THE LIFE and DEATH OF King CHARLES the First, WRITTEN By Dr. R. PERINCHIEF: Together with ΕΙΚΩΝ ΒΑΣΙΛΙΚΗ REPRESENTING His Sacred Majesty IN HIS SOLITUDES and SUFFERINGS. AND A VINDICATION Of the Same King CHARLES the Martyr. PROVING Him to be the Author of the said [...], against a Memoran­dum of the Late Earl of Anglesey, and against the Groundless Exceptions of Dr. Walker and others.

LONDON, Printed for Joseph Hindmarsh, at the Golden Ball over against the Royal Exchange. 1693.


THIS of late is become a Controversie, and hath exercised several Pens: and the Pro­vince I have undertaken, is to digest the whole into as plain and familiar a Method as I am able, to represent the Exceptions fair­ly, and to answer them, to add to, illustrate and confirm what I conceive needs it, to sum up the Evidence on both sides, and to compare them, and to make such Remarks as plainly arise from the Respective Evidence; and by that time I have done this, it will, I pre­sume, be very easie for the Reader to determine the Contro­versie, and to assign the true Author of this Book, and repu­diate the false one, and Pretender.

In order to this, I shall in the first place consider a Memoran­dum, said to be written by my Lord of Anglesey, in a vacant Page of one of these Printed Books, which is in these words,


King Charles the Second, and the Duke of York did both (in the last Session of Parliament 1675, when I shewed them in the Lords House, the written Copy of this Book, wherein are some Corrections, written with the late King Charles the First's own Hand) assure me, that this was none of the said King's compiling, but made by Doctor Gauden, Bishop of Exe­ter, which I here insert for the undeceiving others in this Point, by attesting so much under my Hand: Anglesey.

[Page 4] To this it hath already been answered, That both the said Kings have attested the contrary by their Letters Patents to Mr. Royston, granting him the sole Privilege to Print all the Works of King Charles the First. Those of King Charles the Second bear Date, Nov. 29. 1660, and expresly mention the Fi­delity of Mr. Royston to King Charles the First, and to himself, and in these remarkable Words; In Printing and Publishing many Messages and Papers of our said Blessed Father, especi­cially those most excellent Discourses and Soliloquies, by the Name of [...]. Those of King James bear date Febr. 22. 1685, and expresly refer to the first Edition of the King's Works, 1662, in which his Majesty declares. That all the Works of his Royal Father were Collected and Published. Now a Man would imagine, that there could not be any pos­sible Dispute, which was to be preferr'd, a Publick and Autho­ritative Attestation of the Kings themselves, or a private Me­mor, by a third person. For the immediate Question here is not Who was the Author of this Book? But who was so in the Opinion and Judgment of those two Kings? And I would fain know, whether the Testimony of my Lord of Anglesey is a better proof of their Sence and Judgment, than their own Testi­mony; or a private, obscure, unattested, posthumous Hand­writing, a more valid Evidence, than the Broad Seals? And this, one would think, abundantly sufficient to determine this part of the Controversie, that is, that a Man's Word is to be taken for his own Sense and Opinion before that of his Neigh­bours, and that high and authoritative Evidence is always to carry the Cause in opposition to that which is no Evidence at all.

However (as clear as this is) Dr. Walker hath something to say to it, tho, I think, stranger Answers were never given in such a Case. And in the first place he tells us, Pag. 28. That good Manners rather than want of good Reasons restrain him from fuller answering: meaning, I presume, that these Kings did not speak truth, tho he would not say so; and accordingly he says afterwards, it was but conniving at a vulgar Error, which it was not their interest too nicely to discover. Now this Answer plainly gives up the Cause it pretends to maintain; for if it was not their Interest to discover it, how came they both so frankly to tell it to my Lord of Anglesey? and as the Memorandum speaks, they both did assure him, that at was none of the said King's Compiling; and that, I think, is a little more than a nice Discovery, even a very plain and peremptory assu­rance. So that if this be an Answer to the Letters Pa­tents, [Page 5]'tis equally so to the Memorandum. And the same In­terest, I suppose, which kept it a Secret from the whole Kingdom, would have kept it a Secret from my Lord of An­glesey too, especially considering that it was not only far more easie, but also far more honourable, to have concealed a matter of Fact within their Knowledge, than to have wrongfully at­tested it, and contrary to their Knowledge, under the Great Seal of England.

But notwithstanding that, Dr. Walker in further pursuit of this scandalous Answer tells us, that this is Odiosum Argumen­tum, designed not for real proof, but to involve the Answerer in some Odium or Danger, and which Respondents may dis­miss unreplyed to, not because they cannot, but because they dare not answer it. Why, what was the matter? what Dan­ger was there in reflecting on those two Kings, had the Doctor spoke out, and in express Terms declared his Mind? Was he afraid to be called to account, and punished for it? A Man that reads this would imagine, that the Doctor was a perfect Stranger in his own Country, and that he wrote his Book in some remote Corner of the World. But when he daily saw the vilest things spoke of those two Kings (especially one of them) that ever were said, not only of Kings, but of the worst of Men; when a great part of this pass'd into the World not by stealth or connivance, but under the Authority of a License, and in such seemed meritorious; in such a case to talk of Odium, and Danger, and Fear, is to scorn his Readers, and to suppose they had all lost their Senses. And therefore in plain terms the Doctor did not know how fairly to answer this, and created imaginary and invisible Odiums and Dangers, to get rid of an Argument he could not tell what to do with.

However, in the next place, the Doctor answers, That Kings use not so critically to inspect all the minute Particulars of their general Royal Grants. Meaning, no doubt, that the [...] was such a minute Particular, as needed great Criticalness to find it out among the rest, whereas all the World knows what a mighty Figure that Book leaves among the renowned Works of that Glorious Martyr. And the Truth is, this Answer plainly insinuates, that those two Kings knew no­thing at all of this Books being inserted among the rest of their Father's Works; and accordingly he tells us, that an Ʋnder-Secretary or Clerk, who drew the Patents, put in what Mr. Royston reckoned up, and desired; and never boggled at inserting it among King Charles's Works. Now this is such an [Page 6]Answer, that to reply to it, would be as shameless as to urge it, and would equally reproach the Reader; for if the Doctor himself either did, or could suppose, or if any other Man can suppose, that these two Kings did not believe that this Book was inserted among the rest, nay, that they could possibly believe, but that it was design'd as a main and principal part, which for so many years bore their Father's Name, and was more known and taken notice of than any of the rest, it is high time to leave disputing, or to convince Men by rational Motives of Credibility: and let this hereafter go for a Rule, that the best way to gain belief, is to propound the most incredible things in the World. For if any Man, who knows the state of this Matter, the current Sense of this Kingdom, and the general Estimation concerning the Author of that Book, can believe, that these two Kings did not think, or could otherwise than think that it would be inserted among their Father's Works. That Man may believe any thing, and if he will take this for an Answer, there is nothing how impossible or incredible soever, but he may give his assent to. So that let it be granted, that Kings do not always critically examine the Transcript of their Royal Grants, except they neglected their Memories and Understandings, and left them also to Ʋnder-Secretaries and Clerks: it is not possible for any Man to believe, but that they knew that their Father was universally acknowledged and repu­ted for the Author of that Book, and consequently, that a Grant to Reprint his Works, must of necessity include that, al­tho it had not been particularly expressed in the Grant it self. But when this excellent Book is not only particularly expressed, but mentioned also with particular Characters and Marks of Recommendation, to talk of Critical Inspection, and of Ʋn­der-Secretaries and Clerks, is to suppose, that Ʋnder-Secretaries and Clerks make Royal Grants, and not Kings themselves.

However, the Doctor adds, What understanding Man be­lieves all the other particular Pieces, which make up the whole Volume of the King's Works, to be originally penned by himself, but knows many of them were prepared by his Secre­taries and Council, and then perused and approved of by him, and so became his, by adding the Royal Stamp of his Ap­probation, and owning of them; and the same was designed in this Book. Very good, then

1. It seems Things prepared by Secretaries and Council be­come the King's, by his Perusal and approving them; and so I hope do Letters Patents too; and therefore let the Grants to Mr. Royston be drawn by what Ʋnder-Secretary or Clerk the [Page 7]Doctor pleases, if they came to be the Acts of the respective Kings, by their Perusal and Approbation of them, then it is plain they testified their Royal Father was the Author of this Book, and so the Doctor both contradicts and confutes himself.

2. When the Doctor's Hand was in, I wonder he did not tell us, that the Papers of Mr. Henderson to the King, and the Par­ticulars insisted on by the Parliaments Commissioners at the Treaty at Ʋxbridge, were not originally penned by the King, and which are inserted in the Volume of the King's Works. And this would have been a plain Case, and must needs have been granted him. And what then? Why then by the Doctor's way of arguing, neither the King's Papers to Mr. Henderson, nor his Papers about Episcopacy were originally penned by him; or that because these two Kings did not believe, that these things inserted in the King's Works [as relating to them] which bear the Name of other Authors, were not of his own penning, therefore they believed, that the Writing which bears his own Name, was not penned by him neither, altho they mention it as written by himself. These are pleasant Consequences.

3. Be it granted that Proclamations and such things are ori­ginally penned by Secretaries, and become the King's, by adding his Royal Authority; what is this to Books? Proclamations are really the King's Acts, because they derive their Validity and Authority from Him, whoever pens them. But Books are quite of another nature; no Royal Stamp can make a Book the King's own, which he did not pen himself. And therefore these Attestations in the Royal Grants concerning the Works of the Royal Martyr, are to be understood according to the nature of things, that is, they attest the respective parts of that Vo­lume were his Works, in that sense in which they were his Works. Proclamations, &c. were his by adding his Authority, and they were the same Acts of the King to all purposes of Law, whether penned by himself, or by his Secretaries. But a Book in no sense can be said to be the King's, of which he is not the Author. And therefore these two Kings attesting, that this Book was their Royal Father's, it plainly means, in that sense in which a Book is said to be so, and that is, not by adopting it by consent and approbation, but by penning and writing it. And it is a pleasant Consequence indeed, Procla­mations are the King's by his consent and authority whoever pens them, and therefore Bocks that bear his Name are so too. Well! No body knows what a strange thing Reason is, when it falls into the Hands of some Men.

[Page 8] The Doctor still adds, Admit Mr. Royston had obtained a Patent for the sole Printing the Works of King David, and had got it explicitly inserted, all the Works of King David, that is, the whole Book of Psalms, containing in number one hundred and fifty, would it have followed hence, that he who granted this Patent, had published to all the World that he knew and believed, that David was the real Penman of them all, tho some of them were certainly written some Ages after David's Death. No truly, it would not have followed, nor does it follow from the Grant of these Kings to Reprint their Father's Works, that therefore they believed the King was the real Penman of Mr. Henderson's Papers. But (by the Doctor's good favour) this would have followed, that if King Solomon had granted a Patent to Collect or Print (had Printing been then in use) his Father's Psalms, and had expresly and e­specially mentioned three or four as his Fathers, it is plain, that he must be understood to believe, that these were penned by his Father.

Having thus dispatched Dr. Walker's Answers, I have yet something farther to observe concerning this Memorandum; and which seems sufficient to overthrow the Validity of it: and that which I shall observe is taken from the Memorandum it self. Intrinsick proof taken from things themselves is generally the most clear and convincing; Frauds and Impostures are sel­dom managed with such art and exactness, but a discerning Eye may easily discover them; and in this Memorandum there are some observable Circumstances that make it highly liable to suspicion, I mean, that it was never made by my Lord of An­glesey, but sorged by some other person for the very ends for which it hath been so often produced; now if this Memoran­dum be defective in some Points, that are very material in a thing of this Nature, if it discovers a great faultiness, with re­spect to the very end for which it was pretended to be made, then it is apparently unworthy of the Prudence and Foresight of my Lord of Anglesey, and deserves to be ascribed to some other Author. For the proof of this, I shall take my mea­sures from the last Words of the Memorandum, which plainly declare the end for which it was not made, nor fign'd by the said Lord. The Words are these: Which I here insert for the undeceiving others in this Point, by attesting so much under my Hand. Now here are these things observable, and which in every respect makes this Memorandum defective and insuffi­cient for the attaining this end.

