Selected quad for the lemma: king_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
king_n	wit_n	word_n	writer_n	42	3	7.9026	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A01309	A defense of the sincere and true translations of the holie Scriptures into the English tong against the manifolde cauils, friuolous quarels, and impudent slaunders of Gregorie Martin, one of the readers of popish diuinitie in the trayterous Seminarie of Rhemes. By William Fvlke D. in Diuinitie, and M. of Pembroke haule in Cambridge. Wherevnto is added a briefe confutation of all such quarrels & cauils, as haue bene of late vttered by diuerse papistes in their English pamphlets, against the writings of the saide William Fvlke.	Fulke, William, 1538-1589.	1583 (1583)	STC 11430.5; ESTC S102715	542,090	704

memorie of the fact when afterward the people going astray began to worship as an idoll Ezechias the king seruing God with religious power with great praise of his pietie brake in peeces Here it is certaine that Augustine as most Ecclesiasticall writers vseth the word Idolum for an image abused But that the people began to adore it as God he sayth not for they onely worshipped God by it falsly in deede and superstitiously but yet not beleuing that image to be God him selfe but a holy representation of his power which was shewed by it in the dayes of Moses That Ezechias by religious or Ecclesiasticall power and authoritie did put downe idolatrie you passe it by as though you saw it not in S. Augustine But you bring an other example to proue that images except they be worshipped as gods be no idols In truth seeing all religious worship is due onely to God although the idolaters intend not to worship their images as gods yet by worshipping of them they make vnto them selues gods of them and so offende both against the first and second commaundementes Yet how proue you that the Israelites made a god of their calfe Because they sayed these are thy gods ô Israel that brought thee out of the land of Aegipt But euen by that same speach it is manifest that they worshipped not the calfe as beleuing it to be God but contrariwise protested thereby that they meaned not to chaunge their God but to worshippe the same God which brought thē out of the land of Aegipt by that image which they could not be ignorant that it was made but yesterday of their earings and therefore could not thinke it was the same god that brought them out of the lande of Aegipt but that they would worship God by that visible shape which they sawe before them And Aaron by his proclamation cōfirmeth the same To morow saith he shal be holy daie to Iehoua that is to the only true God whom they dishonored pretending to worship him by that Image so hainous a thing it is to make Images to represent God and to worship them for his honour although the worshipper do not beleeue them to be Gods Therefore where wee haue in some translations 1. Cor. 10. called those Idolaters worshippers of Images we haue not erred for an Image it was they worshipped thinking to worshippe God thereby But if either Image or Idoll worshippers of Images or Idolaters would please you wee haue both in our translations the one expressing what wee meane by the other that these cauillations were needelesse but that malice against the truthe incenseth you to picke quarrels and that translation whiche vseth the termes of Idols and Idolaters was then in printing at Geneua when Images were in pulling downe in Englande namely the firste and seconde yeares of the Queenes raigne beyng finished the 10. of April 1560. whiche notably confuteth the fonde purpose that you slaunder our translators to haue had MART. 5. We see then that the Iewes had images without sinne but not idols Againe for hauing idols they were accounted like vnto the Gentiles as the Psalme saith They learned their workes and serued their grauen idols But they were not accounted like vnto the Gentiles for hauing images which they had in Salomons Temple and in the brasen serpent S. Hierom writeth of the Ammonites and Moabites who were Gentiles and Idolaters that comming into the Temple of Hierusalē seeing the Angelicall images of the Cherubins couering the Propitiatory they sayd Lo euē as the Gentils so Iuda also hath idols of their religion These men did put no differēce betwene their owne idols and the Iewes lawfull images And are not you ashamed to be like to these They accused Salomons Temple of idols because they sawe there lawefull images you accuse the Churches of God of idolatrie because you see there the sacred images of Christ and his Saincts FVLK 5. We knowe that the Iewes had images without sinne and so haue we but to haue images in any vse of religion without Gods expresse commaundement neither is it lawfull for thē nor vs because we haue a generall commaundement to the contrary They were accounted like the Gentils therefore for hauing images contrarie to Gods commaundement of their owne appointment worshipping them not for hauing images appointed by God which yet it was not lawful for thē to worship But the Protestāts you say are like to the Ammonits and Moabits of whom S. Hierom writeth that comming into the temple and seeing the Cherubins couering the propitiatorie they said loe euen as the Gentiles