Selected quad for the lemma: sense_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
sense_n	woman_n	word_n	worth_a	12	3	8.2165	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A69685	The Case of the Earl of Argyle, or, An Exact and full account of his trial, escape, and sentence wherein are insert the act of Parliament injoining the test, the confession of faith, the old act of the king's oath to be given at his coronation : with several other old acts, made for establishing the Protestant religion : as also several explications made of the test by the conformed clergy : with the secret councils explanation thereof : together with several papers of objections against the test, all framed and emitted by conformists : with the Bishop of Edinburgh's Vindication of the test, in answer thereunto : as likewise a relation of several matters of fact for better clearing of the said case : whereunto is added an appendix in answer to a late pamphlet called A vindication of His Majestie's government and judicatories in Scotland, especially with relation to the Earl of Argyle's process, in so far as concerns the Earl's trial.	Stewart, James, Sir, 1635-1713.; Mackenzie, George, Sir, 1636-1691. Vindication of His Majesties government, and judicatories in Scotland.	1683 (1683)	Wing C1066; ESTC R15874	208,604	158

criminal he frequently repeats from the known grounds of Law of the nature of crimes and the design of criminal Laws viz. That as there can be no crime without a fraudulent purpose either apparent or proven So it was the design of Lawgivers only to punish such acts as are designedly malicious I desire you only to consider the particulars following And 1 Pag. 〈◊〉 l. 7. of his Book of Criminals having made the question Whether what tends to a crime not perfected doth fall under the Statut or Law by which that crime to which it approaches is punished He instances in the crime of Misconstruing His Majesties Government and Proceedings or depraving his Laws which as he sayes is punishable by death Ja. 6. Par. 10. Act 10. And then further moves Whether papers as tending to misconstrue His Majesties proceedings and Government or bearing insinuations which may raise in the people jealousy against the Government be punished by that Law Which being one of the great crimes pretended and libelled against the Earl I shall here omitting his reasons in the affirmative which have not the least ground in the Earl's case as you have heard represent to you how exactly he himself and others have acted for the Earl's overthrow all these dangerous and pernicious things from which he argues in the negative His words then are these And that such insinuations and tendencies are not punished criminally he sayes 1. It is the interest of mankind to know expresly what they are to obey especially where such great certifications are annexed as in crimes 2. The Law having taken under its consideration this guilt hes punished the actual misconstruing or depraving but hes not declared such insinuations or tendencies punishable Et in statutis casus omissus habetur pro omisso 3. This would infallibly tend to render all judges arbitrary for tendencies and insinuations are in effect the product of conjecture and papers may seem innocent or criminall according to the zeal or humour as well as malice of judges men being naturally prone to differ in such consequentiall inferences and too apt to make constructions in such according to the favour or malice they bear to the Person or Cause Are not some men apt to construct that to tend to their dishonour which was designed for their honour and to think every thing an innovation of Law or Priviledge which checks their inclination and design Whereas some judges are so violent in their Loyalty as to imagine the meanest mistaks do tend to an opposition against Authority and thus Zeal Iealousie Malice or Interest would become judges 4. Men are so silly or may be in such haste or so confounded and the best are subject to such mistakes as that no man could know when he were innocent simplicity might oft times become a crime and the fear of offending might occasion offence and how uncomfortably would the people live if they knew not how to be innocent 2ly p 47 l 9. Of the same Book he sayes That the 8th Point of Treason is to impugn the dignity and Authority of the three Estates or to seek and procure the innovat on and diminution of their Power and Authority Act 103. Ja. 6. p. 6. Now this being another of the crimes charged upon the Earl hear how the Advocate there understands it But this he adds immediatly is to be understood of a N. B. direct impugning of their Authority as if it were contended that Parliaments were not necessary or that one of the three Estates might be turned out Which how vastly different from his indirect forced and horrible inferences in the Earl's case is plain and obvious 3ly ibid. p. 58. l. 2. After having said That according to former Laws no sort of Treason was to be persued in absence before the Justices And urging it to be reasonable he adds Nor is it imaginable but if it had been safe it had been granted formerly And l. 31. he sayes The Justices are never allowed even by the late Act of Parliament to proceed to sentence against absents but such as are persued for Rising in Armes against the King The true reason whereof he tells us is that the Law is not so inhumane as to punish equally presumed and reall guilt And that it hath been often found that men have absented themselves rather out of fear of a prevailing Faction or currupt witnesses c. then out of consciousness of guilt Reasons which albeit neither true nor just seeing that the Law punishes nothing even in case of absence but either manifest contumacie or crimes fully proven And that the only reason why it allowes no other crime save Perduellion to be proceeded against in absence is because it judges no other crime tanti yet you see how this whole passage quadrats with the Earl's case Who being neither persued for perduellion nor present at giving sentence was yet sentenced in absence as a most desperate traitour 4ly ibid p. 60. l. 24. Speaking of the Solemnities used in Parliament at the pronouncing sentences for Treason viz. That the Pannel receives his sentence kneeling and that after the doom of for faulture pronounced against him the Lyon and his Brethren the Heraulds in their formalities come tear his Coat of armes at the Throne and thereafter hang up his Eschucheon ranversed upon the mercat Crosse he adds But this I think should only hold in the crime of Perduellion and then goes on to add That the children of the delinquent are declared incapable to bruik any Office or Estate is another Speciality introduced in the punishment of Perduellion only And yet both these terrible Solemnities were practised against the Earl even by a Court of Iustitiary and not in Parliament albeit he was not accused of Perduellion nor be indeed more guilty of any crime then all the world sees 5ly ibid page 303 l. ult he sayes That verbal injuries are these that are committed by unwarrantable expressions as to call a man a Cheat a woman whore But because expressions may vary according to the intention of the speaker therefore except the words can allow of no good sense as whore or thief or that there be strong presumptions against the speaker the injuriandi animus or design of injuring as well as the injuring words must be proven and the speaker will be allowed to purge his guilt by declaring his intention and his declaration without an Oath will be sufficient 2ly The persuer should libell the design and prove it except the words clearly inferre it 3ly The persuer is presently to resent the injurie and if at first the words be taken for no injurie they cannot afterward become such Which things being applied to the Earl's words do evident I say That unless his words could allow of no good sense or that there were strong presumptions against him or that he could not purge his guilt by declaring his intention or that his words did clearly inferre the guilt there could be no crime of