1. It bears no Date.

[Page 9] 2. It is not attested by any Witness.

3. It was the most unlikely course to answer the ends of the Memorandum it self.

4. There is no appearance that this was said to any other Person.

1. It bears no Date, and that in a double respect.

1. With respect to the exact time when the King and the Duke gave the Lord of Anglesey this Assurance. It says indeed, in the last Sessions of Parliament, 1675. But this is expressed very ambiguously, and the Question is, whether by last Session the Memorandum means the last before the writing the Memoran­dum, or with respect to it, or the last Sessions of that year. If the last with respect to the writing of the Memorandum, then we are not directed by the Memorandum when that Session was; for it self having no Date, we have no possible means to know the time of that Session. And it is not only unaccurate upon all accounts, but abundantly faulty in a Testimonial of this Nature, to direct us to a determinate time, when such Words were spoken, and yet leave the World utterly in the dark; when that time was, i. e. in short, these Words were spoken no body knows when, and (as the Case stands) it is impossible they ever should know. i. e. 'Tis plainly a suspicious Evidence, as giving Testimony to a matter of Fact, without fixing any determinate time in which it was perform'd. But if the Memorandum had been more punctual in this particular, and had given a handle to have known what particular Sessions was meant; or if by the last Session is to be under­stood the last of that year. This is also liable to considerable Inconvenience, as being a space of time too large and loose, to found a competent Evidence upon, a Session of Parliament may continue five, six, or seven Months. And so we have a matter of Fact fastened to the compass of an hun­dred, two hundred, or more days. A pleasant Evidence in­deed, and much to be relyed on; every Man knows what great Weight there is in the Circumstance of time with respect to the Credibility of any Testimony. And if the compass be laid large and wide, it is an argument of great suspicion, espe­cially if the Matter said to be done, was at no great distance from the time of giving this Evidence: if a Man within a year or sooner, should evidence in Court, that such a Fact was done in Parliament, during such a Session, and at the same time could not tell whether it was at the beginning, about the middle, or towards the latter end of that Session, and withal being himself a Member of Parliament, and actually sitting, I [Page 10]would fain know whether this be not a just and reasonable Prejudice against the competency of such Evidence; now this Memorandum plainly labours under this Prejudice, and which is yet more, it can never be removed, because there are no possi­ble ways left to explain it, or to bring it into a narrower com­pass of time, as all unexceptionable Evidence ought to be; and therefore I shall leave it to the consideration of all wise men, whether they can believe that a person of my Lord of Anglesey's Prudence and Caution would transmit to Posterity, and with a design too to undeceive others, such a Memorandum as is so palpably defective, and liable to just exception, in such a material point as plainly relates to the validity of any Evidence; for this I take to be Demonstration, that if my Lord of Angle­sey had himself viva voce given all the words of this Memo­randum in Evidence, and at the same time had not been able to answer the foregoing Questions, whether these Words of King Charles and his Royal Brother were spoken about the beginning, the middle, or the end of that Session? If this had been a just Prejudice against such Evidence given by my Lord of Anglesey himself, it is certainly much more so against a Paper pretend­ed to be written and signed by him, which is guilty of the same defects. And I think no reason can be given that a Paper Me­morandum, with the Name of my Lord of Anglesey to it, is a more valid and authentic Evidence, than my Lord of An­glesey himself would have been.

1. As this Memorandum gives us no determinate time when these Words were spoken, so likewise has it no date when the Memorandum it self was written. And this is a fine Evidence indeed to determine Controversies, and undeceive others with; for the matter pretended to be proved has a very loose date, and for it self hath no date at all, and both begins and ends like a fabulous story with once upon a time. The truth is, this Me­morandum is penn'd as if there was fear of having it disprov'd; had the day been named when the King and the Duke of York had said this, perhaps by some unlucky Circumstance or other it might have appeared, that one or both of them together (which was very rare) were not at the house that day. Had the Memo­randum been punctually dated, something might have happened to have prov'd that my Lord of Anglesey was at that time tra­velling, or in the Country from his Study, or otherwise unlikely to have made such a Memorandum at that time. And therefore it was far better to let dates alone as dangerous things, and apt to tell Tales. And to this may be added:

[Page 11] 2. That this Memorandum is unattested by any Witness, and (as the Case stands) it is impossible it should be, except there were one or more Persons who saw my Lord of Anglesey write or sign it. Now I need not urge the necessity of witness to prove the signing of a Memorandum that pretends to correct the World, and to undeceive others, and that, upon the single Credit and Authority of that Memorandum; every man knows that an unattested Paper is no Evidence, and that a Man's Hand when he is dead, except it be well prov'd, signifies nothing at all, nor can have any effect: And the World must be very wil­ling to be undeceived indeed, if they will alter their Judgments and Opinions upon that which neither is, nor ever was admitted to be any Evidence, nor sufficient to determine the least matter of Controversie. And therefore upon the whole, if my Lord of Anglesey had made this Memorandum for his own private use, it might have done well enough, because the defects of it might have been supply'd by his own Memory; but when it was de­sign'd for the use of Posterity, to undeceive others when he was dead, to leave it so defective in all the necessary parts of Proof is irrational and unaccountable, and consequently is not to be ascrib'd to a person of his Lordships Character and Judg­ment, and great knowledge in the Laws: For my Lord (had he wrote this) could not but know that this matter would be disputed, and the Memorandum plainly implies it, and that no­thing less than plain and unexceptionable Proof would convince the World; and at the same time to leave behind him a suspi­cious and inevident Memorandum, which may create some Di­sputes but can end none, is unworthy of his Lordship, and ought not without manifest Proof to be father'd upon him, nor in­deed can be without some reflection upon his Lordships Me­mory. And therefore:

3. This was the most improbable, and unlikely course that could be taken to answer those ends mentioned in the Memo­randum, (viz) to undeceive others: For (besides what hath been said before) what a pure Method is this to correct publick Mistakes, and to undeceive the World, to lodge a Memoran­dum in a vacant page of a Book, never to be seen till after his death; and then also liable to a thousand Contingencies, to be torn, to fall into private hands, to lie neglected and never see the light: For I suppose his Lordship could never divine that his Study of Books would be sold by Auction, and that Mr. Mil­lington would make the Sale. So that for any thing his Lord­ship either did or could know, the World might never have been undeceiv'd; and it is an extraordinary caution indeed to take [Page 12]pains to undeceive others, and at the same time leave them in a hopeful way never to be the better for it; had there been no o­ther way, such a one as this must have shifted as well as it could, but when Men have Tongues in their Mouths, and may clear up mistakes by living and undoubted Testimony, to commit it to a bit of Paper, and that also laid up in darkness and obscurity, seems far from that Zeal to Truth which this Memorandum pre­tends to, and for which end it pretends to have been written: had my Lord of Anglesey (think we) no Friends, Acquaintance or Children to have communicated this to? And where, I wonder, is the Man who ever heard my Lord say this, or any thing like it? There can, as I know of, but one thing be said to this, and that is, that there might be some danger in so doing; and that this, tho it was not the securest, yet it was the safest way. But this is obviated by the Memorandum it self, which plainly intimates that the two Kings made no Secret of it themselves, nor injoyn'd him any Secresie, but frankly and freely assur'd him, which (as it is worded in the Memorandum) seems to express a design to have it spread and propagated; and therefore if the Memoran­dum be true, there could be no Reservedness and Caution upon that account, or fear of any Displeasure from the King or his Royal Brother. Now indeed it must be owned, that to recti­fie Mistakes and to set the World right, is a generous and cha­ritable Undertaking; but at the same time to neglect the di­rect and unexceptionable means to do this without reason and necessity, and to perform it in the dark, and expose it to mani­fest hazard and uncertainty, and after all to leave it without Date or Witness, so as in no degree to amount to a compe­tent Evidence, in plain terms is to deceive others instead of un­deceiving them; and in truth the Memorandum is a Contradi­ction to itself, the End of it is express'd to be to undeceive others, and yet the Memorandum it self is the most unlikely course that could be taken to accomplish that End; and espe­cially when there were several others far better at hand. Upon all which Accounts I do conclude, that this Memorandum was not made by my Lord of Anglesey, but by some other hand, to deceive and impose upon the World. And certain I am that whosoever insists upon this Memorandum is bound to do these two things: 1 To prove that this was my Lord of Anglesey's Hand-writing. And 2. To give a satisfactory Reason why my Lord of Anglesey forbore to declare this by Word of mouth; which the Memorandum intimates was so openly, and freely, and without any Reserve declared to him, and when it was by a thousand degrees more fit to answer the ends express'd in the [Page 13] Memorandum. And this hath not yet been attempted, and I presume can never fairly be done. And to this I add.

4. That there is no Appearance nor so much as Presumption, that the two Royal Brothers ever said this to any other Person. This I confess is a Negative, but I shall leave it with all the World, whether if this was their constant and standing judgment it is by any means probable, that they would not one time or other have declared the same to some other Persons, when they had done it with such openness and unreservedness to my Lord of Anglesey, and consequently that we should have heard of it from some other quarter, and in some better manner, than by such a blind Memorandum.

I have now done with this Memorandum, and do conceive, That I have vindicated the Memory of King Charles I. and his Right to this Book from any Exceptions that can be taken from thence: I shall therefore proceed to some further evidence to convince the unbyass'd and unprejudiced, that that glorious Martyr actually was, and that no other could be, the Author of it. Now whereas Evidence is of two Kinds; external, which relates to outward Testimony, and internal, which is drawn from the thing it self; both these are plain in the Case, and will sufficiently clear up the point before us.

1. External Evidence, i. e. the Testimony of other credible Witnesses to the truth of it: But that I may deal fairly, I shall sum up the evidence on both sides, and then leave it to the Rea­ders Judgment; only I must premise, that King Charles I. being in possession, and for so many years reputed and acknow­ledged for the Author of this Book, whatsoever is offered to defeat his title to it ought to be very plain, clear, and satisfa­ctory, and to overballance the contrary Evidence in point of Credibility and Sufficiency: For an Equality of Evidence can never do it, because Possession preponderates, and will weigh down on that side, where all other circumstances are equal. But if the Evidence on that side be more in number, and as credible, if further there be no just exceptions to the Evidence on that side, as having no personal Byass, Partiality or Interest to sway them; and there be just exceptions to that of the other, there then can be no Dispute which will carry the Cause. And this I take to be the Case here, and which I conceive will plainly appear upon comparing the Evidence, with respect to the Claim of King Charles and Bishop Gauden to this Book. And to consider,

1. The Evidence that is produc'd for Bishop Gauden's being the Author of it, and that in truth is included in a very narrow compass, and it is all finally resolved into one single Evidence. [Page 14]and that Evidence is Bishop Gauden himself. And this will appear upon a fair examining the respective Evidence that hath yet appeared on this side of the Question: And they are these two,

First, The Attestation of Dr. Walker. And Secondly, the Evidence of some Papers now in the hands of Mr. North.

First The Attestation of Dr. Walker and what he says is this in short. 1. That Dr. Gauden sometime before the whole was finished acquainted him with his design, and shewed him the Heads of divers Chapters, and some of the Discourses written of them, and after some time spent in the perusal, he asked his Opinion concerning it; and he (Dr. Walker) told him he supposed it would be for the Kings Reputation, but he ex­presly added, he stuck at the Lawfulness of it, and asked him how he satisfied himself so to impose upon the World. To which he replyed; Look on the Title, 'tis the Pourtraicture, &c. and no man draws his own Picture, &c. That he explained to him a Passage in the second Chapter, and that he meant it of Dr. Juxton.

