Dr. Walker's True, Modest, and Faithful ACCOUNT OF THE Author of ' ΕΙΚΩΝ ΒΑΣΙΛΙΚΗ, Strictly Examined, and Demonstrated TO BE False, Impudent, and Deceitful.  
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, B. D. and Prebendary of St. PETER's EXON.  
His Majesty's Meditation on his Letters taken and divulged after Naseby Fight: The taking away of my Credit is but a necessary Preparation to the taking away my Life and my Kingdoms; first I must seem neither fit to live, nor worthy to reign: By exquisite Methods of Cunning and Cruelty I must be compelled first to follow the Funerals of my Honour, and then be destroyed  Matth. 18.16. Take with thee one or two witnesses more, that in the mouth of two or three every word may be established. 

IMPRIMATUR,  
Guil. Lancaster, R. P. D. Henrico Episc. Lon. d Sacris Domesticis. Sept. 22, 1692.   
London: Printed and are to be sold by R Talor, near Stationers-Hall, 1693.   

TO THE Right Reverend Father in GOD, JONATHAN Lord Bishop of Exon, The Reverend the Dean and Chapter of Exon, And my Brethren of the CLERGY.  
HAving been chosen by your Suffrage a fourth time to serve as one of your Clerks in the Convocation, I have endeavoured on all Occasions, as my great Age and mean Abilities permitted, and God's Blessing, enabled me, to defend the Church as by Law established, against all its Adversaries: and being unexpectedly invited by the Worthy Dr. Charles Goodall to declare what I had observed concerning the Author of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, who was pleased to send me Dr. Walker's Libel, wherein he affirms, That Dr. Gauden was the Author of that Book. Among other Remarks which I sent to Dr. Goodall, upon Dr. W.'s Book, I sent him my own Testimony in these words: I had the hap to be acquainted with Bp. Gauden as long as he was our Diocesan, and I have often heard him affirm, that he was fully convinced that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was entirely that King's Work. How this Testimony of mine came to the knowledge of Dr. Hollingworth who was then writing against Dr. Walker, is not material, but I received a Letter from him desiring that I would communicate my Testimony to him, for which I referred him to Dr. Goodall, from whom I suppose he received a Copy of my Testimony, Shortly after this, there came forth a third Letter of Ludlow's, and in p. 16. of a Preface to that Book, I found my Testimony repeated, and my Person reflected on, which I accounted a great Honour, as being defamed by a Regicide in Defence of our Royal Martyr, this was one Motive to engage me for the farther Confirmation of my Testimony, which how well I have performed, I submit to your Judgements. This Testimony was so acceptable to both the Doctors, that they solicited me for my farther Assistance in this Business; and Dr. Goodal who mostly encouraged me by several Testimonies which were very material, pressed on me the Prosecution of this Subject, because Dr. Walker's Pamphlet by his frequent and solemn Appeals to God had altered the Opinions of many of our own Church, and Multitudes of Dissenters; and that as well Dr. Walker's as Ludlow's Libels did equally tend to Subversion of Monarchy and Episcopacy, as now by Law established; these things prevailed with me to Review Dr. Walker's true Account, as he calls it, and finding it to be false, scandalous, inconsistent, and contradictory to itself, and to have no Foundation besides the bare Assertion of a Vain Person, I resolved to join Issue with him on his own Proposal, in the last Page of his Libel, That if any Man can produce stronger Reasons for the negative part, viz that Dr. Gauden was not the Author, than he hath for the affirmative, he says, he not only will, but must believe that contrary part. The Case therefore is devolved on the Determination of the Reader, whom I only desire to consider the Arguments and Authorities which I have produced for stopping of that false and malicious Rumour, which hath been a long time muttered in every Corner, but now is proclaimed on the Housetop, and like Pestilential Diseases on crazy Bodies, hath seized Men of weak Heads and corrupt Hearts; which being warmly applied to the infected Party, who with Jannes and Jambres withstand Moses, and resist the Truth, shall proceed no farther, for their Folly shall be manifest to all Men, by  
My most Honoured Lord, Fathers, and Brethren, Your most Devoted SERVANT, THO. LONG.   

THE PREFACE.  
IT is an unaccountable Piece of Malice that in twelve Years after the Barbarous Murder of CHARLES the First, wherein his bloody Enemies wanted neither Power nor Diligence to destroy that Monument which he had erected in his Life-time, stood still firm and inviolable; and after more than thirty Years, wherein the Church and Royal Family were restored to a quiet Enjoyment of their Ancient Rights and Splendour, and both Church and State acknowledged their Preservation due to the Unconquerable Fortitude and Patience of the Royal Martyr; in witness whereof they ordained, (as bound in Duty and Gratitude) that the Memorial of that Just Man might be blessed, by recording Him in their Rubric as their Royal Martyr, and appointed a Day of Humiliation and Prayer for the Aversion of those Judgements which the Gild of shedding his Innocent Blood, from which we are not cleansed to this Day; that there should be found such Monsters of Men as should endeavour to Murder Him a second time, and charge Him again in the sight of the Nation, as a Tyrant, Traitor, Murderer, and (what His most Unrighteous Judges durst not charge Him with, as) a Papist. All which Calumnies have been lately spread through the Nation, in several Libels, under the name of that Impious Regicide Ludlow, who because Judgement was not speedily executed on him, hath set his heart upon doing more Mischief; nor doth that Son of Belial want the Assistance and Applause of too many, who such up his venomous Poison, and become professed Enemies to Episcopacy in the Church, and Monarchy in the State; and because their Predecessors prevailed so far against the most Pious and Innocent of Kings, and the best of the Reformed Churches, as to kill and take possession of their Inheritances; having now, as Milton says, lost their Paradise, they attempt to regain it, by the same Methods as were used in 1640: The Government being now established in the Hands of the most Heroic and Religious King and Queen in all Christendom, and under them the Church consisting of such a Learned and Pious Clergy, as maintain their Renown of being Stupor Mundi. He sticks not to justify them whose Deeds testify that they are the Offspring of those who destroyed the Lord's Anointed, and killed his Prophets; and commendeth Regicide, Sacrilege, and Murdering of Vicegerents, and those that God had sent as his Ambassadors among them, and persuades them, that they did God service in those Barbarities. What Prince, or what Church can be safe, if they should (which God forbidden) fall under the Power of Men of such Principles, who sought to destroy Monarchy; with the best of Monarches, and with Him the best Reformed Church.  
The Reign of Charles the First for seventeen Years together, was such as the Prophet describes, Psal. 144. When our sons grew up as young plants, and our daughters were as the polished corners of the temple; when there was no leading into captivity, no breaking or invasion of the land, no decay of our stores, our sheep or oxen. And yet what Murmuring and Complaining was there in all our Streets? There was no Blood shed in all that time, until this Generation of Men grew intoslerable by affronting, and publishing Factious and Seditious Libels against both the King and Church; and then a few Marks of such as openly began our Divisions, were set on some of them, that others might avoid their pernicious Ways, such as Prin, Burton, and Baltwick, the first of which confessed, That if his Head had been cut off when his Ears were cropped, he had deserved it. The Archbishops Speech hath truly set forth their Attempts and Deeds. And as for the Condition of the Church, the Care of the Governors was, that we might worship God in Holiness and Beauty too, so that the King's Daughter might not only be glorious within, but her Garments might be of Needle work.  
Such by the Blessing of God is our present Condition; but that we may cease to wonder at these Men, Dr. Walker, that was a Member of our Church, one that admired the Parts and Piety of the Holy Martyr, after forty three Years, should seek to deface the Portraiture of that Glorious King, and deprive the People of that precious Depositum, than which we have not a more sacred Relic of any of the Martyrs and Fathers, since the Aposties' days, is matter of Wonder and Astonishment: He tells us, that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is an Impostor, framed by Dr. Gauden, and imposed on the Nation by him, without the Knowledge and Consent of the King; and so deprives Him of the best Evidence of his Wisdom and Innocence, and lays him open to all the odious Reproaches contained in the Livels of the Regicide Ludlow, and his Fellows, for those being the false Reports of professed Enemies, were confuted by the King in his Life-time, in answer to their Undutiful Remonstrances, which may be seen in the Reliquiae Carolinae, and particularly in the Regal Apology: but the Confident Assertions of an avowed Friend, upon a Motive of a troubled Conscience, a Doctor of Divinity, a Member of that Church that Yearly Celebrates His Memory as their Martyr, lays a Claim to, and commands the Belief of the vulgar People; and if the Prejudice be not speedily removed, may be of dangerous Consequence, for who would willingly be a Subject to such a Prince as shall publicly, and without any Contradiction, pass for a Traitor, a Tyrant, and Murderer, or be a Member of that Church which shall Canonize such a Prince, and Celebrate His Memory in a Yearly Solemnity as their Royal Martyr? And if Charles the First be still represented as such, and His Murder openly justified, what Monarch can be secure? espectally when such as Dr. W. shall assure the World, That the best Defence that ever was, or could be made in His behalf, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is a Shame and Imposture, and at most a Pious Fraud; and this done by one that professeth a great Love and Veneration for the King, by one that reveals it as a Secret, the concealing whereof had been a great Trouble to his Conscience, and one that makes solemn Appeals to God the Searcher of Hearts, and Avenger of Wrong, that what he says is Matter of Fact, seen with his own eyes: Hoc ithacus velit & magne merchantur atridae; This is such a Spark of Wild fire as will put all the combustible Provision which the Commonwealth's Men have heaped together into a Flame; an Engine like the Trojan Horse, out of which Armies of Antimonarchical Men, not yet discovered, may in a short time appear, for the subverting of our yet flourishing Monarchy: It is therefore a necessary Duty for all that love the present Establishment, to extinguish those Sparks, which being wrapped up in a multitude of Libels, are scattered through the Nation, and spread like Fire among Thorns. The Reverend Dr. Hollingworth hath with great Courage opposed this growing Mischief, and hath got many Hands for his Assistance; but the inflamed Party rage's the more, and as Water cast on the Smith's Forge, where the Bellows are still blowing, it increaseth and prolongs the Heat, so that there needs the addition of more Help, as of many Waters to extinguish such Fires; every Man is concerned when the Fire is got into his Neighbour's House; among others I willingly offered my helping Hand, and resolve, by God●s assistance, not to recede for any Opposition that I have or shall meet with: the Province which I have undertaken, is to quench that Fire brand which Dr. Walker hath thrown upon the Portraiture of King Charles the First, the most magnificent Monument that any Prince hath left behind him, the fall whereof would shake Monarchy itself; his Attempt is furious, but his main Strength is like the French Valour, which is spent in a single Charge, and that being already sustained, as I doubt not of a complete Victory over this daring Enemy, and utterly exting vishing his Firebrand: So I hope my Success may encourage those Statesmen or Soldiers, whose more peculiar Province it is to dissipate those Libels of Ludlow and his Accomplices, who by their Subterranean Fires and Ignes Fatui seek to misled the Ignorant and Credulous Mobile into their destructive Snares. There are still among us combustible Materials, and such credulous or malicious Fools, who as Solomon says, make it their sport to cast abroad such Firebrands, Arrows, and Death; and the Flame is broken out among the Cameronians in our Neighbour-Kingdom; and too many in this Nation warm themselves by the Sparks which they have kindled: And St. James adviseth us to behold, (i. e.) to consider how great a matter a little Fire kindleth; of which the Experience we have had in that single Spark of the Scottish Covenant since the Year 1643, of which Dr. Gauden observes, p. 182. of his Anti-Baal, That it was so far like that from Mount Sina, with Fire and Smoak, Earthquakes and Burning, and loud Noise of Trumpets, attended with infinite Mischief, Fury, Misery, and Confusion on King and Parliament, Priest and People.  
