to believe that Dr. Symonds had a perfect Copy by which it was printed and by it he was enabled to correct the Proof-sheets And it is possible that Dr. Gauden might cause a Copy of this to be transcribed by Mr. Gifford as Dr. Walker thinks Mr. Clifford declares That the King for fear the Original should be lost ordered Mr. Odert Secretary to Sir Edw. Nicholas Principal Secretary of State to transcribe it and lodged the Original in the Marquess of Hartford's hands And by the Copy of Mr. Odert he i. e. Mr. Clifford and Mr. Milbourne did print the Book And further he saith That he never heard nay that he was sure that Dr. Gauden was never concerned in that Book by which Mr. Milbourne and Mr. Clifford printed it And Mr. milbourne the Printer and Mr. Clifford who were concerned in the printing of it say That the Copy by which it was printed came to his hands all at once Sect. 5. p. 23. Is an Answer to a Treatise intituled Restitution to the Royal Author wherein is set down this Memorandum of the E. of Anglesey on a printed Copy of the King's Book K. Charles the Second and the Duke of York did both in the last Sessions of Parliament 1675 when I shewed them in the Lord's House the written Copy of this Book wherein are some Corrections and Alterations written with the late K. Charles the First 's own hand assure me that this was none of the said King 's Compiling but made by Dr. Gauden Bishop of Exon which I here insert for the Undeceiving others in this Point by attesting so much under my Hand Anglesey Ans Whether the whole or any part of this Memorandum were the Hand writing of the E. of Anglesey is not proved and therefore the Author of the Restitution might more freely reflect on it supposing it not to be the Earl's and that First by the Impropriety of the Expressions as calling his then Royal Highness which was the proper Court-phrase the D. of York but what is more material is that both the King and Duke should assure him That this was none of K. C. 1st's Compiling but made by Dr. Gauden Bp. of Exeter which is a greater Impropriety to call him that dyed Bp. of Worcester Bp. of Exeter which Charles the 2d must needs know having had so great a Contest with him when he granted him the Bishoprick of Worcester who had a Promise of Winchester of which Dr. Walker gives a large account p. 15 16 17 18. And whereas the Earl says they both did assure him c. Quere what Arguments they used Dr. W. himself would not have taken their bare Words for an Assurance seeing that he still reserved a liberty to dissent from what he says He was so well perswaded of as of any matter of Fact if more probable Arguments were produced But against the bare Word of this Royal Pair the Author observes the publick Acts of Charles the 2d who Anno 1660 gave Mr. Royston as a Requital of printing his Father's Book the sole Priviledge of printing all the Works of K. C. 1st among which this Book hath a particular Character of Recommendation the substance of the Priviledge is in these words Charles the Second c. whereas we have received sufficient Testimony of the Fidelity and Loyalty of our Servant Richard Royston and of the great Losses and Troubles he sustained for his Faithfulness to our Royal Father of Blessed Memory and Our self in printing and publishing many Messages and Papers of our said Blessed Father especially those most excellent Discourses and Soliloquies by the Name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Know ye that it is our Royal Will and Pleasure and we do by these Presents grant to the said Richard Royston c. the sole printing and publishing of the said Messages Papers and Discourses contained in the Book intituled Reliqiuae Sacrae Carolinae with other Papers and Declarations concerning our said Royal Father c. The same Priviledge was granted to Mr. Royston by K. James the Second Anno 1685 whence the Author of the Restitution leaves it to the Readers to judge whether these publick Declarations of both the Kings made with all the Circumstance of Advantage are to be believed before a blind Manuscript written by a doubtful Hand and grounded on a private Relation to which may be added that K. James the Second in a Letter from Rochester before his Departure quoted a Passage out of his Father's Book viz. There is but little between the Prisons and the Graves of Princes To this Dr. W. answers That Kings are not so Critical as to inspect the Particulars of their Royal Grants To which it may be replied That if they had been well informed that this Book was written by Bp. Gauden as the Memorandum says they did affirm it was a Crime Laesae Majestatis to say they publickly and personally attested that to be their Father's when they believed the contrary To this Dr. Walker rejoyns an Answer by a Parallel Case Of a Printer's having a License to print K. David 's Psalms containing in number 150 Would this saith he prove