divertisements of Stage-playes or Hunting or any earthly delights which cannot last but for a season and decay in our very injoying them and must soon leave us or we them but Heavenly thoughts the more and longer we practice them the better we shall like them Heavenly joyes so far exceeding all we can here leave as they are all we can ever aspire to have this we all know but few of us practice and we all love God but few love to keep his Commandments I shall therefore now Madam tell you as the Prologue to my insuing discourse that the grand Plot and whole design of it moves chiefly on these two hinges first in confirming you that the foundation of the Protestant Religion is built on God's holy Word the Scriptures which we Protestants esteem to be a perfect Rule of Faith and guide to our actions and the true Touch-stone to try all matters by that relate to the good of our Souls as certainly containing in it all things necessary to our salvation The second thing I chiefly design to prove is that neither the Pope or the Popish Church are infallible and these two shall make up the principal stories in the little Model of this small building The pretended infallibility of the Church of Rome is the grand perswasive Argument and lure to invite men to it and the strongest commanding Garrison in all the Popes power and all other Arguments and Perswasions are but like the small open Villages about this Garrison which must be servants to them that are masters of it and if a Papist can be but once convinc'd that neither the Pope nor the Popish Church are infallible they will soon be brought to reason and our remaining differences will not be very considerable I shall therefore onely lightly discourse on them and shall no further trouble you Madam then briefly to answer them in my own defence I meet them or as they follow me and shall onely do as the Wolf do's when pursued snap and bite in his own defence against all opposers without altering his pace or changing his Road I shall neither meddle with the Papists but as I meet them in the way or towards making of my way to my two designed points which are as I said before to prove the Scripture to be a perfect Rule of Faith and guide to our actions and to answer as I go the Papists main Arguments and objections against it Next that 't is against all Scripture and reason that either the Pope or the Popish Church should be infallible which is the main design of this discourse and if I can by God's assistance make but the Papists believe reason when against their own Church I doubt not but by this little Pigmie discourse as very dwarfish as 't is not onely to hinder many tottering Protestants from turning Papists but to bring some stubborn Papists to turn Protestants or at least not to have such an infallible good opinion of their Church and so damnable a bad one of ours And now Madam 't is requisite that this my discourse should be ended as soon as your Patience therefore all that I shall add either to the excusing my self or justifying Mr. Chilingworth is that thus far of this discourse being my own writing I confess deserves onely my Apology and scarce your perusal but the following discourse being extracted out of Mr. Chillingworth deserves your reading but needs not any Apology And because I find the word Protestant is so badly and over-largely interpreted I shall first acquaint you that we are not to understand by the word Protestant the Doctrine of Luther or Calvin or Geneva or onely the Articles of the Church of England but that wherein they all agree with perfect Harmony that the Bible is a perfect Rule of our Faith and guide to our Actions and this after having made the most diligent and impartial search of the true way to Eternal happiness I fully believe and that we can never find any convincing satisfaction but on this Rock of Gods word the Bible which I conceive to be the onely true Religion of Protestants If the Pope were indeed what he unjustly sayes he is the Papists unreasonably believe him to be an infallible guide then there needed no Bible but if the Bible be then there needs no Pope for if I were to go a journey and had a guide that could not err what need I be taught the way and having such a guide what need I apply my self to another So that in a word let us inform our selves the best we can and consider as much as we please the more consideration we take the more confirmation we shall find that there is no other foundation for a considering Christian to build an assured dependency on than the Scriptures for I am fully assur'd that God do's not and therefore man ought not to require of any man more than this to believe the Scripture to be the word of God to use our best indeavours to find the true sense of it and to live to our utmost according to it This I am sure in reason we ought to believe a wiser choice Then if I should guide my self by the Roman Churches authority and infallibility when really they have nothing of certainty but their uncertainty witness Pope against Pope Councils against Councils some of their Fathers against others and rather then fail some against themselves new Traditions inrolled and old ones Cashiered in a word one Church against another and if that be not enough the Church of one age against the Church of another Whereas the Scripture being true and unalterable and containing all things necessary to our Salvation I am secure that by believing nothing else I shall believe no falshood in matter of Faith if I mistake the true sense of Scripture and so fall into error yet I am secured from any dangerous error because whilst I am truly