Selected quad for the lemma: ground_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
ground_n	prove_v	religion_n	true_a	5,057	5	6.8388	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A09107	A relation of the triall made before the King of France, vpon the yeare 1600 betvveene the Bishop of Eureux, and the L. Plessis Mornay About certayne pointes of corrupting and falsifying authors, wherof the said Plessis was openly conuicted. Newly reuewed, and sett forth againe, with a defence therof, against the impugnations both of the L. Plessis in France, & of O.E. in England. By N.D.	Parsons, Robert, 1546-1610.	1604 (1604)	STC 19413; ESTC S121884	121,818	242

therof and yet would he auouch that no true Catholike had vsed the same but being reprehended for yt and told of his lyinge by his aduersary diuers Fathers cited for proofe therof and his owne Maister Caluyn and his brother VVillett for acknowledginge the same yet commeth he now to affirme and print yt againe in his second edition of his chalenge and dissembleth peruerteth and shifteth of the authorityes both of the said Fathers Caluyn himselfe as though they had neuer ben obiected against him And what will yow say to this manner of dealinge will you aduenture your soule with such a man or will yow giue creditt any more to his fond crakinge or vauntinge aboue mentioned But we are ouerlong in this third part cannot well get out of it through the multitude of aduantages that Sutcliffe geueth vs in pursuinge him in this his chase of defendinge himselfe yet must we sound retreat and say only a word or two of the fourth part of this his new booke conteyninge as yow haue heard a heap or fardell of recriminations gathered togeather against auncient Popes Councells synods historiographers and other Catholike wryters and lastly against Cardinall Bellarmyne Cardinall Baronius and F. Parsons by which ostentation of names and authors he would make men beleeue that all the world were full of corruptions and falsifications in wrytinge and consequently that those of his and of his fellowes are little to be respected but when the occasion shall come to aunswere this second edition at large the differences wil be shewed and how vainly this little enuious mouse hath gone about to gnibble at Catholike authors edges of their garments particularly at the wrytings of the most famous learned and honourable men of our tyme Cardinall Bellarmine and Cardinall Baronius who haue so beaten downe heresy with their most excellent works as by allusion we may say of them in respect of Sutcliffe ipsi conterunt caput tuum tu vero insidiaris eorum calcaneis they haue broken thy head and thou doest byte at their heeles Of the third which is F. Persons and the obiections heere brought against his wrytings we had thought to haue spoken somewhat more particularly but lacke of tyme and roome maketh vs also to albreuiate this yet somewhat for example sake shal be said Sutcliffe nameth two books of his the first entituled A briefe discourse conteyninge reasons why Catholiks refuse to go to Church The next is called A Christian directory and commonly knowne by the name saith he of Parsons Resolution Against the former booke he bringeth two reasons as wise as his head can deuise the one that he promised to make three parts of that booke and performed but one abusinge saith he both his frends and aduersaryes with his false promises The other reason is saith he for that to persuade men not to go to Protestāts Church must needs stand vpon this supposition that the Popes Religion is true and therfore he should first haue proued this principle before he had gone about to giue reasons to stand stedfast therin But now saith he yf Parsons can say nothinge why the Religion in England is not Catholike and Apostolicall then all his reasons fall to the ground These two reasons do well declare what a man of worth Sutcliffe is And not to shew on my parte distrust in the Readers iudgement I will not go about to refute such vanityes For if this last reason haue any force yt proueth also that no Protestant Preacher or wryter may exhort any of his Religion to constancy perseuerance patience humility or any other vertue except he proue first all that Religion to be true But lett vs passe to the other booke perhaps his obiections wil be stronger against that His directory also saith he is a most idle and vayne discourse so idle and vaynè do seeme all treatises of piety to this prophane minister yt should consist of three parts but as the fashion is of three promised he keepeth backe two performeth the third very simply This is his censure of that booke And