that David was the Pen-man of them all No say I because the Titles prefixt to many of the Psams declare that some of them were penned by other Authors as Moses who lived long before David Heman Asaph c. who lived after him and yet the Denomination may be taken from the greater part of the Psalms which are acknowledged to be David ' s. But how could that King give a Priviledge to print his Father's Works if he knew that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is especially recommended and for the sake of which the Collection was made were not his Father's But as if this Objection had been foreseen it is sufficiently confuted by the Distinction made by both the Kings between the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which they own to be their Royal Father's and other Papers and Declarations concerning their Royal Father for the drawing up of which they conceived he made use of his Ministers and Secretaries though it be well-known that his Majesty of Blessed Memory was wont not only with great Deliberation to review the first Draughts but taking his Pen in hand to tell them merily That he was a pretty good Cobler and made such Additions and Alterations as he thought fit insomuch as they who knew him most intimately affirmed That if he had been a Secretary to any other Prince he would have been esteemed as an Oracle But here it may be enquired How the two Kings were so well assured themselves that the Book was written by Bp. Gauden as to assure others of it Whereas Dr. Walker says That Dr. Gauden himself knew not to his dying day whether Charles the Second ever knew it but by Conjecture because the Duke of York knew it It seems then the King must have the certainty from the Duke and he that considers the Circumstances in which the Duke
persuaded by the little Knowledge that I had of Bp. Duppa that all the Art that Bp. Gauden had could never have drawn Bp. Duppa to consent with and assist him in what Dr. Walker accounts a Pious Fraud more than appearance of Evil the very concealing of which was a Trouble to Dr. Walker's Conscience forty Years together or if he had done such a thing he would have hazarded his Majesty's Favour whose Judgment was as he declares in the last of his Meditations on the Reformation of the Times That as good Ends cannot justifie evil Means so nor will evil Beginningâ—s ever bring forth good Conclusions And if Dr. Gauden had written that Period he had been Self condemned as well as by the Apostle those are who say Let us do evil that good may come of it Now if others how many Dr. Walker saith not and perhaps he might not know all that were privy to the whole it is probable some of them before their Deaths might have revealed this Secret or if any of them were living would have been produced to confirm the Doctor 's Testimony but we must take all on his word Though if Bp. Duppa had written on those two Heads there might be some difference observed in the Stile which appears to Dr. Walker himself to be exactly of the same Thread and hugely differing both from the Bishop's and the Doctor 's manner of writing as will appear hereafter But the reason which he gives why it was unlikely that Dr. Gauden neither thought nor wrote on these Subjects seems very infirm p. 7. he says Dr. Gauden was less concerned to think on them What less than to think of writing on the Covenant which Dr. Walker says he had taken p. 7. and against which not long after he wrote a large Treatise Or was he less concern'd to write of the Common Preyer Book which was made the Apple of Contention especially when that Dr. Walker observes a little before p. 7. That when Dr. Gauden discover'd his Error he endeavoured to redeem it by an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by bending to the contrary Extream Or was he less concern'd to write of the necessary Usefulness of his Majesty's Chaplains in his great Distress when the Doctor himself had the Attendance of two such as Dr. Walker and Mr. Gifford Doubtless the Doctor could not but apprehend it to be a most Unchristian Rigor to have the Attendance of his Spiritual Monitors and Comforters denied to him when he was in Extremity and appointed as a Sheep for the Slaughter Dr. Gauden knew better and was more concerned to write on this Subject than to give Rules to the Prince how to Govern the Kingdoms P. 5. Dr. Walker asking Dr. Gauden Whether the King had ever seen the Book Answered I know it certainly no more than you but I sent a Copy of it by the Marquess of Hartford when he went to the Isle of Wight intreating him on a private Opportunity to deliver it to his Majesty and humbly desire to know his Majesty's Pleasure concerning it but the Violence which threatned the King hastning so fast he ventured to print it and never knew what was the Issue of sending it Ans It looks very odly that Dr. Gauden having committed so great a Business