indeavouring to find the true ground of Scripture I cannot but hold my error without obstinacy and be ready to forsake it when a more probable and true sense shall appear unto me and then being assur'd that all necessary truths are plainly set down in Scripture I am certain by believing the Scripture to believe all necessary truth and he that do's so if his life be answerable to his Faith how is it possible he should fail of Salvation And though the Roman Church pretend to be a perfect guide of Faith and teacher of all Divine Truths yet sure that Title might much better and more justly be given to the Scriptures as their Teacher and Master The Roman Church brags how ancient their Church is but doubtless they cannot deny but the Scripture is more ancient if they will but allow the Mother to be older than the Child The Papists say their Church is a means of keeping Christians at unity so are also the Scriptures to those that believe them in unity of belief in matters necessary The
Papists say their Church is Catholick cetainly the Scripture is more Catholick for all true Christians in the universal world do now and ever did believe the Scriptures to be the Word of God so much at least as to contain all things necessary to salvation whereas the Papists say They onely are the true Church and all other Christians though more than they give them the lye for saying so By following the Scriptures I follow that whereby the Papists prove their Churches Infallibility for were it not for Scripture what pretence could the Papists have for it or what true Notion could they receive of it so that by so doing the Papists must plainly confess That they themselves are surer of the Truth of Scripture than of their Churches Authority for we must be surer of the proof than of the thing proved or else 't is no proof so that following Scripture I follow that which must be true if the Papists Church be true for their Church allows it's truth whereas if I follow the Roman Church I must follow that which though the Scripture be true may be false nay more must be false if the Scripture be true because the Scripture is against it Following the Papists Church I must be a servant to my Saviour and a subject to my King onely at the pleasure of the Pope and renounce my Allegiance when the Popes will is to declare him an Heretick nay I must believe vertue vice and vice vertue if he pleases for he both makes and unmakes Scripture as he thinks convenient witness the Apocrypha which hath not past for Canonical but of late years in the Papists Church who interpret Scripture according to their Doctrine but will not judge their Doctrine according to Scripture for none like to weigh light Money in true scales In short the Pope adds and lessens and interprets Divine Laws as he pleases and they must stand for Laws and be obeyed as such so that in effect he rules his people by his own Laws and his own Laws by his own Lawyers his Clergy who dare not speak nor uphold them other than just such as the Pope would have them and indeed Cardinal Richelieu gave the reason why more hold the Pope above the Councils than the Councils above the Pope because the Pope gave Archbishopricks and Bishopricks but the Councils had none to give and though the Papists say his Holiness cannot err yet let not the Papists forget what God sayes in the Scripture if not onely the Pope but if an Angel from Heaven shall preach any thing against the Gospel of Christ let him be accursed In following the Scripture we have God's express command and no colour of any prohibition but to believe the Popish Church infallible we have no Scripture-command at all much less an express one Following the Popish Church we must believe many things not onely above reason but against reason witness Transubstantiation whereas following the Scripture we shall believe many miseries but no impossibilities many things above our reason but nothing against it Nay we need not believe any thing which reason will not convince us we ought to believe for reason will convince any sober Christian that the Scripture is the Word of God and there 's no reason can be greater than this that God says it therefore it must be true In a word we Protestants believe that all things necessary to our salvation are evidently contain'd in Scripture and what is not there evidently contained cannot be necessary to be believed and our reason is just and clear because nothing can challenge our 〈◊〉 as to salvation but what hath descended to us from our Blessed Saviour Christ Jesus by original and universal Tradition now nothing but Scripture hath thus descended to us therefore nothing but Scripture can challenge our Belief Now the grand difference between the Papists and us concerning the Scripture is this We hold the Scripture to be the onely perfect Rule whereby to judge of Controversies The Papists say That they acknowledge the Scriptures to be a perfect Rule onely they deny that it excluded unwritten Tradition which in effect is this they say 'T is as perfect a Rule as a Writing can be onely they deny it to be as perfect a Rule as a Writing may be either they must revoke their acknowledgment or retract their contradiction of it for both cannot possibly stand together for if they will but stand to what they have granted that Scripture is as perfect a Rule of Faith as a Writing can be they must then grant it so compleat as it needs no addition and so evident that it needs no interpretation for both these properties are requisite to a perfect Rule and that a writing is capable of both these properties and perfections is most plain for he that