In-Text |
Iobs case, and crie in the Text, were but particular, and personall: this conclusion in the Doctrine seemes to be generall, and indefinite: and it is against the lawes of Logick to draw so broad an inference from so narrow premisses? |
Jobs case, and cry in the Text, were but particular, and personal: this conclusion in the Doctrine seems to be general, and indefinite: and it is against the laws of Logic to draw so broad an Inference from so narrow premises? |
n2 n1, cc vvi p-acp dt n1, vbdr p-acp j, cc j: d n1 p-acp dt n1 vvz pc-acp vbi j, cc j: cc pn31 vbz p-acp dt n2 pp-f n1 pc-acp vvi av av-j dt n1 p-acp av j n2? |