so Iuda also hath idols of their religion as we accuse the church of God of idolatrie because we see there the sacred images of Christ and his Saincts This that you say S Hierom writeth he onely reporteth it as a ridiculous fable of the Iewes Ridiculam verò in hoc loco Haebrei narrant fabulam The Hebrewes in this place tell a ridiculous fable But fables are good enough to bolster false accusations Secondly he reporteth them to say Sicut cunctae gentes colunt simulachra ita Iuda habes suae religionis Idola As all nations worshippe images so hath Iuda also idols of their religion By which wordes you see that he calleth images and idols the same thinges For simulachrum to be taken as largely as Imago I haue proued before in so much that man is called Simulachrum Dei the image not the idoll of God as idoll is taken in the euill parte But neither are you like to Iuda nor we to Ammon and Moab in this case For Iuda had Gods commaundement to warrant their images so haue not you but his commaundement against your images Againe Moab and Ammon if the tale were true had idolatrous images of their owne so haue not we MART. 6. But tell vs yet I pray you do the holy Scriptures of either Testament speake of all maner of images or rather of the idols of the Gentiles your conscience knoweth that they speake directly against the idols and the idolatrie that was among the Pagans and Infidels from the which as the Iewes in the old Testament so the first Christians in the new Testament were to be prohibited But will you haue a demonstration that your owne conscience condemneth you herein and that you apply all translation to your heresie What caused you being otherwise in all places so ready to translate images yet Esai 31. and Zachar. 13. to translate idols in all your Bibles with full consent Why in these places specially and so aduisedly No doubt because God saith there speaking of this time of the new Testament In that day euery man shall cast out his idols of siluer and idols of God And I will destroy the names of the idols out of the earth so that they shall no more be had in remembrance In which places if you had translated images you had made the prophecie false because images haue not

than a good subiect woulde call his lawfull Prince a Tyrant Doth he not here tell vs that which we would haue to wit that we may not speake or translate according to the originall propertie of the word but according to the common vsuall and accustomed signification thereof As we may not translate Phalaris tyrannus Phalaris the King as sometime Tyrannus did signifie and in auncient authors doth signifie but Phalaris the tyrant as now this worde tyrannus is commonly taken and vnderstoode Euen so we may not now translate My children keepe you selues from images as the word may and doth sometime signifie according to the originall propertie thereof but we must translate keepe your selues from idols according to the common vse and signification of the word in vulgar speech and in the holy Scriptures Where the Greeke word is so notoriously and vsually peculiar to idols and not vnto images that the holy fathers of the second Nicene Councell which knew right well the signification of the Greeke word them selues being Grecians doe pronounce Anathema to all such as interprete those places of the holy scripture that concerne idols of images or against sacred images as now these Caluinists doe not onely in their commentaries vpon the holy Scriptures but euen in their translatiōs of the text FVLK 17. We can not yet be rid of this mans extraordinarie and vnaduised surmises which are too many and tedious as where I say the name Idoll is odious in the English tongue he gathereth that I meane it to be odious onely in the English tongue and not in the Latine and Greeke I haue shewed before that in Tullies time it was not odious in Latine and it is not long since Maister Martin confessed the Greeke worde according to the originall proprietie to signifie as generally as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an image which is not odious Although in later times among Christians both of the Greeke and the Latine Church the name of Idolum became odious as well as the word Idoll in English Therefore it is not my fond opinion but. M. Martines foolish collection that a man may say in Latine fecit hominem ad idolum suum and yet I am charged with rash assertions when nothing is reproued that I affirme but that which he him selfe doth imagine But nowe you will returne to those wordes of myne where I say that though the originall proprietie of the wordes hath that signification yet no Christian man would say that God made man according to his idoll no more than a good subiect woulde call his lawefull Prince a tyrant These wordes you say doe tell vs that we may not speake or translate according to the originall proprietie of the word but according to the common vsual and accustomed signification thereof For speaking I graunt as the words are vsed in our time but for translating I saye you must regarde howe the wordes were vsed in time of the writer whose workes you translate As if you would translate out of Euripides 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would you say who is tyrant of this land or rather who is