denies it must say that something may be spoken which cannot be written for if such a compleat evident rule of Faith may be delivered by word of mouth as the Papists pretend may and is and whatsoever is delivered by word of mouth may also be written then such a compleat and evident rule of Faith may also be written for the Argument is most plain whatsoever may be spoken may be written a perfect rule of Faith has been spoken therefore a perfect rule of Faith may be written If the Papists cannot see this plain conclusion they had best desire more light to be added to the Sun The Papist pretend their Church to be the infallible Teacher of all Divine Truths and an infallible interpreter of all obscurities in the Faith but the Papists will I hope give us leave to admire how they can pretend to Teach them in all places without writing them down that is certainly beyond the reach of their power to do as well as our belief that 't is to be done And for the Papists saying there must be a living authority beside the Scripture or else controversies cannot be ended Protestants answer necessary controversies are and may be decided and if they be not 't is not the defect of the rule in Scripture but the default of men so that if necessary controversies be ended 't is no matter if the unnecessary be not for doubtless if God had required it he would also have provided some means to effect it but sure it does not stand with any reason it should be the Pope because he cannot be a Judge being a partie indeed in civil controversies a Judge without being a partie may end them but in controversies of Religion a Judge of necessity must be a concerned partie and I am sure the Pope to us is the chief and most concerned partie being really concerned as much as his Popedom is worth Now we Protestants make the Papists this plain answer that the means of agreeing differences must necessarily be either by the appointment of God or men men sure it cannot be for then rational wise Protestants may doe as well as Papists for let the
Protestants do the same But we must desire the Papists to give us leave to tell them that they most grosly mistake if they say they agree in matters of Faith as for proof some of them hold it against Faith to take the Oath of Allegiance others 't is against Faith to refuse that Oath Some hold it of Faith that the Pope is head of the Church by Divine Law others the contrary some hold it of Faith that the blessed Virgin was free from actual sin others the contrary some that the Popes power over Princes in Temporalities is de fide others the contrary some that 't is universal Tradition that the Virgin Mary was conceived in actual sin others the contrary And how the Jesuites and Franciscans and other Orders differ to this day I am sure needs no memorandum and the best Jeast of all is the Papists have not so much as yet agreed in their very pretended means of agreement and yet have the confidence to pretend an Unity more than the Protestants sor some of them say the Pope with a Council may determine all Controversies others deny it Some hold That a general Council without a Pope may do so others deny this Others say Both in conjunction are infallible Determiners others deny this And some among the Papists hold The acceptation on of the Decrees of Councils by the Universal Church is the onely way to decide Controversies which others deny by denying their Church to be infallible and yet every part pretends to be part of the Church In a word can the Papists deny but that there has been Popes against Popes Councils against Councils Nay Councils confirmed by Popes against Popes confirmed by Councils And Lastly The Church of some Ages against the Church of other Ages and since every part of the Body is so out of order methinks they should not brag of so perfect a health as they do The Papists say and do but say it that their Doctrine is held Catholick and therefore they esteem it an insolent madness of us Protestants to dispute against the practice of the whole Church First That their Doctrine is Catholick we answer That the greatest number of Christians in the world deny it so that they cannot truly say we dispute against the practice of the whole Church And farther we say supposing we should in complement to them grant that their Church is Catholick and Universal yet we say That is no sufficient proof it came originally from the Apostles witness the Doctrine of the Milenaries and the necessity of the Eucharist for Infants which was generally taught by the Universal Church and believed as Apostolical Tradition but yet contradicted by the Universal Church afterwards This I am sure the Papists dare not deny so that we unavoidably cast the Papists upon this Rock that they must either conclude the Apostles were Fountains of contradictorie Doctrines or that the Universal Doctrine of the present Church is no sufficient proof that it came originally from the Apostles because from Church Universal of one time and the Church Universal of another time did differ Next for their saying 't is insolent madness to dispute against the practice of the whole Church First we are sure we can bring more Christian witnesses that deny they are the whole Church than they can bring to prove it but supposing we were as mad as they say we are and would have us to be to dispute against the whole practice of the Church yet I hope we may desire to know of the Papists if they can deny but that 't was the practice of the whole Church in St. Au'stine's time and esteemed then an Apostolical Tradition even by St. Au'stine himself that the Eucharist should be administred