16. Et de plenitudine eius nos 16. And of his fulness we all omnes accepimus, et gratiam have received, and grace for pro gratia. grace. 17. Quia lex per Moysen data 17. For the law was given by est, gratia et veritas per Moses, grace and truth came by Iesum Christum facta est. Jesus Christ. 16. After the parenthetic clause contained in verse 15, the Evangelist, not the Baptist, continues regarding the Word: *And of his fulness* (see verse 14) *we have all received, and grace for grace*. The second “and” is explanatory. *Grace for grace*; _i.e._—(1) the grace of eternal life following on the grace of justification here; or (2) abundant grace, according as the grace given to Christ was abundant: gratia nobis pro gratia Christi (Rom. v. 15); or (3) the more perfect grace of the New Law, instead of that given under the Old Law (Chrysostom, Cyril, Patrizzi); or (4), and best, by a Hebraism, abundant grace. “aντ’i dicitur de successione, gratiam unam post aliam (gratiam cumulatam).” (Beel., _Gr. Gram._, § 51 A.) So also Kuin. 17. The Evangelist confirms what is stated in verse 16, and at the same time takes occasion to prefer Christ to Moses, as he has already preferred Him to the Baptist. Moses was but the medium of _communicating_ to the Jews the Mosaic Law, which only pointed out man’s duty, without enabling him to fulfil it—Rom. vii. 7, 8; but Christ was the _source_ and _author_ of grace and truth to us; of all the graces whereby we are to merit heaven, and of the perfect knowledge of the true faith. This is, doubtless, directed against some of the Judaizers, who held that sanctification through the Mosaic Law was at all times possible, even after the Christian religion was established. 18. Deum nemo vidit unquam: 18. No man hath seen God at unigenitus Filius, qui est in any time: the only‐begotten sinu Patris, ipse enarravit. Son who is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. 18. There is considerable difference of opinion as to the drift or bearing of this verse. Some think that a reason is given why only Christ could give the truth, because only He saw God in His essence. Others, that a reason is given why the gifts of Christ mentioned in the preceding verse, are superior to the Law given by Moses, namely, because Moses never saw God in His essence. Others, that the evangelist explains how he and his fellow‐Apostles received of Christ’s fulness, not only through what Christ did (17), but through what He taught (18); and the necessity for such a Divine teacher is shown by the fact that no one but He ever saw God. So St. Thomas.