And what less is designed by that proscribed Regicide Ludlow, who with an unheard of Insolence defied the Laws and Justice of the whole Nation, directing his Traitorous Libel to the hands of Sir Edward Seymour, a chief Counsellor of Estate, and that Juncto of Republicans that Abet his Design in many such rebellious Libels as are scattered through the Nation, to set it into a Flame. And they have not the Understanding of Children, that having been often burnt, do not dread the Smoke of such Fires: 'Tis not for his sake alone that such Libels are divulged, but to show their Antipathy to Monarchy itself, even in the Persons of such as God by a Series of Miracles hath raised to make us a happy People. And certainly there is some Fire under that Smoke where the King's Supremacy over Ecclesiastical Assemblies, is exploded, and Episcopal Ordination is accounted a Transgression. And where King Charles the First is dealt with in Effigy, as he was in Person, as a Tyrant, Traitor, and Murderer, of whom the World was not worthy.   

Dr. WALKER's True, Modest, and Faithful ACCOUNT OF THE AUTHOR of ' ΕΙΚΩΝ ΒΑΣΙΛΙΚΗ, Strictly Examined, and Demonstrated TO BE False, Impudent, and Deceitful.  

The First PART.  
WHether the King's Portraiture were drawn by his own or another Hand, as it is no Diminution of his known Virtues, whereof those Meditations are but a Reflection, that cannot express the Perfection of his Devout Soul and Innocent Life; so neither can it be any Extenuation of their Gild who so barbarously murdered his Person, and after so long a time do now disturb his Ashes to rob him of this precious Jewel. To what end this Impotent Piece of Malice is now attempted, I cannot Divine, unless it be by the just Judgement of God to perpetuate their Infamy who glory in that which all the World besides themselves know to be their abominable Sin and Shame.  
Had there been any Probability that the Regicides could have found any other Author of those Incomparable Meditations, they would more industriously have pursued that Method, but finding b● the Examination of Royston the Printer, 
Mr. Levet testifies, That Royston told him, that he was imprisoned because he would not declare, that the King was not the Author of that Book. Dr. Holling. p. 9  before several Committees, that this course would destroy their Design, they resolve to deal with his Book as they had done with his Person, to Defame it by scandalous Reflections, ●oud Calumnies, and false Glosses and Misinterpretations; And they found a fit Instrument to attempt their Design, a Person that was a Compendium of all the Villainies and Impieties of the Age, who had been a professed Enemy to Monarchy, a Pleader for Divorces on Trivial Occasions, and against Tithes and the Clergy, which he hath left in several printed Tracts, as his Portraiture: this is that Infamous Milton whom the Regicides hired by the Price of three hundred Pounds to Deface that Royal Monument; but all in vain, for by his overdoing he hath quite undone the Design, for first he takes it pro confesso, that it is the King's Book, and says, That the King left it behind him as the best Advocate and Interpreter of his own Actions, p. 3. of his Preface. And says, That because the King co 〈◊〉 〈◊〉ed at the Bar, that his Reasons could not be heard, neither he nor his Friends should have cause to find fault, being met and debated with in that open Court of his own erecting. But his Proceed against this Book, were like those of his Fellow-Regicides against his Person: For, p. 2. of his Preface, He accuseth the Book as having nothing of Solidity in it, being stuffed with naught else but the common Grounds of Tyranny and Popery. And, p. 6. That the King used more running Fetches to Undermine our Liberties, and put Tyranny into an Art, than any British King before him. Which are such palpable Falsities as the Father of Lies would not own; and of which he gives the Reader a plain Confutation, p. 8. in these words, That they who before hated him for his high Misgovernment, (as he miscalls it) nay, fought against him with displayed Banners in the Field, now (after the printing of his Book) applaud and extol him as the Wisest and most Religious Prince that lived. And the Reformer turned Regicide, they saw the Truth of the King's Declarations made manifest, and all their Slanders of the King confuted: And Milton's great Objection against him for ever silenced, which was, That the Testimony of one Man in his own Cause affirming, cannot be of any moment, to bring in doubt the Authority of a Parliament, denying the Allegation. Which is as if the Testimony of those that had robbed and slain an innocent Man in the face of the Sun, deserved more Credit than his dying Testimony against his Murderers, and the Matter of Fact attested by more than a thousand Witnesses. They saw the Mask taken off, and the Rebel appear where the Reformer was represented.  
As for that Impudent Calumny, That the KING's BOOK is stuffed with Grounds of POPERY, 'tis what his Masters durst not accuse Him of; and from which the whole Course of his Life, so well known to the Nation, would acquit him; particularly some of those private Letters of his which the Parliament published, wherein he declared to the Queen, That he differed from her in nothing but her Religion. His Dispute with the Marquis of Worcester, yet in print, though by a partial Hand, that relates it to the King's Disadvantage; his constant Devotion at our Prayers and Sacrament; his Solemn Protestations at York in the head of his Army, at Oxford when he sealed the Truth of his Profession by receiving the Sacrament at the hands of the Archbishop of Armagh, as he did also in the Cathedral of Exeter, after he had defeated Essex's Army in Cornwall: And which is the best Confirmation, his declaring at the last instant of his Life, that he died a Christian according to the Profession of the Church of England, as it was left him from his Father; the farther Proof of this, would be but as some Apologies, the calling that in question which was not doubted of before, and raising a Suspicion of it: Therefore I leave this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and pursue that Sacrilegious Milton, who in p. 4. relating how some Men by Polity have accomplished after Death, that Revenge upon their Enemies, which in Life they were not able. He to this Book applies the Example of Caesar, whose last Will and Testament being read to the People, and what bounteous Legacies he had bequeathed them, it wrought more to the avenging of his Death, than all the Art he could ever use to win their Favour in his Life time. Which the Royal Martyr foretold in that most Christian Sentence wherewith he closed his Book, Vota dabunt quae bella negarunt. The true meaning whereof his Majesty gives in the Chapter concerning the Uxbridge Treaty, viz. What we could not get by our Treaties, we may gain by our Prayers. Out of which Flower that venomous Spider would extract Poison.  
But the Book shines throughout with such Beams of Light as evidently display the Innocency and Piety of that incomparable Prince, and the Impiety and Perfidy of his Enemies; and hence it is that they so hate it. But what Temptation hath prevailed with some Persons in this Age, to revive their Calumnies against the Royal Martyr, and to justify his Murder; it is hard to guests, unless it be, that there is a Commonwealth at the bottom, for whoever will defend a Rebellion against so good a Prince, will not stick to oppose the best that shall succeed him, their Principles being Antimonarchical: But this is not my present business; the Question which I am to discuss is, Whether King Charles the First, or Bishop Gauden were the Author of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? Dr. Walker in a late Book hath peremptorily affirmed, That it was composed by Bishop Gauden, and sent to the Press by him.  
That it was penned by the King, and printed by his Order, I shall endeavour to demonstrate, as far as a Matter of Fact done so long since will admit: And that the Reader may not think me a Pragmatical Person, as meddling with a Business wherein I am not concerned, and which hath been undertaken by a more Eminent Person, I shall briefly acquaint him with the Occasion of my being engaged in this Dispute:  
I were importuned by two Eminent Doctors to declare what I knew concerning the Book in question, and accordingly I subscribed my Name to that Testimony printed in Dr. Hollingworth's Answer to a Libel that goes under the Name of Ludlow, in these words, I had the hap to be acquainted with Bishop Gauden as long as he was our Diocesan, and I have heard him often affirm, That he was fully convinced, that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was entirely that King's Work.  
Tho. Long.  