to the Marquess's Management should never having many Opportunities after his return from the Isle of Wight enquire Whether the King had seen the Book and how he approved of the Design And no less strange that Dr. Gauden should presume to print such a Volume in the King's Name and make such Appeals and Protestations as if he had been made his Majesty's Proxy and were authorized Jurare in Animam suam And what great Hopes could the Doctor conceive that the publishing of the Book could stop the current of Violence which threatned the King when it had born down all the Mediation used by forreign Ambassadors all the Opposition made by the then Parliament voting his Majesty's Concessions a sufficient Ground for a Treaty of Peace the many Insurrections and Revolts of the People by Land and of the Navy by Sea and the Scots Remonstrances and Arming on his Majesty's behalf What hopes I say could Dr. Gauden conceive that his Book should be a Charm sufficient to calm that impetuous Torrent which grew the more rapid for all those Oppositions This and the Doctor 's Neglect to enquire of the Marquess whether the King did approve of the Pious Fraud may induce the considering Reader to believe that the Doctor did not convey any such Book of his to his Majesty by the Marquess for which we have no Evidence besides Dr. Walker's bare Word and in the first Testimony Dr. Walker says That Dr. Gauden had no account of it a little before his Death Tho' the Marquess and the Doctor lived somewhile after the Restauration And Dr. Walker says That Dr. Gauden being askt Whether K. Charles the Second knew that he wrote the Book answer'd That he could not certainly say he did because he never took notice of it to him but he took it for granted because the Duke of York knew it and spake of it to him and owned it as a seasonable and acceptable Service and he knowing it I question not but the King doth also Ans For all this we have only Dr. Walker's bare Word and that imports not that the King knew it but upon a Presumption that the Duke did Now to this Dr. Hollingworth replies p. 4. It is strange that if the King Charles the Second knew of it and the Marquess of Hartford and Bp. Duppa who could have informed the King of the great Merit of Dr. Gauden in writing and publishing that Book that Dr. Gauden should have no Preferment but the Bishoprick of Exeter for the present and that when as Dr. Walker says he had a Promise of Winchester he failed of it And as Dr. Gauden says The King seemed averse from giving it to him which was to fail of his Word And as Dr. Gauden confesseth he was not certain that the King knew of it a little before his Translation from Exeter to Worcester I say it is strange that the King should deny him any Kindness especially that which he had promised when he gave Dr. Reynolds the Bishoprick of Norwich and offered others to Persons that had deserved Rewards of another kind Dr. Walker says That Mrs. Gauden his Wife Mr. Gifford who he thinks transcribed a Copy of it and himself believed it as much as they could any Matter of Fact Ans As to Mrs. Gauden I have had a Report as from Dr. Walker That she being interrogated on the Sacrament Whether her Husband was the Author of this Book She declared upon her taking the Sacrament That he told her that he was This is confronted by Dr. Hollingworth p. 10. who was assured by a Reverend and Learned Minister in London that a Lady of good Quality told him That she being in company with Mrs. Gauden she
was and what Dependance for Certainty might be grounded on his solemn Words especially when the Cause of his espoused Church of Rome was interposed will not be easily persuaded Jurare in verba It is too evident how little he regarded either the Reputation or the Desire and Charge of his dying Father p. 138. of that Book viz. I intreat and require you as your Father and King That you never suffer your Heart to receive the least Check against or Disaffection from the true Religion established in the Church of England c. But the Author of the Restitution urgeth a more considerable Objection p. 24. of Dr. Walker That in the written Copy of this Book the Memorandum says there were some Corrections and Alterations written by K. Charles 's own hand which the Author of the Restitution presseth as an Argument that the King was the Author or otherwise there could be no reason given for his Majesty's correcting the Manuscript and suffering it to pass as a Book of his own Composure for without question the King knew of the printing of it having sent to Royston to prepare his Press for something that he would send him to be printed four Months before And the whole Book as Dr. Walker owns was in the Printer's hands in December and the Copies published about the end of January of which the King most probably was certified it being his great Concern Yet Dr. Walker answers That what the Corrections