Selected quad for the lemma: war_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
war_n	death_n	king_n	treason_n	2,761	5	9.5559	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47869	The history of the Plot anatomised: or the late sham fanatical-plot, briefly and plainly laid open Wherein, those worthy patriots who were charged therewith, are vindicated from the malicious and false aspersions cast upon them by a late author. In a letter to a friend.	L'Estrange, Roger, Sir, 1616-1704.	1689 (1689)	Wing L1259A; ESTC R179472	22,315	34

solemnly appeal to God as to any Mans Innocence if he afterwards Swear against him be not formally perjured For pray what is it that constitutes Perjury Not the presence of the Judge I hope for if a Judge meerly asks a Man a question and he answer with a Lye no Man can call him perjured but his adjuring him by God and all that is Sacred Now that a Man can do this to himself is evident from the Holy Scripture and has been ever acknowledged by all Casuists that whosoever privately takes Gods Name to a falshhood is equally Guilty of Perjury as if he did it before a Judge Nor were any of the Kings Council able to answer this Objection for all that they say about it in summing up the Evidence is my Lords not revealing himself to them whereas here was more than a not granting of it which he might easily have done as effectually and much more safely by waving it and saying How should he know or what did it concern him or some such Expressions by which he might have been sufficiently secured from their informing against him and not had recourse to such an Expression as this As I shall Answer to God I know nothing against him And thus much as to the Tryal of this Noble Lord. By which the Reader may sufficiently see what an honest Jury he had who without any valid Evidence could contrary both to the Law of God and Man condemn this Innocent Nobleman It may not be amiss in the next place to hint at some particulars in Colonel Sidney's Tryal whose Jury though not the same Men yet were of the same Loyal Consciences the Crimes laid to his Charge were Levying of War and Conspiring the Death of the King and writing a Treasonable Book Now it could not be said that those were two Overt Acts in the same Treason for he might have writ that Book and yet not conspire against the Life of the King and besides 't is more than probable that Book was writ long before there were any such Designs or Discourses on foot and therefore both particulars ought to have been proved by two Witnesses whereas for the former though to prepossess the Jury there were two or three Hear-say Evidence yet my Lord Howard's Evidence only was positive and though there was Evidence enough to have invalidate his yet the Court was pleased not only not to take any notice of it but even to discourage and check them there were besides those who appeared at my Lord Russel's Tryal several others brought proving the above said Asseverations one of L. H's intimate Friends declaring That if he had been upon his Oath before the King he could not have more firmly believed him The same Witness said that the Reproof he had at my Lord Russel's Tryal had made him forget some particulars which shews what Ingenuity was in the Gentlemen of the Court when any Person was before them they had a mind to bring in Guilty And when the same Gentleman in the Conclusion said according to his Conscience That if he were of that Gentleman's Jury he would not believe him Mr. Attorney was pleased to say That he ought to be bound to good Behaviour for it Mr. Blake another Witness for Colonel Sidney deposed that when he asked my Lord Howard Six Weeks before his Tryal why he had not his Pardon his Lordship replyed I can ascribe it to no other reason but I must not have my Pardon till the drudgery of Swearing is over One would think the Jury might have considered that a Man under so strong a Temptation as Swearing for Life is might be easily induced to stretch things to the utmost if not to go beyond the Truth and therefore should not have laid so much stress upon his Evidence Then Trace and Penwick declared that my Lord Howard protested before God Colonel Sidney knew nothing of it and the former declared that he likewise said Colonel Sidney's Goods might be sent to his House And the latter that he desired to have his Plate and promised to secure it for him As for the other part of his Indictment the Book which was found in his Closet though the same Book now would not be accounted so Heretical especially if it were not cull'd out in pieces here and there but read as continued with the rest of the Matter of the Book that then so much preacht up Loyalty which was nothing else but a Praeludium to Popery and Slavery whereof we have had sufficient experience since being abated several Degrees Reason having got some more Ascendant over it all the proof of this was that some Gentlemen deposed that they believed it was his hand which is no full Evidence in Law as has been admitted in other cases But besides one Mr. Wharton declared that it was so easie a Hand that if he had but any of those Sheets of Paper for a small time he would undertake to imitate it so as they should not know which is which But this was taken no notice of But this Labour of calling in Witnesses might have been well spared For it might have easily been foreseen that those who had confirmed the Belief of their Plot by the Treacherous and that wants a due name to express the heinousness of it Assassination of one Nobleman and made that a means to take off another by such Law as was dispensed then would not let it suffer in its Reputation by his being cleared though they had had no other than Hear-say Evidence And had an Angel been sent from Heaven to give in Evidence for him they would have observed the same advice which St. Paul gave as to new Doctrines viz. Not received it And well they might for there was never a Plot of such advantage to them as this was which took off those who were for stripping them of their Diana Madam Arbitrary As to Sir Thomas Armstrong none will deny but he had very hard measure dealt him for when he pleaded the Statute of 6 Edward 6th which allows that before Sentence be pronounced upon an Outlawry a year must expire yet though the year was not expired he was condemned upon it Nor was it to the purpose what the then Chief Justice answered to wit that he had not delivered himself up for he ought to have had the full time allowed him that was mentioned in that Statute before Execution should be awarded And when Sir Thomas desired the benefit of the Law he after a domineering manner insulted over this Gentleman in his Misery ordering him to be Executed on Friday next according to Law whereas I suppose there 's no Gentleman in England deserves to have the full benefit of the Law in his own sense more than his Lordship The last of the Persons Executed for this Plot was Mr. Sheriff Cornish of whose Tryal I need not say any thing seeing the whole Nation is sufficiently sensible of the hard measure he was served with who making more solemn