Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	charles_n	earl_n	viscount_n	14,908	5	11.7517	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A49113	Dr. Walker's true, modest, and faithful account of the author of Eikōn basilikē, strictly examined, and demonstrated to be false, impudent, and decietful in two parts, the first disproving it to be Dr. Gauden's : the second proving it to be King Charles the First's / by Thomas Long ...	Long, Thomas, 1621-1707.	1693 (1693)	Wing L2965; ESTC R1475	62,280	72

Dr. Walker intimates did Transcribe the Book which Testimony I had from the mouth of the Reverend Dr. Edw. Lake Archdeacon of Exeter being then on his Visitation about Easter last who declared in the presence of another judicious Friend That he well knew Mr. Gifford and that discoursing with him occasionally concerning the King's Book Mr. Gifford thought it next to the Holy Scripture to be one of the most Divine Books that had been written And that Mr. Gifford preaching on the 30th of January and urging to Charity he quoted this Passage out of that Book as being the King's Book It is all that is now left me a Power to Forgive those that deprived me of all and I thank God I have a Heart to do it This Testimony being given by Mr. Gifford to an intimate Friend who was much better acquainted with the Transactions concerning the Author and Publishers of that Book and for ought I ever heard of a clearer Reputation than Dr. Walker who owned that he never read the Book in Manuscript but intimates that Mr. Gifford transcribed it who had he been conscious that the Copy which he transcribed had been of Dr. Gauden's compiling yea I may say had he not known as he had the best opportunity to inform himself that it was the King's he would never have quoted it as his on so solemn an Occasion So that I need nor desire any other Evidence to confirm my Testimony but leave it to the indifferent Reader to judge whether the single Report of Dr. Walker or the joynt and agreeing Testimony of Mr. Gifford and Mr. Long and Mrs. Gauden are most credible And if any Reader be yet doubtful I intreat 'em for his full Conviction to suspend his Censure till he hath considered what followeth As for the impertinent and false Reflections made on the Author of the Vox Cleri which he calls a Virulent Book let it speak for itself and he that hath an ear to hear must needs apprehend that he wrote only in behalf of the Church as by Law established to which he had given his hearty Assent and Consent to which the Churches Enemies being of another mind account all that shall be written on its behalf to be Venemous Invectives and to deserve alike Remark as he makes on the Royal Martyr That he who acted so tragically over us should leave the World with such a ridiculous Exit for which wretched Invention the Libeller is beholding to that long since exploded and by a miraculous Providence confuted Motto of Bradshaw and his Fellow-Regicides viz. Exit Tirannus Regum Ultimus I shall not follow Dr. Walker in his Excursions but keep close to his Arguments for the Proof of his Assertion which he delivers in these words P. 3. I know and believe the Book whose Author is enquired after was written by Dr. Gauden except two Chapters writ by Bp. Duppa so far as the subjoyned means may produce such Knowledge and the Reasons may induce such Belief In p. 2. He solemnly appeals to the Searcher of Hearts Avenger of Falshood and Revealer of Secrets that he wrote nothing of the Truth of which he was not throughly perswaded by as full Evidence as he judged such a Matter of Fact needed and at such distance of Time was capable of Yet after this solemn Appeal and Declaration of his Knowledge and Belief in the same Page he begs leave to retain his Opinion Till Means of Knowledge Reasons of Belief Arguments for thinking otherwise be produced and then promiseth to yield So that notwithstanding his Knowledge and Belief and his being throughly perswaded by full Evidence he is still in a Suspence and doubts that such Arguments may be produced as may alter his Opinion And in p. 3. he talks of such probable Arguments as may confirm himself and satisfie others among which Arguments that which he mentioneth p. 8. he judgeth to carry the fairest and highest Probability to confirm what he had before declared viz. The reasonable Belief that he i. e. Dr. Gauden was the Composer of it The Argument is p. 8. n. 5. in these words I am as sure as I can be of any thing that Dr. Gauden made the Extract out of this Book called I think Apophthegmata Carolina the thing is most notorious that there was such a Book came out in a very short time after printed by Mr. Dugard Now why should Dr. Gauden concern himself so much more than any other of the King's Friends and dispatch it with such Expedition had he had no more concern in it than other Men Ans Let the Reader judge how probable the rest of his Arguments are when in his own Judgment this is the fairest and highest Probability to confirm what he hath declared for what force is there in the Argument because Dr. Gauden collected the Apophthegmata Carolina therefore he made the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as if the Abbreviating of any Book were an Argument that the Abbreviator were the Author of it Indeed the very Argument is a scandalous Reflection on his Friend's Memory as if it had not been enough to sham the World with a Book in the King's Name but he must Extract his own Apothegms or Wise Sayings out of it and charge his Prince with what he never said nor thought of It had been a pretty way of trumpetting his own Praise and setting his own Military Political and Theological Abilities on a Level with those of the wisest Prince in Christendom I think Antiquity gives us no Instance of any Man publishing his own Apothegms however Dr. W.'s unfortunate in this since the Collector and Publisher of the Apophthegmata Carolina was not Dr. Gauden but Dr. Hooker a Person still living in White-Lion-Court against Virginia-street in Wapping It would have concluded more rationally if Dr. Gauden had defended it against Milton and some others that wrote against it as Dr. Earle did yet none will infer that Dr. Earle was the Author though he took the Pains also to Translate it into Latine And it 's a more Logical Inference to say Dr. Gauden published an Extract of weighty Sentences out of that Book therefore he was not the Author of it Dr. Earle's Testimony given by Mr. Beck p. 28. of Dr. Holling is very convincing That he being sent by his Lord Vicount Hereford to Dr. Earle then at the Hague to ask what he knew of the King 's being Author of that Book the Doctor told him As sure as he knew himself to be the Translator of that Book into Latine so certain he was King Charles was the Author of the Original in English And he adds For my part I am apt to believe no Person was able to frame that Book but a Suffering King and no Suffering King but King Charles the Martyr Dr. Walker in p. 4. declares what he knew of this Book and by what means Dr. Gauden saith he sometime before the whole was finished was pleased to acquaint me with his Design and

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