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
this Memorandum there are some observable Circumstances that make it highly liable to suspicion I mean that it was never made by my Lord of Anglesey but sorged by some other person for the very ends for which it hath been so often produced now if this Memorandum be defective in some Points that are very material in a thing of this Nature if it discovers a great faultiness with respect to the very end for which it was pretended to be made then it is apparently unworthy of the Prudence and Foresight of my Lord of Anglesey and deserves to be ascribed to some other Author For the proof of this I shall take my measures from the last Words of the Memorandum which plainly declare the end for which it was not made nor fign'd by the said Lord. The Words are these Which I here insert for the undeceiving others in this Point by attesting so much under my Hand Now here are these things observable and which in every respect makes this Memorandum defective and insufficient for the attaining this end 1. It bears no Date 2. It is not attested by any Witness 3. It was the most unlikely course to answer the ends of the Memorandum it self 4. There is no appearance that this was said to any other Person 1. It bears no Date and that in a double respect 1. With respect to the exact time when the King and the Duke gave the Lord of Anglesey this Assurance It says indeed in the last Sessions of Parliament 1675. But this is expressed very ambiguously and the Question is whether by last Session the Memorandum means the last before the writing the Memorandum or with respect to it or the last Sessions of that year If the last with respect to the writing of the Memorandum then we are not directed by the Memorandum when that Session was for it self having no Date we have no possible means to know the time of that Session And it is not only unaccurate upon all accounts but abundantly faulty in a Testimonial of this Nature to direct us to a determinate time when such Words were spoken and yet leave the World utterly in the dark when that time was i. e. in short these Words were spoken no body knows when and as the Case stands it is impossible they ever should know i. e. 'T is plainly a suspicious Evidence as giving Testimony to a matter of Fact without fixing any determinate time in which it was perform'd But if the Memorandum had been more punctual in this particular and had given a handle to have known what particular Sessions was meant or if by the last Session is to be understood the last of that year This is also liable to considerable Inconvenience as being a space of time too large and loose to found a competent Evidence upon a Session of Parliament may continue five six or seven Months And so we have a matter of Fact fastened to the compass of an hundred two hundred or more days A pleasant Evidence indeed and much to be relyed on every Man knows what great Weight there is in the Circumstance of time with respect to the Credibility of any Testimony And if the compass be laid large and wide it is an argument of great suspicion especially if the Matter said to be done was at no great distance from the time of giving this Evidence if a Man within a year or sooner should evidence in Court that such a Fact was done in Parliament during such a Session and at the same time could not tell whether it was at the beginning about the middle or towards the latter end of that Session and withal being himself a Member of Parliament and actually sitting I would fain know whether this be not a just and reasonable Prejudice against the competency of such Evidence now this Memorandum plainly labours under this Prejudice and which is yet more it can never be removed because there are no possible ways left to explain it or to bring it into a narrower compass of time as all unexceptionable Evidence ought to be and therefore I shall leave it to the consideration of all wise men whether they can believe that a person of my Lord of Anglesey's Prudence and Caution would transmit to Posterity and with a design too to undeceive others such a Memorandum as is so palpably defective and liable to just exception in such a material point as plainly relates to the validity of any Evidence for this I take to be Demonstration that if my Lord of Anglesey had himself viva voce given all the words of this Memorandum in Evidence and at the same time had not been able to answer the foregoing Questions whether these Words of King Charles and his Royal Brother were spoken about the beginning the middle or the end of that Session If this had been a just Prejudice against such Evidence given by my Lord of Anglesey himself it is certainly much more so against a Paper pretended to be written and signed by him which is guilty of the same defects And I think no reason can be given that a Paper Memorandum with the Name of my Lord of Anglesey to it is a more valid and authentic Evidence than my Lord of Anglesey himself would have been 1. As this Memorandum gives us no determinate time when these Words were spoken so likewise has it no date when the Memorandum it self was written And this is a fine Evidence indeed to determine Controversies and undeceive others with for the matter pretended to be proved has a very loose date and for it self hath no date at all and both begins and ends like a fabulous story with once upon a time The truth is this Memorandum is penn'd as if there was fear of having it disprov'd had the day been named when the King and the Duke of York had said this perhaps by some unlucky Circumstance or other it might have appeared that one or both of them together which was very rare were not at the house that day Had the Memorandum been punctually dated something might have happened to have prov'd that my Lord of Anglesey was at that time travelling or in the Country from his Study or otherwise unlikely to have made such a Memorandum at that time And therefore it was far better to let dates alone as dangerous things and apt to tell Tales And to this may be added 2. That this Memorandum is unattested by any Witness and as the Case stands it is impossible it should be except there were one or more Persons who saw my Lord of Anglesey write or sign it Now I need not urge the necessity of witness to prove the signing of a Memorandum that pretends to correct the World and to undeceive others and that upon the single Credit and Authority of that Memorandum every man knows that an unattested Paper is no Evidence and that a Man's Hand when he is dead except it be well prov'd signifies nothing at all nor
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
