In-Text |
this assertion is an incredible impudencie, because Sotus saith, that in some cases it is lawfull to equiuocate, as where hee teacheth a man, that is asked vniustly, to answer, Nescio, Qui iure intelligitur, Nescio, vt dicam, aut Nescio eo modo, quo iure debeam dicere, &c. This wrote I in my former booke, |
this assertion is an incredible impudency, Because Sotus Says, that in Some cases it is lawful to equivocate, as where he Teaches a man, that is asked unjustly, to answer, Nescio, Qui iure intelligitur, Nescio, vt dicam, Or Nescio eo modo, quo iure debeam dicere, etc. This wrote I in my former book, |
d n1 vbz dt j n1, c-acp np1 vvz, cst p-acp d n2 pn31 vbz j pc-acp vvi, p-acp c-crq pns31 vvz dt n1, cst vbz vvn av-j, pc-acp vvi, fw-la, fw-la fw-la fw-la, fw-la, fw-la fw-la, fw-la fw-la fw-la fw-la, fw-la fw-la n1 fw-la, av d vvd pns11 p-acp po11 j n1, |
Note 0 |
〈 ◊ 〉 lib. de legend. secretis, nu. 3. q. 3. conclus. 4. |
〈 ◊ 〉 lib. de legend. secretis, nu. 3. q. 3. Conclusion. 4. |
〈 sy 〉 n1. fw-fr n1. fw-la, fw-la. crd sy. crd fw-la. crd |