In answer to Dr. Hollingworth's Book there comes forth another Libel under the same Name of Ludlow, to which there is a Preface prefixed subscribed by one Joseph Wilson of Yarmouth; though I am so credibly informed, that I believe there is no such Person, and that neither Ludlow nor Wilson wrote any of those Books, but a Juncto of Republicans; whoever the Authors be, it appears that they are deeply immerged in the Gild of Regicide, which they endeavour to justify, and in the very words of Milton, not only Defame the Book, affirming, That it gins with Falsehood, and ends with Fraud; but also Blaspheme his Person in the same words of that profligate Person, p. 4. of his Iconoclastes, viz. That the King never loved, never fulfilled, never promoted the true Ends of Parliament. If there were such a thing as a Metempsychosis, I should think thac the Souls of Bradshaw, Milton, and other Regicides had a Transmigration into the Souls of this Juncto of Republicans.  
Wherefore as I account it my bounden Duty to Vindicate the Royal Martyr to the best of my Knowledge, and the utmost of my Power; so I shall still esteem it as a Point of Honour rather than of Reproach, to be evil spoken of by such a Juncto of Men, as were so far from sparing the Reputation of the Royal Martyr, that in a most barbarous manner they deprived him of his Life; nor is it more evident, that he or they who have most impudently published those Libels against that best of Kings, do strike at Monarchy in general, as well as at that most Innocent and yet most Defamed Monarch, and lay a Foundation for a Commonwealth; for it is most rational to conclude, that they who sought, and where they could not find a just Cause for their Rebellion, made their own Groundless Fears and Jealousies an Occasion for the most Unnatural and Bloody Civil War that so Rend three Flourishing Kingdoms, will ever acquiesce or rest satisfied with the Administration of the Government by any that shall succeed to the Crown, though they shall excel that Royal Martyr in Wisdom, Clemency, Temperance, and other Virtues, as much as he excelled any of his Cotemporary Monarches: I say, it is not more evident that they will be Seditious in the State, than that they will be as Troublesome and Factious in the Church, whose Principles lead them against the Doctrine and Discipline by Law established, and for that cause hate the Persons of the Legislators; all which hath been practised by their Predecessors, and is designed by the present Managers of the late Libels, who if the present Governors in Church and State were as much in their Power, as in the Year 48, and had but one Neck, they would not stick to destroy all at one Blow, as their Predecessors thought they had done.  
Now as in the Preface before mentioned, there is no Author to be found, so neither is their any Proof in the whole Libel produced, to Invalidate the Testimonies so clearly alleged by Dr. Hollingworth, after a most exact Enquiry concerning the Author of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which will be demonstrated hereafter, it is my business now only to confirm my own, in order to which, I shall not urge to prove Bishop Gauden's Kindness to me, (though I may truly) as Dr. Walker doth the Parliament's Favour to Bishop Gauden, by presenting him with a Piece of Plate; it being well known that he collated on me one of the first prebend's of his Church, in his first Year; and I should be very injurious to his Memory, to attest any Untruth concerning him; the Occasion on which I ground my Evidence (I well remember) was this: On the 30th of January, in the Bishop's first Year, the Bishop preached in the Cathedral in the Forenoon, on Jonah 1.14. We beseech thee, O Lord, we beseech thee, let us not perish for this man's life; and lay not on us innocent blood, for thou Lord hast done as it pleased thee.  
By the Bishop's order I preached in the Afternoon, my Text was the Evangelical Promise, Isa. 49.23. King's shall be thy nursing-fathers', and their Queens thy nursing-mothers'. Whereon as occasion offered, I aggravated that detestable Parricide perpetrated on the Person of the Royal Martyr; and among other Arguments I urged the Piety and Clemency of that most excellent Prince, reading out of his Book several Paragraphs to that purpose: and one other from a Speech to the Commissioners at Newport, against some that thought him Revengeful, That he was so far from seeking Revenge, that if a Straw lay in their way to hurt them, he would stoop and take it up to prevent it. (Adding,) God forgive them, for I do. The Duties of the Fast being over, I was invited to sup with the Bishop, and standing with him by the Fireside, he gave me Thanks for my Sermon, and then declared to me what I have attested.  
And now that I may not appear to be a single Witness in this Evidence, I subjoin these following Attestations, first that quoted by Dr. Holling. p. 10. That Mrs Gauden told a Lady of good Quality, That she had a great concern for the eternal State of her Husband, because he pretended he was the Author of that Book, when to her knowledge he never wrote it. This Dr. Hollingworth had from a Minister in London. To this I shall subjoin the agreeing Testimony of Mr. Gifford, who lived with Dr. Gauden, and as 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 aught 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 joint and agreeing Testimony of Mr. Gifford, and Mr. Long, and Mrs. Gauden, are most credible. And if any Reader be yet doubtful, I entreat '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 Church's Enemies being of another mind, account all that shall be written on its behalf to be Venomous 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 Libeler 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 subjoined 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 Falsehood, and Revealer of Secrets, that he wrote nothing of the Truth of which he was not throughly persuaded 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 persuaded by full Evidence, he is still in a Suspense, 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 satisfy 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 Judgement 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 shame the World with a Book in the King's Name, but he must Extract his own Apothegms, or Wise Say 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. Earl did; yet none will infer, that Dr. Earl was the Author, though he took the Pains also to Translate it into Latin: 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 Viscount Hereford to Dr. Earl, 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 Latin, 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 shown me the Heads of divers Chapters, and some of the Discourses written of them; and after some time spent in the Perusal, he vouchsafed to ask my Opinion concerning it; and after some Consideration, I told him, I supposed it would be much for the King's Reputation, Honour, and Safety, etc.  
Ans. I have another Testimony of Dr. Walker's (which the Reader shall have at large,) which is dated March 23d, 1690, where he declares, That he is uncertain whether he ever read this Book in Manuscript, or only saw it with its Title of the Chapters. Now as the growth of a Testimony by material Additions and Alterations is accounted a Prejudice against it, so much more when something is affirmed in the later which was denied in the former Testimony; for in p. 4. he says, He perfectly remembreth, that in the second Chapter of the Earl of Strafford, where it is said, He only hath been least vexed by them who counselled me not to consent against the Vote of my own Conscience; Dr. Gauden told him, that Dr. Juxon was meant by that Passage. Which was common Discourse, shortly after the Earl's Death, though Dr. Walker makes it a Secret: There were printed some Reflections shortly after the Book was published, and in the Frontispiece Bp. Juxton described behind a Curtain dictating the Book.  
Dr. Walker's Testimony concerning the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, March 23, 1690, was as followeth:  
Bp. Gauden wrote that whole Book, two Chapters only excepted, the one about Liturgies, the other of Refusing the King the Attendance of his Chaplains; which two Chapters were written by Bp. Duppa: Dr. Walker well remembering that Bp. Gauden told him, That Bp. Duppa upon the Perusal of this Book, told Bp. Gauden, that the two forementioned Heads were fit to be writ upon, and therefore desired him to draw up two Chapters on the same; but after farther Consideration, he told him, That he would write those two Chapters himself. Dr. Walker farther observed, That considering Dr. Gauden's Circumstances, it was very obvious why Dr. Gauden should not think of writing on those Heads, because the Doctor disused the Liturgy, and had never been one of the King's Chaplains; and so not so sensible of writing on those two Chapters.  
The bigger part of the Copy of this Book was delivered by Bp. Gauden to Mr. Simmons, as Dr. Walker conjectures.  
One Peacock, Bp. Gauden's Steward's Brother, received part of those Papers from Dr. Walker, particularly the Picture sealed up: these were put up in a Trunk between the Lady Warwick's Points. Peacock delivered these Papers to another Person unknown to Dr. Walker.  
One Lieutenant Arraker seized Mr. Simmons' Papers in Carter-lane, on a Sunday, among which the Proof-sheets of this Book were, which were restored to Mr. simmond's on Monday, by order of Col. Rich, upon the Intercession of Dr. W. Some of the Proof-sheets, having the Greek Title on the outward Leaf, were scattered in Carter-lane, and gathered up by Simmonds' Son, or some of the Family, as soon as the Troopers were gone.  
Bp. Gauden told Dr. Walker, that he delivered a Copy of this Book to the Marquis of Hartford, when he went to the Treaty at the Isle of Wight, and desired him to deliver it to the King, if he could find an Opportunity, and know his Majesty's Pleasure, whether he would give leave that it might be published; but whether the King did ever receive the Papers, the Bishop could not tell, he received no account of the same, as he told Dr. Walker a little before his Death.  
Dr. Walker enquired of the Bishop, how he could satisfy himself in imposing this Book on the World? The Bishop replied, Consider the Title, being the King's Portraiture, and no Man useth to draw his own Picture.  
Dr. Walker and Mr. Gifford were both privy to these Affairs, living together in the Bishop's House, though the Doctor is uncertain whether he ever read this Book in Manuscript, or only saw it with its Title of the Chapters, though he thinks that Mr. Gifford might Copy it out.  
Dr. Walker discoursed Major Huntingdon at Tunbridge, about the King's Papers, who told him, That he had been under Examination about that Affair before several Committees of Parliament, and all that ever he said was, That he had seen several Manuscripts of the King's whilst he attended him, which he conjectured might be those; but never affirmed them to be so, because he never read one word of them. Of this Testimony we shall have occasion to make use hereafter.  
