A68840:876
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,…
Most fruitful [and] learned co[m]mentaries of Doctor Peter Martyr Vermil Florentine, professor of divinity, in the University of Tygure with a very profitable tract of the matter and places. Herein is also added [and] contained two most ample tables, aswell of the matter, as of the words: with an index of the places in the holy scripture. Set forth & allowed, according to the order appointed in the Queens majesties injunctions.Most fruitfull [and] learned co[m]mentaries of Doctor Peter Martir Vermil Florentine, professor of deuinitie, in the Vniuersitye of Tygure with a very profitable tract of the matter and places. Herein is also added [and] contained two most ample tables, aswel of the matter, as of the wordes: wyth an index of the places in the holy scripture. Set forth & allowed, accordyng to thorder appointed in the Quenes maiesties iniunctions.
London: printed by John Day, 1564London: printed by Iohn Day, 1564
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
Howbeit I will bring two arguments, which are wont to be objected against this sentence. In the beginning we said that the nature of God can not therefore be comprehended with the senses, because his nature is not bodily. But all the old fathers seem not to have believed so.1 For Tertullian against Praxea writeth that God is a body, and in other places he oftentimes testifieth the same. Yea in his litle book de Anima he teacheth that our souls are bodies. And which seemeth more strange, he laboureth by many reasons to confirm it. Yea and in his book de Dogmat. Eccles. the 11. chap: he writeth that all creatures are bodies, and even the angels by name: because there is nothing, which filleth all things as doth God: but all things are limited with certain places, as it appeareth of the soul,2 which is closed in with the body. Augustine in his Epistle ad Quod uult deum excuseth Tertullian in this manner, that by a body he understood the substance, & that which is in very deed, as though he therefore wrote that god is a body, least he should seem to deny that he is, forasmuch as the vulgar people do think that it is utterly nothing,3 which is not a body. Howbeit the same Augustine in his book de Genesi ad litterā, in this manner reproveth him, that at sometime being overcome by the truth, he said, That every body is passible: wherefore, ⟨p. 121⟩least he should make god passible, he ought to have denied him to be a body. Neither needed he so to bend himself to the capacity of the common people, ye therefore he should pronounce false things of god. For Christians are not so to be instructed, ye like rude persons (whom Aristotle also confuteth) they should think that it is nothing, which is not a body, but rather they ought so to be taught, that in thinking of god they affirm nothing without rules of the holy scriptures. And as for ye book de dogmate Ecclesiastico, we must attribute no more unto it than is mete. For it is ascribed unto Augustine, but the learned believe not that it is his.
Howbeit I will bring two argumentes, which are wont to be obiected against this sentence. In the beginning we sayd that the nature of God can not therfore be comprehended with the senses, bycause his nature is not bodily. But all the old fathers seme not to haue beleued so.