2. That being both in London, in an Afternoon Dr. Gauden a ked him to walk with him to a friend, and in the going told him he was going to the Bishop of Salisbury Dr. Duppa, (whom he had acquainted with his design) to fetch what he had left with his Lordship to be perused, or to shew him what he had further written. That Dr. Gauden desired him after a general Conversation to withdraw, which he did, and that upon return he told him, that my Lord of Salisbury told him there were two Subjects more he wish'd he had thought on, and propounded them, the Ordinance against the Common Pray­er, and the denying his Majesty the attendance of his Chap­lains, and desired him to write two Chapters upon them, which the Bishop recalled, and desired him to finish what remains and leave those two to him; and that Dr. Gauden did not pretend to have written those, as he did to have done all the rest.

3. Upon Dr. walkers asking Dr. Gauden (after the King was murdered) whether the King had ever seen the Book, Dr. Gauden answered, I know it certainly no more than you, but I used my best Endeavours that he might, for I delivered a Copy of it to the Marquess of Hartford when he went to the treaty at the Isle of Wight, and intreated his Lordship if he could obtain any private Opportunity, he would deliver it to his Majesty, and humbly desire to know his Majesty's Pleasure con­cerning it. But the violence which threatened the King hast­ning so fast, he ventured to print it, and never knew what was [Page 15]the issue of sending it, for when the thing was done, he judged it not prudent to make further noise about it by enquiry.

4. Dr. Walker asking him (And adds in a Parenthesis; For we seldom were in private but somewhat was discoursed of this Book, even to the last time I saw him, after he was Lord Bishop of Worcester elect) whether King Charles II. knew that he wrote it. He answered, I cannot positively and cer­tainly say he doth, because he was never pleased to take express notice of it to me; but I take it for granted he doth, for I am sure the Duke of York doth, for he hath spoken of it to me, and owned it as a seasonable and acceptable service; and he knowing it, I question not but the King also doth.

5. Mrs. Gauden the Doctor's Wife, Mr. Gifford and Dr. Walker believed it as much as they could believe any thing, and were as much assured of it as 'tis possible they could be of any matter of fact.

6. Dr. Gauden delivered to him with his own hand what was last sent up, (after part was printed, or at least in Mr. Royston's hand to be printed) and after he had shew'd it him and sealed it up, gave him caution to deliver it, which he did on Saturday, Decemb. 23.48. in the Evening, accord­ing to direction, to one Peacock, (Brother to Dr. Gauden's Steward) who was instructed by what hands to deliver it to Mr. Royston, and in the same manner after the Impression was finish'd he received six Books by the hand of Peacock as an acknowledgment, and one of them he hath still by him.

This is the Sum of Dr. Walker's Evidence in this matter, out of which I shall at present only observe,

1. That all that is material in this Evidence is resolved into the Testimony of Dr. Gauden himself, viz. That Dr. Gauden acquainted him with his design, that Dr. Gauden told him the Discourse of the Bishop of Salisbury, that Dr. Gauden told him he did not certainly know whether King Charles I. or King Charles II. knew that he wrote it, &c. The Validity of which I shall consider when I come to the next Evidence that appears in this matter.

2. That what seems to be otherwise is of no Validity at all, nor can have any force with a rational and wise man. And that because,

1. It only seems to be something more, but in truth it is not, it is express'd indeed as if Dr. Walker had given us ocular Testi­mony, that he had seen the Heads and some of the Discourses; but this is very defective in a necessary and material point, and does not come up to any strict Evidence: For altho he says [Page 16]that Dr. Gauden shewed him the Heads of divers Chapters and some of the Discourses written of them, and some time being spent in the perusal, yet that which should make this a Proof, that they were written by Dr. Gauden, is altogether wanting, and that is, that they were written with Dr. Gauden's own hand. This, which is the only material thing, there is not the least word of, and which in a matter of this nature ought not, nor reasonably could be omitted. And I think it is plain, either that Dr. Walker could say nothing to this, or that he knew they were not written with Dr. Gauden's own hand, if the latter the Evidence is corrupt, if the former insignificant; and if there be any force in this part of the Evidence, it is not because Dr. Wal­ker saw and perused the Heads and Discourses; for that he might do whether Dr. Gauden wrote them or not, but from these former Words, that Dr. Gauden acquainted him with his Design. And I take it to be very observable, that of that Evidence which hath yet appeared, there is not the least said that comes up to this point, that the original Manuscript was written by Dr. Gauden's own hand: which to me is a plain Evi­dence that it was never written by him; for if such a thing had been, Dr. Walker living (as he says) in Dr. Gauden's House, and being made so privy to it, and (as he says) perusing the Heads and some of the Discourses, and Mrs. Gauden (the Evidence of whose Papers I shall consider presently) must needs have known it; and I shall leave it to any considering man what value is to be put on such Evidence in such Circumstances, which pretends to prove that one Person is the Author of a Book in opposition to another more generally reputed Author, and at the same time never offers to prove, that that Book was written by himself, or by his immediate dictating, and direction. This sure is the di­rect Proof, and if it could be had, ought to have been produced, and the World must be very easie and credulous, if they will take the main point upon trust, and be put off with general Stories instead of that in which the Proof does consist. Is it possible for any man to believe that Mrs. Gauden did not know her Hus­bands Hand, or that Dr. Walker did not know it? Or further, that Dr. Walker, being so early acquainted with the Secret, should not know of the Progress made in that Work from time to time, or be able (upon Perusal) to discover some In­terlinings or Alterations made by: Dr. Gauden's own Hand; In short, did any man ever see Dr. Gauden write it, or proceed with it, or add to and amend it? These and more we have, as Evidence for King Charles's being the Author; and it is a pleasant business indeed that this plain and direct Evidence must [Page 17]be confionted by Collections and Inferences, and hold Asseve­rations, without any manner of Proof to the direct matter in Controversie. But this I shall further consider, when I come to compare the Evidence on both sides. In the mean time:

2. This Evidence Dr. Walker hath contradicted himself in a­nother Testimony of his in the hands of Dr. Goodal, and gi­ven March 23. 1690. Where among others are these Words, Dr. Walker and Mr. Gifford were both privy to these Af­fairs, living together in the Bishops House, though the Doctor is uncertain whether he ever read this Book in Manuscript, or only saw it with its Title of the Chapters, which plainly crosses and thwarts his Evidence in his printed Book, in which he expresly attests, that Dr. Gauden shew'd him the Heads of divers Chapters, and that is not all; but it follows, and some of the Discourses written of them: and if it had ended here, the Evidence might have agreed well enough; but it still follows, and after some time spent in the Perusal: so that it seems Dr. Walker had read some of the Discourses at least, and that not transiently, but after some time spent in the Perusal. And in further Confirmation of this the Doctor adds; And I per­fectly remember, that in the second Chapter, which is of the Death of the Earl of Strafford, there being these Words, which now in the Printed Book of the first Edition are p. 8. l. 18, 19, 20. He only hath been least vext by them, who counselled me not to consent against the Vote of my own Con­science. And which (he says) Dr. Gauden told him he meant it of Bishop Juxton, so that here we have Dr. Walker not only perfectly remembring the subject matter of that Chapter, but also an intire Sentence, and a particular Explication relating to it. And this sure is not very consistent with his being uncer­tain, whether he ever read this Book in Manuscript, or only saw it with its Title of the Chapters. I need not reflect up­on this, every man knows that when an Evidence interferes with himself, and contradicts his own Testimony, it renders the whole suspicious, and is a prejudice to all he delivers in that Cause; and all I shall remark is, that Dr Walker's Memory hath fail'd him in that very Case, wherein a good Memory is especially needful. And to shew the Reader what weight there is to be laid upon Dr. Walker's Memory or Confidence, he tells us, p. 8. I am as sure as I can be of any thing, that Dr. Gauden made the extract out of this Book called Apothegmata Carolina. And yet he is perfectly and notoriously mistaken; for as Mr. Long says (p. 8.) not he but Dr. Hooker was the Collector and Publisher, who is now or lately was living in White Lyon Court against Virginia street in Wapping.

[Page 18] The next Evidence in the behalf of Bishop Gauden, is taken out of some Papers, said to be in the Hands of Mr. Arthur North, Merchant, living on Tower-Hill; which Papers are said to be sent by Mrs. Gauden, the Bishop's Wife, to her Son Mr. John Gauden, after his death they came into the Hands of Mr. Charles Gauden, and after his death to Mr. North. A Sum­mary of which is Printed in Pag. 35. & seq. of a Pamphlet intituled, Truth brought to Light, &c. and according to that Print, I shall briefly set down what seems the most to concern this Cause.

Amongst these Papers, there is said to be a Letter from the Bishop to the Lord Chancellor Hyde, dated December 28. 1661, and a Copy of a Petition to the King, written by the Bishop's own Hand. In which he declares what Hazards, &c. and what he had done for comforting and incouraging the King's Friends, &c. And that what was done like a King, should have a King-like Retribution, &c. Another Letter there is to the Duke of York, dated Jan. 17. 1661, urging his great Services, &c. As also a Letter from the Lord Chan­cellor Hyde to the Bishop, (of the Chancellor's Hand-writing) dated March 13. 1661, imparting the Receit of several Let­ters from him, that he was uneasie under the Bishop's impor­tunity. And towards the Close hath this Expression, The Par­ticular you mention has indeed been imparted to me as a Secret, I am sorry I ever knew it; and when it ceases to be a Secret, it will please none but Mr. Milton. Now by all these Ex­pressions, the Services the Bishop urges, the doing like a King, and the Secret that will please none but Mr. Milton, at the end of my Lord Chancellor's Letter, it is expected that we should understand the Writing, and being the Author of this Book. But what necessity is there for that? Were there no Services that Dr. Gauden had done besides? or at least, that he might plead, whether he had done them or not? was it not possible for Dr. Gauden to have, or pretended to have done like a King, i. e. freely and magnificently, (as that Scripture-Expression means in the Case of Araunah) but this single Instance? And was there no other Secret in the World but this, that the divulging of it would gratifie Mr. Milton? These therefore are mystical Expressions, and prove nothing, and the utmost that can be built upon them is Presumption and Conjecture, which are far too feeble to support that which is raised upon them. However, if this were supposed, and that such was the meaning of those Expressions, it will still be re­solved into the single Testimony of Dr. Gauden himself, and [Page 19]how valid that Testimony is in this Case, we shall see presently. And in the mean time, this plainly contradicts Dr. Walker's Evidence, which is, that Dr. Gauden told him, that He could not positively and certainly say, that King Charles the Second knew that he wrote the Book. And it would look very ri­diculous to present a Petition to that King, and to use it as an Instance to recommend him to his Favour, that in behalf of the Royal Family, he had done like a King, meaning, he had writ the Book, and at the same time not know whether that King knew he was the Author of it. But of this also more pre­sently. In the mean time, as to Dr. Gauden's Services, and which possibly may be the Plea he made to the King, he did in­deed write and publish two Books: the one A Protestation against the King's Death, Printed for Mr. Royston, 1648: and another proving the Non-obligation of the Covenant, which might put him into the King's Favour; and in truth, it is very probable, that the Protestation was the only thing Dr. Gauden was concerned in; and being Printed by Mr. Royston, and a­bout the same time, might be the occasion of all this Mistake, and might be the Book he gave to the Marquess of Hertford, &c. if any such thing was ever done.

Among these Papers there is also said to be, A Letter of Mrs. Gauden's, after the Death of her Husband, to her Son Mr. John Gauden, in which she speaks of the Book commonly called the King's Book, and calls it the Jewel, and adds, that her Husband hoped to make a Fortune by it, and wonders it should be doubted whether her Husband wrote it, but says, she has a Letter of a very great Man to clear it up.

There is also (said to be) a long Narrative of Mrs. Gau­den's Hand-writing, shewing, that her Husband wrote the Book, and sent to her Son with the Letter.