P. 4. Dr. Walker says, Dr. Gauden shown me the Heads, and some of the Discourses, and after some time spent in Perusal, I expressly added, I stuck at the Lawfulness of it; and modestly asked him, How he satisfied himself so to impose upon the World? In p. 35. Dr. Walker makes his Apology for discovering this Secret, after he had suppressed the knowledge of it for forty Years; and complains how hard measure it would be not to suffer a Man to reveal that, by concealing of which he fears God is displeased, and he necessitated to labour under a continued Uneasiness and Dissatisfaction of his own Mind: And he confesseth, he had many cogent Reasons to persuade him that God was not well pleased with Dr. Gauden, others, and himself, for what we contributed to it. This is well considered, but it is very inconsiderately added, what he says in a few Lines after, That he suffered this Discovery to be wrung and wrested from him, by some Body's impertinent Affectation to meddle with what he understood not; for if he had been really troubled in Conscience for concealing that Secret, which he there gives for the revealing of it, i. e. Because as we must not speak wickedly for God, nor talk deceitfully for him, neither may we do so for any Man. And as St. Augustine says, An officious Lie ought not to be told to save the whole World. And that there was more than Appearance of Pious Fraud in this Affair, which by his Silence he contributed to the maintaining of; a Person truly conscientious would have timely, freely, and ingenuously have made the Discovery, and not suffered the Wound to rankle and disquiet him for forty Years together, and not seek ease by discovering of it till he was forced to it in his own Defence.  
Dr. Walker adds, p. 4. That he dining sometime after with Dr. Gauden in London, he went with him after Dinner to Bp. Duppa; and Dr. Gauden having had some discourse with the Bishop, Dr. Gauden told Dr. Walker, That the substance of their discourse was to this effect: That the Bishop told Dr. Gauden, there were two Subjects more which he propounded to the Doctor to write on, (viz) The Ordinance against the Common Prayer, and the denying the Attenaance of his Majesty's Chaplains; but on second Thoughts the Bishop desired the Doctor to leave the writing on those two Heads to him; which accordingly he did, as Dr. Gauden owned to Dr. Walker, and others who were privy to the whole.  
Ans. I am fully 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 Judgement was, as he declares, in the last of his Meditations, on the Reformation of the Times, That as good Ends cannot justify evil Means, so nor will evil Beginnings 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 Style; 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 concerned 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 discovered his Error he endeavoured to redeem it by an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by bending to the contrary Extreme. Or was he less concerned 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 Rigour, 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 ask 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 Marquis of Hartford, when he went to the Isle of Wight, entreating 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 threatened the King hastening so fast, he ventured to print it, and never knew what was the Issue of sending it.  
Ans. It looks very oddly, that Dr. Gauden having committed so great a Business to the Marquess' Management, should never (having many Opportunities after his return from the Isle of Wight,) inquire, 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 threatened the King, when it had born down all the Mediation used by foreign 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 inquire of the Marquis, 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 Marquis, 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 Marquis and the Doctor lived somewhile after the Restauration. And Dr. Walker says, That Dr. Gauden being asked, Whether K. Charles the Second knew that he wrote the Book? answered, 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 spoke 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 Marquis 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 Bishopric 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 Bishopric 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 told her, That she had a great concern for the eternal State of her Husband, because he pretended to be the Author of that Book, when to her knowledge he never writ it. Both these Testimonies cannot be true, if Mrs. Gauden spoke them; and this makes me think one of them was Dr. Walker's; for this is so material a Proof, that if Dr. Walker knew the truth of it, I wonder why he omitted it in his printed Book; it is a shrewd Presumption against a Witness, when he so varieth in his Testimony, as to add a material Evidence at one time, and to omit another at another time; when a Person is unconstant and inconsistent with him-himself in a Matter of great importance, it is an Argument of Unfaithfulness. Again, by this Solemnity of Mrs. Gauden's discovering her Husband to be the Author of that Book, upon her taking the Sacrament, the Intent seems to be, that this Secret might be laid open, and made notorious; and to that end that the Communicants were made acquainted with it, and if it were at a public Sacrament, there was likely a full Congregation, if it were a private Sacrament, desired by Mrs. Gauden for the Ease of her Conscience, (as Dr. Walker found the concealing it to be a Trouble to his,) yet we suppose there must be at least three Communicants by whose Testimony Mrs. Gauden's Declaration might be confirmed, and the Notoriety of the thing be perpetuated: How comes it to pass after all this, the thing should remain a Secret still, and not known (for aught we yet hear of,) to any one but Dr. Walker.  
As to Mr. Gifford, whom Dr. Walker supposeth to have been the Transcriber of the Copy, and to have believed it as much as himself, I have opposed the Testimony of Dr. Edw. Lake, Archdeacon of Exeter, wno was well acquainted with Mr. Gifford, and his single Testimony far more Credible than Dr. Walker's.  
Dr. Walker says, That Dr. Gauden delivered to him what was last sent up, giving strict Caution with what Wariness to carry and deliver it; 
See his Account of March 23d, 1690.  and accordingly he delivered it, Saturday, December 23d, 48, to one Peacock, who was instructed by what Hands to transmit it to Mr. Royston.  
This the Doctor says, to show his great Care to discharge his Trust; who notwithstanding the strict Caution with what Wariness to carry and deliver it, he committed it to one Peacock, a Brother to Dr. Gauden's Bailiff, with new Instructions by what other Hands he should transmit it to Mr. Roston; whereas he acknowledgeth that the bigger part of this Book was delivered by Dr. Gauden to Mr. simmond's. He wanted a good Memory, as he says of Dr. Hollingworth.  
The Reader cannot but observe, that in all this tedious Narrative, he meets with no other Evidence but Dr. Walker's bare Word, which will not amount to a single Testimony, being invalidated by his own Relation of Matters of Fact, very inconsistent with each other, and unsatisfactory to himself, and wanting a further Confirmation, is forced to find out probable Reasons, such as they be in,  
SECT. III. Of his probable Arguments to Confirm himself, and help to Convince others, etc.  
The first probable Argument is, That Dr. Gauden in the beginning of the Long Parliament, which carried on the War against the King, preached before them on Zach. 8.19. which Sermon is printed; and the House of Commons presented him with a large Silver Tankard, with this Inscription, Donum Honorarium Populi Anglicani in Parliamento congregati Johanni Gauden, etc. which constantly went about his House; and he had been inclinable to the Parliament Interest, till he found they went beyond their first Pretensions, and the Expectations of himself and other good Men: When he discovered that, he endeavoured to redeem his Error by bending to the contrary Extreme. And I am persuaded it was this that put him on the designing and finishing of this Book.  
This Argument is so far from being probable, and fit for Conviction, that it is more like to move Laughter, for it may conclude thus for Dr. Walker as well as for Dr. Gauden, Dr. Walker had been of the Parliament Party against the King, was a Favourite of the Party, and a Chaplain to them, but when they went beyond his Expectation, he bended to the contrary Extreme, therefore Dr. Walker wrote the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. But though the Argument doth not make this probable, yet it shows a great Probability, that Dr. Gauden hath bended to contrary Extremes; but Dr. Walker is more constant to his first Principles.  
Dr. Walker's second probable Argument is drawn from the fourteenth Chapter, (i. e.) of the Covenant; and p. 6. he relates it at large to this effect: That being privy to the truth of this Affair, out of Curiosity he asked Dr. Barwick, Dean of St. Paul 's, What he thought of this Book? for the thing being doubtfully spoken of, he made bold to ask his Judgement of it. The Dean pressed him with this Argument, If it were written by any but the King, it must be a Friend, or an Enemy; not by an Enemy, for no Enemy of the King would have represented him so much to his Advantage; not by a Friend, for no Friend of his would write as he doth of the Covenant, etc. Meaning so favourably.  
Ans. It is highly improbable that Dr. Barwick, who doubtless had considered that Chapter against the Covenant, would have chosen such an Argument, when there is as much said in that Chapter to condemn the Covenant, as could rationally be expected; for in the first Paragraph he says, That it was a pawning of their Souls to the Presbyterian Scots by a Solemn League and Covenant. In the second he calls it, An Engine intended chief to batter down Episcopacy; and compares it to a Charm and Exorcism. In the third, That it contained many dubious and dangerous Limitations; referring to himself, and things very disputable, which could not be sworn to with Judgement and Certainty to a Man's self, or Charity and Candour to others. P. 4. That imposing Oaths on People must needs in things doubtful be dangerous, and in things unlawful (as he had proved this to be by his Proclamation, and the irrefragrable Arguments of the University of Oxford had determined,) was damnable. P. 5. That it was not only superfluous, but irreconcilable to former Oaths, and the Protestation so lately taken to maintain the Religion established in the Church of England, since they account Discipline so great a part of Religion. P. 6. That it was laid as a Snare and Engine by Men of ambitious Minds to catch and hold vulgar Credulity, under the Terror of Perjury. P. 7. That such After-contracts imposed without and against the King's Consent, or any Power or Precedent from the Laws of God or Man, could not absolve the Subjects from those Moral Bonds of Duty which lay on their Consciences both to God and the King; and calls it a mocking of God. Now what Friend of the King's needed to reflect more severely upon the Covenant, than the King himself hath done? I can therefore hardly think that Dr. Barwick would use this as an Argument that it was written by the King himself, because no Friend of his would have written so favourably of it. It rather seems a contrived Argument of one that would solve his own Hypothesis: That Dr. Gauden wrote that Book, because in the Chapter of the Covenant there are some things spoken in favour of it, which best became Dr. Gauden, who speaks the more favourably because he had taken it, than any of the King's Friends or himself would have done. That which seems most in favour of the Covenant, is this: That the Imposers of it were content to make it like Manna (not that it came from Heaven as Manna did,) agreeable to every Man's palate who would swallow it; they admit any Man's senses of it, though divers or contrary, with any Salvoes, Cautions, and Reservations, so as they cross not their chief Design laid against the Church and me; (i. e.) the King. Now this is as sharp a Reprimand as could be conceived, where the King shows how the Covenanters mocked God by Salvoes, Cautions, and Reservations, used as Baits to draw the People into their Snares; he was far enough from approving such shusting Cautions in a Solemn Covenant which was to be taken in Judgement, in Truth, and in Righteousness, Jer. 4.2. The King adds, That in such Latitudes of Senses, he believes many that loved Him and the Church, might take the Covenant, who were not so taken by it as to act clearly against both Piety and Loyalty; and that many yielded to it more to prevent imminent Violence and Ruin, which in case of dental hung over their heads, than for any Value of it, or Devotion to it. He adds, That the Latitude of some general Clauses may perhaps serve somewhat to relieve them, as of doing and endeavouring what lawfully they may in their Places and Callings, and according to the Word of God, for these carry no Man beyond those Bounds of good Conscience, which are certain and fixed either to God's Laws, as to the general, or the Laws of the Kingdom as to the particular Exercise of men's Duties. And therefore he desires such as glory most in the Name of Covenanters, to keep themselves within those lawful Bounds. In all which there appears such Charity and Prudent and Pious Advice as becomes the best of Kings: And therefore the mature Consideration of this Chapter is a more propable Argument that it was penned by the King rather than by Dr. Gauden, or any other, who could not add as the King doth, I willingly forgive such men's taking the Covenant, who keep within such Bounds of Piety, Law, and Loyalty.  
