.NDI.MjIzMjY: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Form of innocent persons out of those convotrians (E?) (illegible) is no question to God made of it, but (crossed out illegible) as to his natural pon r and art he is able to make their shapes appear among his Servant, but no supposeth ho providence of God will not suffer such an injury to be done to an innocent person 10th him (( Delrio and S(illegible) con cure Cumanmy in his Lucorna Inquisitorium (a book I have not yet seen) defends (illeg) affirmative of this Question. Innsfieloin (? and something crossed out) in his treatise concerning the | Form of innocent persons out of those convotrians (E?) (illegible) is no question to God made of it, but (crossed out illegible) as to his natural pon r and art he is able to make their shapes appear among his Servant, but no supposeth ho providence of God will not suffer such an injury to be done to an innocent person 10th him (( Delrio and S(illegible) con cure Cumanmy in his Lucorna Inquisitorium (a book I have not yet seen) defends (illeg) affirmative of this Question. Innsfieloin (? and something crossed out) in his treatise concerning the Fefsion (?) of witches inclines to tho negative: only (o) he acknowlodges that Dei extraordinariapermile (?) sione pofso miocontes (insert symbol "Sic') ropresentari. | ||
Shall assert that tho great and holy God nev(superscript er) did nor ever will permitt the Divel thus far to abuse an inocent person, affirms more then ho is able to prove. The story of Germancy (underlined) his discovering of Diabolicall illusion of this nature concerning a great number of persons that seemed to Go at a foaar when they were really at home a (and symbol?) Shoop (?) is mentioned by | |||
Revision as of 15:37, 30 June 2017
Form of innocent persons out of those convotrians (E?) (illegible) is no question to God made of it, but (crossed out illegible) as to his natural pon r and art he is able to make their shapes appear among his Servant, but no supposeth ho providence of God will not suffer such an injury to be done to an innocent person 10th him (( Delrio and S(illegible) con cure Cumanmy in his Lucorna Inquisitorium (a book I have not yet seen) defends (illeg) affirmative of this Question. Innsfieloin (? and something crossed out) in his treatise concerning the Fefsion (?) of witches inclines to tho negative: only (o) he acknowlodges that Dei extraordinariapermile (?) sione pofso miocontes (insert symbol "Sic') ropresentari. Shall assert that tho great and holy God nev(superscript er) did nor ever will permitt the Divel thus far to abuse an inocent person, affirms more then ho is able to prove. The story of Germancy (underlined) his discovering of Diabolicall illusion of this nature concerning a great number of persons that seemed to Go at a foaar when they were really at home a (and symbol?) Shoop (?) is mentioned by