(DS The Reafonablenefs becauleCalvin, or Beza, or Blonder, or Sal- mafus, or Cartwright, or Selden, or any others did not think it plain ; and argue from hence againfl agreeing to it, we £hew more regard togreat names than is allowable, Was this fentence deigned to call a reflexion upon any learned or judi- ciorrs men ? You cannot think it was. Do you make any fcruple of differing of- ten from them ? You know you do riot; I'm Cure you ought not. Do not you rim them down as Novices, and call them Fools as much, and as effectually this way, as you can do by fubfcribing this ? Yet you do not think that a good argument a- gainfi judging as you think fit. Is not the principal delign of a fentence to be regarded, and the manner of exprefon to be interpreted according to ufe, and not according to the letter ? yet here you take the manner of exprefon, quite contrary to what you do in common ufe; and draw objections from this manner of expreffon fo milaken. As to the thing intended in this fen- tence, it is plainly this, that Bifhops, Friells, and Deacons , have been in the Church from the Apofile's days. Now this Tr ah hath been very much cleared lince
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTcyMjk=