clear, that this being from the Father cannot mean his having been created by the Father before the world, but points to a peculiar origin from the substance of the Father; if this were not so, Jesus could not possibly design to prove by this being from the Father, that he had a perfect knowledge of the Father. The same is the case with vi. 46: "Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he who is of God, he hath seen the Father."

We are now prepared to sum up in what sense Jesus calls himself the Son of God: the Father's love has given him before the foundation of the world, and consequently, before all time, glory with the Father, or, to have life in himself as the Father has life in himself, or has given him an existence and life equal to that of the Father. It is owing to this, his origin and consubstantiality with the Father, that having been sent by the Father into the world, he is known only of the Father, and that he knows the Father, who is known by no one else, and that he can do nothing of himself except what he sees the Father do, that the Father shows unto him whatsoever he does himself, that the Father's power is his own, because he is in the Father and the Father in him in such a manner that he can say: He that sees me sees the Father.

From this it is apparent, why Jesus calls himself the only-begotten Son of God, with whose sonship no other can be compared (John iii. 16-18), and it is unnecessary to say anything more on this subject, there being, consequently, no valid reason for saying that it is not Jesus, but John who uses the term "Only-begotten of Jesus.

§ 8.

We have set out with the mediatorial relation between God and men, which Jesus claims for himself in commanding us to look to him for that salvation which is from God alone, and in requiring us to pay all the duties towards his own person which our consciences require towards God. We have looked for the key to this mediatorial relation in the substance and being of Jesus. His self-designation "Son of Man," did not of itself furnish this key; on the contrary, this designation started the new question, What is there wonderful in this man, by virtue of which he can call himself the Son of Man? But his other self-designation, "Son of God," in the sense just explained, is the key by which we can fully understand his mediatorial office.

The declarations of our Saviour concerning his mediatorial office were given in chronological order. If, now, we arrange them according to their import we obtain the following order: With reference to the Old Testament he represents himself as its desire, completion, and heir; with reference to humanity, as its owner, and the channel of its history; with reference to heaven and earth, as him to whom all power is given over them; with reference to the angels, as their Lord and Master; but especially with reference to the souls of men, as their Lord, Saviour, Source of life, and Judge.

If Jesus is the consubstantial Son of the Father, he has, as a matter of course, the right to call himself the Son, in distinction from the Old Testament prophets as servants (Mark xii. 1, etc.) Such a Son of David his royal ancestor himself addressed, while in the spirit, as his Lord (Matt. xxii. 43; comp. with Ps. cx.), in the

firm conviction, that in this case the descendant was not indebted to the ancestor for his throne, but vice versa. But if Jesus did not know himself as the consubstantial Son of the Father, he had no right to represent himself as the heir of God's vineyard, the Old Testament; for a man can be only a laborer, or at most a steward, in God's vineyard, but never its owner.

The fulfilment of the law, to effect which Jesus came into the world (Matt. v. 17), was accomplished not merely by developing the spirit of the law from its letter and from the traditions of men, nor by furnishing the proof, that except our righteousness surpass that of the Scribes and Pharisees, we cannot enter into the kingdom of God (vs. 20). This development of the spirit of the law was, indeed, necessary, but alone it would never bring about the result described in vs. 18: "till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." If Jesus does not realize the law, either in himself or in us, the law is not fulfilled either before or after the passing away of heaven and earth. His meaning must then be this: I have come to realize the law both in myself and in you. The typical part of the law, however, especially that which prefigured a future atonement, could not be realized by a mere man, and how, then, could he speak of the realization of the law through himself and in us, if he were a mere man. Only as the consubstantial Son of the Father could he declare, when about to leave the temple at Jerusalem forever, that henceforth the house of Israel would be bereft of the divine presence, until the people should acknowledge him at his coming again in glory as their Messiah (Matt. xxiii. 38-xxiv. 1).

With respect to mankind in general, Jesus does not

say, that it is his calling to scatter seed upon the whole field of humanity; but that this field is his own, and that he has the right to dispose of the harvest (Matt. xiii. 24-37, etc). The history of mankind is to be a continual testimony that the Son of Man is sitting at the right hand of power, and a continual coming of the Son of Man in the clouds of heaven (Matt. xxvi. 64). The epochs of his coming are the epochs of the world's history; his final advent is the consummation of all history (Matt. xxiv. 25). He is the Judge of mankind, who fixes the destiny of all by an irrevocable decision.

In merely human transactions, the office is often much greater than the officer; this is also the case in the kingdom of God, in so far as men are its messengers and bearers, and is for the most part displayed in their administration. This disproportion between the officer and the office would be manifested in Jesus, and in his case in an infinitely higher degree, had he to occupy the position in the divine economy with regard to the human family, which he ascribed to himself, without being the Son of God, of equal substance with the Father, and begotten of the Father before his earthly existence, even before the foundation of the world.

Let a mere man, anointed with the Holy Ghost, say, "All power is given unto me, in heaven and in earth," and how strange is the idea thus presented? What is a ruler of heaven without omniscience, supreme wisdom and omnipotence? The necessary wisdom and knowledge [not omniscience, as the author states.Tr.] might be supplied by a continual inspiration; but how he could be made omnipotent, who shall explain to us?

Jesus also represents himself as the King and Governor of the angelic hosts, when he declares that the Son of Man will send his angels, will come with his angels, and that all his angels shall come with him, (Matt. xiii. 41; xvi. 27; xxiv. 31; xxv. 31). How natural and intelligible is this, if Jesus is the Son of God, begotten of the Father before the foundation of the world, of equal substance with the Father, who has life in himself, as the Father has, and consequently with respect to the angels, who are also sons of God, is the "only" Son of the Father; but how unintelligible, aside from the supposition that he was conscious of being this Son of God.

It must be borne in mind, that all these declarations of Christ are found in the first three, not in the fourth, Gospel, and that to the following testimonies also the synoptic Gospels furnish as ample a quota as the Gospel of St. John.

This view of Jesus regarding his own worship opens up a clear perception of his relation to the kingdom of God, as claimed by him, and of his declarations concerning his relation to the souls of men or to the inward life, which is imparted to believers in him. Whence comes that inward longing of the spirit for communion with him, by virtue of which he is known and his voice is heard by his own, and by those also who are not of Israel, but of any nation, kindred, and tongue (John x. 14; xvi. 27)? Whence comes that love to him, which is stronger than all natural ties? Whence the power of attraction exercised by him, the permission, and even duty, to love him supremely, as God alone can and ought to be loved (Matt. x. 37; Luke xiv. 26; John xiv., xv.)? Whence his inward ability to be the bridegroom of God's people, and

and