A10322:39
A defence of the judgment of the Reformed churches. That a man may lawfully…A defence of the iudgment of the Reformed churches. That a man may lawfullie…
A defence of the judgment of the Reformed churches. That a man may lawfully not only put away his wife for her adultery, but also marry another. / Wherein both Robert Bellarmin the Jesuits Latin treatise, and an English pamphlet of a nameless author maintaining the contrary are co[n]futed by John Raynolds. A taste of Bellarmins dealing in controversies of religion: how he depraveth Scriptures, misalleagthe [sic] fathers, and abuseth reasons to the perverting of the truth of God, and poisoning of his Church with error..A defence of the iudgment of the Reformed churches. That a man may lawfullie not onelie put awaie his wife for her adulterie, but also marrie another. / Wherin both Robert Bellarmin the Iesuites Latin treatise, and an English pamphlet of a namelesse author mainteyning the contrarie are co[n]futed by Iohn Raynolds. A taste of Bellarmins dealing in controversies of religion: how he depraveth Scriptures, misalleagthe [sic] fathers, and abuseth reasons to the perverting of the truth of God, and poisoning of his Churche with errour..
Dordrecht: printed by George Walters, 1609
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.
Which in deed agreeth to the right and natural meaning of the8 particle, aso the like writers use it in like construction: evenp then to, when it hath as it were a link less to tie it unto that meaning. ⟨p. 5⟩Wherefore S,4 Austins mistaking of the word and signification thereof is no sufficient warrant for Bellarmin • to ground on, that they must be taken so. As for that he addeth, that, albeit9 both these particles be taken exceptively often times, yet may they also be taken otherwise, sith one of them is used in the Revelation as an adversative, not an exceptive: this maketh much le••e for proof of his assertion. For what if it be used there as an adversative where the matter treated of, and the tenor of the sentence do manifestly argue that it must be taken so? Must it therefore be taken so in this place, whereof our question is? or doth Bellarmin, prove by any circumstance of the text, that here it may be taken so? No. Neither saith he a word to this purpose. Why mentioneth he then that it may-be taken otherwise, and is in the Revelation, for an adversative particle? Truly I know not: unless it be to show that he can wrangle, and play the cavilling sophister in seeming to gainsay and disprove his adversary, when in trueth he doth not. Or perhaps, though he durst not say for the particular, that it is taken here as an adversative, which he could not but most absurdly: Yet he thought it policy to breed a surmise thereof for the general, that shallower conceits might imagine another sense therein, they knew not what; and they whose brazen faces should serve them thereto, might impudently brabble, that our sense is not certain, because another is Possible, even as if a Jew being pressed by a Christian with the place ofq Isaiah, Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bring forth a Son should answer that the Hebrew word translated Virgin, may be taken otherwise sith that in the