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
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
Chancellor Mrs. Gauden Dr. Walker and several others that he wrote the Book the Evidence to the Fact is still but one and that is Dr. Gauden himself or if Dr. Gauden told Mrs. Gauden and Dr. Walker that he acquainted the Marquess of Hartford Bishop Duppa the King c. Mrs Gauden and Dr. walker may be two distinct Witnesses that he said so but there is but one that he did so and that is himself So that this whole Matter is resolved into his own Evidence which in this Case is no Evidence at all nor will any wise Man consider it as such especially if to this be added 2. If there be any Interest or Advantage to be reaped by it In this Case a Man 's own Testimony is always resused because a Man is suspected as too partial to himself and apt to be swayed by his Interests And if we are to give any credit to these Papers I am afraid Mrs. Gauden has revealed a great Secret when she saith That her Husband hoped to make a Fortune by it For if that was the end of his owning himself to be the Author it hath too great a mixture of carnal Ingredients to gain much Credit for if Men witness for themselves to advance their Ambition and secular Designs their Evidence is tainted and savours of Project and Artifice and Men always uspect on that Hand And I am sorry to find that these very Papers insinuate too much of this very Temper to be in Dr. Gauden in these two Instances 1. They lay before us a very strange and immodest magnifying his own Merits and particularly in that to King Charles the Second writ by his own Hand wherein he declares what Hazards he had run of Life and Estate And yet he kept one of the most considerable Livings in England all the time of the Usurpation And what great Advantage had accrued to the Crown by his Service And in his Letter to the Duke of York he strongly urges the great Services he had done That what was done like a King should have a King-like Retribution and instances in the Cases of Joseph Mordeeai and Daniel who were honored and rewarded for the Services they did to the respective Princes and in particular observes that Ahasuerus was uneasie till Mordecai had had his merited Reward Now these are fine Characters indeed and give a good account of Dr. Gauden's Performances but they look a little scurvily coming from his own Mouth had the Dr. never a Friend at Court methinks my Lord of Warwick or Manchester his known Friends and Patrons or else my Lord Marquess of Hartford and Bishop Duppa might have sav'd him this Trouble and so certainly they would had they known by him such a thing as the writing the King's Book but since the Dr. was forced to make use of himself it seems pretty plain that there was no Body else to imploy in this Matter and that no Person about the King knew the Drs. Merits so well as himself The Truth is a Man that is clamorous in his own Praise always looks suspiciously and he that can break through all the Bounds of Modesty and Decency to magnifie his own Merits may possibly not be very shy in straining at a point of Truth to make it good Boasting always stands near Vntruth and treads on the very Heels of it To this may be added 2. An immoderate Desire of Reward and undue Solicitation for it thus these Papers represent him as discontented with his preferment to the Bishoprick of Exeter telling the King that he had a high Rack but a low Manger altho there be several Bishopricks in England and Wales inferior to that in point of Revenue and at that time possessed by Men of very great Worth and Virtue Thus also he teaches the King to be grateful to him by the respective Advancements of Joseph Daniel and Mordecai Thus in the Letter to the Duke of York he importunately begs his Royal Highness to intercede for him with the King And in the Lord Chancellor Hyde's Letter to him it is expressed That he was uneasie under the Bishop's Importunity These things plainly represent a very ambitious Temper covetous of Preferment hasty and patient in the pursuit of it and when Men are under the power of such a Complexion they do not generally manage themselves by nice and punctual Methods and to be sure such a Man's Merits will lose nothing by his own telling them nor himself any thing for want of asking And the truth is over-valuing our own Merits and claiming those which are none of our own differ very little in point of Modesty and Virtue and he that can do one in all probability will not stick at the other if he thinks it feasible to accomplish the ends he aims at So that those who have published these Papers have done but little Service to the Bishop's Memory and as little to the Cause they pretend to maintain for tho I do not from hence conclude that the Bishop ever told King Charles the Duke of York or the Lord Chancellor that he was the Author of this Book yet if ever he did so or to any others I do conclude that it being his own Cause and for such Ends and joyned with such a Temper it apparently sinks the Credit of his own Testimony and renders it of no value 2. Another thing which would take off the Force of Dr. Gauden's Testimony in this Case supposing he ever attested it is the Immorality and Infamy of the whole Practice which must be charged upon him upon such a supposition And that is writing a Book in the King's Name and therein personating him in the Acts of Piety Devotion and high point of Conscience which whatever the end might be in the softest Language is first inventing a Falshood and then imposing it upon the World and as these Papers intimate upon the King too for they plainly tell us he never had the King's Consent Had the Devotionary Part been Composed for the King 's private Use and Assistance the Attempt might have been dutiful and charitable tho there had been no need for it to a Prince who was so admirably qualified himself and the King if he had thought them suitable might by them have expressed the Sence of his own Heart But to give them to the World as the King 's own which he never framed nor used nor so much as owned is to counterfeit the King's Conscience which as I take it is a more audacious and far greater Crime than to counterfeit his Coin his Hand or his great Seal for such a Practice mocks God as well as Men and dawbs and juggles in these very Cases in which are required the greatest plainness and sincerity And in all respects to counterfeit Prayers Repentance Charity and other Graces abundantly expressed in that excellent Book and to impose them upon the World for true and genuine is such a Piece of Forgery and Imposture Fraud and Hypocrisie