obligation of this and all other Oaths But all this is nothing to the purpose for waving that in the Earl's case it is most impertinent to talk of his obtruding of a sense to the eluding and frustrating of the obligation of his Oath seeing his Oath was not then given or at all in being it is expresly alledged by the Earl and notour that the Explanation tendered by him when called to take the Test was accepted by the Council and the Oath thereupon administrated and so the Earl freely joyns issue with the Advocate and acknowledging that the taker of the Oath ought to swear in the sense of the imposer subsumes in terminis that he himself did swear so and not otherwise in as much as he did swear in a sense accepted by the Council before he gave his Oath as is evident 1. By their commanding him to sit after he had sworn and 2. In that neither the Advocate nor any other had ever the confidence to quarrel his sitting as a breach of the Law which no doubt they had done if not convinced that by taking the Oath he had satisfied the Act of Parliament which things in true dealing and the construction of all honest men are the same as if the Oath had been required of him by the Council in the very sense and words of this Explanation Neither is it material whether the Explanation offered by the Earl doth deserve as certainly it doth not these many ill names which the Advocate would fix upon it because though it had been much worse then it is yet being offered to the Council and submitted to their judgment and they having accepted it the thing became quasi res judicata and cannot be retracted without subverting the surest Rules both of truth and government The Advocate indeed tels us 1 That the Council heard not the Earl's Explanation But I have already told you they did hear it and the Earl is still ready to prove it And suppose some say they did not hear it distinctly As what thing spoke in Council is distinctly heard and considered by all Yet it being certain that they did all approve it it is sufficient to the Earl And it is only their concern whether in approving what they did not hear they observed their Oath De fideli c. or not His Highness who the Earl was most concerned should hear did certainly hear as himself afterwards acknowledged 2. The Advocate sayes That the hearing and allowing the ●arl to sit is no relevant plea yea further though all the Council had allowed him that day yet any of his Majesties Officers might have quarrelled him the next day But first I would gladly know upon what head For if upon obtruding a sense of his own it is undenyable that whatever the sense was the obtruding of it was purged by the Councils acceptation and it became theirs and was no more his Butif the Advocate doth think that even the matter of the Explanation though allowed and accepted may still be quarrelled Then 1. I hope he will consider in what terms he doth it for if he charge it after it becomes the Councils as in truth he hath done already with the same liberty wherewith he treats it as the Earl's he runs fair to make himself the Arrantest defamer and slanderer of the King and Council that ever yet attempted it But 2ly It merits a worse name then I am free to give it to say That an Explanation allowed by the Council in the administrating of an Oath proper to be administrat by them doth not secure the taker as to that sense both in Law and Conscience Seeing in effect this quite takes away the best grounds of assurance among men and turns their greatest security to their greatest snare And 3ly If this be sound Doctrine it is worth the enquiring what security the Clergy to whom the Council as you have hear'd did indulge an explanation have thereby obtained For as to such Laiks as did only at their own hand take hold of and snatch at this indulgence not provided for them by the Councils Act it is clear their doom is dight It is not here debated how far that Explication of the Councils may satisfy and quiet Conscience let such concerned see to it Some please themselves with a general notion That if the sense given by the Administrator be sound then it is also safe whether it be agreeable to the plain and genuine meaning of the Oath or not nay whether it be agreeable to the sense of the first Imposers or not But others who consider more rendetly what it is to swear in Truth and in Iudgment think it rather a prophanation and a sinful preferring of the credit of men to the glory of the Almighty to offer to smooth an Oath by a disagreeable interpretation when in effect the Oath it self ought to be changed But the thing in question is about the security of life and fortune for seeing the Councils Explanation is at least to say no worse lyable enough to the calumnies of an inventive malice and the Advocate telleth us Though all the Council had allowed a man to swear with an Explanation yet any of His Majesties Officers may the next day quarrel him It is evident that this allowance can affoord him no security It is true the Advocate may alledge and possibly find a difference betwixt the Councils emitting and their accepting of an Explanation But as in truth there is none more then betwixt a Mandat and a Ratihabition so I am confident if ever the thing come to be questioned this pretence will evanish and come to nothing It is likewise to be remembred that when the Earl the next day after he took the Test was questioned for the Explanation he had made and required to exhibit a copie which was afterwards made the ground of his indictment so soon as he observed that some began to carp he refused to sign it demanded it back and would have destroyed it as you have heard which were all clear Acts of disowning and retracting for eviting offence and of themselves sufficient to have prevented any further enquiry there being nothing more just and humain then that words though at the first hearing offensive yet if instantly retracted when questioned should be past But this as well as other things must in the Earl's case be singular and whether he plead the Councils allowing or his own disowning as in effect he doth both it is equally to no purpose the thing determined must be accomplished You heard before how that a reverend Bishop and many of the Orthodox Clergy did take a far greater liberty of Explanation then the Earl pretended to you see also that first the Council allowes his words whereupon he rests And when he finds that they begin to challenge he is willing to disown And withall it is undeniable and acknowledged by the Council themselves that the Test as it stands in the Act of Parliament is