This Discourse which he pretends to have had with Dr. Barwick, who he says was his Tutor, gave him a fair Opportunity (if the concealing of his Secret had been a real Trouble to him,) to acquaint his Tutor, as he voluntarily offered to inform the Archbishop Sandcroft, how much he and the World were deceived, as to the Author of that Book, whom he knew to be Bp. Gauden; and that his handling the Covenant so gently, was because he had taken the Covenant. But this probable Argument might have been turned to a plain Confutation of his Fiction, from what is repeated out of that Chapter; which without doubt Dr. Barwick had read and considered better, than to conclude that it spoke in favour of the Covenant.  
The Doctor's third probable Argumentis as the former, his single Affirmation, That Dr. Gauden told him, that Bp. Duppa wrote the two Chapters concerning the Liturgy and Chaplains; and his free declaring that he neither thought nor wrote of these Subjects; and that (as Dr. Walker says) it was unlikely he should, renders it very probable he spoke the truth in declaring that he wrote the rest.  
Ans. That the King had great reason both to think and write of those Subjects, is very obvious; and as evident, that Dr. Gauden had more reason to think and write of them then of several other Heads, particularly that which reflects so much on his Reputation, having been a Covenanter; and that other of prescribing Rules to the Prince for the Government of his Kingdoms. But of this I have said enough before; I only add, It was very improper to call the Prince his Son, and the Queen his Wife, etc.  
The fourth probable Argument is, That Dr. Walker met with Expressions in the Devotional Part, very frequently used by Dr. Gauden in his Prayers; which he never heard from any other Man, and most Men in their Prayers especially have peculiar Phrases and Modes of expressing themselves: And where such occur, 'tis a probable Evidence they proceed from him to whom they were peculiar.  
Ans. I wish the Doctor had given us some of those Phrases and Modes; I have compared the Style and several Expressions of the Doctor's in a Treatise of his, which the Reader shall find hereafter, as much differing from the Phrases and Expressions in the King's Book, as the Waters of Siloah, which go softly, from the rapid Falls of Nile, which keep within no Bounds, and abound with Mud and Monsters: The King's Expressions are mostly in Scripture-phrase, which though other Men do use, yet few do apply more pertinently and affectionately; and what Meditations are properly his own, few Men of his Age could imitate, for the Matter or Style: And Dr. Gauden is as far from it as most Writers of that Age. But to talk of peculiar Expressions, etc. and not to give one Instance, is but to beat the Air.  
The fifth Argument concerning the Apophthegmata Carolina is already answered; now when all these five probable Arguments are (as he says) joined together, and the Reader hath considered that they are only Dr. Walker's Affirmations, they will rather conclude that his Knowledge was very imperfect that needed such Proofs to confirm it, which as Dr. Walker acknowledgeth, do more harm than good. And I think that no Impartial Reader will be convinced by them; for if, as Dr. Walker says, that believing or not believing depends upon the Clearness or Cogency of the Motives of Credibility, or the Weakness and Insufficiency of them, no Man will build his Belief on such a sandy Foundation: And, as Dr. Walker says, we may suppose that House is likely to fall that is supported by such Props.  
The Testimony which I mentioned before, Dr. Charles Goodal assures me he had from Dr. Walker's own mouth, March 23d, 1690, and it requires a few Remarks, As first, where it says, that the bigger part of the Book was delivered by Dr. Gauden to Mr. simmond's:  
Remark 1. Then Dr. Gauden and Mr. simmond's were no such Strangers (as Dr. Walker represents them,) when the Book was preparing for the Press, and probably Mr. simmond's well knew who the Author was, and whatever Dr. Walker did, Mr. simmond's would not have consented to the publishing of it in the King's Name, if it were Dr. Gauden's; for if the Fraud had been found out, it would have more disparaged the King and his Cause, than the concealing of it could have advantaged it; the King's great Abilities and Innocency being better known and believed than to need such Props and Fallacious Means to support it, which I believe his pious Soul would have abhorred, if it had been proposed to him.  
Rem. 2. If the bigger part of the Book was delivered by Dr. Gauden to Mr. simmond's, that delivery might be only a return of what the Doctor had received before from Mr. simmond's, for he was chief entrusted with the printing of it, as appears by the returning of the Proof-sheets to him to Correct them; and if Dr. Gauden had been the Author, he had better means to send it to the Press, and was more fit to correct his own Copy, than to commit this Work, and the Secret of Dr. Gauden's being the Author of it, to a Sequestered Man, who as the Event shows, was suspected, and hardly escaped a full Discovery, whereas both Dr. Gauden and Walker were Favourites of the Times.  
Rem. 3. Whereas he says, that he and Mr. Gifford, who both lived in Dr. Gauden's House, knew this Secret; I have shown that Mr. Gifford was of a contrary Persuasion to that of Dr. Walker's, for Mr. Gifford spoke of it, and quoted it in his Sermon as the King's Book, and he being the Transcriber of it, as Dr. Walker intimates, had more opportunity and means to inform himself who was the Author.  
Rem. 4. Dr. Walker says, He was uncertain whether he ever read the Book in Manuscript, but only saw it with the Titles of the Chapters. This is contrary to what he had more than once affirmed, That he had read it, and particularly that Chapter concerning the Earl of Strafford; whereupon he discoursed with Dr. Gauden, and questioned, How he could satisfy himself to impose such a Book on the World in the King's Name? P. 4. He says, Dr. Gauden shown me the Heads of divers Chapters, and some of the Discourses written of them, and after sometime spent in the Perusal, he asked my Opinion of it; which amounts to a Contradiction, scarcely to be excused by the Uncertainty of his Memory: But if he never read the Book in Manuscript, how could he be so certain that the Book was of Dr. Gauden's Compiling? And indeed the Intenion of doing the King Service by such an Imposture, was in Dr. Gauden such a Sin as the making of a Practical Lie, and in Dr. Walker who concealed it, and by Silence gave Consent, a making himself a Party, which Dr. Walker from St. Augustine condemns as a thing not to be practised for the saving of the World.  
Rem. 5. Whereas Dr. Walker says, That Dr. Gauden being asked, How he could satisfy himself in writing such a Book in the King's Name? That he replied, Look on the Title; and said, no Man useth to draw his own Picture. This is overthrown by Mr. Clifford's Testimony, p. 4. of Dr. Holling. where it is affirmed, That Mr. Royston shown the first Proof-sheet to Dr. Taylor, the Title whereof was, The Royal Plea, which the Doctor said would betray the Book, there being two Informers, Cheltenham and Jones, who would discover the Book by the Title, and therefore Dr. Taylor wrote to the King to have it changed, and had leave to call it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which those Informers could not understand being Greek. This Testimony concerning the Title, seems more rational than that which Dr. Walker reports from Dr. Gauden, who, as Dr. Walker reports, would excuse himself for imposing his Book on the World as if it were the King's, because no Man useth to draw his own Picture. When I consider Dr. Walker's subjoyning these probable Arguments to confirm his positive Assertion, and to convince his Reader; it minded me of the frequent Salvoes used by our News-writers, who having related a fictitious Story to fill up their Papers, are wont to add, But this needs a Confirmation; and then 'tis an hundred to one but they have made a false Relation. When we see a Man constantly using Crutches, we conclude he is an infirm Person; and we may guests at the strength of the Doctor's Persuasion and Affirmation by the Cogency of his probable Arguments.  
So that if this Relation was taken from Dr. Walker's own mouth, as Dr. Goodal assures me, and I am induced to believe, because Dr. Walker says, Sect. 5. p. 34. That he had occasionally, and when he had been desired, declared the Substance of what he now hath written. And I have been credibly informed, That Dr. Walker had often spoken too freely of this Affair in Coffe-houses and to several Companies, not without much Variation in the Circumstances from what he says he is now forced to write; and it hath been observed, that some Men have so long divulged their own Fancies, that at last they have believed them to be true; and to save their Reputation from being accounted vain Persons, are ready to swear to what they have said: In which I wish the Reader could find cause to excuse the Doctor, and believe that what he hath reported is a true Story, and not a strong Imagination, because he testifieth of himself, That it is both naturally and morally next to impossible that it should be so, p. 17. to which he would persuade his Reader, because his Story is so self-consistent in all its parts; which he says the Aldgate Doctor's is not.  