presently as he is fertile in inuention though foolish in his election he commeth with eyght choise accusations against yt The first is for that he proueth there is a God and that Christian Religion is true aboue all other Religions and that he treateth against dispayre of Gods mercyes tentations and too much feare of persecution VVhich rather doth hinder a man saith Sutcliffe from leading a Christian life then help him to resolue The second That the greatest part saith he is taken out of Loartes Stella Granatensis and other such authors The third for that yt argueth Catholikes to be badd Christians that they must be taught there is a God hell heauen and the like The fourth That Sutcliffe doth not find that yt hath made hitherto any one Christian or directed him to the way of lyfe but many yong men to the gallowes The fifth that yt hath not brought Father Persons him selfe yet to a good resolution nor to enter into Religion The sixt For that his discourse to proue that there is a God and but one true Religion and that there is a heauen hell among Christians already well persuaded is impertinent The seauenth For that yt is diuided into speculation and practice as yf saith he a man could practise that is not entred into the exercise of Religion or as yf resolution were not farre differēt from practise The eight last for that yt is fraught with idle discourses the principall point so weakely proued that yt will rather make Christians to doubt of Religion then atheists to beleeue These are Sutcliffes reasons which shew the mans depth and conforme to these are his obiections picked out of the forsaid two books about allegation wherof I would gladly haue sett downe some halfe adozen at least for example so to haue seene the weight and substance therof but that I am forced to make an end referring my selue to a fuller examē when his reply shall come forth Now then only I am to aduertise the Reader that he weigh with himselue what manner of man Sutcliffe is in these his wrytings he vaunteth and chalengeth as yow see as yf he were agyant and when he cometh to the gryping he is iust nothing he offereth to answere for all as Iewell Fox Peter Martyr Ridley Fulke Plessis Mornay whome els yow will besides but when yt cometh to the triall he is able neither to make good for them nor for himselfe and is iust like a knight of the post that will offer to be surety for ten thousand pounds when all his owne substance is not worth ten shillings His writings are loose ragged negligent barr●n obscure and vnsauery without substance either of learning prudēce sharpnes or good stile yf yow looke them ouer yow shall find them for the most part fraught furnished only with bare assertions

be brought and the places read openly which was done out of the constitutions of Iustinian printed at Geneua and the words were read there as the B. had alleaged them and the same shewed out of diuers other authors more ancient then Iustinian as Rusticus Diaconus Sedulius presbyter Athanasius and S. Chrysostome Which being done Plessis came out with another obiection of Minutius Foelix who answeringe to one Cecilius a pagan said Cruces nec colimus nec optamus We do neither worshipp nor wish for Crosses but the Bishop shewed this to be but a rest and quite against himselfe For that the pagan hauing obiected to Christians that they honoured Crucem wherby he vnderstood a gibbett or gallowes said Christiani adorant merentur Crucem Christians do adore and do deserue the gibbett in which sense Minutius answered him Nos Cruces nec colimus nec optamus we do neyther worship nor wish Crosses in your sense that is to say gibbetts And all did maruayle at Plessis that he would bring in this deceatfull obiection out of which notwithstandinge the Bishop inferred that except the Pagan Cecilius had knowen in those dayes that Christians worshipped Crosses he would neuer haue obiected the same so confidently against them eyther in iest or in earnest And this being done the B. demaunded iudgment vpon the place but there stept vp one Monsieur Mercier one of the secretaryes of the conference for the Protestants side sayinge that by the text of S. Cyrill there lyinge on the table before them yt was manifest that he obiected vnto Iulian extremam imperitiam extreme ignorance or lacke of skill in Christian affayres for obiectinge to them that they honoured the Crosse and made the signe therof vpon their foreheads and dores which by likelyhood he would neuer haue done yf Christians had vsed to do so indeed Whervnto the Bishop answered that S. Cyrill did not obiect ignorance about the fact and custome of honouringe the Crosse and