Selected quad for the lemma: spirit_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
spirit_n	ghost_n	holy_a	receive_v	18,187	5	5.7163	4	true

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A54760	Dr. Oates's narrative of the Popish plot, vindicated in an answer to a scurrilous and treasonable libel, call'd, A vindication of the English Catholicks, from the pretended conspiracy against the life and government of His Sacred Majesty, &c. / by J.P., gent.	Phillips, John, 1631-1706.	1680 (1680)	Wing P2083; ESTC R21048	60,667	56

His Address to the Reader he calls to the Courteous Reader for indeed the Reader must be very courteous that takes notice what he says and tells him he is to examine a Pamphlet which is singular in its kind He means something else whatever it is help him Mrs. Cellier For certainly this was not the first detection that ever was made of Popish Conspiracy and Treason in England and therefore not singular in its kind But he endeavours to explain himself saying It is an Original for its Author found none to copy and he hopes none will ever copy him In truth I don't understand him yet 't was very discourteously done to chop Nonsence upon a courteous Reader at the first dash It was a violent strain to usher in a Quibble But whatever the Vindicator meant the Author of the Original never meant it should be other He does well to confess it an Original for then you may be sure it was the Authors own No work he says so like the True Narrative as Lucians True History What did this Fool mean to bring the True Narrative and Lucian's True History together between which there is no more Paralell or Similitude than between an Oyster and a Pippin If he did it to shew his Learning he is cursedly mistaken to conclude the falshood of the true Narrative from the truth of Lucians true History For to tell him the truth Lucian 's true History is no true History so that by the force of his Antithesis Lucians true History being feigned the True Narracive must be true However like one that never read Lucians true History he essayes to make out his Comparison and sayes Lucians true History is witty the True Narrative stupid Go on That delights this grieves That laughs this bites A very pretty description of a true History However in so doing it did the Office it was intended for it did both grieve and bite but none but those that deserved it which was a greater Argument of its being true than any the Vindicator has brought out of Lucian to prove it false So that I am apt to believe this Conceit of the Vindicators was conceived in his Heel as Lucian in his True History tells ye the Men in the Moon conceived and not in his Head However he has placed it in the Forefront of his Battel to shew ye the strength of his Imagination He sayes He never saw the man Non imperte and so knows nothing of him but by hear-say and his works which discover his better part his soul I find the shallow Vindicators Prospective-glass was too short to discover his Soul but as to his Body it being allowable among the Iesuits to abuse those they never saw in their lives he adds That his Physiognomy in a Pamphlet is said to be an Index to all Villany and that any letter'd man may read Rogue in his face This denotes in the Vindicator two Jesuitical perfections Malice and Rascality from the single authority of a Pamphlet to call a man Rogue that he never saw in his life And who wrote this Pamphlet A certain Fortune-teller of their own Gang. A very easie way of defamation to borrow Reproaches from one another However there be that say if they had had his face they would not have chang'd it with any of the five Jesuits that were hang'd Certain it is that being presented to the Bishop of St. Omers for Confirmation he stopt when he came to Oats because he doubted whether his heart was prepared to receive the Holy Ghost the Spirit of Love in whose face He perceived signs of great Malice It seems then the Vindicator Berogu'd the man he never saw by his own Confession upon trust the more Knave he for his pains for he was not certain of the first but he is certain of This. And what does this signifie As if the Bishop of St. Omers spoke nothing but Gospel Men must be scandaliz'd by such Enemies to Truth as the Vindicator because such disciples of Artemidorus as the Bishop of St. Omers shoot their fools bolts at Random against a Young Scholars face An excellent Reward for a Proselite that came to be admitted into their foppish Religion But to return your Bishop Physiognomie for his Physiognomie St. Francis one of his great Saints was such a contemptible ill-look't beetle-brow'd fellow that when he came to Innocent the Third for the Confirmation of his Rule the Pope bid him go wallow with the Hogs for whom he was fitter company than for men and not trouble him with his Rules So much may the Pope much more the Bishop of St. Omers be deceived in Humane Physiognomie The Vindicator goes on He stiles himself quoth he Doctor of Divinity and sayes he commenced Doctor at Salamanca Which cannot be First for he never was at Salamanca To which the Doctor answers That it may be for First he was at Salamanca Now whether the Doctors Argument be not as good as the Vindicators I leave to any ordinary Logician Nay it is more probable that the Doctor should know whether he was at Salamanca or no than a man that never saw him in his life Secondly None but Priests saith He are admitted to that Degree in Catholick Vniversities and he never was a Priest To this the Doctor makes answer that the Vindicator is in a very great errour For that Father Landayada when he was only a Clericus Minor was made a Doctor and that he was not made a Priest till some time afterwards But the Doctor could not stay for his Priesthood because of his urgent occasions in England Then the Vindicator tells ye a story of the Archbishop of Tuam how the Doctor wrote to him for Holy Orders which the Bishop deny'd him because of the ill Charracter he heard of his Life and Manners Who does this Vindicator write to certainly not to the Protestants and then what does his Vindication signifie Here is an Irish Priest that pretends to an Archbishoprick in the King of Englands Dominions to which he has no more right than Tom Thumb one that lives under the ill Character of an Exile a Renegado one that has renounc'd his Allegiance to his Soveraign and as a Foreigner gives Him only the Title of Most Serene King of Great Britain and because this Hedge Archbishop would not give the Doctor what he had no Power or authority to conferre and to excuse himself pretends an ill Character of the Doctor therefore this must pass for currant 'T is easily believ'd that they who usurp all the good Characters to themselves have none to spare for the Doctor the Capital Enemy of their Treasons and Impieties It argues nothing but meer spite and malice to lay general Accusations against a mans Physiognomy and reproach him with the general Term of an ill Character when they lay nothing in particular to his charge And so good night to this silly Objection Thirdly He had not Learning sufficient for any Degree in a Catholick