Ans. I think it as possible for Dr. Walker to tell a false Story after another Man, as for Dr. Hollingworth, and seeing they relate such different Stories as cannot both be true, it is more likely that he that grounds his Confidence on the Relation of a single Person, and tells the Story with many Imperfections, Inconsistencies, and Contradictions, though he make his Appeals to God for the Truth of it, as too many do in every Court, should be adjudged to tell an Untruth, rather than he who proves the Veracity of his Relation by a much more considerable number of Men of good Reputation, than the Laws of God or Man require for the ending of Controversies. And whereas he complains, p. 35. That it is hard measure not to suffer a Man to reveal that, by concealing which he fears God is displeased, and he necessitated to labour under a continued Dissatisfaction of Mind. I wonder what Necessity forced him against his mind to conceal this Secret, when he being a Chaplain at Warwick-house, was under a great Temptation of being highly preferred by his Patrons, if at that time he had freely discovered it, and therewithal eased his Conscience from that which kept him uneasy forty Years together. He concludes after all his confident Affirmations and probable Arguments, as a Sceptic, p. 37. If any Man can produce stronger Reasons for the Negative part, I do not say only I will, but that I must believe that contrary part. How vainly therefore doth he beseech him that shall write against him to write nothing for the Truth of which he doth not make the like Appeals to God which he hath done, which I think no good Man will do upon such uncertain Hearsays and probable Arguments, as Dr. Walker makes his Appeals; from doing whereof the Advertisement of the Printer may be a Discouragement, (viz.) That the Author coming to London to publish this Treatise, it pleased God before it was finished at the Press, to take him to himself. However, this Point we have gained by Dr. Walker's Concession, That if any Man can produce more probable Arguments for the contrary Opinion, he must be of that Persuasion, as Dr. Walker said he would and must. Which I doubt not to perform, to the full Satisfaction of the Reader.  
SECT. IV. p. 8. Contains an Answer to Dr. Hollingworth 's Postscript.  
This Section which fills up fourteen or fifteen Pages, contains an insolent and supercilious Contest with a far better Man than himself. P. 8. Dr. Holling. says, Some Men have with Industry endeavoured to persuade the World, that the Book was a Forgery, and not of the King's Compiling; and names the Essex Doctor. This Dr. Walker, the Essex Doctor, says, is an unlucky Omen, to stumble so at the Threshold, because he calls it an Objection against the King.  
Reply. If the writing of the Book gained great Honour and Reputation to the King, than those Objectors that denied the King to be the Author, did scandalously reflect upon his Majesty: Dr. Walker grants the Antecedent, and therefore the Conclusion will follow.  
P. 10. Dr. Hollingworth, I could not believe that any Man could write at that Divine rate, but he that felt the Miseries which suggest such Thoughts and Heavenly Meditations.  
Dr. Walker instead of an Answer, says only, That this is borrowed from Sir W. Dugdale, who agreed in the same Sentiment with Dr. Hollingworth, in these words: The unlikelihood that any such Expressions could flow from a Heart not oppressed and grieved with such a weight of Sorrow as his was, etc.  
I believe that most judicious Persons do herein agree with Dr. H. and Sir W. D. And Dr. W. grants it p. 11. That our Affections are kindied by our present Circumstances, and surprising Mercies or Calamities are Springs of such Joy or Sorrow as sharpen or set an edge on our Expressions, and instil such an Air, Energy, and suitable Eloquence, which the same Person could not reach at another time. Dr. Earl agreed with Sir W. Dugdale, That no afflicted prince, but K. Charles could pen such Meditations.  
Dr. Walker, When a Man designs to personate another, he adapts his Words and Expressions with second and third Thoughts, takes a great deal of Pains, useth a studious Industry to fit every Thought to such a Condition, every Affection to such a Thought, and every Expression to be a lively 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of such a Pasion or Affection.  
Ans. Now supposing that Dr. Gauden wrote that Book, he used a studious Industry to imitate the King's usual Words and Expressions, so that in Dr. Gauden's Opinion the King had a very excellent Train of Thoughts, and fit Words to express them, not to be imitated without second and third Thoughts, and great Pains and Industry. And whoever shall diligently compare the King's undoubted Writings with those of Dr. Gauden's, will be fully convinced that neither for the Excellency of Thoughts or Elegancy of expressing them, the Doctor hath in any measure imitated the Style of the King's Book; in which, as Dr. W. observes, p. 12. the Evenness of the Thought and Expression, that Equality of the Style and Affection, and the same Thread running quite through from first to last, may persuade the Reader that it was not compiled by two such different Men as Bp. Duppa and Dr. Gauden, but by that Great King, of whom Dr. W. says, p. 1. That his Honour is secured by his acknowledged Wisdom, celebrated Virtues, exemplary Patience, and Christian Magnanimity in his Sufferings. Now for Dr. W. to infer from the King's Sufferings, that he was not the Author of that Book, because the Hurry of Miseries which attended him, (as Dr. W. thinks) must distract and alter the Temper of his Mind, is an irreparable Injury to the Memory of that Good King, who as he was observed to be of an equal Temper of Mind, under various Conditions, so his Sufferings gave him Opportunity and Vacancy for sedate and deliberate Thoughts: And (as the King acknowledged) occasioned great Improvement both of his Parts and Pious Devotions; which all that knew him could testify, neither his Victories nor his Overthrows could at any time cause him to intermit. Of which we have this remarkable Instance, That twenty Years before his death, the News of the Assassination of his great Favourite the Duke of Buckingham, being brought him while he was at Prayer, he took no other notice of it, than to apply himself more earnestly to his Devotions. Nor was he more disturbed at that ugly Sentence for his death: And when the Commissioners at the Treaty in Newport insisted on their Unreasonable Demands, he told them, He could with more comfort cast himself on his Saviour's Goodness to support and defend him from all Afflictions that might befall him, rather than for any Politic Considerations which might seem to be a Means of restoring him, to deprive himself of the Tranquillity of his Mind.  
P. 13. Dr. Walker objects against Dr. Hollingworth, that he saith in that Page, That the Book was sent by a trusty Messenger to Mr. simmond's from the King. 
This Dr. W. confessed March 23, 1690.  But p. 39 That he desired Bp. Juxon to get some trusty Friend to look it over, and put it into exact Order: And hereupon he insults over Dr. Hollingworth as having a bad Memory, and publishing things inconsistent, etc. Whereas he that shall observe how Dr. Hollingworth distinguisheth the time, viz. That in the Year 1647, the King sent the most considerable part of his Book, which was in lose Papers, to Bp. Juxton to get it put into good Order; the Bishop sent it to Sir J. Brttle 's Father, who having digested and transcribed it, was conveyed back to the King; and being perfected by the addition of more Chapters, and made ready for the Press in the Year 48, was sent to Mr. simmond's to publish it. These Relations agree so well, and Sir J. Brattle's Testimony was so authentic, that Dr. W. was well ware it would be too hot for his Fingers.  
It is highly probable that more Copies than one were transcribed from the Original written by the King's hand, 1. Because of the great Esteem the King had for it. 2. The great Fear lest one or two Copies might fall into the hands of his Enemies, as his Cabinet did at Naseby. 3. Because the King was adding to or altering of some parts in the Original a little before his close Imprisonment. I have showed Reasons to induce the Reader 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 Marquis 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 entitled, 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 shown 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 died 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 Bishopric 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, etc. 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 descent from what he says, He was so well persuaded 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 public Acts of Charles the 2d, who Anno 1660, gave Mr. Royston (as a Requital of printing his Father's Book,) the sole Privilege of printing all the Works of K. C. 1st, among which this Book hath a particular Character of Recommendation; the substance of the Privilege is in these words, Charles the Second, etc. 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 Ourselves, 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, etc. the sole printing and publishing of the said Messages, Papers, and Discourses contained in the Book entitled, Reliqivae Sacrae Carolinae, with other Papers and Declarations concerning our said Royal Father etc.  
The same Privilege 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 public 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 publicly and personally attested that to be their Father's, when they believed the contrary.  
To this Dr. Walker rejoins an Answer by a Parallel Case, Of a Printer's having a Licence to print K. David 's Psalms, containing in number 150; Would this (saith he) prove that David was the Penman of them all? No, say I, because the Titles prefixed to many of the Psams declare that some of them were penned by other Authors, as Moses who lived long before David, Heman, Asaph, etc. 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 Privilege 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 merrily, That he was a pretty good Cobbler; 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 was, and what Dependence 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 entreat 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, etc.  
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 Marquis 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 Marquis, 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. simmond's 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 Handwriting, 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, etc. 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 concerned 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 Handwriting, by this following Testimony under Mr. Richard Duke's hand communicated to me: Sir, I confess that I heard Major Huntingdon 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 shows that the King was wont to correct his Meditations shortly after his penning of them; and the whole was his Handwriting, as well as the Corrections from the beginning.  
The Author of the Memorandum saith, That he inserted it there (that is, in the void Leaf of a small printed Copy,) for the Undeceiving others in this Point.  
Ans. I should guests that the Earl was scarcely undeceived himself in this Point, by the little heed and care which he took for the undeceiving of others: For first, It is likely, says Dr. Walker, that no Eye had seen it from the time of the writing of it. 
Anne 1675  Nor did I ever hear that he declared to any other, though I presumed to ask the Reverend Doctor Richard Ansley, the Earl's Son, and Dean of Exeter, concerning it: and I agree with Dr. Walker in this, That if Mr. Millington had not casually opened it, it might have fallen into the hands of one that either had not regarded it, or would have concealed it. p. 31. If the Earl had been fully convinced of the King's Relation, and intended to Undeceive others, as by the Memorandum it seems he intended to do, what should hinder him to have made a more public Declaration of a Truth, for which he had the Authority both of the King and Duke, not only to secure him, but to gratify him for publishing what they were so willing should be known: And if this thing was done in the House of Lords, (as the Memorandum says) and where so great a Concourse was, and a Matter fit to be known, was offered the King, (viz.) the sight of his Father's Book wherein were the Corrections and Alterations written with the King's own hand, it's probable it was shown to some of the Nobles, who also might hear the Discourse, and yet it was not spoken or dreamt of until this Memorandum was by chance opened some Years after.  
