A harmony upon the the three Evangelists, Matthew, Mark and Luke with the commentary…A harmonie vpon the the three Euangelists, Matthew, Mark and Luke with the commentarie…

19 Therefore Jesus answered. We see as I have said, that Christ is so far from refuting that which the Jews did object, although it were slam derous, that he doth more plainly prove that it was true. And first of all he standeth upon this point, that it was a work of god where with the Jews found ⟨p. 116⟩that they may perceive that they must strive with God, if they proceed to condemn that which must of necessity be ascribed unto him. This place was in times past diversly tossed between the true fathers & the Arians. Arrius did gather thereby that the son was lesser then the father. because he could do nothing of himself. The fathers did object that the distinction of person is only meant by these words, that it might be known that Christ is of the father, and yet notwithstanding that he is not deprived of the internal power of working. But they were both deceived: for neither are these words spoken concerning the bare divinity of Christ: and those things which we shall see by & by do not belong of themselves & simply unto the eternal word of God, but do only agree with the son of God inasmuch as he is revealed in the flesh. Let us therefore set Christ before our eyes, as he was sent of the father to be the redeemer of the world. The Jews did consider in him no farther thing, then his humane nature. Therefore he affirmeth that he healed not the sick man, as he was man: but by his divine power which laid hid under the visible flesh. This is the estate of the cause, whereas they fastening their eyes upon the flesh did contemn Christ, he biddeth them rise higher, and behold God. All the speech is to be referred unto this matching of contraries, that they are greatly deceived, who think that they have to deal with a mortal man, whilst that they accuse Christ for his works which were mere divine. Therefore doth he so earnestly affirm, that in this work he differeth nothing from the father.

19 Therefore Iesus answered. VVee see as I haue saide, that Christe is so farre from refuting that which the Iewes did obiect, althogh it were slā derous, yt he doth more plainely proue that it was true. And first of al he stādeth vpō this point, that yt was a work of god wher wt ye Iewes found ⟨p. 116⟩that they may perceiue that they must striue with God, if they proceede to condemne that which must of necessitie be ascribed vnto him. This place was in times past diuersly tost betweene the true fathers & the Arrians. Arrius did gather thereby that the sonne was lesser then the father. because he could doe nothing of himselfe. The fathers did obiect that the distinction of person is only meant by these words, that it might be knowen that Christ is of the father, and yet notwithstanding that he is not depriued of the internall power of working. But they were both deceiued: for neither are these words spoken cōcerning the bare diuinitie of Christ: and those thinges which we shall see by & by doe not belong of themselues & simplie vnto the eternall worde of God, but doe only agree with the son of God inasmuch as hee is reuealed in the flesh. Let vs therefore set Christ before our eyes, as he was sent of the father to be the redeemer of the worlde. The Iewes did consider in him no farther thing, then his humane nature. Therefore he affirmeth that hee healed not the sicke man, as he was man: but by his diuine power whiche laid hid vnder the visible fleshe. This is the estate of the cause, wheras they fastening their eyes vpon the flesh did contemne Christ, hee biddeth them ryse higher, and behold God. All the speech is to be referred vnto this matching of contraries, that they are greatly deceiued, who thinke that they haue to deale with a mortall man, whilest that they accuse Christ for his workes which were meere diuine. Therefore doth he so earnestly affirme, that in this worke hee differeth nothing from the father.