to Infants And then let them tell us Whether it be insolent madness to dispute against the practice of the whole Church or is it not if it be not why do they accuse us for it but if it be insolent madness how mad and insolent is the Papist Church not onely to dispute against this practice of the Universal Church of administring the Eucharist to Infants but utterly abolishing the practice of it So that the very worst the Papists can say of us allowing what they say to be true is that we but do what they themselves own already to have done And though the Papists are pleased to say that the Holy Scriptures and ancient Fathers assign separation from the visible Church as a mark of Heresie yet they cannot shew one plain Text of Scripture to confirm it And for the Papists braging of the Antiquity and universality of their Churches Doctrine though we allow it very ancient bating the primative times we answer first as to its Antiquity we desire to see what Antiquity they can shew for their giving the Communion but in one kind when they know that the Administring it in both kinds was the practice of the Church for a Thousand years after Christ what Antiquitie for the lawfulness and expediency of the Latine service for the present use of indulgences For the Popes power in Temporalities over Princes for the Picturing the Trinity For the lawfulness of worshipping Pictures and Images Fox their Beads For their whole worship of the blessed Virgin For their Oblations in the notion of Sacrifices to her and other Saints For their saying Pater Nosters and Creeds to the Honour of them and Ave Maries to the Virgin Mary For the infallibility of the Bishop or Church of Rome For their Doctrine of the blessed Virgins immunity from actual sin For the necessity of Auricular Confession For the necessity of the Priests intention to obtain benefit by any of their Sacraments And lastly for their licentious Doctrine in holding that though a man lives and dies without the practise of any Christian vertue and with the Habits of many damnable sins unmortified yet if at the last moment of his life he has any sorrow for his sins and joyn confession to it he shall certainly be saved This is a Doctrine may keep many souls out of Heaven but I doubt will scarce carry any one there So that the Papists Doctrine being ancient is nothing as long as 't is evident that they hold many dangerous errors as for instance the Milenaries and the Communicating Infants was more ancient than their Doctrine and 't is plain that antiquity unless it be absolute and primative is not a certain sign of true Doctrine And the very Apostles themselves assure us that in their dayes the mystery of Iniquity was working The Papists demand how comes it to pass that their Doctrine is so universal forgetting that weeds spread faster than good herbs And we ask them how the errors of the Milenaries and the Communicating Infants became so universal let them tell us this and we will tell them that for what is done in some may be done in others The Papists ask us where our Church was before Luther and tell us because t' was
does it stand with reason that St. Paul speaking of the several degrees of men in the Church should omit giving St. Peter the highest if it had been his due but place him in the same rank and Equipage with the rest of the Apostles for St. Paul sayes God hath appointed not first St. Peter then the rest of the Apostles but first Apostles secondly Prophets now certainly if Apostles were all first that is all equal how could one be in greater power than the other But besides all this though we should grant against all these probabilities and many more that Optatus Bishop of Rome meant that St. Peter was head of the Apostles yet sure the Papists are still very farr from proving the Bishop of Rome was to be so at all much less by divine right successor to St. Peter in his headship and Authority For what incongruity is there if we say that Optatus might succeed St. Peter as his heir and successor in that part of his Government of that particular Church of Rome as sure he did even whilst St. Peter was living and yet that neither he nor any man was to succeed him in his Apostleship nor in the Government of the Church universal as though a Bishop should leave his Son heir to all he dyed possessed of I hope you will not conclude therefore he must necessarily succeed him in the Bishoprick he dyed seized of The Apostles were men all called and divinely inspired by the Holy Ghost which was the immediate gift of God and therefore could not be left as a Legacy by man for though it be in any mans power to leave his Estate yet 't is in no mans power to leave to his Son his acquir'd parts at his death 'T is further worth your observing and special notice that St. Peter himself and the rest of the Apostles by laying the foundation of the Church were to be themselves the foundation of it and are accordingly so called in Scripture And therefore as in a building 't is incongruous that foundations should succeed foundations so it may be in the Church that Apostles should succeed Apostles the Church being built upon Apostles and Prophets Nor indeed does the grand argument of the Papists for their Pope extend any further in Reallity then to the particular Sea of Rome for thus goes their main argument St. Peter was first Bishop of Rome and the Apostles did not then attribute to themselves each one his particular Chair understand in that City of Rome for in other place others had Chairs besides St. Peter and therefore sayes the Papist he is a Schismatick who against that one single Chair erects another