A10322:57
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.
The only reason of adversaries remaining to be answered, stood upon, and urged by them as most effectual, and for cible to the contrary, is an example of like sentences: from which, sith the like conclusion (say they) cannot be inferred, as we infer of this, the inference or this is faulty. And faulty (I grant) they might esteem it justly if the like conclusions could not be drawn from the like sentences.
The onely reason of adversaries remayning to bee answered, stood vppon, and vrged by them as moste effectuall, and for cible to the contrarye, is an example of like sentences: from which, sith the like conclusion (say they) cannot bee inferred, as wee inferre of this, the inferrence or this is faultye. And faultie (I graunt) they might esteeme it iustly if the like conclusions coulde not bee drawen from the like sentences.
But let the examples, which they bring for proof here of be throughly sifted: And it will appear that either the sentences are unlike, or the like conclusions may be inferred of them. For of three sentences proposed to this end, the the first is out of Scripture in S. James Epistled To him that knoweth how to do well, and doth it not, to him there is sin. A sentence though in show unlike to that of Christs, for the proposition and exception both: yet having in deed the force of the like, if it be thus resolved. To him that doth not well, except he know not how to do well there is sin. And why may it not be concluded hereof, that there is no sin to him, who knoweth not how to do well, & doth it not? because there are sins of ignorance (saith Bellarmin) & he who knoweth not how to do well, and doth it not, sinneth, though less then he that offendeth wittingly. I know not whether ⟨p. 16⟩this be a sign of ignorance in Bellarmin, or no, that when he should say (if he will check the conclusion) there is sin to ignorant he saith (as if that were all one) the ignorant sinneth. 2