King or in Aristophanes 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 would you translate Iupiter tyrant of the gods or King of the gods I thinke not But in S. Iohn seeing at that tyme that he wrote 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signified an image generally it may be translated an image generally and seeing he speaketh of the vnlawefull vse of images it may also be translated an idoll as the worde is nowe taken to signifie Howe the late pettie Prelates of the seconde Nicene Councell were disposed to vse the worde to colour their blasphemous idolatrie it is not materiall The auncient dictionaries of Suidas Phauorinus Hesychius with the examples of Homer Plato and other auncient Greeke Authors are of more credite for the true and auncient signification of that word MART. 18. This then being so that wordes must be translated as their common vse and signification requireth if you aske your olde question what great crime of corruption is committed in translating keepe your selues from images the Greeke being 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you haue aunswered your selfe that in so translating idoll and image are made to signifie one thing which may not be done no more than Tyrant and King can be made to signifie all one And how can you say then that this is no more absurditie than in steede of a Greeke worde to vse a Latine of the same signification Are you not here cōtrary your selfe Are idoll and image Tyrant and King of one signification sayd you not that in the English tongue idoll is growen to an other signification than image as tyrant is growen to an other signification than King Your false translations therefore that in so many places make idols and images all one not onely forcing the word in the holy Scriptures but disgracing the sentence thereby as Ephes. 5. Col. 3. are they not in your owne iudgement very corrupt and as your owne consciences must confesse of a malitious intent corrupted to disgrace thereby the Churches holy images by pretence of the holy Scriptures that speake onely of the Pagans idols FVLK 18. Againe I repeate that wordes must or may be translated according to that signification they had in time of the writer whome you translate And to my question what absurditie is it in that text of Saint Iohn for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to translate image you aunswer by that meanes idoll and image are made to signifie one thing But that is not so for image signifieth more generally than idoll in English and image aunswereth properly to the Greeke worde 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 idoll to the meaning of Saint Iohn that is of wicked images so that the translation is good Euen as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may be translated a King generally according to the worde and if the Author meane of a cruell King it may be translated a Tyrant For King is a generall word applyed to good Kings and to euill as image is to lawefull and vnlawefull images Therefore our translations that for 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saye an image are not false much lesse anye malicious corruptions And if the translators in so doing intended to disgrace popishe images I thinke they did wel and according to the meaning of the holy Ghost who forbidding generally all images that may be had in religious reuerence did not restraine the signification of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the wicked idols of the Gentiles but left it at large to comprehend all such images and all kindes of worshipping them as are contrary to the lawe and commaundement of God MART. 19. But of the vsuall and originall signification of wordes whereof you take occasion of manifold corruptions we will speake more anone if first we touch some other your falsifications against holy images as where you affectate to thrust the word Image into the text when there is

speach but either writtē by Barnabas as Tertullian holdeth or by Luke the Euangelist as some men thinke or by Clemens that after was B. of the Romane church whom they say to haue ordered adorned the sentēces of Paul in his own speach or els truly bicause Paule did write vnto the Hebrews because of the enuie of his name amōg thē he cut of the title in the beginning of the salutation These things cōsidered what neede those tragical exclamations in so trifling a matter Doth not the title tell it is S. Paules why strike they out S. Paules name what an hereticall peeuishnesse is this For lacke of good matter you are driuen to lowde clamors against vs but I will euen conclude in your owne wordes I reporte me to all indifferent men of common sense whether we do it to deminish the credite of the epistle which of al S. Paules epistles we might least misse when we come to dispute against your Popish sacrifice sacrificing priesthood or whether you do not craftily moue a scruple in the mindes of simple persons to make thē doubt of the auctoritie of that epistle whose double cannon shot you are not able to beare whē it is thūdred out against you vnder colour that it is not of sound credit among our selues that vse it against you Which of al the lies that euer Satan inuented taught you to vtter is one of the most abhominable