understand still in the same place and this is the ground the Authority the Papists say the Pope has to be Successor to St. Peter and to exercise Authority over the Universal Church But sure the Protestants urge more rationally in arguing thus That St. Peter wrote Two Catholick Epistles in which he mentions his own departure and writes to preserve the Christians in the faith but yet in neither of these Two Epistles does he commend the Christians to the guidance and authority of his pretended Successor the Bishop of Rome which sure if St. Peter had intended he would never have forgot to have named it And since the Papists so reverence and adore the Popes power let us Protestants also admire his way and means of attaining this power for though the Papists say that assoon as he is made Pope he has his authority immediately from Christ yet at the very same time the Papists all know that he cannot be made Pope but by Authority and Election of the Cardinals so that I am sure by the very same reason any man that is chosen a Magistrate in any Town under the Pope's Territories may claim his Authority as immediately received from Christ as well as the Pope And further that the proving his being made Pope does not render him infallible I could give a hundred instances out of the History of Popes but that will not suit well with my designed brevity but let 's ask the Papist if Liberius Bishop of Rome after Two years Banishment did not by the sollicitation of Fortunatianus Bishop of Acquileia subscribe to Heresie and consequently could not be infallible And though the Papists rely so much on the Authority of the Fathers to support and justifie the infallibility of their Church yet upon true Examination we shall find they make no more for their Universal Bishop than St Peter's Two Catholick Epistles do And for their arguing out of St. Cyprian's 55 Epistles that sure makes rather against than for them for there St. Cyprian writes to Cornelius Bishop of Rome but writes not so much to him as of himself who was Bishop of Carthage against whom a Faction of Schismaticks had set up another Bishop Now though the Papists say reasonably that 't is a mark of the Universal Bishop that other Bishops should make their Addresses unto the Bishop of Rome yet sure 't were better Reasoning to conclude thus If the Bishop of Rome had been acknowledged Universal Bishop and his Authority and Supremacy had been believ'd and own'd sure St. Cyprian had not been satisfied with onely barely writing him his sad story for he did no more but doubtless would have made his complaint to him and desired and expected redress from him as Universal Bishop over the whole Catholick Church but his not doing so argued he esteemed him Bishop onely of one Church And further St. Cyprian all know did resolutely oppose a Decree of the Roman Bishop and all that adhered to him in that one point of Rebaptizing which the Popish Church at that time delivered as a necessary Tradition and Excommunicated the Bishop of Cappadocia Galatia and all that were against that Tradition and would not so much as allow them lodging or entertainment in Rome Now since the Papists affirm that not to re-baptize those whom Hereticks had baptized to be a damnable Heresie 'T is well worth asking the Papist when this begun to be so for if they say from the beginning it was so then they must maintain a contradiction for then was St. Cyprian a Professor of damnable Heresie and yet the Papists esteem him a Saint and Martyr And on the other side if 't were not so from the beginning then did the Pope wrongfully excommunicate those other Churches of Cappadocia and Galatia without sufficient ground of Excommunication and separation which by their own Tenents is schismatical so let them chuse which side they please the Pope was in an errour And though Victor Bishop of Rome obtruded the Roman Tradition touching the time of Easter upon the Asian Bishops under the pain of Excommunication and Damnation yet we read that Irenaeus and all the other Western Bishops though they did agree with the Bishop of Rome in his observation of Easter yet they did sharply reprehend his excommunicating the Asian Bishops for their
as bad as none at all and yet after all this is it possible for a Philosophical or contemplative man nay for any man that has reason or common sense after all these suppositions to believe that none among these holy Writers of the New Testament should remember ad rei memoriam To set down plainly this most necessary Doctrine not so much as once that we were to believe the Roman Church infallible Again that none of the Evangelists should so much as once name this Popish necessary point of Faith if they had esteem'd it necessary for us to believe it when St. Paul says He kept not back any thing that was profitable for us and sure the Papists cannot deny but what is necessary to salvation must be very profitable And St Luke also plainly tells Christians his intent was to write all things necessary And sure it stands also with reason that when St. Paul wrote to the Remans he would have congratulated this their extraordinary priviledge if he had believ'd it belong'd to them And though the Romans bring it as a great Argument for them that St. Paul tells them Their Faith is spoken all the world over Yet pray let them moderate those thoughts with this consideration that St. Paul said the very same thing to the Thessalonians and let them further consider this that if the Roman Faith had been the Rule of Faith for all the world for ever as the Papists hold sure St. Paul would have forborne to put the Romans in fear of an