Lastly, I shall believe, unless the sight of that Book convince me of the contrary, that it was wholly written with his Majesty's own hand, as well as the Corrections, because I have the Testimonies of many competent Witnesses to induce me so to believe, viz. Mr. Levet, Mr. Herbert, Major Huntingdon, and that Captain who was converted by it, when the King was even ready to die on his Cross. Nor can I believe that the Noble Earl did write that Memorandum, as we have it; there are many in London can counterfeit any Man's Writing: We know how his Majesty was abused by counterfeiting his Broad-Seal; but neither doth the Memorandum say, That the Book was not of the King's Writing, only that the Corrections were, which excludes not the other; and though that particular Book were not, yet one there was written wholly by the King, as is irrefragably proved. I desire the Reader therefore to take notice, that I reflect not on the Earl's hand, for which we have no Proof, and because we hear not of any thing spoken or done by the Earl to Undeceive the People in that Point, which if he had been willing to do, he could never have a better opportunity than then when the King, the Duke, and as we may believe, a great number of the Lords, the highest Judicature of the Nation were in the House; then, I say, was the fittest time (if the Earl had been as willing to Undeceive the Nation, as the King and Duke were,) and the fairest opportunity to do it, by showing them the Book, many of the Lords then present knowing the King's Hand, and not to leave it in a void Leaf of a Twelve-peny Book, left undiscovered to the day of his death: I may also presume that that Learned Earl (who was as great a Lover of Truth as of Books,) having such a Book sometime (how long I know not,) in his hands, would either before or after it had been shown to the King and Duke, have compared the Print with the Copy; and than if he had found any considerable Alterations, he would have mentioned them in his Memorandum, as the Ground of being undeceived himself, and a farther Means to Undeceive the Nation. And thus much for the Memorandum, which I think never did Undeceive any except Dr. Walker.  
P. 6 and 7. Dr. Walker affirms, That Dr. Gauden had taken the Covenant; If this be true, I see no cause why he should have a Promise of the best Bishopric in England, though he might be preferred to that of Exeter for other good Services which he did after he became a Convert, and wrote against the Covenant; for when Dr. Reynolds that had taken the Covenant, and as some say the Engagement, was preferred to Norwich, which is much better than Exeter, and other Bishoprics were offered to others that were less deserving. And, p. 129. of his Anti-Baal Berith, he calls God to witness, that Exeter was granted him by the King's Favour, and the general Desire of the City and Diocese of Exeter, without any his own or others ambitious procuring or soliciting in his behalf, I cannot persuade myself, that if Bp. Duppa and those other great Men to whom the dispose of the Bishoprics was committed, had known that Dr. Gauden bade written the King's Book, would have set him below Dr. Reynolds, and divers others that had done less Service, if there had been no other reason for it but to engage him to Silence in so important a Secret.  
But what if Dr. Walker do slander his Patron Dr. Gauden, and it should appear that he never did take the Covenant, no not in any sense? I have so much Deference to the Worth of that Bishop, as well as Gratitude, as he was my Patron, that I shall propose the Reasons why I think Dr. Walker hath injured him in this particular; and if it appear to the Reader that Dr. Walker is injurious in this, he will be induced to believe, that he is not to be credited in his other Relation, viz. That Dr. Gauden told him, that he wrote the King's Book. P. 275. of the Anti-Baal, The same Objection was made and answered as followeth: 
That Dr. Gauden had taken the Covenant.  For Dr. Gauden 's making one of the Number of his Covenanters, as Mr. Crofton reckoneth without his Host. To satisfy Mr. Crofton and the libeler's Curiosity, who go by Hearsay, Dr. Gauden assures the World, That he never took any Oaths but those appointed by the Law, no Protestation nor Engagement, no League, Vow, or Negative Oath; and for this Covenant he offered freely to some principle Authors of it, his many just Scruples and Objections against it, both as to its Matter and Authority: He had some of their Answers under their Hands, agreeable to that Sense his Charity was, and is willing to interpret the meaning of the Covenant, to reform, not ruin Episcopacy; then he declared publicly his Judgement for Bishops and Episcopacy, to be such as now it is, That he neither could, nor ever would assent to the Covenant in any Sense, but such as was in his Freedom to refuse, and consistent with his former Oaths, the Laws of the Land, and the Preservation of Episcopal Government in its just Rights and Enjoyments, in Piety, Loyalty, and in those Duties of Equity and Charity, which he owed to God and Man. Further than this, Dr. Gauden never approved nor owned the Covenant, nor ever shall any part of it: How good soever it shall seem in some things and Expressions, yet an evil Sense must not be covered under good Words, nor any Godly Expressions be afterwards wrested to abet Ungodly Actions; the whole Mass of the Covenant seemed to be sweetened by those general Salvoes and Restrictions put into it, Of having Regard in all things to the Word of GOD, to the Duties of men's Places and Callings, and to the Power of Godliness. Let Mr. Crofton keep to these, and so keep his Covenant, for surely these can bind no Man to any thing injurious to any honest Man, or honest Office in Church or State. Of Dr. Gauden 's free and public Declaration of his Judgement as to the Covenant in general and particular, Hundreds besides God and his own Conscience, are Witnesses; and if such a Declaration of his Sense, what ought to be the meaning of it in Conscience and Honesty, will add any strength to Mr. Crofton 's Sense of it, or the Design of making it Sacred not Sacrilegious, much good do them: I believe they will sooner be drawn to Dr. Gauden 's sober Episcopacy, than to their Presbyterian Exorbitancy, which he ever openly abhorred, and never secretly complied with; if he had, it had been as much against his Conscience as against Reason, Law, Justice, Charity, and Religion; and he must have had no Peace till he had publicly repent, and recanted such Dissimulation, which he abhors as Hell.  
Now though some Men might expect that the Doctor should have positively declared, that he never took the Covenant, and think these large Circumlocutions to be but an Evasion, and raising of Dust to blind men's eyes, let the Reader reflect, That in the first place he writes this to assure the World that he never took any Oaths but those appointed by Law, which he expressly denyeth the Covenant to have been: And the Doctor knew that Oaths are generally to be taken in the usual sense of the words in which it is penned, and according to the meaning of those who impose it. 2ly, That he expressly mentioneth any Engagement, League, or Vow, under which Terms the Covenant must be comprehended. 3ly, That he declared publicly his Judgement for Bishops and Episcopacy, as by Law was established in England, p. 277. which the Covenant diametrically opposed. 4ly, That he never would nor could assent to the Covenant in any Sense, but such as was consistent with his former Oaths, the Laws of the Land, and Preservation of Episcopal Government in its just Rights and Enjoyments, etc. all which the taking of the Covenant directly opposed. 5ly, That his Compliance with the Presbyterian Exorbitance would have been such a Dissimulation as he abhorred as Hell. And after all this published to assure the World against that Objection, viz. That he was one of the Number of Covenanters; which he says Mr. Crofton reckoned him without his Host. I should think it a very strong Argument (that though he should have told Dr. Walker that he wrote the King's Book,) he were not to be believed being Testis sihi inconsistens.  
If there be any Faith or Honesty in Men, these Reasons which Dr. Gauden gives may satisfy the Reader that he never took the Covenant, for Page 178, he declares, That if the Parliament had been full, they had not any power to make, take, or impose any Oath contrary to the Laws of England, which they were entrusted to observe, not to break, abrogate, or change without the K.'s Consent. And in the same Page he saith, He is confident he doth those Men no Injury, who were the chief Engines and Charioteers, to say, they did all things more out of Polity than Piety; and by this Covenant they intended the advance of a Party, not of the Public Interest, and our Laws, Ad quas evertendas nemo sobrius accessit: Which he thus Englisheth, To the Subversion of which by popular Combinations and Covenanting without the Princes or Supreme Power's Consent, no Man comes but drunk with Pride, or Passion, Ambition, Covetousness, or Superstition. And in p. 279. he says, It is Perjury to take a false and unjust Oath, as well as to break a true and lawful Oath. Now who will believe Dr. Walker, so as to think Dr. Gauden to be guilty of all these horrid Crimes, which he condemns in others. In Page the 69th, he says, That in the intended Sense it was execrable, and that every such Covenanter must be so to GOD and Man— notwithstanding the remaining Lords and Commons in the two Houses, and the Scottish Commissioners, and the Assembly (all Sacred no doubt,) did take the Covenant, Sept. 11th, 1643: Which he scoffs at in p. 70, and in p. 71. he declares what he means by the words Oath, Vow, and League, saying, That no Vow, Oath, League, or Sacred Covenant can bind contrary to our Duty to God, the King, the Country, the Church and Laws under which we live. In p. 80. That the Authority imposing it was not Legal. And in p. 81. That such Vows bind to nothing but the breaking of them. And in p. 111. That we read not of any Covenant ever so imposed, or taken by any Subjects without or against the Consent of their Sovereign's Power; but it proved a bloody Issue, hardly cured with a Miracle, and that after the Effusion of much Civil Blood. P. 184 He tells his Reader how the Covenant was blasted by the Oxford Reasons. And p. 185. That this Combination against Episcopacy without doubt first damnified and destroyed the former King: Of which (saith he) I have greater grounds than it is fit to tell all the World. That it was contrary to the Oaths of Allegiance, Supremacy, and Canonical Obedience, he proves at large, p. 189, 195, 197.  
