man's present frail, mortal condition, denoted by the word "flesh" (Isa 40:6; Pe1 1:24). It is directed probably against the DocetÃ&brvbr, who held that Christ was not really but only apparently man; against whom this gentle spirit is vehement in his Epistles (Jo1 4:3; Jo2 1:7, Jo2 1:10-11), [LUCKE, &c.]. Nor could He be too much so, for with the verity of the Incarnation all substantial Christianity vanishes. But now, married to our nature, henceforth He is as personally conscious of all that is strictly human as of all that is properly divine; and our nature is in His Person redeemed and quickened, ennobled and transfigured. and dwelt--tabernacled or pitched his tent; a word peculiar to John, who uses it four times, all in the sense of a permanent stay (Rev 7:15; Rev 12:12; Rev 13:6; Rev 21:3). For ever wedded to our "flesh," He has entered this tabernacle to "go no more out." The allusion is to that tabernacle where dwelt the Shekinah (see on Mat 23:38-39), or manifested "GLORY OF THE LORD," and with reference to God's permanent dwelling among His people (Lev 26:11; Psa 68:18; Psa 132:13-14; Eze 37:27). This is put almost beyond doubt by what immediately follows, "And we beheld his glory" [LUCKE, MEYER, DE WETTE which last critic, rising higher than usual, says that thus were perfected all former partial manifestations of God in an essentially Personal and historically Human manifestation]. full of grace and truth--So it should read: "He dwelt among us full of grace and truth"; or, in Old Testament phrase, "Mercy and truth," denoting the whole fruit of God's purposes of love towards sinners of mankind, which until now existed only in promise, and the fulfilment at length of that promise in Christ; in one great word, "the SURE MERCIES of David" (Isa 55:3; Act 13:34; compare Sa2 23:5). In His Person all that Grace and Truth which had been floating so long in shadowy forms, and darting into the souls of the poor and needy its broken beams, took everlasting possession of human flesh and filled it full. By this Incarnation of Grace and Truth, the teaching of thousands of years was at once transcended and beggared, and the family of God sprang into Manhood. and we beheld his glory--not by the eye of sense, which saw in Him only "the carpenter." His glory was "spiritually discerned" (Co1 2:7-15; Co2 3:18; Co2 4:4, Co2 4:6; Co2 5:16) --the glory of surpassing grace, love, tenderness, wisdom, purity, spirituality; majesty and meekness, richness and poverty, power and weakness, meeting together in unique contrast; ever attracting and at times ravishing the "babes" that followed and forsook all for Him. the glory as of the only begotten of the Father--(See on Luk 1:35); not like, but "such as (belongs to)," such as became or was befitting the only begotten of the Father [CHRYSOSTOM in LUCKE, CALVIN, &c.], according to a well-known use of the word "as."”