THE LIFE and DEATH OF King CHARLES the First WRITTEN By Dr. R. PERINCHIEF Together with ΕΙΚΩΠΒΑΣΙΛΙΚΗ 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. A VINDICATION OF King CHARLES I. c. 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 MEMORANDUM 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 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 Hand-writing 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 't is 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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 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 Vpon his Retirement from Westminster I may in the Truth and Vprightness 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 'T is 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 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 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 FINIS