A68840:1699
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.
And in this history first I mark the institution of idolatry, then the consecration of a priest, which was twice done. For first Micah instituted his son a priest: and then when by chance he met with a Levite, he made him a priest. But wherefore was this idol made?1 For her vows sake. For the promise of the mother of Micah was not simple, but with a vow. And a vow (as all divines affirm) is a holy promise made to God of things which are ours. Wherefore it must needs be that this woman was a widow, with whom peradventure her son dwelled. For if she had been a wife, or a maiden unmarried, or a widow in the house of her father, she could not have vowed a firm vow, as it manifestly appeareth by the book of Numb. Those persons might not vow with out the consent of their father or husband. For the law ordained that if they were against it, the vow should then be void. Hanna did in deed vow in the first of Samuel, but we must believe that Helkana her husband confirmed her vow. This woman sinned, not because she vowed, but because she vowed a thing ungodly, namely, an idol. For it was at that time lawful for any to vow any thing of his own things, for the adorning of the temple of God, and to amplify his honour. But to institute a new and forbidden worshipping, it was utterly ungodly.
And in this history first I marke the institution of idolatry, then the consecration of a priest, which was twise doone. For firste Micha instituted his sonne a prieste: and then when by chaunce he met with a Leuite, he made him a priest. But wherefore was this ido le made?1 For her vowes sake. For the promise of ye mother of Micha was not simple, but wt a vow. And a vow (as al deuines affirme) is a holy promise made to God of thinges which are ours. Wherefore it must nedes be that this woman was a widow, with whome paraduenture her sonne dwelled. For if she had beene a wife, or a maiden vnmaried, or a widowe in the house of her father, shee coulde not haue vowed a firme vowe, as it manifestly appeareth by the booke of Numb. Those persons might not vowe with out the consent of their father or husbād. For the law ordeined that if they wer against it, the vow should then be voide. Hanna did in dede vowe in the firste of Samuell, but we must beleue that Helkana her husbande confirmed her vowe. This woman sinned, not bicause shee vowed, but bicause shee vowed a thinge vngodlye, namely, an idole. For it was at that time lawefull for anye to vowe anye thinge of his owne thinges, for the adorninge of the temple of God, and to amplify his honor. But to institute a new and forbidden worshippinge, it was vtterly vngodly.