This Narrative sets forth, that after her Husband had wrote the Book, he shewed it to the Lord Capel, who approved it, and was for the Printing it, but wished the King might have a sight of it: that an opportunity was taken to convey it to his Masesty by the Lord Marquess of Hertford, when he went to the Treaty at the Isle of Wight.

That the Marquess, after his return from thence, told her Husband, that he gave the Book to the King, and his Ma­jesty did well like it, but was for putting it out, not as his own, but anothers; but it being urged, that Cromwell, and others of the Army, having got a Reputation with the People for Parts and Piety, it would do best to be in the King's Name. His Majesty took time to consider of it.

[Page 20] That her Husband not hearing the King's Pleasure about it, and finding Dangers hastening on him, he having kept a Copy by him, sent it by one Mr. Simonds to the Press, together with a Letter, that Mr. Royston was the Printer, but did not know but the King wrote it; that Part was seized in the Press, together with her Husband's Letter, and Mr. Simonds was taken. That nevertheless the Work was carried on, and finished a few days after his Majesty's Death; that when it was Published the Parliament was inraged; and her Hus­band, conceiving his Life and Estate in danger, fled to Sir John Wentworth's, near Yarmouth, intending thence to pass the Seas, but Mr. Simonds falling sick, and dying, and her Husband not being discovered, he altered his purpose, and returned home.

That there was an Epistle first intended, that the first Title was Suspiria Regalia, but changed to Icon Basilice; and that there were two Chapters added.

That the Marquess of Hertford, the Lord Capel, Bishop Duppa, and Bishop Morley were at first the only persons privy to it.

That Bishop Duppa of Winchester being very sick, her Hus­band went to the King, and acquainted him, that he was the Author of the Book, and for the truth thereof appealed to Bishop Duppa, his Majesty's Tutor, who was yet living, and made an Apology for Printing it, without his Majesty's Fa­ther's Order, or his, but pleaded the Circumstance of Time, and the King's Danger; that his Majesty told her Hurband, That till then he never knew that he wrote it, but thought it was his Father's, yet wondered how he could have time, and ob served, that it was wrote like a Scholar, as well as like a King: and said, if it bad been published sooner, it might have saved his Father's life, that at the same time the King gave him a Promise of the Bishoprick of Winchester.

That he afterwards acquainted the Duke of York, that he was the Author, &c. This is the Sum of the Evidence that is Collected from these Papers. And from hence I have these things to observe.

1. That this is all finally resolved into the single Testimo­ny of Dr. Gauden himself, and of what Consideration that ought to be in the Case before us, will appear from these Par­ticulars,

1. A Man's own Evidence in his own Cause labours under very great Prejudices; and as the Wisdom of all Lands exclude a Man from bearing witness for himself, so such Testimony can [Page 21]never be admitted to conclude and determine a Matter in Con­troversie in these two Cases.

1. When there is another Claim, and Pretender in possession of the thing in controversie, in such a Case a Man's own single Testimony signifies nothing, nor is of any Validity. The Book bears the Name of King Charles, and hath for many years been acknowledged to be his; and if Dr. Gauden should have said, That he was the Author, and not the King, it would not be sufficient to defeat the King's Title, nor to advance his own; Because a Man's own Testimony is incompetent to determine the Controversie between two Rival Authors; on the one side there is the Authority of the Book it self, which in every Line owns it self to be the King's, as speaking in his Name, and the general Reputation of the World consequent upon that. On the other is only the affirmation of another Pretender, who would claim it for his own, upon his own Evidence. For let this Evidence pass through never so many Channels, it is one and the same Evidence still; if one Man tells a hundred, that he did such a thing, and they all testifie, that he said so, there are in­deed a hundred Witnesses that he said it, but there is but one that he did, and that is himself; if therefore Dr. Gau­den acquainted the King, the Duke of York, my Lord Chan­cellor, Mrs. Gauden, Dr. Walker and several others, that he wrote the Book, the Evidence to the Fact is still but one, and that is Dr. Gauden himself: or if Dr. Gauden told Mrs. Gau­den and Dr. Walker, that he acquainted the Marquess of Hartford, Bishop Duppa, the King, &c. Mrs Gauden and Dr. walker may be two distinct Witnesses that he said so, but there is but one that he did so, and that is himself. So that this whole Matter is resolved into his own Evidence, which in this Case is no Evidence at all, nor will any wise Man consider it as such: especially if to this be added,

2. If there be any Interest or Advantage to be reaped by it. In this Case a Man's own Testimony is always resused, because a Man is suspected as too partial to himself, and apt to be sway­ed by his Interests. And if we are to give any credit to these Papers, I am afraid Mrs. Gauden has revealed a great Secret when she saith, That her Husband hoped to make a Fortune by it. For if that was the end of his owning himself to be the Author, it hath too great a mixture of carnal Ingredi­ents to gain much Credit; for if Men witness for themselves to advance their Ambition, and secular Designs, their Evidence is tainted, and savours of Project and Artifice, and Men always uspect on that Hand. And I am sorry to find, that these [Page 22]very Papers insinuate too much of this very Temper to be in Dr. Gauden, in these two Instances;

1. They lay before us a very strange and immodest magni­fying his own Merits, and particularly in that to King Charles the Second, writ by his own Hand, wherein he declares what Hazards he had run of Life and Estate. (And yet he kept one of the most considerable Livings in England all the time of the Usurpation.) And what great Advantage had accrued to the Crown by his Service. (And in his Letter to the Duke of York, he strongly urges the great Services he had done.) That what was done like a King should have a King-like Re­tribution; and instances in the Cases of Joseph, Mordeeai and Daniel, who were honored and rewarded for the Services they did to the respective Princes, and in particular observes, that Ahasuerus was uneasie, till Mordecai had had his merited Re­ward. Now these are fine Characters indeed, and give a good account of Dr. Gauden's Performances, but they look a little scurvily coming from his own Mouth; had the Dr. never a Friend at Court? methinks my Lord of Warwick or Man­chester, his known Friends and Patrons, or else my Lord Mar­quess of Hartford and Bishop Duppa might have sav'd him this Trouble, and so certainly they would, had they known by him such a thing as the writing the King's Book: but since the Dr. was forced to make use of himself, it seems pretty plain, that there was no Body else to imploy in this Matter, and that no Person about the King knew the Drs. Merits so well as himself, The Truth is, a Man that is clamorous in his own Praise, always looks suspiciously; and he that can break through all the Bounds of Modesty and Decency to magnifie his own Merits, may possibly not be very shy in straining at a point of Truth to make it good; Boasting always stands near Ʋntruth, and treads on the very Heels of it. To this may be added,

2. An immoderate Desire of Reward, and undue Solicitation for it: thus these Papers represent him, as discontented with his preferment to the Bishoprick of Exeter, telling the King, that he had a high Rack, but a low Manger, altho there be se­veral Bishopricks in England and Wales inferior to that in point of Revenue, and at that time possessed by Men of very great Worth and Virtue. Thus also he teaches the King to be grate­ful to him, by the respective Advancements of Joseph, Daniel, and Mordecai. Thus in the Letter to the Duke of York he importunately begs his Royal Highness to intercede for him with the King. And in the Lord Chancellor Hyde's Letter to him it is expressed, That he was uneasie under the Bishop's Im­portunity. [Page 23]These things plainly represent a very ambitious Temper, covetous of Preferment, hasty and patient in the pur­suit of it; and when Men are under the power of such a Com­plexion, they do not generally manage themselves by nice and punctual Methods, and to be sure such a Man's Merits will lose nothing by his own telling them, nor himself any thing for want of asking. And the truth is, over-valuing our own Me­rits, and claiming those which are none of our own, differ very little in point of Modesty and Virtue; and he that can do one, in all probability, will not stick at the other, if he thinks it feasible to accomplish the ends he aims at. So that those who have published these Papers, have done but little Service to the Bishop's Memory, and as little to the Cause they pretend to main­tain; for tho I do not from hence conclude, that the Bishop ever told King Charles, the Duke of York, or the Lord Chan­cellor, that he was the Author of this Book; yet if ever he did so, or to any others, I do conclude, that it being his own Cause, and for such Ends, and joyned with such a Temper, it apparently sinks the Credit of his own Testimony, and renders it of no value.

2. Another thing which would take off the Force of Dr. Gau­den's Testimony in this Case, supposing he ever attested it, is the Immorality and Infamy of the whole Practice, which must be charged upon him upon such a supposition. And that is writing a Book in the King's Name, and therein personating him in the Acts of Piety, Devotion, and high point of Con­science, which, whatever the end might be, in the softest Lan­guage, is first inventing a Falshood, and then imposing it upon the World, and (as these Papers intimate) upon the King too, (for they plainly tell us he never had the King's Consent.) Had the Devotionary Part been Composed for the King's private Use and Assistance, the Attempt might have been dutiful and charitable, tho there had been no need for it, to a Prince who was so admirably qualified himself, and the King, if he had thought them suitable, might by them have expressed the Sence of his own Heart. But to give them to the World as the King's own, which he never framed nor used, nor so much as owned, is to counterfeit the King's Conscience, which, as I take it, is a more audacious and far greater Crime, than to counterfeit his Coin, his Hand, or his great Seal; for such a Practice mocks God as well as Men, and dawbs and juggles in these very Cases, in which are required the greatest plainness and sincerity. And in all re­spects, to counterfeit Prayers, Repentance, Charity and other Graces, (abundantly expressed in that excellent Book) and to [Page 24]impose them upon the World for true and genuine, is such a Piece of Forgery and Imposture, Fraud and Hypocrisie toge­ther, that no end can warrant, and nothing can parallel. And now if a Man had acted in such a manner, methinks he should have but little stomach to own it, or if he did, in the same breath he convicts himself of Falshood, and lays a Bar to his own Testimony; for 'tis obvious, that if a Man in such Cir­cumstances can father his own Book upon the King, he may with the same truth and justice lay claim to the King's Book: and the pretence of Good Ends does not alter the Case, for no doubt a good Bishoprick may be thought a Good End too; and he that thinks the King's Honor will justifie the acting deceit­fully for him, may as well think his own Honor may justifie the same measure for acting for himself. And what, I wonder, is such a Testimony worth in this Case, when the Testimony it self plainly declares, that he first abused the World, in giving them a Book for the King's, which was not his, and afterwards abused the King in taking great pains to assume it to himself. And the truth is, this Evidence (such as it is) confronts it self; for if Dr. Gauden was the Publisher of this Book (as these Pa­pers represent) then he gave as publick an Evidence as was possible, that the King was the Author of it, and as much as any Man does who sets his Name to his own Works. And if he told Mrs. Gauden, Dr. Walker, or any other, that he himself was the Author, then he told them one thing, and the whole Kingdom another, which, at last, makes a fine Evidence of it, and very fit to determine the Controversie, which in the very Case contradicts it self; and it is impossible to reconcile Dr. Gauden the Publisher, to Dr. Gauden the private Relater. I must confess, I am heartily sorry, and afflicted, that I have said thus much concerning Bishop Gauden, considering both his Character and Station in the Church, and that he hath been long since dead. But those who have been so earnest to assert his Right to this Book, are to be thanked for it; for it is the very Character they have given him, and the very means they have used to prove his Title. And if the Memory of King Charles the First must stand in competition with the Memory of Dr. Ganden, I think there needs no Apology for doing Right to that King's Memory, tho it should reflect on Bishop Gauden, or a greater Subject than he. But this I have said only in sup­position, that Dr. Gauden did in truth own himself to be the Author. But that which follows, I hope, will clear him from that Imputation, how severe soever those who plead his Cause, have been to his Memory. And that is

[Page 25] 2. The second thing I have to observe from these Papers of Mrs. Gauden, which is, that they do, in direct Terms, and in notorious Instances contradict the Testimony of Dr. Walker. And to make this very plain, I shall set them opposite to one another in two Columns.

Doctor Walker, pag. 5.