makinge the signe therof as is aforesaid for that this thing was so notoriously knowne as yt had byn rather lacke of witt or shame then skill in Iulian to obiect yt yf no such vse had byn but S. Cyrill accused him of ignorance and folly for his illation made thervpon which was that Christians were miserable contemptible therby to witt for yelding so much honour to the signe of a crosse or gibbett so odious to them as nothinge more And this to be his meaninge is plaine by S. Cyrills whole discourse which was there read both in Greeke and Latyn in these words Furthermore saith he Iulian calleth vs miserable who are so carefull alwayes to signe our houses and foreheads with the signe of the pretious Crosse but we shall easily demonstrate vnto him that such kind of speaches do proceed from vvicked cogitations and do sauour of extreme ignorance c. Which text being pondered the iudges hauing conferred among themselues this sentence was giuen vpon the place of S. Cyrill before alleaged Que le passage allegué par le Sieur du Plessis ne se trouoit point dans S. Cyrille That the passage alleaged heere by the L. Plessis out of S. Cyrill is not found at all in Cyrill Of which sentence yow see the consequence that ensueth to wit that Plessis had made or diuised yt of himselfe The seauenth Place examined out of the Code or Imperiall lawes about paintinge or caruings the signe of the Crosse. After the place of S. Cyrill examined and found falsified about worshipping the crosse as you haue heard there was brought into triall another place concerning the same argument about a law of the two Emperors Theodosius Valens cyted by Plessis in the 223. page of his booke against paintinge or caruing the image of the crosse in these words VVhat wil these men say to wit the Catholiks of the Emperors Theodosius Valēs that prohibited expressely by edict this custome of painting or caruing images of our sauiour For so much say they as we haue care of nothing more then of the seruice of God we forbidd all sorts of persons to make the signe of our Sauiour Iesus Christ either in colours stone or other matter either to engraue paint or cutt the same but rather whersoeuer any such thing shal be foūd that yt be taken away vnder paine of greuous punishmēt So cyteth Plessis the words of the law But the B. of Eureux shewed that this cytation is full of willfull fraud and corruption for that amōg other things it leaueth out the words humi in solo which signifie on the ground which words conteyne the very life and sense of all the whole text law alleaged do declare the true meaning of the law-makers therin for that the true text of the law in the code lyeth thus Cùm sit nobis cura diligens c. Wheras our care is diligent in all things to defend the Religion of almighty God we commaund that it shall not be lawfull for any man to carue or paint the signe of our Sauiour Christ either on the ground or in any stone or marble lyinge vpon the ground c. Which ordination the Bishopp did shew to haue byn made by the Emperors for more honour of sacred images of our sauiour to the end that they should not be defiled with mens feete as appeareth by the same prohibition made and confirmed not long after by the Councell of Constantinople named In Trullo where it is said vve commaund that all the figures of the Crosse that are made vpon pauiments be taken away or defaced to the end that the triumphant signe of our victory be not vnworthily defiled by mens feete And at this sore charge Monsieur Plessis seemed much ashtonished and had no other refuge but to say that he alleaged the text as he found yt alleaged by Petrus Crinitus but the Bishopp replyed that it had byn conuenient for a man of Plessis quality and profession in learning before he had wrytten and printed this thing and especially before he had so insolently asked the question what Catholikes would say vnto it to haue seene the place it selfe knowinge that Petrus Crinitus was but a rash grammarian of later tymes reprehended of this very falsification by sundry learned men of our dayes and namely by Alanus Copus Doctor Sanders Cardinall Bellarmine and others Which Plessis could not but know and haue seene and moreouer the very title of the law yt selfe is extant in the Code in these words Nemini licere signum saluatoris Christi humi vel in scilice vel in marmore aut insculpere aut pingere Which is that it is not lawfull for any man to engraue or paint the signe of our Sauiour Christ on the ground eyther in flint or marble which title of the law seemeth impossible but that Plessis must haue seene and read for so much as he cyteth diuers other lawes out