John 3:31

As the worm gnaws wood, and rusts iron, so vainglory destroys the soul that cherishes it. But it is a most obstinate fault. John with all his arguments can hardly subdue it in his disciples: for after what he has said above, he said yet again, He that comes from above is above all: meaning, You extol my testimony, and say that the witness is more worthy to be believed, than He to whom he bears witness. Know this, that He who comes from heaven, cannot be accredited by an earthly witness. He is above all; being perfect in Himself, and above comparison.

Christ comes from above, as descending from the Father; and is above all, as being elected in preference to all.

Or, comes from above; i.e. from the height of that human nature which was before the sin of the first man. For it was that human nature which the Word of God assumed: He did not take upon Him man’s sin, as He did his punishment. He that is of the earth is of the earth; i.e. is earthly, and speaks of the earth, speaks earthly things.

And yet he was not altogether of the earth; for he had a soul, and partook of a spirit, which was not of the earth. What means he then by saying that he is of the earth? Only to express his own worthlessness, that he is one born on the earth, creeping on the ground, and not to be compared with Christ, Who comes from above. Speaks of the earth, does not mean that he spoke from his own understanding; but that, in comparison with Christ’s doctrine, he spoke of the earth: as if he said, My doctrine is mean and humble, compared with Christ’s; as becomes an earthly teacher, compared with Him, in Whom are hid all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

Or, speaks of all the earth, he said of the man, i.e. of himself, so far as he speaks merely humanly. If he says ought divine, he is enlightened by God to say it: as said the Apostle; Yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me. John then, so far as pertains to John, is of the earth, and speaks of the earth: if you hear ought divine from him, attribute it to the Enlightener, not to him who has received the light.

Having corrected the bad feeling of his disciples, he comes to discourse more deeply upon Christ. Before this it would have been useless to reveal the truths which could not yet gain a place in their minds. It follows therefore, He that comes from heaven.

That is, from the Father. He is above all in two ways; first, in respect of His humanity, which was that of man before he sinned: secondly, in respect of the loftiness of the Father, to whom He is equal.

But after this, high and solemn mention of Christ, his tone lowers: And what he has seen and heard, that he testifies. As our senses are our surest channels of knowledge, and teachers are most depended on who have apprehended by sight or hearing what they teach, John adds this argument in favor of Christ, that, what he has seen and heard, that he testifies: meaning that every thing which He said is true. I want, said John, to hear what things He, Who comes from above, has seen and heard, i.e. what He, and He alone, knows with certainty.

When you hear then, that Christ speaks what He saw and heard from the Father, do not suppose that He needs to be taught by the Father; but only that that knowledge, which He has naturally, is from the Father. For this reason He is said to have heard, whatever He knows, from the Father.

But what is it, w which the Son has heard from the Father? Has He heard the word of the Father? Yes, but He is the Word of the Father. When you conceives a word, wherewith to name a thing, the very, conception of that thing in the mind is a word. Just then as you have in your mind and with you your spoken word; even so God uttered the Word, i.e. begat the Son. Since then the Son is the Word of God, and the Son has spoken the Word of God to us, He has spoken to us the Father’s word. What John said is therefore true.

The Spirit of God, and the Word of God, and the Reason of God, Word of Reason, and Reason and Spirit of Word, Jesus Christ our Lord, namely, who is both the one and the other, has determined for us, the disciples of the New Testament, a new form of prayer; for in this particular also it was needful that new wine should be laid up in new skins, and a new breadth be sewn to a new garment. Besides, whatever had been in bygone days, has either been quite changed, as circumcision; or else supplemented, as the rest of the Law; or else fulfilled, as Prophecy; or else perfected, as faith itself. …

6. It is likely, also, that a similar account is to be given of the fact, that David alone of the prophets prophesied with an instrument, called by the Greeks the “psaltery,” and by the Hebrews the “nabla,” which is the only musical instrument that is quite straight, and has no curve. And the sound does not come from the lower parts, as is the case with the lute and certain other instruments, but from the upper. For in the lute and the lyre the brass when struck gives back the sound from beneath. But this psaltery has the source of its musical numbers above, in order that we, too, may practise seeking things above, and not suffer ourselves to be borne down by the pleasure of melody to the passions of the flesh. …

And yet the heretic still shrinks from urging that Christ is God, whom he perceives to be proved God by so many words as well as facts. If Christ is only man, how, when He came into this world, did He come unto His own, since a man could have made no world? If Christ was only man, how is the world said to have been made by Him, when the world was not by man, but man was ordained after the world? If Christ was only man, how was it that Christ was not only of the seed of David; but He was the Word made flesh and dwelt among us? For although the Protoplast was not born of seed, yet neither was the Protoplast formed of the conjunction of the Word and the flesh. For He is not the Word made flesh, nor dwelt in us. …

And indeed I could set forth the treatment of this subject by all heavenly Scriptures, and set in motion, so to speak, a perfect forest of texts concerning that manifestation of the divinity of Christ, except that I have not so much undertaken to speak against this special form of heresy, as to expound the rule of truth concerning the person of Christ. Although, however, I must hasten to other matters, I do not think that I must pass over this point, that in the Gospel the Lord declared, by way of signifying His majesty, saying, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will build it up again.” Or when, in another passage, and on another subject, He declares, “I have power to lay down my life, and again to take it up; for this commandment I have received of my Father.” Now who is it who says that He can lay down His life, or can Himself recover His life again, because He has received it …

2. In this prayer, therefore, Jesus may seem to have omitted praying for some of His own, unless we carefully examine His words in the prayer itself. For if He prayed first for those, as we have already shown, who were then with Him, and afterwards for those also who should believe on Him through their word, it may be said that He prayed not for those who were neither with Him when He so spake, nor afterwards believed through their word, but had done so at some previous time either of themselves, or in some other supposable manner. …

Ver. 31, 32 . “He that cometh from above is above all. And what He hath heard He speaketh, and what He hath seen He testifieth; and no man receiveth His testimony.”

Such was the corrupt mind of the Arians. But here too the Bishops, beholding their craftiness, collected from the Scriptures the figures of brightness, of the river and the well, and of the relation of the express Image to the Subsistence, and the texts, ‘in thy light shall we see light,’ and ‘I and the Father are one.’ And lastly they wrote more plainly, and concisely, that the Son was coessential with the Father; for all the above passages signify this. And their murmuring, that the phrases are unscriptural, is exposed as vain by themselves, for they have uttered their impieties in unscriptural terms: (for such are ‘of nothing’ and ‘there was a time when He was not’), while yet they find fault because they were condemned by unscriptural terms pious in meaning. …

O. I do not think that those who form our audience are so ignorant of the sacred books that many words are needed to settle this little question. But before I say anything in support of my assertion, listen while I point out what confusion, upon your view, is introduced into Scripture. What do we mean by saying that John in his baptism could not give the Holy Spirit to others, yet gave him to Christ? And who is that John?“The voice of one crying in the wilderness, Make ye ready the way of the Lord, make his paths straight.” He who used to say,“Behold the Lamb of God, which taketh away the sins of the world”: I say too little, he who from his mother’s womb cried out,“And whence is this to me that the mother of my Lord should come unto me,” did he not give the Holy Ghost? And didAnanias give him to Paul? It perhaps looks like boldness in me to prefer him to all other men. …