MART. 12. I know very well that the authoritie of Canonicall Scripture standeth not vpon the certaintie of the author but yet to be Paules or not Paules Apostolicall or not Apostolicall maketh great difference of credite and estimation For what made S. Iames epistle doubted of sometime or the second of S. Peter and the rest but that they were not thought to be the epistles of those Apostles This Luther sawe very well when he denied S. Iames epistle to be Iames the Apostles writing If titles of bookes be of no importāce then leaue out Matthew Marke Luke and Iohn leaue out Paule in his other epistles also and you shall much pleasure the Manichees and other old Heretikes if the titles make no difference vrge no more the title of the Apocalypse S. Iohn the Diuines as though it were not S. Iohns the Euangelistes and you shall much displeasure some Heretikes now a daies Briefly most certaine it is and they know it best by their owne vsual doings that it is a principall way to the discredite of any booke to denie it to be that authors vnder whose name it hath bene receiued FVLK 12. If you know so well that the auctoritie of the Canonical scripture standeth not vpō the certaintie of the auctor as in deede it doth not For the bookes of Iudges of Ruth of Samuel the later of the Kings c. who can certainly affirme by whom they were written with what forehead do you charge vs to doubte of the auctoritie of this epistle because we reporte out of the auncient writers the vncertaintie of the auctor or leaue out that title whiche is not certainely true But yet you say to be Paules or not Paules apostolicall or not apostolicall maketh great difference of credite and estimation If by apostolicall you meane of apostolicall spirite or auctoritie I agree to that you say of apostolical or not apostolicall If you meane apostolicall that only which was writtē by some Apostle you will make great difference of credite estimatiō betweene the Gospell of Marke Luke and the Actes of the Apostles from the gospels of Mathew and Iohn But which of vs I pray you that thinketh that this epistle was not writtē by S. Paul once doubteth whether it be not of Apostolicall spirite and auctoritie Which is manifest by this that both in preaching and writing wee cite it thus the Apostle to the Hebrewes And if it were written by S. Luke or by S. Clement which both were Apostolike men seing it is out of controuersie that it was written by the spirite of God it is doubtlesse Apostolicall and differeth not in credite and estimation from those writings that are knowen certainly to haue bene writtē by the Apostles But I maruel greatly why you write that to be Paules or not Paules maketh great difference of credite estimation Those epistles that are Peters and Iohns are not Paules yet I thinke their is no great difference of credite estimation betweene them Paules What you thinke I know not but you write very suspitiously You aske what made S. Iames epistle or the second of Peter and the rest to be sometimes doubted of but that they were not thought to be the epistles of those Apostles Yes something else or else they doubted vainely of them and without iuste cause as I thinke they did But when their were two Apostles called Iames he that doubteth whether the epistle was written by Iames the brother of Iohn is persuaded it was written rather by Iames the sonne of Alphaeus doubteth nothing of the credit auctoritie estimation of the epistle No more doe wee which doubt whether the epistle to the Hebrewes were written by S. Paule seeing we are perswaded it was written either by S. Barnabas or by S. Luke or by S. Clement as the auncient writers thought or by some other of the Apostles or Euangelists we make no question but that it is Apostolicall and of equall auctoritie with the rest of the holy scriptures But Eusebius denied the epistle of S. Iames because he was perswaded that it was written by no Apostle or Apostolike man and therefore saith plainly that it is a bastard or counterset and so belike was Luther deceiued if euer he denied it as you say he did But if titles of bookes be of no importance say you then leaue out Matthew Marke Iohn and Paule in his other Epistles What nede that I pray you Is there no difference betwene leauing out a title whereof there hath bene great vncertaintie and diuersitie in Gods church and which in some Greeke copies both written and printed is left out and in leauing out those titles that neuer were omitted nor neuer any question or controuersie moued of them by any of the auncient catholike fathers But you will vs to vrge no more the title of the Apocalypse of S. Iohn the Diuine as though it were not S. Iohn the Euangelistes we shall please I know not what heretikes of our time except it be the Papistes whom it would most concerne that the reuelation of S. Iohn in which their Antichrist of Rome is so plainly described were brought out of credit But if you had read Bezaes preface before the Apocalypse you should finde that euen by that title he gathereth a probable argument that it was written by Iohn the Euangelist because it is not like that this excellent name THE DIVINE coulde agree to any Iohn in the Apostles time so aptly as to Sainct Iohn the Euangelist beside the consent of al antiquitie