A68840:145
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.
Lyranus doth utterly deny that they were brethren, which nevertheless Paulus Burgensis affirmeth, yea & that more is, Lyranus agreeth not with him self, for as in the interpreting of the book of Joshua he denieth that they were brethren, so afterward upon the first book of Paral. in the second & fourth chap. he granteth they were brethren. But when I more diligently weigh the reason why in the book of Joshua he contendeth that they were not brethren, I gather it to be this, because he thought that if they had ben joined together with so near a bond of kindred, that there could have ben no marriage, whereby Othoniel should have had to wife Hachsah his brothers daughter, seeing it it was forbidden by the law (namely the .18. & .20. chap of Levit.) that no man should marry his aunt. Wherefore he thinketh it must needs follow, that the niece by the brother is prohibited, because that we are joined with the same degree of kindred to the aunt, by which the uncle is joined to the niece by the brother. But if Hachsah & Othoniel were brothers children, then shall this absurdity be wholly avoided: for marriage between these was never forbidden by Gods laws. But Burgensis a man otherwise very well learned, contendeth that they were utterly brethren, & saith that the uncle might by Gods law marry his niece by the brother, & that the Jews them selves which otherwise are most diligent observers of outward laws do keep this custom at this day. He saith moreover, that it cometh to pass oftentimes, as concerning marriages, that in degrees either of consanguinity or affinity, there is found the like distance between persons, of the which nevertheless the one is forbidden, & the other granted. ⟨image 26⟩And often times the prerogative of the men and baser condition of the wives altereth the thing. For in matrimony man is the head of the woman, as Paul hath said in the first to the Corinth. 1Wherefore there must always be a regard had, that in marriage the order of kindred be kept, least the order which was before should be perverted. For it is meet that marriages should observe and not violate honesty of order among men. Which honesty should he violated if every man might take to wife his Aunt, his uncles wife, or mothers sister. For because that women joined unto us by this degree of kindred are to be reverenced as mothers.
Lyranus doth vtterly deny that they wer brethren, which neuertheles Paulus Burgensis affirmeth, yea & that more is, Lyranus agreeth not wt hym selfe, for as in the interpreting of the booke of Iosua hee denyeth that they were brethren, so afterward vpon the first booke of Paral. in the second & fourth chap. he graunteth they wer brethren. But when I more diligētly weigh the reason why in the booke of Iosua he contendeth that they were not brethren, I gather it to be this, bicause he thought yt if they had ben ioyned together with so neare a bond of kinred, yt ther could haue ben no mariage, wherby Othoniel should haue had to wife Hachsah his brothers daughter, seing yt it was forbidden by ye lawe (namely ye .18. & .20. chap of Leuit.) yt no mā should mary his aunt. Wherfore he thinketh it must nedes follow, yt the niepce by the brother is prohibited, bicause that we are ioyned wt the same degree of kinred to the aunt, by which ye vncle is ioyned to ye niepce by the brother. But if Hachsah & Othoniel wer brothers children, then shal this absurdity be wholy auoided: for mariage betwene these was neuer forbidden by Gods lawes. But Burgensis a man otherwise very wel learned, contendeth yt they wer vtterly brethren, & saith yt the vncle might by Gods law mary his niepce by ye brother, & that the Iewes thē selues which otherwise are most diligent obseruers of outward lawes do kepe this custome at this day. He saith moreouer, yt it cōmeth to passe oftentimes, as concerning mariages, yt in degrees either of consanguinity or affinity, ther is found the like distaūce betwene persons, of ye which neuertheles the one is forbiddē, & the other graūted.