impossibility for though raillery is much in Fashion now sure 't was not then that they also nay the whole Church of the Gentiles if they did not lock to their standing might fall into infidelity as the Jews had done 1 Eph. 11. And methinks it also stands with great reason that the Apostles writing so often of Hereticks and Antichrist should have given the Christian world this as Papists pretend onely sure Preservative from them to be guided by the infallible Church of Rome and not to separate from it upon the pain of damnation Methinks also St. Peter St. James and St. Jude in their Catholick Epistles would not have forgot giving Christians this Catholick direction of following the Roman Church and St. John in stead of saying He that believes that Jesus is the Christ and born of God might have said He that adheres to the Doctrine of the Roman Church and lives according to it is a good Christian and by this mark you shall know him In a word can there be any thing more irrational than to believe that none of these holy men who were so desirous of mens salvation should so much as once remember to write that we were to obey the Roman Church but leave it to be collected from uncertain principles and by more uncertain consequences So that upon the whole I cannot without much wonder look on the Pope's confidence and the Papists credulity in esteeming the Pope or his Councils to be an infallible Guide sure either they never read what they ought to believe or else they will not believe what they read though it be never so known a Truth and worthy of belief for if they did they could never believe the infallibility of the Popish Church for indeed if they would read the Popish story or as I may well call it the Civil Wars of the Popes you shall find as I said before Pope against Pope Councils against Councils some Fathers against others nay some against themselves new Traditions brought in and old ones turn'd out one Church against another nay the Church of one Age against the Church of another In a word the Papists say their Church is infallible and all other Christians besides themselves though more in number than they absolutely deny it and yet we must for all that believe the Popish Church infallible And to speak the plain Truth and in a word to unravel the real cause of the Grandeur of the Church of Rome above all other Churches is onely this Rome was the Imperial Town of the Empire and its Greatness was given by men and not God and when afterwards Constantinople was the Imperial City they Decreed that the Church of Constantinople should have equal Priviledges and Dignities with that of Rome And now to end this Discourse I desire you will please to consider this Conclusion which is that after all that the Papists have said be it never so much and mighty to shew the infallibility of their Church I am verily perswaded they cannot shew more if so much out of the Scriptures for their Church as the simallest society of Christians met together in prayer can for themselves that when two or three are met together in my name I will be amongst then sayes the Lord. And now I have just done this small discourse and the Sun is just upon finishing this dayes visit I can very readily follow that holy advice of not letting it go down in my anger which I thank God I have to none living and therefore am in so much Charity with the Papists as to wish that neither they nor Protestants might wast their pretious time in meer speculative controversies about words and ceremonies which of themselves will never carry us to Heaven but that we may spend our time like wise Christians in the wayes and fear of God which is the onely beginning of wisedom and not consume it in studying and maintaining of Disputes and factions but if we must still differ let Protestants and Papists differ in opinions but as Aristotle and Cicero did who though they were of differing Judgments touching the natures of Souls yet both of them agreed in the main that all men had Souls and souls of the same nature And as Phisitians though they dispute whether the Brain or the Heart be the principle part of man yet that all men have Brains and Heart they sufficiently agree in So though Protestants esteem one part of the Church doctrine and Papists set a higher value on another part yet the Soul of the Church may be in both of them and though the Papists account that a necessary truth which the Protestants account neither necessary nor perhaps true yet in truth truly necessary they both agree viz. The Apostles Creed and that Faith Hope and Charity are necessary to Salvation And lastly though Papists hold they may be justified by their works and Protestants hold none can be justified barely by them in regard of the imperfections of their works yet on the other side we so much agree with the Papists as to esteem none can be justified without them for without Repentance and Charity none can be good they being both like Health to our bodies the want of which is sufficient to disturb all other pleasures Therefore when we read St. Pauls Treatise of justification by Faith without the works of the Law Let us at the same time read what he writes to the Corinthians concerning the absolute necessity of that Excellent vertue of Charity and they will reconcile one another and I wish that we were all so reconciled in the unity of the Spirit and in the bond of peace And that you Madam may be the sooner reconcil'd to me for this tediousness I shall now make a conclusion which after such an overgrown letter must needs be the best complement that can be made by Madam yours c. London the 24. of Feb. 1673