Download e-book The Vipers Den - A Mahu Short Story (Mahu Mysteries)

Free download. Book file PDF easily for everyone and every device. You can download and read online The Vipers Den - A Mahu Short Story (Mahu Mysteries) file PDF Book only if you are registered here. And also you can download or read online all Book PDF file that related with The Vipers Den - A Mahu Short Story (Mahu Mysteries) book. Happy reading The Vipers Den - A Mahu Short Story (Mahu Mysteries) Bookeveryone. Download file Free Book PDF The Vipers Den - A Mahu Short Story (Mahu Mysteries) at Complete PDF Library. This Book have some digital formats such us :paperbook, ebook, kindle, epub, fb2 and another formats. Here is The CompletePDF Book Library. It's free to register here to get Book file PDF The Vipers Den - A Mahu Short Story (Mahu Mysteries) Pocket Guide.


  1. Similar authors to follow
  2. Container List
  3. Homolexis Glossary
  4. Dalkey Archive Press records, 1972-2018, bulk 1990-2011

Stanley What Coursework We Drink? Progress in International Business Research, Volume 2. Hayes, J Liebert, A. Michael John KiddMichael J. Parker Talk Now! Igi Teaching Case Studies. Related Antonio CerviGirolamo D. Wyatt Elements of Enviromental EngineeringK. Found what you're looking for?

Similar authors to follow

Mais les socits coursework chang leur manire de tester leurproduit, non? Overpieces of student written work Annotated by experienced teachers Ideas and related to improve your own work. Want the latest Marked by Teachers news? The King never refused to agree to, nor did he oppose the matter of this particular clause: as touching this there could be no dissent on his part, his prescribing and standing upon the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy, wherein this clause is contained, his avowing the difference and was on his part to be for the defence of his person, and authority; his putting forth Oaths to them that adhered to him for the preservation of these, makes it as clear as noon-day that he refused and opposed not this branch.

Now upon this consideration, the Remonstrancer hath not onely failed in his allegation, but overthrown his own argument; he saying in the place before cited, Although the Kings refusing sets the Covenanters free from any further obligation by vertue of that Covenant, at to what concerns his interest and benefit therein, yet the Covenant as to other matters concerning the right and benefit of the Covenanters one from another stands still obliging, and in force. I may by the same reason say, the Kings refusing the Covenant upon exception against other clauses, not this, and his opposing other matters in the Covenant, not this, could not dis-ingage or release the Covenanters from this, about which there was not the least dissent or reluctancy, but a concurrence full enough on his part; so that the Covenant must stand still obliging and in force as to this part.

If the Kings said refusall and opposition could have discharged us from this member of the Covenant as to his own person and interest in the Authority, yet with all your straining you cannot stretch them to our release from preservation and defence of the Kingly Authority in relation to his posterity, who were in proximity to him interested in it; and for whose interest therein the Covenant was also made e ; and whose refusall of it, nor yet a tender of it to them, you do not, cannot once plead. I have done with the wrong glosse of the Remonstrancer endeavouring to impeach the obligation of this clause of the Covenant.

I finde another a deare friend of his tampering with it also to elude the tye of it; and he offers it no lesse violence, but in a more unhandsome and grosse manner.

It is that Polemick, or Army-Divine, Mr. The man in that book undertaketh, and bends his skill to a double unhappie, and crosse designe, to wit, to varnish and guild over that which is very foule, and to besmear and obscure that which is very clear.

  • What is Living and What is Dead in Indian Philosophy;
  • Newsletter #98 June — August, 2012.
  • Connections, Curvature and Cohomology [Vol 3].
  • mahu vice mahu series book 4 Manual;
  • Aging in Hong Kong: A Comparative Perspective;
  • Table of Contents?

In his prosecution of the latter he fals upon this sentence of the Covenant, in dealing with which he correspondeth with the Remonstrancer, and as this hath challenged to himself a prerogative to enforce men and Magistrates, so doth he arrogate to himself to be a bold enforcer of words and Covenants; a more strange and presumptuous perverting of plain words, I never read nor heard, then that which he useth to this clause, when he saith, page Evident it is, that those words in the Covenant in the preservation and defence of the true Religion, and liberties of the Kingdoms, import a condition to be performed on the Kings part, without the performance whereof, the Covenant obligeth no man to the preservation or defence of his Person or Authority.

And this condition he makes to be, page 52, That he preserve and defend the true Religion, and liberties of the Kingdom: and of this his paraphrase of the words he saith, If this be not the clear meaning and importance of them, the Covenant is a Barbarian unto me, I understand not the English of it.

