Selected quad for the lemma: king_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
king_n	work_n	write_v	year_n	1,239	4	4.8613	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A01008	A plea for the reall-presence Wherein the preface of Syr Humfrey Linde, concerning the booke of Bertram, is examined and censured. Written by I.O. vnto a gentleman his friend.	Floyd, John, 1572-1649.; Lynde, Humphrey, Sir.	1624 (1624)	STC 11113; ESTC S115112	24,472	65

As who should say Oecolampadius could not be a Berengarian in opinion infect bookes with that leuen because he liued fiue hundred yeares after Berengarius The fifth errour is to thinke that Catholickes who say Bertram writ a booke of the body blood of our Lord do therefore affirme this booke set out by Oecolampadius to be his booke also to be pure and incorrupt without any nouell insertion of hereticall stuffe This errour is transcendentall in all this quarell with the Iury but (m) fol. 6. b. lin 10. particulerly it causeth him to conceaue a dissention betwixt Heskins that sayth Bertram writ a booke suspiciously and Sixtus Senensis who saith that the booke was corrupted and set forth by Oecolampadius in Bertrams name A great contradiction sure Might not the booke that was written doubtfully by Bertram be corrupted afterward by plaine hereticall assertions set out in his name so corrupted by Oecolampadius The sixt errour that a pious and godly man may not write darkely concerning some mystery of fayth Hence because Espencaeus the 11. Iuror sayth Bertrams booke to be darke obscure intangling his Reader he vrgeth him to contradict Tritemius (n) In chronico the twelfe and the last Iurour saying Bertram was a learned and Godly man and writ a booke of the body and bloud of our Lord yea syr Humfrey (o) fol. 7. a lin 18. to make heere some shew of contradiction where none is with more cunning then sincerity helpeth the matter For whereas Tritemius sayth Bertram writ a prayse-worthy worke of Predestination and one booke of the body and blood of our Lord Syr Humfrey leaueth out the book of predestination and turnes the title of prayse-worthy from it on the booke of the body and bloud of Christ making Tritemius say Bertram writ a prayse-worthy worke to wit one booke concerning the body and blood of our Lord. Can this be well excused in syr Humfrey from witting misrelation to deceaue In the second kind to wit concerning syr Humfreys eyther of falshood or ignorance of latin I set downe these six examples which ioyned with the other six make vp a Iury. First to winne a few yeares of antiquity vnto Bertram and to make him seeme the great writer of Charles the Great whereas Tritemius sayth that Bertram writ a prayse-worthy worke Ad Carolii Regem fratrē Lotharij Imperatoris Vnto King Charles brother of Lotharius Emperour he translates Vnto (p) fol. 7. a lin 13. Charles the Great the Brother of Lotharius the Emperour which is grosse and ridiculous absurdity in history euery man that hath any smacke of learning knowing that Lotharius was Grand-child to Charles the Great not his brother Secondly to the same purpose Whereas the (q) Iudex expurgat Belgic in Bertramo Doway-censure sayth that Bertram was Carus Carolo non tam magno quàm caluo Deare vnto Charles not so great as bald he translates Deare (r) fol. 10. a. lin 2. vnto Charles the Great Syr Humfrey was loth that this his so much esteemed Bertram on whose head he hath set all his credit he hath or is like to haue should be thought to haue written to a bald Emperor fearing some should thēce inferre that he was a bald Authour as they may with as much reason as Syr Humfrey doth conclude (s) fol. 3. b lin 5. 6. that he was a Great authour and no flye because he writ to a Great Emperour De visib monar l. 7 An. 816. Thirdly whereas D. Sanders sayth Quidam suspicantur some suspect the booke of Bertram to be forged vnder his name he translates (u) fol. 5. b lin 9. some say vpon this and no better euidency (x) fol. 6. a lin 3. accuseth Doctour Sanders that he sayth The booke is not Bertrams but some obscure Authour As though there were no difference betwixt doubting and iudging suspecting and saying whereas when we haue but suspition of a thing the common phrase is I cannot say it Fourthly whereas Valentia sayth Dubium (y) Valen. de presen Christi in Euchar. l. 1. cap. 2. est it may be doubted whether Bertram be authour of this booke fieri potest it may be that Bertram writ catholikly his booke was afterward corrupted Notwithstanding this so great cautelousnes of Valentia to shew he did but coniecture Syr Humfrey makes him peremptory absolute and to say without any doubt or feare The (z) fol. 6. a lin 13. worke is spurious Fiftly whereas Garetius sayth Delirare coepit Bertramus Bertram began to write dotingly Syr Humfrey translates He (a) fol. 5. a lin 20. was an old dotard fondly and dotingly For to be a dotard and to write in one matter dotingly be differēt things seeing one act implyeth not the habit yea a learned man in some occasion may write absurdly Neyther doth Garetius mislike Bertram in regard of his agednes or antiquity as Syr Humfreys translation insinuates by making him say He was not only a Dotard but an old Dotard but contrarywise in respect of the nouelty of his phrase and for his new doting and because the former part of the booke is Catholicke and contrary to the later which soundes of heresy a signe that eyther the booke is corrupted or els the Authour when he writ was not present to himselfe Sixtly whereas the Doway-censure sayth Non diffitear Bertranum nesciuisse exactè I will confesse Bertram knew not exactly how accidents subsist without a substance fol. 10. b. lin 22. Syr Humfrey translates I doubt not but Bertram was ignorant how accidents exactly subsist Had Syr Humfrey beene exact and not ignorāt in Latin he would not perchance haue so many wayes misconstrued a few latin wordes Especially he would neuer haue ioyned exactly with to subsist which both the text and reason shew must ioyne with to know for there is difference betwixt knowing and exact knowing but no difference betwixt subsisting and exact subsisting So that the Censure sayth not that Bertrā was wholly ignorant as Syr Humfrey pretendes they say but only that he knew not so exactly how to declare the manner of transubstantiation as Deuines in this age I omit many other the like errours committed as I suppose not in fraud but through ignorance of Latine though Syr Humfrey turne and make vse of them to the aduantagement of his heresy in blindenes of zeale These I haue noted shew sufficiently that the contentions betwixt Catholikes which Syr Humfrey would exhibite in his Preface haue no other ground but his ignorance and misprision and therefore are like to the battailles of Lucian (c) Lucian verae histo fought by mighty armyes vpon the Iland of Cobb-webs THE SECOND POINT Concerning the truth of the Authour and authority of this Booke THIS question may easily be decided among them that will set wrangling aside seeke sincerely after the truth that will distinguish what is doubtfull from what is probable and what is