Dr. Gauden some time af­ter the King was murdered, upon my asking hm whether He (the King) had ever seen the Book, gave me this An­swer: I know it certainly no more than you, but I used my best Endeavours that he might; for I delivered a Copy of it to the Marquess of Hart­ford, when he went to the Treaty at the Isle of Wight, and intreated his Lordship, if he could obtain any private opportunity, he would deliver it to his Majesty, and humbly desire to know his Majesty's Pleasure concerning it. But the Violence which threatened the King, hastening so fast, he ventured to Print it, and never knew what was the Issue of sending it; for when the thing was done, he judged it not prudent to make further noise about it by inquiry.

Mrs. Gauden, pag. 37.

An Opportunity was taken to convey (the Book) to his Majesty, by the Lord Marquess of Hartford, when he went to the Treaty at the Isle of Wight: that the Mar­quess, after his return, told her Husband, that he gave the Book to the King, and his Majesty did well like it, but was for putting it out, not as his own, but as anothers. But it being urged, that Cromwel and others of the Army having got a great Re­putation with the People for Parts and Piety, it would do best to be in the King's Name. His Majesty took time to consider of it.

Dr. Walker, pag. 5.

I asking him (for we sel­dom were in private but some­what was discoursed of this Book, even to the last time I saw him after he was Lord Bishop of Worcester elect) whe­ther that King Charles the Se­gnd knew that he wrote it, he gave me this Answer: I can not [Page 26]positively and certainly say he doth, because he was never pleased to take express notice of it to me; but I take it for granted he doth, for I am sure, the Duke of York doth, for he hath spoken of it to me, and own'd it as a seasonable and acceptable service, and he know­ing it, I question not but the King also doth.

[Page 25]
Mrs. Gauden, pag. 38.

Bishop Duppa of Winche­ster being very sick, her Hus­hand went to the King, and acquainted him, that he was the Author of the Book; and for the truth thereof appealed to Bishop Duppa, his Maje­sty's Tutor, who was yet li­ving, and made an Apology [Page 26]for printing it without his Ma­jesty's Father's order, or his, but pleaded the circumstances of time, and the Kings dan­ger. That his Majesty told her Husband, that till then he never knew that he wrote it, but thought it was his Fathers, and wondred how he could have time; and observed it was wrote like a Scholars as well as like a King; and said, that if it had been published sooner, it might have sav'd his Fathers Life. That at the same time the King gave him a Pro­mise of the Bishoprick of Winchester.

That he afterwards acquainted the Duke of York, &c. That her Husband then told his Highness, that the King promised him the Bishoprick of Winchester, and that his Highness assured him of his favour.

And now, what an admirable Harmony and Agreement have we here? Such Evidence must needs be credited, they are so consistent with one another in their Stories. In Dr. Walker's Evidence Dr. Gauden did not certainly know, and no more than Dr. Walker himself, whether King Charles I. had ever seen the Book. But in Mrs. Gauden's Evidence, the Marquess of Hart­ford told him, that he gave the Book to the King. In Dr. Wal­ker's, he never knew what was the Issue of sending it. But in Mrs. Gauden's, that the King liked it well, but was for put­ting it out, not as his own, &c. In Dr. Walkers, when the thing was done, he judg'd it not prudent to make further noise about it by enquiry. Nor need he, as Mrs. Gauden represents it, when the Marquess had told him already, and by such a remark­able circumstance, That Cromwell, &c. having got a great reputation with the People for Parts and Piety, it would do best to be in the King's Name; and his Majesty took time to consider of it.

In Dr. Walker's Evidence, Dr. Gauden could not positively and certainly say that King Charles II. knew that he wrote it. But in Mrs. Gauden's he told that King himself, that he was the Author of it, and appeal'd to Bishop Duppa for the truth of it. In Dr. Walker's he gave this as a Reason why he could not positively say it, viz. because the King was never pleased to rake express notice of it to him. But in Mr. Gauden's [Page 27]the King took express notice of it to him; and told him that till then he never knew that he wrote it, but thought it had been his Father's, yet wondered how he could have time, &c. That, had it been published sooner it might have saved his Fa­ther's Life. And all this by a very good token; That, at the same time the King promised him the Bishoprick of Winchester. In Dr. walker's he collects the King's knowing it by inference, and takes it for granted, because he is sure the Duke of York doth, and he knowing it, he does not question but the King also doth. But in Mrs Gauden's; he acquainted the King himself; and not only so, but he acquainted the King first, and the Duke of York afterwards; as Mrs. Gauden expresly, That he after­wards acquainted the Duke, that he was the Author. And by the same token, That he then told his Highness, that the King promised him the Bishoprick of Winchester. So that if it had not been said so expresly, this telling the Duke must be sub­sequent to that Promise, which (as Mrs. Gauden says) was at the same time that he told the King. And lastly, In Dr. Wal­ker's, the Reason of Dr. Gauden's Assurance that the Duke knew it, was, for that the Duke had spoken of it to him; but in Mrs. Gauden's. That he had acquainted the Duke himself.

And now, how like ye this my Masters? Is not this rare Evidence, to convince the World, that agrees at this rate? Do men use to believe a matter of fact upon the Credit of Witnesses who contradict each other? Methinks, the example of Daniel may serve to shew us the value of such Testimony, as well as to teach the King Gratitude: The two Elders were both positive as to the fact, but their differing in circum­stance detected their Falsity. And the two Elders did not dif­fer from one another, by many degrees, so much as Dr. Walker and Mrs. Gauden. In short, either Dr. Gauden told these things respectively to Dr. Walker and Mrs. Gauden, or he did not; if he did not, their Evidence is of no value; if he did, his own is of no value as contradicting himself.

And so I have done with this part of the Discourse, the Evi­dence that is produced to intitle Dr. Gauden to this Book. And I appeal to all the World, whether such Testimony so cir­cumstantiated be fit, or ever was admitted, to determine the least Controversie in the World? And if there was no more to be said for the Kings being the true Author, but only the bare Name and general Acceptation, that is abundantly suffi­cient to vindicate it to him from all that is here offered; and no rational and unprejudiced man can alter his Sentiments; and translate it to Dr. Gauden upon such Evidence; and much [Page 28]less if this be consronted by plain, direct and unexceptionable Evidence in behalf of the King. And this is the third thing, viz.

3. I shall produce the Evidence that hath appeared, to prove the King the Author of this Book, and altho there are some others, and which are of good Credit and may deserve Con­sideration, yet I shall confine my self to these, which are plain and direct, and come home to the very Case; a Testimony that plainly gives Evidence to the King's Title, and that Evidence unexceptionably convey'd to us: Some of these, and these the most considerable, are summ'd up by Sir William Dugdale, (in his short view of the late troubles in England, p. 380.) in these Words: ‘I shall make it evident from the Testimony of very credible Persons yet living, that he had begun the penning of them long before he went from Oxford to the Scots. For the Manuscript it self, written with his own hand, being found in his Cabinet, which was taken at Navesby Fight, was restored to him after he was brought to Hampton Court by the hand of Major Huntington, thro the favour of General Fairfax of whom he obtain'd it, and that whilst he was in the Isle of Wight, it was there seen frequently by Mr. Thomas Herbert, who then waited on his Majesty in his Bedchamber; as also by Mr. William Levet, (a Page of the Back Stairs) the Title then prefixed to it being Suspiria Regalia, who not only read several Parts thereof, but saw the King divers times writing farther on it. Add hereunto the Testimony of Mr. Richard Royston a Bookseller at the Angel in Ivy Lane; who having in these rebellious times adventured to Print divers of his Maje­sty's Declarations, Speeches and Messages; about the begin­ning of October 1648. (the King being then in the Isle of Wight) was sent to by his Majesty to prepare all things ready for the Printing some Papers, which he purposed shortly after to con­vey unto him, which was this very Copy brought to him on the 23d. of December next following, by one Mr. Edward Simonds a reverend Divine, who received it from Dr. Bryan Duppa then Bishop of Salisbury, and afterwards of Winchester. In the Printing whereof Mr. Royston made such speed, that it was finish'd before that dismal 30th. of January, that his Maje­sty's Life was taken away.’

In this Summary are four considerable Evidences, Major Hun­tington, Mr. Herbert, Mr. Levet, and Mr. Royston; three of them directly to the thing, and Mr. Royston's so circumstan­tiated, as amounts very near to a direct Evidence.

[Page 29] 1. Major Huntington. To this Dr. Walker excepts, (p. 33.) that at Tunbridge the Major told him, that all he knew or ever said concerning it was, when that Book was published, and so confidently reported to be the Kings, then surely, or I believe these are the Papers I see him so usually take out of his Cabi­net. But this was but my Conjecture and I never declared it to be otherwise; for I assure you I never read one Line or Word of the Papers in the King's hand; I was not so rude, and I cannot say there was one Passage in those Papers which is in this printed Book: For how should I, never having looked into them? Now this Evidence of Dr. Walkers is confronted by another of Mr. Rich. Duke's in a Letter to Dr. Charles Goodal June 15.92. in these Words:

Sir, I confess that I heard Ma­jor Huntington to say more than once, that whilst he guarded Charles I. at Holmby-House (as I remember) he saw several Chapters or Leaves of that great King's Meditations, lying on the Table, several Mornings; with a Pen and Ink, with which the King scratched out or blotted some Lines or Words of some of them: Ʋpon which I must also confess, that I con­cluded they were originally from the King; but others have drawn a contrary Argument from the King's correcting the Papers, yet I put this under my hand, that the Major told me that he did suppose them originally from that learned Prince. Which is the totum that can be intimated, from, Sir,

Your humble Servant, Richard Duke.

In this Testimony of Mr. Duke these things are to be cleared.

1. That there is a difference between this account, and that of Sir William Dugdale's. But notwithstanding both their E­vidence are very consistent, and by no means contradictory. Sir William Dugdale says that Major Huntintdon, through the favour of Fairfax, restored to him the Manuscript after Navesby Fight; Mr. Duke only says that the Major saw them lying on the Table &c. which the Major might very well do, and yet before that restore them to the King from General Fair­fax; which as Mr. Duke says nothing of, so neither doth what he says any ways contradict; so that Mr. Duke's Evidence is not contrary to Sir William's, but a Supplement to it, and a further account of the Major's Knowledge of this matter: He testifies indeed more than Sir William, but by no means interferes with him. So likewise when Sir William says it was at Hampton Court, this is easily reconcil'd, because Mr. Duke speaks diffi­dently, that it was at Holmby-House as he remembers, but is not positive but it might be some other place, as these Expressi­ons plainly denote.

[Page 30] 2. The next thing is, that Mr. Duke does not say in express terms, that those Meditations, which the Major saw lying upon the Table several Mornings, and the King correct them; that those were the same that were printed in the King's name. But it is plainly imply'd, for Mr. Duke says, that from the Ma­jor's account to him he conceiv'd they were originally from the King, and is positive that the Major told him, that he supposed them originally from the King; that is plainly the Meditati­ons in Controversie, for the Word originally here can refer to nothing else, but to another Pretender. And the saying that others have drawn a contrary Argument from the Kings cor­recting the Papers, yet further proves it. So that as Mr. Duke did not, so it is plain the Major himself did not mean any other Papers, than the original Manuscript of the King's Book or of some part of it, which he saw lie on the Table, and the King correcting it. The Sum therefore is, that the Testimony of Major Huntington, as it is represented by Mr. Duke, is contra­dictory to the same represented by Dr. Walker, and the Vali­dity of the respective Testimony must depend on the Credit of the respective Witnesses. And how much Dr. Walker's Testi­mony is to be rely'd on in this Case I have shewn already; and Mr. Duke's Testimony is confirm'd by another; Mr. Cave Beck in a Letter to Dr. Hollingworth attesting; ‘That Major Hun­tington at Ipswich assured him, that so much of the said Book as contained his Majesty's Meditations before Navesby Fight, Dr. Holl. Charact. of King Charles I. p. 27 was ta­ken in the King's Cabinet; and that Sir Tho­mas Fairfax deliver'd the said Papers unto him, and ordered him, to carry them to the King: and also told him that when he deliver'd them to the King, his Majesty appeared very joy­ful, and said he esteemed them more than all the Jewels he had lost in the Cabinet.’