The vast exorbitancy, audaciousnesse, and impietie of this his wresting, and straining of these plain words, I leave the Reader to take the measure of: I shall onely endeavour to free them from this his distortion. If the Covenant had intended to pitch the preservation and defence in this clause upon another person, or persons, as the performers besides those to whom the same actions are referred immediately before, it would have pointed them out distinctly; but when it expresses no other, ordinary construction will attribute them to the parties before nominated; and no regular construction can put them upon any other.

Container List

This reading is plain English to him that knows the language, and will understand, and Mr. I dare appeal to Mr. In making this the importance of those words, Mr. For he page Let Mr. How will Mr. Neither doth the Remonstrancer, or any other as far as I have observed insist on the shortnesse of the Kings concessions in any particulars of either nature, as the ground of those capitall proceedings, but on the inexpiablenesse of his former facts, and the unsafenesse of trusting him for future upon any tearms.

If then the King, immediately before the fatall prosecution against him, did as his present state would permit concur so amply in the preservation of Religion and Liberties, they were bound that had taken this Covenant by vertue of this clause taken in Mr. The Covenant in this branch is indefinite, and unrestrained in regard of time; it doth not say suppose Mr.

Here then Mr. If that indeed were the sense of that clause which he would out-face us into the accepting of, what can be said against the binding of it to the preservation and defence of the kingly Authority still? I have thus done with the exceptions made against the obligatorinesse of the Covenant, in the matter in hand; I now passe to the Examination of what is pleaded against the force of the Oaths of Allegiance amongst the impugners of them; Ile begin with him whom I had last to deal with, Mr. In recitall whereof I shall rehearse as much of him as expresseth his Argumentation, omitting those two hetorogeneous instances [ of keeping back a mad mans sword, and of a States dis-engagement from league with another State that hath first broken league with it ] as impertinent both to his reason and our case.

Peter Martyr saith Mr. Chrysostome writing upon those words, Matth. And when an Oath cannot lawfully be dispensed with, or justly rendred non-obliging, must the forcible and ungodly bursting of it asunder be fathered on him, who in the Truth, the Amen, the faithfull and true witnesse? Martyr a double wrong. In curtailing his sentence, and breaking it off in the middle, suppressing those following words which would have cleared his sense to be none of yours.

In mis-translating the words which you cite, his words truly rendered and rehearsod out are these, Therefore those promises of God, to wit, that of our Saviour, Matth. It is by this recitall evident, how you by leaving out the word [ ille ] have falsified P. Martyrs text, who is speaking onely of some particular promises, conditionally made, and as he saith respecting the present time which he distinguisheth from others; but you would have him understood of any promises, and draw an universall negative from his words.

Take for instance, Psal.

Hosea In conditionall promises, though there may be partiall and temporary declinings in men from their said integritie as there was eminently in Peter, one of those parties to the promise, Matth. And if there be a performance by God, certainly there was an intention in him of that performance, notwithstanding such declining, For he worketh all things after the counsell of his own will. And for this you might have hearkened to P.

Homolexis Glossary

Martyr your own Author, In the place whither he referreth you in the Section quoted by you, speaking thus. But because the conditions of legall promises could not be performed by men, God out of his own mercy hath substituted Evangelicall promises in their place, which though they have conditions annexed, yet they are held out gratis. And a little further he saith, The Evangelicall promise may stand good without those conditions.

How this is, he presently after explains thus. Therefore impossible conditions are annexed, that men warned of their infirmity, and fully understanding it, they may betake themselves to Christ, of whom they being received into favour, and justification being obtained, they may obtain those very promises, for us to them they of Legall are made Evangelicall g. You rest not in this mis-alledging of Gods promises, though in it, you betray audaciousnesse, and unsoundnesse enough but you rise higher in presumption, making an odious comparison, or rather equalitie between God and man, in promises and covenants, whereas the case of the covenanting of these two is far enough different; for if it were granted, that God in some of his conditionall promises intendeth no performance nor obligation on his part, but upon condition of mans perseverance, must there needs be therefore an equivalency, or conformity throughout thereunto in mans Covenants with man?

God is no mans debtor, he is not bound to man, there is no right in the creature from God, he can claim nothing from him, otherwise then by promise: God may do what he will with his own, and all is his own.

Dalkey Archive Press records, 1972-2018, bulk 1990-2011

And thus it is in the point in hand, there is Allegiance due without the interposition of an Oath, or any such engagement by particular persons; we are in a settled State, born Subjects, and both claim the immunity and protection, and owe the duty of such, without personall indenting, or oath-taking; and this obedience is owing to Princes, or Magistrates without condition of Religion, or Justice on their part performed; the Scripture is clear for an irrespective and in regard of the Rulers demeanor absolute subjection: Exid.