by the King 's own hand seemed to his Adversary to be a Reason of seems to Dr. Walker to be quite contrary and says That he assuredly believes this corrected Copy was that sent by the Marquess of Hartford from Dr. Gauden To which it may be replied That as Dr. Walker says it is not certain that Dr. Gauden's Book was ever delivered to the King of which as hath been acknowledged by him the Doctor had never any notice Nor secondly that the King had leisure at that important Season being worried by the Divines that were sent to him in a tedious Dispute concerning Church-Government which he so well defended against them as in the Account printed in his Reliquiae Carolina which no Man did ever question to be the King 's own but also by the Commissioners who were limited to a certain day and by Delays and Unreasonable Demands against both his Honour and Conscience so perplexed him that he had but little time or heart either to View or Correct another Man's Writings But thirdly if Dr. Gauden's Copy sent by the Marquess was the Copy that was corrected by the King 's own hand as Dr. Walker says he verily believes then do I assuredly believe that it was not that Copy by which the Book was printed 1. Because Dr. Walker says that Dr. Gauden having no return from the King concerning his Approbation and Publishing of the Book sent the last parts of it to the Press by Dr. Walker in December see p. 33. whereas he acknowledgeth that Mr. Herbert and Mr. Levet might see the corrected Copy at the Isle of Wight as Sir W. Dugdale affirms they did and they attending his Majesty till he was made a close Prisoner and by a Vote of the then Parliament for Non-addresses and the imprisoning his Sacred Person in Hurst-Castle by order from the Army which was as Whitlock in his Memoirs notes to be on the 4th of December The King had no opportunity after that to send Dr. Gauden's Book to the Press And Dr. Walker says That Dr. Gauden would not write for a return of that Copy but sent another So that the Premises considered it is most probable that the whole Book was long before finished by the King with the Corrections viewed and brought into order and fairly transcribed by Sir John Brattle and his Father as Sir John hath attested and then the Original returned to the King who had it by him at the Isle of Wight But the Copy written by Sir J. Brattle and his Father or which is more probable by Mr. Odert for it was transcribed more than once for fear of miscarrying Was the Copy recommended to Mr. Simmonds to fit it for the Press who most probably did procure the printing of it because the Proof-sheets were sent back to him as they were printed off as Dr. Walker confesseth in a memorable Scory p. 30. And this answers those two Objections made by Dr. Walker p. 25. If the King himself had been the Author why was not the Book in his own Hand-writing as well as the Corrections and Alterations And why any Corrections of a fair Copy if he had finished the Original himself before it was copied Or why if he sent it to be printed did he not send the corrected Copy rather than an imperfect one which needed his Correction and Alteration All these Questions are briefly answered thus The King's Book which was both written and corrected by his own hand as Mr. Levet affirms was transcribed fairly by another hand and the Transcript sent to the Press the Original being returned to the King at the Isle of Wight and this is the Reason why the corrected Copy was not sent to the Press P. 20. Dr. Walker says That in more than forty Years there may be some Mistake in Sir J. B. of other Papers for these or some other lapse of Memory c. Reply And why might not Dr. Walker in forty Years be guilty of a Mistake or Lapse of Memory about a Matter in which he was less concern'd than Sir John for Dr. Walker says He never read the Book in Manuscript which Sir John transcribed and affirms it still to have been the King 's own hand And why might he not mistake Dr. Gauden's declaring it to be his Book when he declared only that he published the King's Book though I see no ground to believe either As for the corrected Copy it will appear that the whole Book as well as the Corrections was the King's Hand-writing by this following Testimony under Mr. Richard Duke's hand communicated to me Sir I confess that I heard Major Huntington to say more than once That whilst he guarded Charles the First at Holmeby-house as I remember he saw several Chapters or Leaves of that Great King's Meditations lying on the Table several Mornings with a Pen and Ink with which the King scratched out or blotted some Lines or Words of some of them Upon 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 This was written to Dr. Charles Goodall June 15 1692 from whom I received it This shews that the King was wont to correct his Meditations shortly after his penning of them and the whole was his