2. The next Evidence is that of Mr. Herbert, afterwards Sir Thomas Herbert; who not only saw it, as Sir William Dug­dale says, but moreover had the original Manuscript given him by the King, and which was wrote by the King's own hand. This hath never yet appeared publickly to the World, and there­fore I shall set it down at large, as it was transmitted to me by the Reverend Mr. Cudworth Rector of Barmbrough in Yorkshire, and attested by several worthy and learned Persons, in these Words:

In a Manuscript Book in Folio of Sir Thomas Herbert's well bound, fairly written, and consisting of 83 Pages, and by him called Carolina Threnodia, having the Picture of King Charles I. in the Front, and beginning thus:


By yours of the 22d. of August last I find you have received my former Letters of the 1st. and 13th. of May, 1678. And seeing it is your farther desire I should recollect what I can well remember upon that sad Subject more at large, I am willing to satisfie you therein so far forth as my Memory will assist. Some short Notes of Occurrences I then took, which in this long Interval of time and several Removes of my Family are either lost, or so mislaid at present I cannot find, which renders this Narrative not so methodical nor so large as otherwise I should, and probably by you may be expected. Nor would I trouble you much with what any other has writ, but in a summa­ry way give you some Court Passages, which I observed du­ring the two last years of his Majesty's Life and Reign; be­ing the time of his Solitudes and Sufferings. — In pag. 21. Nevertheless, both times be carefully observed his usual times set apart for private Devotion, and for writing. Mr. Harrington and Mr. Herbert continued waiting on his Majesty as Grooms in the Bedchamber, he also gave Mr. Herbert the Charge of his Books, of which the King had a Catalogue, and from time to time had brought unto him such as from time to time he was pleased to call for: The sacred Scripture was the Book he most delighted in; read often in Bishop Andrew's Sermons, Hooker's Ecclesiastical Polity, Dr. Hammond's Works, Villal­pandus upon Ezekiel, &c. Sandy's Paraphrase upon King David's Psalms, Herbert's divine Poems; and also recreated himself in reading Godfrey of Bulloigne writ in Italian by Torquato Tasso, and done into English Heroick Verse by Mr. Fair­fax. A Poem his Majesty much commended, as he did Ario­sto, by Sir John Harrington a factious Poet, much esteem'd of by Prince Henry his Master; Spencer's Fairy Queen and the like, for alleviating his Spirits after serious Studies. And at this time it was, (as is presumed) he composed his Book cal­led Suspiria Regalia publish'd soon after his Death, and intitled, The King's Portraicture in his Solitudes and Sufferings. Which Manuscript Mr. Herbert found among those Books his Majesty was graciously pleased to give him, (those excepted which he bequeathed to his Children hereafter mentioned) in regard Mr. Herbert, tho he did not see the King write that Book, his Majesty being always private when he writ, and these his Servants never coming into the Bedchamber when the King was private until he call'd; yet comparing it with his Hand­writing in other things, he found it so very like, as induces his [Page 32]belief that it was his own; having seen much of the King's Writings before. And to instance particulars, in that his Maje­sty's Translation of Dr. Sanderson the late Bishop of Lincoln's Book de juramentis, a like Title, concerning Oaths, all of it translated into English, and writ with his own hand, and which in his Bedchamber he was pleased to shew his Servants, Mr. Harrington and Mr. Herbert, and commanding them to examine it with the Original, they found it accurately transla­ted.

This is a true Copy taken out of the original Manuscript, and compared by Us,

  • Thomas Vincent.
  • Thomas Fountaine.
  • Ra. Eaton, Rector of Darfield.
  • J. Cudworth, Rector of Barmbrough.
  • Tho. Maulyverer, Rector of Spersbrough.
  • Tho. Burton.
  • Jo. Newsome, Rector of Warmsworth.

This Manuscript is now in the Hands of Sir Thomas Harvey of Yorkshire, who (as I think) married the Widow of Sir Thomas Herbert.

3. The next Evidence is Mr. Levet, who besides Sir Willi­am Dugdale's Testimony hath himself lately given an account of his Knowledge of this matter, in a Letter to Seymour Bourman Esq in Lincolns-Inn Fields. In these Words:

Dear Brother,

Yours of the 21. of this instant April I received, and one Let­ter before that to the same effect, viz. To give a true account of my Knowledge of that unparallel'd Book, which his sacred Majesty of blessed Memory King Charles I. (murder'd by his own rebellious Subjects before his own Palace at Whitehall, with all the violent and malicious Circumstances that wicked men could invent) which Book of my certain Knowledge I can depose was truly his own, having observed his Maje­sty oftentimes writing his Royal Resentments of the bold and insolent Behaviour of his Soldiers, (his rebellious Sub­jects) when they had him in their Custody. I waited on his Majesty as Page of the Bedchamber in ordinary, during all the time of his Solitudes (except when I was forced from [Page 33]him) and especially being nominated by his Majesty to be one of his Servants, among others that should attend him, during the Treaty at Newport in the Isle of Wight, had the Happi­ness to read the same oftentimes in Manuscript, under his Ma­jesty's own hand, being pleased to leave it in the Window in his own Bedchamber, where I was always oblig'd to attend his Majesty's coming thither. But the Treaty being ended in few days after, the Soldiers with one to conduct them, by name Mr. Anthony Mildmay, then Cup-bearer, came to the Bedcham­ber about Two of the Clock in the night, and knock'd at the dore, and one Mr. Herbert, Mr. Kirk, and my self, having some hint of their Intentions, were watching in an inner room, and hearing some noise, went into his Majesty's Bedchamber, and asked who they were that durst disturb his Majesty at that unseasonable time of the night; who answered, they were sent to tell the King he must rise, and go with them. We acquainting his Majesty with their design, he was pleased to command us to tell them, he would go with them, but it was not his usual hour to rise so soon; we again acquainted the Soldiers with his Majesty's Answer: They instead of com­plying with his Majesty bid us tell him, if he did not rise pre­sently, they must force him to it: His Majesty only said, if I must give me my Clothes, and so he immediately arose. (Here ye may observe a mirrour of Patience in a distressed Prince); during the time of his Majesty's making himself rea­dy, he concern'd himself only how to secure this Book of his, and a small Cabinet, wherein he secured his Letters to his Queen, who was then beyond the Sea; and his Majesty having procured a Pass for me from the Governour, that I should wait on him there, he gave me in charge this said Book and small Cabinet, which I faithfully presented to his Majesty's own hands that night in Hurst Castle. But the Governour, by what Information is too tedious to insert here, at this time, and therefore I omit it, did on Saturday banish me out of the Castle.

I should have sent you a Relation which I had of Royston the King's Printer, for the Printing the said Book, by his Ma­jesty's special Command, brought to him by a Divine, but not to be By Printed is to be understood Published. Printed till after the King's Death, which he observed accordingly; for which Cromwel sent for him to Whitehall, not only promi­sing Rewards, but also threatning Punishments, if he would not deny, that he Printed it by his Majesty's Or­der, which he refusing to do, did imprison him for about [Page 34]a Fortnight, but seeing he could not work upon him, released him, which is all at present from

Your Affectionate Brother to serve you, William Levet.

To this Dr. Walker answers, (Pag. 34.)

There is no such Chapter or Title in all [...], meaning, as the Royal Resentment of the bold and insolent Behaviour of his Soldiers (his rebellious Subjects.) Very right, Sir, but there is the thing; and Mr. Levet did not say that was the Title to any Chapter in that Book, or a Title to what he saw the King write, but the Subject Matter of it; and that it is of more Chapters than one. In the mean time it is very pleasant, when a Man testifies, that he will depose, the Book was the King's own, for that he had observed the King writing his Royal Resentments, &c. to answer there is no such Chapter or Title. But I pray, Sir, are there in that Book no Royal Resentments of the insolent Behaviour of the Rebellious Soldiers? If there be none in­deed, then Mr. Levet could not conclude they were part of the Book, tho he saw the King write them; but if there be, 'tis extremely ridiculous to say, there is no such Chapter, or no such Title; the Force of this Testimony therefore, is not about the Title, but the thing, and that Mr. Levet could de­pose that the Book was the King's, and that he read the same in Manuscript under the King's own Hand. And what does Dr. walker say to this? why truly he says, I must beg his pardon to believe he is mistaken. And so it seems Mr. Levet's deposing, and seeing the King write some of it, and reading it under the King's own Hand is all confuted, and it neither is, nor can be so, because Dr. Walker begs his pardon. This is an excellent way of deseating the Force of an Evidence, and taking off the Edge of the Testimony of an Eye-witness; and if this will do, Dr. Walker must needs gain the Cause; for there is no doubt but he will beg the pardon of all the King's Witnesses, if he can so easily quit his Hands of them. In the mean time, that Mr. Levet was not mistaken, but delivered his Knowledge of this Matter, we have confirmed by another Testimony of his, and of another Date, in the possession of his Son, Fellow of Exeter College in Oxon. in these Words: If any one has a desire to know the true Author of a Book intituled [...], Dr. Hollingw. Charact. of King Charles. pag. 9. I, one of the Servants of King Charles the First in his Bed­chamber, [Page 35]do declare, when his said Majesty was Prisoner in the Isle of Wight, that I read over the above-mentioned Book (which was long before the said Book was Printed) in his Bed-chamber, writ with his Majesty's own Hand, with se­veral Interlinings. Moreover his Majesty King Charles I. told me, Sure, Levet, you do design to get this Book by heart: having often seen me reading of it. I can testifie also, that Royston the Printer told me that he was imprisoned by Oliver Cromwell the Protector, because he would not declare, that King Charles I. was not the Author of the said Book. Signed and sealed October 16. 1690.

Will. Levet.

4. The next Evidence is that of Mr. Royston, which contains very material Circumstances viz. That the October before, the King sent a Message to him to prepare all things ready for the Printing some Papers, which he purposed shortly after to convey to him, and which was this very Copy brought the Twenty third of December next following. This is very near to a di­rect Evidence; and the King's sending to him to prepare him­self, and this Book being sent to him accordingly, is a plain proof that these were the Papers the King designed to send him, and the King had intentions of Printing them in October, which it seems, according to Dr. Walker and Mrs. Gauden was before he had seen them, or heard any thing of them. I shall not need to add any more to this, but that this Testimony of Mr. Royston is corroborated by two others, as Mr. Thomas Milbourn, Printer by Jewin-street, who told Dr. Dr. Hellingwerth's, Defence of King Charles I. pag. 12 13, 14. Hol­lingworth before sufficient Witnesses: That in the Year 48 he was an Apprentice to Mr. John Grisman a Printer, when Mr. Simonds, by Mr. Royston, sent the King's Book to be Printed, and that his Master did Print it. That Mr. Si­monds always had the Name of sending it to the Press, that it came to them as from the King, and they understood it no otherwise; that they had Printed several other things with C. R. to them, and that it looked to them like the same Hand, and the same sort of Paper with others that were so marked, and looked upon as the King's Papers; for the King kept the Original by him, and Mr. Odert the Secretary transcrib'd them. To the same purpose Mr. Clifford, Reader of Prayers at Ser­jeants Inn in Fleet-street, who assisted Mr. Milbourn in the Printing it: and who further adds, That the King intituled his Book the Royal Plea, but Doctor Jeremiah Taylor coming ac­cidentally [Page 36]to Mr. Royston's Shop, he having an assured Con­fidence in him, shewed him the first Proof from the Press, which when the Doctor viewed under that Title, he told him the Title would betray the Book — That Dr. Taylor wrote to the King, to let him know it would be in danger of suppres­sing by two Informers, Chelsenham and Jones, who would un­derstand the Book by the Title. And therefore he thought [...] would be a better Title, and less taken notice of by the Informers, being Greek. and agreeing with the Title of his Father's Book, called [...]; and to which the King consented. — And adds further, That he never heard, nay, that he is sure, that Dr. Gauden never was concerned in that Book by which Milbourn and himself Printed it, and that they had no part of the Copy from Dr. Walker, for it was that transcribed by Mr. Odert they Printed it by.

To these Testimonies cited by Sir William Dugdale, and in this manner strengthened and confirmed, we may add,

1. The Testimony of Doctor Gauden himself, when Bishop of Exeter, and attested by Mr. Long, Prebendary of the Church of Exeter, Dr. Walker's Ac­count examined, pag. 4. viz. That he had heard him often affirm, that he was fully convinced, that the [...] was intirely that King's Work. This, I confess, is not a direct Proof to the Matter, but it is full against Dr. Gauden; for if he was fully convinced, that it was intirely the King's Work, he would himself never pretend to have any hand in the Compo­sure of it.

2. The Testimony of two Authors of two Books, and both of them Printed 1649, whose Names I know not, tho possi­bly by the Titles of their respective Books they may be known to some other persons.

The first is certainly a person of Worth and Learning, and the Title his Book bears, is [...], written in answer to a scurrilous Pamphlet against the King's Book, intituled [...], in which the Author (pag. 4.) hath these Words: The Author might have informed himself of divers, who have seen the Original Copy, manuscribed by the King himself, he might have seen it himself for asking. — And afterwards, I take it to be the King's Book, I am sure of it, I knew his Hand, I have seen the Manuscript, I have heard him own it. These are plain and express, and if the Author was known, I doubt not but his Person would give Value to his Te­stimony, for his Writings plainly shew him a great Man, and of excellent Qualifications.

[Page 37] The other is the Author of a Book called the Princely Pelli­can, written on purpose (as the Title Page asserts) to satisfie the Kingdom, that the King was the Author of this Book. And the Account the Author gives of himself is this, (Pag. 1.) that he had been a constant Servant to the King, and that he had remained constantly in his attendance upon his Majesty to the last Man, that the King was oft times pleased to communi­cate his private Councils and Addresses to him. And after having given this Account of himself, he proceeds to give Account of the Book, and in the first place tells us the very Be­ginning of the King's Resolutions to undertake it. (Pag. 4.) That he was pleased some few days after he had retired from his Parliament, to communicate his Thoughts in his Garden at Theobalds to some of his Gentlemen who were nearest to him, and of whose Intimacy and Abilities he stood most con­fident, how he had set his hand to Paper to vindicate his Innocency, in the first place, by shewing the Reasons he had of receding from the Parliament. And that not so much as one Lane had falien from his Pen, which with Honor he might not confirm. The Author goes on, His next Essay, as he told us, he intended should take its Discourse from the faithfullest Servant, and incomparable States man that any Prince could rely on, meaning the Earl of Strafford, and then gives us the King's particular Discourse, condemning himself for suffer­ing his Hand to thwart the Resolution of his Heart, &c. And particularly recites at large the Discourses of his Atten­dance on that Subject with his Majesty. He tells us further, (Pag. 19.) that the King told them, That as his Morning Devotions took up the first, so he ever reserved the next for these Meditations he had now in hand. The Author yet fur­ther tells us, (Pag. 21.) That at Naseby, those Divine Medi­tations were seized by the Enemy, with other Papers of Con­cern, being inclosed in a Cabinet reserved for that purpose: and that by the Benignity of the Conqueror, or Divine Provi­dence rather, it was recovered above all expectance, and re­turned to his Majesty's Hand; and which infinitely cheered him. And further (Pag. 22.) That a Person of high Command in that Army gave this Censure of it, saying, It was an hand­some Piece of Hipocrisie. There are several other observable Passages in this Author too long to transcribe. And I heartily wish, we could recover the Author's Name. In the mean time, the Testimony which he gives does so agree with the thing it self, and so concur in some Particulars, with the other E­vidence before-mentioned, particularly the seizing the King's [Page 38]Book (so much of it as was then done) at Naseby-Fight, and the Recovery of it again, and the great Joy the King had on the receiving it: that they plainly corroborate each other, and there can be no possible reason to doubt the Truth and Sin­cerity of such Evidence, which at divers times, and upon seve­ral Occasions, give the same Testimony, and in the same Cir­stances.

These are some of the Evidences which prove King Charles the First to be the sole Author of this Book, and which, I con­ceive, are so plain, full and clear, that it is impossible to avoid the Force of them, or without great obstinacy, not to be con­vinced by them. For, I think, there is very little need to be­stow much pains in comparing the Evidence on both sides, and to shew which preponderates, and ought to determine us in a matter of this Nature. On the one side we have but one single Evidence (if we have that) to the direct Matter, and that is the Person himself about whom is the Controversie, and him also under the presumption of Advantage and Inte­rest. And on the other we have several credible and unex­ceptionable and disinterested Witnesses, who neither had, nor could have any personal Advantage from the Evidence they give. On the one side we have two Witnesses giving their Testimony by Hearsay and Report, that they heard the pretended Author say so, &c. on the other we have far more for weight and number, declaring their proper knowledge of the Matter of Fact. On the one side neither of the two Witnesses come home to the direct Matter, or positively assert they saw Dr. Gauden write it, or dictate it, or saw it in his own Hand-writing, or any thing like it. But on the other, the direct contrary, some attesting they saw the King writing some part of it; others saw it in his own Hand-writing, and which they knew; and one, that he had the original Manuscript it self in possession, and given him by the King. On the one side we have one of the two Witnesses contradicting himself, and both contradicting each other in very important parts of their Evidence. On the other all agreeing, not only in the main Fact, but in several Circum­stances, and in all the material Branches of their respective Te­stimony. And now, if Evidence must carry it (and I know no reason to the contrary) it is plain, that all the Advantage is on the King's side, and there is no manner of comparison be­tween them. And sure 'tis very easie to judge on which side the Right lies, when plain, positive, direct and unexceptionable Proof, is opposed only by intangled, indirect, contradictious Evidence, full of Inconsistency.

[Page 39] I have now done with the first thing proposed, the external Evidence, proving the King to be the Author, and proceed to the next, viz.

2. The intrinsick Evidence, which arises from the Book it self: and if all the Testimony for King Charles's being the Au­thor was set aside, this would be abundantly sufficient to de­termine the Matter, and would far over-balance all that has been said in behalf of Dr. Ganden, and ten times as much more. The Truth is, the Book discovers its own Author, and there is not a Line nor a Sentence but plainly owns the King's Hand, and as plainly confutes all the pretences for Dr. Gauden. But this is a copious Argument, and to manage it fully, would re­quire a larger Book than that in Controversie. And therefore I shall confine my self, and speak briefly to these Particulars.

  • 1. The General Stile.
  • 2. The Historical Part of it.
  • 3. Some Particulars of the Subject Matter of it.

1. The General Stile: By this I do not only mean the Phrase and Expression, but, together with that, the manner of Management; and to this I add, the great Weight of the Matter: all these are very great and Majestick, not only like a King, but like that very King to whom they are ascribed; and let any Man compare this Book with other the Works of this glorious Martyr, and he cannot but see the same generous and free Expression, the same Clearness of Reason, the same Greatness of Mind; in short, the same Majesty throughout. But for the Works of Dr. Gauden, there is nothing in the World more unlike; a luscious Stile, stuffed with gawdy Me­taphors, and fancy far more Expression than Matter, a sort of noisy and Romantic Eloquence. These are the Ornaments of Dr. Gauden's Writings; and differ as much from the Gravity and Majesty of the King's Book, as Tawdriness does from a Genteel and Accomplish'd Dress. The Truth is, of all the Au­thors of that Age, there is scarcely any Writings are more light and thin, than those of Dr. Gauden; and let any Man compare the best of Dr. Gauden's Writings with this Book, and do it with Judgment and Discretion, and I dare say, he will be per­fectly cured, and he can no more believe, that Dr. Gauden was the Author of it, than he can believe, that the King's Picture at Whitehall, and that upon a Sign-Post, were both drawn by the same Hand. I know Mr. Walker talks fine things of a Man's changing his Stile, and differing from himself. (P. 25. But when all the Pieces put out in a Man's own Name shall be loose, forc'd, stiff, and elaborate, and one single one put out in the Name of [Page 40]another, incomparably great and excellent. This is such a Change, as I believe, no Man is capable of, and no Man can give account for. The Force of this therefore does not lie only in the difference of Stile and Expression, but in that total Di­sparity that is between them in every thing; for tho a Man may vary his Stile, (which yet Dr. Gauden, by the several Sub­jects he hath writ on, hath given no reason to think that he had a Talent that way) yet he cannot be Master of better and finer Thoughts when he pleases, or it he could, to be sure, we should see something of them, or at least, something like them in the Works which wear his Name, and by which he design'd to com­municate himself to the present Age and his Memory to Posterity. Let a Man therefore who hath any Understanding in these things, compare this admirable Book with the genuine Works of Dr. Gauden his Sermons, his Speech in the Lords House against the Quakers and his other Tracts, and then let him believe they have all the same Author if he can. This is so clear and convincing, that nothing ought, nothing can deseat it, but the most plain and invincible Proofs. He that says, that Dr. Gau­den is the Author of the King's Book, lies only under this one Disadvantage, that he says what is incredible in the nature of things, and according to the common Rules of judging. And if ever he expects to convince reasonable Men, he must produce such Evidence, so clear, full, and without Exception, and of such undoubted Veracity, and Authority, as Men may resign up their Judgments and Reasons to the Testimony. In short, there was in that Age, and in the Reign of that Pious Prince many Great and Learned Men in all Faculties, (and without any disparagement to him, or to his Memory) in all respects for superior to D. Gauden. And yet, I believe, any Man who will carefully, and with attention peruse this Book, and impartially judge when he hath done, he will conclude, that no Subject the King had was able to write this Book, and none less qualified for it than Dr. Gauden.

2. The Historical Part of it.

And here I shall not need to observe, that this excellent Book contains the most remarkable Passages of State from 41 to the middle of 48, and that not only the outward Shell, or the meer Facts, but the secret Springs by which they were moved; here we have the Rise and Growth of the several Factions, the Steps that they made, the Intrigues they managed, with most wise and judicious Remarks upon them, which plainly denote the Author to be an excellent Statesman, of a clear and pene­trating Judgment, and well vers'd in the Affairs he wrote on; especially if we add these Matters personally relating to the King; [Page 41]which (considering his various Fortunes and Removes, and par­ticularly after Navesby-Fight, and his Removal to the Scots, and from thence to Holmeby) I question whether any one single Man in England could have given, not only such an Account, but any clear Account at all. The Mystery of his going to the Scots is plainly laid open in that Chapter of his leaving Oxford, and going to the Scots, wherein are his Majesty's Reasons for so doing. And in the next Chapter are as plainly insinuated the Proposals that were made to him of Sacrilege, and the At­tempts made upon him to gain his Consent against his Consci­ence, &c. The Truth is, all the Meditations are weav'd into a Form of Devotion, and so they do admirably express the Piety and Goodness of the Compiler: but they are withal Historical, and give the best Account of the Mystery of Iniquity that then reigned, together with a more exact Judgment concerning the several Particulars, than is yet extant in any other Book. All which do very well agree with the Character of King Charles the First. But how to reconcile them to Dr. Gauden's Cha­racter, is (I think) an insuperable-Difficulty. For as to his Fa­culty at History, and how judicious a Compiler he was, we have (as far as I know) but one single Instance, and that is the Life of Mr. Hooker, wrote by him, and prefix'd to one E­dition of the Ecclesiastical Polity, and which (to say no more) is certainly the most injudicious History of a Man's Life that ever was written. There are so many palpable Mistakes and Falshoods so very little to any purpose of History, so lean, je­june and empty Accounts of the Man, whose Life he undertook, that it plainly betrays a Defect in every necessary Qualification of an Historian; and it is written without Care, or Diligence, or Judgment. But I had rather leave this to the Readers own Eyes, than extend it further; and if he please to compare this Book and that Life together, let him judge for himself, and if, after that, he can possibly believe they have both one and the same Author, he is abandoned to the utmost degree of Easiness and Credulity, and may believe any thing in the World.

3. Some Particulars of the Subject Matter. And these I shall mention are such things as could only be known to the King himself, and consequently could have no Author but him.

As 1. His secret Intentions.

2. The Matters of his own Conscience.

1. His secret Intentions. These are expressed all over the Book, I shall only select two or three Passages, which contain not only his secret Intentions, but his Appeals to Heaven for the [Page 42]Truth of them. In the Chapter on the Insolency of the Tu­mults, —God who is my sole Judge, is my Witness in Heaven, that I never had any Thoughts of going from my House at White-Hall, if I coud have had but any reasonable fair Quarter. And in that Chapter Ʋpon his Retirement from Westminster, I may in the Truth and Ʋprightness of my Heart, protest be­fore God and Men, that I never willfully opposed or denied any thing that was in a fair way, &c. And again in the Prayer; Thou knowest, O Lord, how unwilling I was to desert that place in which thou hast set me, and whereto the Affairs of my Kingdom at present did call me. And upon the Listing and Raising of Armies, God knows, I had not so much as any hopes of an Army in my thoughts. And upon the Troubles and Re­bellion in Ireland, If I have desired or delighted in the woful days of my Kingdom's Calamities, if I have not earnestly studied, and faithfully endeavoured the preventing and com­posing of these Bloody Distractions, then let thy Hand be against me, and my Father's House. And many others of the like na­ture, and which, I think, I shall not need to make any Remarks upon, only desire the Reader to tell me, whether he thinks these are the Expressions of King Charles, or of Dr. Gauden, or whether he can believe that Dr. Gauden durst make such Ap­peals and Imprecations upon Fictions and Forgeries? If he does believe that Dr. Gauden durst do this, I am certain he can believe nothing that Dr. Gauden asserts, nor can he believe Dr. Gauden if he should appeal to Heaven, and imprecate the Divine Vengeance concerning the Truth of his being the Author of this Book. For he that can appeal and imprecate upon one Forgery, may do so upon a hundred.

2. The next thing I have to observe, is a Matter relating to the King's Conscience, and of a high Nature. 'Tis in the Case of the Earl of Strafford, where the King plainly charges him­self as guilty of his Blood, by giving his Consent to that Bill which took away his Life. In that Chapter upon the Earl of Strafford's Death, the King saith, He preferred the outward Peace of his Kingdoms, before that inward exactness of Con­science before God. And adds, I am so far from excusing or denying that Compliance on my part (for plenary Consent it was not) to his Destruction, whom, in my Judgment, I thought not, by any clear Law, Guilty of Death; that I never bore any Touch of Conscience with greater Regret, &c. Again, It is a sad, Exchange to wound a Man's own Conscience, thereby to salve State-Sores. And speaks of his own Guilt in this manner, Being in my Soul so fully conscious; these Judgments God hath [Page 43]pleased to send upon me are so much the more welcome, as a means (I hope) which his Mercy hath sanctified so to me, as to make me repent of that unjust Act, (for so it was to me.) And the King adds, that nothing more fortified his Resolutions against all these Opportunities to gain his con­sent to Acts wherein his Conscience was unsatisfied, than the sharp Touches he had for what passed him in my Lord Straf­ford's Business. Further yet the King saith, That he was better assured of his Guiltlessness than any Man living could be. Again, this Tenderness and regret I find in my Soul for ha­ving had any Hand (and that unwillingly God knows) in shedding one Man's Blood unjustly. And in the Prayer are these Expressions: But thou, O God of infinite Mercies, forgive me that Act of sinful Compliance, which hath greater Aggrava­tions upon me than any Man.—Deliver me from Blood-guiltyness, O God.—Against thee have I sinned—for thou sawest the Contradiction between my Heart and my Hand— while I was perswaded by shedding one Man's Blood to prevent After-trouble, thou hast for that, among other sins, brought upon me, and upon my Kingdoms, great, long, and heavy Troubles. And now I would ask any Man living, whether he thinks these are the Expressions of Dr. Gauden? whether Do­ctor Gauden did, or possibly could know the inward State of the King's Conscience? or if he did, whether he would in this man­ner, publickly, and in Print, have charged the King in down­right Terms with acting against his Conscience, and in the Case of Blood? or finally, whether any Man, besides the King him­self, would, or indeed could have aggravated his Guilt in such a manner, That he was better assured of my Lord of Straf­ford's Guiltlessness than any Man living could be. That his sinful Compliance had greater Aggravations upon him than any Man. That the Calamities upon him and upon his King­doms were upon the score of that among other sins? These are evidently the bearings of a sincere, and generous Repen­tance, and plainly shew that the King was not ashamed to give Glory to God, by a frank and open Confession of his Faults, with all their aggravating Circumstances. But my Business is not to vindicate the King's Virtue and Piety, which does not need it, but to shew that he was the Author of this Book. And which these Expressions do very convincingly, and beyond contradiction, and that no other Man could be the Author. And if after this any Man can believe, that these are Fictions and Chimera's made to the King's Hand, and not proceeding from the Heart of a penitent Prince himself, under the deep and [Page 44]painful sense of Guilt, it is high time to leave disputing and offering any more Reasons to them whom no Reason will con­vince, nor Truth satisfie.

And thus I have done, with what I have at present to say, in this Controversie, and hope it may tend to the satisfaction of unbyass'd and unprejudiced Men. I confess a great deal more might be said, especially in the latter part, and with respect to the intrinsick proof. The Book it self affords many Argu­ments, and of equal force with these, which convincingly evi­dence that the King, and the King only was the Author of it; but I thought it sufficient to point out these few, which may serve for a Handle to any judicious Reader to observe many o­thers of the same Weight and Importance.

I know but of one Objection more, and that respects a Prayer added to some Editions of the King's Book, as used by the King, and said to be taken out of a Romance, &c. Now, altho I know no manner of harm in this, and the Objection is plainly peevish and querulous; for why may not a Man use good Expressions in his Prayers, let them be borrowed from whom they will, as well as a good Sentence out of a Heathen Writer, and which was never any Blemish, tho on the most pious Occasions, yet there is great reason to believe, that the King did ne­ver make use of it, for that it is not found in the First, nor in several other the most early Editions of this Book. And for the Readers satisfaction in this Point, I have here subjoin'd a Cata­logue of the several Editions of it, both without and with the Prayers, Collected with great Care and Industry, by Mr. Keeble at the Turks-Head in Fleet-street; and for preventing any Mi­stake, he hath with great Exactness given the Size of each Vo­lume, the Time of Printing, the Number of the Pages that the Contents consist of, and the Number of the Pages of the Book it self, when there were any such. And in which it is observable, that there are no less than Twenty six Editions without the Prayers, and Sixteen of them Printed 1648.

An Account of the several Impressions, or E­ditions of King CHARLES the Martyr's most Excellent Book, Intituled [...], that were Printed without the Prayers at the End.

  • THE First Impression in Octavo, Printed 1648, last Page 269, Contents Two Leaves.
  • The 2d. Imp. in 8o. Prin. 1648. last pag. 268. Cont. 3 Leaves.
  • The 3d. Imp. in 8o. Prin. 1648. last p. 268. Cont. 2 Leaves.
  • The 4th Imp. 8o. Prin. in R. M 1648 last p. 268. Cont. 2 Leaves.
  • The 5th. Imp. in 8o. Prin. 1648. last p. 270. Cont. 2 Leaves.
  • The 6th Imp. in 8o. Prin. 1648. with only the Lady Elizabeth's Relation.
  • The 7th. Imp. in 8o. Print. 1648. the last p. 242.
  • The 8th. Imp. 8o. Print. 1648. last p. 302. Cont. 2 Leaves.
  • The 9th. Imp. in Twelves, Print. 1648. last. p. 187. Cont. the last Page.
  • The 10th. Imp. in 12o. Print. 1648. last p. 164. Cont. 1 Leaf.
  • The 11th. Imp. in 12o. Print. 1648. last. p. 187. Cont. 1 Leaf.
  • The 12th. Imp. in 12o. Print. 1648. last p. 225. Cont. 1 Leaf.
  • The 13th. Imp. in 12o. Print. 1648. last p. 269. Cont. 3 Leaves.
  • The 14th. Imp. in 12o. Print. 1648. last p. 269. Cont. 1 Leaf.
  • The 15th. Imp. in 24o. Printed 1648. last p. 342. Cont. 2 Leaves.
  • The 16th. Imp. in 24o. Print. 1648. no Figures, Cont. 2 Leaves.
  • The 17th. Imp. in 8o. Print. 1649. last p. 204. Cont. 1 Leaf.
  • The 18th. Imp. in 12o. Print. 1649. last p. 264. with Epitaphs.
  • The 19th. Imp. in 12.o. Print. 1649. last p. 195. Cont. 1 Leaf.
  • The 20th. Imp. in 12o. Print. in 1649. (in La in) last p. 272. with Apothegms.
  • The 21st. Imp. in 12o. Print. 1649. (Latin) last p. 272. not the same.
  • The 22d. Imp. in 12o. with the Works Print. 1649. last p. 182
  • The 23d. Imp. in 12o. Print. 1649. (Latin) last p. 272. not the same.
  • The 24th. Imp. in 12o. Printed (Latin) 1649. last p. 258.
  • The 25th. Imp. in 24o. Printed at the Hague by Sam. Brown, 1649. last p. 318. Cont. 4.
  • The 26th. Imp. in 8o. Print. 1681. last page 256. Cont. 1 Leaf.

The same Book with the Prayers added at the latter End of the Book.

  • THE First Impression in Octavo, Printed 1648. last Page 270. added the Prayers 1619.
  • The 2d. Imp. in 24o. Print. 1648. last p. 354.
  • The 3d. Imp. in 8o. Print. 1649. last p. 258.
  • The 4th. Imp. in 8o. Print. 1649. last p. 236. with Apothegms.
  • The 5th. Imp. in 8o. Printed 1649. last p. 247. Prayers added.
  • The 6th. Imp. in 8o. Print. 1649. last p. 269. Cont. 3 Leaves.
  • The 7th. Impression in 12o. Print. 1649. with Apothegms.
  • The 8th. Imp. in 12o. Print. 1649. in Dutch.
  • The 9th. Imp. in 12o. Printed 1649. in French.
  • The 10th. Imp. in 12o. Print. 1649. a different Edition.
  • The 11th. Imp. in 12o. Print. 1649. a last p. 230. Cont. 1 Leaf.
  • The 12th. Imp. in 12o. Print. 1649. last p. 260. Cont. 1 Leaf.
  • The 13th. Imp. in 24o. Print. 1649. last p. 266.
  • The 14th. Imp. in 24o. Print. 1649. last p. 175
  • The 15th. Imp. in 24o. Printed in 1649. last p. 354.
  • The 16th. Imp. in 8o. with the Works, Print. 1657.
  • The 17th. Impression in 24o. with the Works, Print. 1651.
  • 18 The King's Works in 8o. Printed at the Hague, without Date, the last p. 119.
  • 19 The King's Works in 2 Volumes in 8o. Printed 1659.
  • 20 The King's Whole Works in Folio. Printed 1662.
  • 21 The King's Whole Works in Folio, Printed 1686.
  • 22 The [...] in 8o. Printed 1685, last p. 272. per Royston.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. Searching, reading, printing, or downloading EEBO-TCP texts is reserved for the authorized users of these project partner institutions. Permission must be granted for subsequent distribution, in print or electronically, of this EEBO-TCP Phase II text, in whole or in part.