And the Doctrine of orthodox Divines generally is, that obedience is due to the most degenerate, tyrannicall, and oppressive Magistrates h. When therefore this necessary and unconditionated duty as to the parties behaviour becomes the subject of an oath, or personall engagement, it is not capable of capitulations or conditions to be performed by the persons sworn to, upon which the obligation of the oath shall be dependent; to admit such qualifications, would frustrate the end of a promissory oath, which is to give assurance and security and that the strongest men can give to the party unto whom the oath is made, of what, either was before, or is then made due by promise; instead whereof the inserting of conditions of this nature in this case would make what was before clearly owing now more dubious and uncertain to the expectation of the proprietor: and would be apt to beget in the debtor a perswasion, upon non-performance of conditions of a discharge as well from the matter, as from the obligation of the Oath.

Of Humane Covenants, or promissory oaths, whereof the subject or matter is arbitrary, and we are not otherwise bound to then by Covenant, or Oath, there are severall sorts, i some are absolute, having no expresse condition annexed, but are simply undertaken, saving that those generall and constant provisoes of every promise or oath which need now expressing, are to be understood therein, viz: that the thing when it comes to be performed be lawfull and possible, and notwithstanding the understanding of which the obligation is absolute. As for instance, such was that promise and oath of Joseph to his father Jacob, Gen.

And that of Jonathan to David, 1 Sam. Others again are conditionall, wherein something future, that is contingent, or depending upon mans will is particularly, and expresly comprised as a qualification of the matter to be performed, the failing of which is a discharge of the person engaging from the promise or oath. Such was that of the servant to Abraham, Gen. And that of the Spics to Rahab, Joshus 2 Now then for Mr. Having thus I hope sufficiently taken away the Exceptions of this Author against the force of the Oath of Allegiance, I leave him thaining and travailing about that stone of Sisiphus, to wit, the guilt of Royall blood which he labours to foul away in that his book, and proceed to another.

The next I meet with that strikes at the obligation of this Oath, is one that asserteth himself to be of those whom he that I had last to do with, professeth himself a Champion against, that is, the Presbyterian part, but in this as far as my ken will reach he is alone for them: I mean the Author of The lawfulnesse of obeying the present Government, who in his It were good saith he first to consider, whether there be any clause in any Oath or Covenant, which in a fair and common sense forbids obedience to the Commands of the present Government, and Authority, much lesse when no other can be had, and so the Common-wealth must go to ruine.

The many clauses of severall Oaths, and of the Covenant and Protestation, which strictly forbid such obedience, I have urged [Chap.

Table of Contents

Take dispensation, in the usuall Popish acception, and all power of dispensing in Oaths and Vows, in whomsoever it be supposed to be, is denyed with one consent, as far as I have observed, or ever heard by Protestant professors: and it is a meer popish doctrine, and papall arrogation exploded from amongst us.

I do beleeve, and in conscience am resolved, that neither the Pope, nor any other person whatsoever, hath power to absolve me of this Oath, or any part thereof. And this I the rather note, upon occasion of this Authors quoting a Doctor of the Papacy for the dispensabilitie of an Oath, in regard that some of late if I mistake not have taken upon them to discharge people from this Oath, or which is all one from the Allegiance therein sworn to.

Unto which act I shall onely speak thus much, either they assume power to do this as the party to whom the Oath is taken, or as a superior, by the analogie of that Law, Numb: But, 1. Neither can they do it as a superior by the equity of that Law, Numb: For, 1.

  • Online Library of Liberty.
  • From Black Power to Prison Power: The Making of Jones v. North Carolina Prisoners’ Labor Union.
  • Container List;

The power of a superior to undo the Oath, or bond of the inferior, prevails onely in those matters wherein the party is under the power of the superior, and not in other matters, which are without the extent of the superiors authority l. Now this Oath concerns a duty owing to another, which they that interpose to discharge from it have no right to dispose of. But however the superior can onely by the Law cited, or any other right come in to make void the Oath of the inferior, which was taken without his knowledge and consent, Animad vertendum tamen est penes hos non esse satultatem reseindendi quodll.

Now the Oath of Allegiance was so far from being disallowed, or declared against as soon as it was known, that it was inacted and injoyned by both Houses of Parliament, and moreover it was constantly to be taken by all the Members of the Lower House at their entrance into that House; so that besides their incompetency to discharge from the Oath who have assented to it; Let any man shew how they who are parties to the oath, and have themselves taken it can disanull it; the obliged parties disanulling is a strain above Papall dispensation.

But to speak to these causes of dispensing with an Oath according to the Casuists Divinity, which the Author applyeth to the case in hand. When the thing sworn is too difficult, or the swearer is by the change of ability, Reg. If by this difficulty of the thing, and unaptnesse of the person sworn, he mean, the thing is become impossible, and the partie utterly unable to observe it.