Most fruitful [and] learned co[m]mentaries of Doctor Peter Martyr Vermil Florentine, professor of divinity,…Most fruitfull [and] learned co[m]mentaries of Doctor Peter Martir Vermil Florentine, professor of deuinitie,…

But that the things which I have now alleged, as touching this matter, may the plainlyer & more certainly be understand, I think it good to confirm them by some testimonies of the fathers.¹ Chrysostom in his 14. Homely upon John saith. The things which the fathers saw, were all of them by permission, but yet they saw not the pure & simple substance of god. And he addeth: If they had seen it, then should they not have seen it in any part differing, for that it is pure, simple, & can not be described: Wherefore it standeth not, it lieth not, neither sitteth, as sometime it was to those Prophets showed. He saith moreover: God, before the son came into flesh, exercised the father with those visions & images. He there also writeth ye, which a little before we alleged, namely ye with bodily eyes we can not see created spirits, as are our souls & angels. Wherefore much less must we believe, that we can see god with the senses. And least a man think, that it only agreeth with god the father to be invisible, & not with the son, he bringeth this sentence of Paul, that he is the image of the invisible God. And without doubt he could not be his image,² if he were not invisible, as he is whose image he representeth. Augustine also in his 3. treatise upon John, saith of Moses: Although it be said that he talked with god face to face, yet when he desired to see the face of god, that is his very substance, he could not obtain it. And in the same place he addeth: He saw the cloud, & the fire, which were figures. And within a little after: If they say that the son was visible before he was incarnate, they dote. Augustine besides these hath in his Epistle to Fortunatianus, gathered many more things to this purpose out of Nazianzenus, Jerome, & other fathers, which were to long here to rehearse.

But that the things which I haue now alledged, as touching this matter, may the plainlyer & more certeinly be vnderstand, I thinke it good to confirme them by some testimonies of the fathers.¹ Chrisostome in his 14. Homely vpon Iohn saith. The things which ye fathers saw, were al of thē by permission, but yet they saw not ye pure & simple substaūce of god. And he addeth: If they had sene it, then should they not haue sene it in any part differing, for yt it is pure, simple, & cā not be described: Wherfore it standeth not, it lieth not, neither sitteth, as sometime it was to those Prophetes shewed. He saith moreouer: God, before the sonne came into flesh, exercised ye father with those visiōs & images. He there also writeth ye, which a litle before we alledged, namely ye with bodyly eyes we cā not see created spirites, as are our soules & angels. Wherfore much lesse must we beleue, yt we can see god with the senses. And least a man thinke, yt it onely agreeth with god ye father to be inuisible, & not with ye sonne, he bringeth thys sentēce of Paul, that he is the image of ye inuisible God. And without doubt he could not be hys image,