Now what a Monster of Men must he be, that knowing all these things before, should take such a Covenant in any sense whatsoever, or having taken it, should expect so great a Preferment as the Bishopric of Winchester? Here than we have Dr. W. brought to this Dilemma, If Dr. Gauden did take the Covenant, he was guilty of all that he condemned in others, (ut supra;) and then that Argument which Dr. Walker urged to his Tutor, whereby he says he could have silenced him, viz. That Dr. Gauden wrote the Chapter against the Covenant, because he spoke so much in favour of it; is very weak: And if he wrote not that, then probably no other of that Book. And if he did not take it, (as I am in Charity convinced he did not,) how Criminal was Dr. Walker to publish to the World, to the Defamation of his good Patron, that communicated his Secrets to him, that he was so vile a Man as to make himself guilty of all those horrid Crimes abovementioned: and then also it is very probable, that he that durst raise so evil a Report of Dr. Gauden as to the Covenant, might presume to six this Phantom of his own on the Doctor, That the Doctor told him, that he made the K.'s Book. And whether Dr. Gauden did affirm it to Dr. Walker, or Dr. Walker misreported Dr. Gauden, both, these Testimonies are very infirm, and cannot stand against the opposite Reasons and Authorities.  
P. 32. Dr. Walker answers to four things objected by Sir W. Dugdale, The most material, he saith, is concerning Major Huntingdon, from whose mouth, he says he will in the Faith of a Christian declare, without diminution or wresting of it, (which he says was this,) p. 33. When that Book was published, and so confidently reported to be the King's, then surely, or I believe (here something is wanting, or his hand trembled,) these are the Papers I see him so usually take out of his Cabinet; but this was but my Conjecture, and I never declared it to be otherwise, for I assure you, I never read one Line or Word of the Papers in the King's hand; and I cannot say there was one Passage in these Papers which is this printed Book, for how should I never having looked into them. This Account of Major Huntingdon he says he faithfully relates as in the sight of God.  
Now if Dr. Walker be proved by several Witnesses of good Credit, to have reported a Relation greatly different from that which the Major gave to several Friends and Relations at several times, concerning the Matter in question: I suppose the agreeing Testimony of several such competent Witnesses, will greatly invalidate Dr. Walker's Relation; and if the Reader shall be convinced that Dr. Walker hath misreported Major Huntington's Testimony, it may be a Prejudice to his Report of Dr. Gauden's: Now first Dr. Walker confesseth, p. 32. That he often heard Major Huntington's Testimony to be this, That whilst he attended his Majesty, or had the guarding of him, he saw the King frequently take these Papers out of his Cabinet, and sometimes read them, sometimes wrote more; and that when he saw the Book, he declared, Those Chapters in it were those very Papers he had so seen. Which two Relations are contradictory. Now it is very probable, that what Dr Walker affirms he so often heard alleged as Major Huntington's Testimony, might come to the Major's ears in his Life-time, and had he disliked it, would have contradicted it to such Friends as inquired the Truth of that Business, whose Testimonies I shall now set down; And first, the Testimony of the Learned Dr. Robert Hall, Son of the Famous Joseph Hall, Bishop of Exeter, who was Treasurer of the Church of St. Peter's Exon, to whom the Major was near related by his Marriage, and with whom he sojourned sometime at Clist-hidon, the Doctor's Benefice: this Reverend Dr. Hall hath told me and others, That Major Huntingdon waiting on his Majesty at Holmeby, assured him, that he had seen the King writing some of those Papers, which the Major had opportunity to read, and knew that such as he did then read, were the same as are now printed. To this of Dr. Hall, I add that of Richard Duke, Esq and Justice of the Peace in Devon, who lately declared to me and another Judicious Divine, That he heard the Major affirm the same, almost in the same words.  
And Sir Will. Courtney, a Person of great Honour, (as I am credibly informed) when this Relation was read or told to him, as Dr. W. reported it, was pleased immediately to say, That he well knew the Major, and had heard him aver the like Report as Mr. Duke and others have declared.  
These Evidences confirm what Dr. Hollingworth relates, p. 21. of his Defence, That a Nonconforming Minister told him, (viz.) That Major Huntingdon told him with his own mouth, That he procured some Papers that made up part of this Royal Book from the hands of Fairfax the Parliament General, which were taken after Nazby Fight, and kept by the Lord Fairfax; and that afterward the said Major presented them to the King with his own hand. Dr. Hollingworth adds, I spare the Man's Name for particular Reasons; but if I am called to do it, I will depose the Truth of his Saying so upon Oath. But I hope the Testimonies now following will prevent that labour; the first is that of the Reverend Mr. Will. Read, Archdeacon of Barnstable, in these words: I do hereby Certify, That I dining with Bp. Lamphlugh at his Palace in Exon, some Years since, there happening some discourse concerning K. Charles the First his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and some said there was a Doubt made, Whether the said King were the Author of the said Book or no? I told the Company, then at the Table, That I had heard from several Persons of good Credit, many Years ago, that one Major Huntingdon did affirm, That after Nazby Fight he took that King's Cabinet, wherein several Meditations of the said Book were, written with his own hand; and that he afterwards delivered them into the King's own hands, which he received with very much Joy, and gave him many Thanks for restoring them to him. And I do farther Certify, That one Rich. Duke, of Otterton, in the County of Devon, Esquire, being then at the Bishop's Table, did positively affirm, That what I had reported concerning Major Huntingdon was true, he knowing well the said Major, and having heard him with his own mouth affirming to him, that what I have above set down was true: In witness whereof I have hereunto set my Hand this 18th day of July, A. D. 1692. Will. Read, Archdeacon of Barum.  
This is confirmed by that of Mr. Cave Beck, p. 27. of Dr. Hollingworth's Character of Charles the First, in these words: That some Years after the King's Trial, Major Huntingdon at Ipswich assured me, That so much of his Majesty's Book as contained his Meditations before Nazby Fight, was taken in the King's Cabinet, and that Sir T. Fairfax delivered the said Papers unto him, and ordered him to carry them to the King: And the Major affirmed, that he read them over before he delivered them, and that they were the same for Matter and Form with those Meditations in the printed Book, and that he was much affected with them, and from that time became a Proselyte to the Royal Cause. He also told me, That when he delivered 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.  
P. 10. of Dr. H.'s Defence, he repeats this Passage, That Dr. Meriton dining with Sir T. Pilkington, the late Lord-Mayor, he happened to meet with Dr. Walker at that Table, where Dr. Walker with his usual Confidence asserted Dr. Gauden to be the Author of the King's Book: On which Dr. Meriton turned upon him with the Story of Mr. Simmonds' communicating the whole business to Dr. Gauden. Upon which he was so confounded that he had nothing to say for himself; which being seconded by Mr. Marriot, than Chaplain to the Lord-Mayor, who heard the whole Discourse, and withal the Silence that he put Dr. Walker to; Dr. Hollingworth ventured to give the World an account of it in Print, This, saith Dr. Hollingworth, p. 5. of the Character of Charles the First, is so true, and will upon just occasion be attested by others as well as myself, that I do here in the face of the World, challenge Dr. Meriton or Mr. Marriot to deny one Syllable of the Substance of it, either as to the one in telling his Success in the Dispute, or the other justifying it as really true.  
In p. 11 of Dr. H.'s Defence, he says, That Mrs. simmond's being asked by him, How far her Husband was concerned in the King's Book? And what she knew of it? She answered, That going into her Husband's Study, she saw on the Table a Book in Writing, which she knew not to be her Husband's Writing, she asked him whose it was; which he turning her off with bidding her mind her own business, she desisted from further Enquiry. The King's Murder following quickly after, she told me her Husband never joyed himself, but fell sick, and died the 29th of March following; and throughout his whole Sickness he declared the Book was the King's Book. And p. 26. Dr. Hollingworth says, That Mrs. simmond's dining some Years since at a Citizen's House who aspersed K. Charles the First, he told her, If she would confess the Truth, that her Husband made the Book, there were some hundred of Pounds at her Service. She knowing her Husband's Honesty in his Deathbed Assertions, scorned, and told him, She was not to be bribed by never so much to so great a Lie.  
I have also an Authentic Testimony communicated to me by Dr. Charles Goodall, That Dr. Walker had often waited on his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury, and was wont to ask his Grace, Whether he desired to be informed concerning the true Author of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉? affirming, that not the King but Dr. Gauden was the Author of it: adding this as a Reason, That Dr. Gauden had a Copy before it was published. This only Argument he alleged to his Grace; but as for all those other Assertions which are since vented in his Book, Dr. Walker at no time made use of them to confirm what he had delivered. Further, my Lord told me, That Mr. Levet, the Author of the Letter printed in Restittuion to the Royal Author, had often, and many Years successively waited on him, and entering into discourse on this matter, did as often constantly aver, (as related in the printed Letter,) That he waiting on his Majesty in Prison, had seen the several Sheets of the Book written with the King's own hand, and interlined by him.  
To this I shall join the Testimony of another Archbishop, lately sent in a Sermon preached in Dublin by the R. R. Henry Lord Bishop of Meath, at the Funeral of James Margetson, D. D. Archbishop of Armagh, which was printed at London for Nath. Ranew, at the King's Arms in St. Paul's Churchyard, 1679. in the 28th Page of that Book, the Bishop of Meath tells us the following Passage was attested by the Archbishop, whose Words by all that knew him, past as unquestionable, (viz.) That the Archbish. being in London after the Death of the Royal Martyr, did administer the last Offices of the Church to a Gentleman on his Deathbed, (whose Name he mentions not) but says, That a dying Person told him, that he had been one sometimes near in Attendance on that Sacred Martyr in his Solitude, and that to him were committed by the King those Papers, which he said he knew to have been written by the King's own hand, and which were after published with the Title of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Which the Bishop of Meath observed for obviating malicious Speeches detracting from that excellent Work breathing Piety and Devotion, and vindicating the Sincerity of that Great Soul in all his Actings and Occurrencies therein mentioned; