us that an Vnder-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 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 Vnder-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 Vnder-Secretaries and Clerks is to suppose that Vnder-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 Vnder-Secretary or Clerk the 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 Vxbridge 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. 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
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 't is 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 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 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 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 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
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 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 't is 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 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 't is 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 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
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 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 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 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
Words of some of them Vpon 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 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 SIR 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 Hand-writing in other things he found it so very like as induces his 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 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 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 From Savernack Parke near Marleborough Apr. 29. 1691. 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 't is 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 Bed-chamber 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 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 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 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 't is 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 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 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
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 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 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
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 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 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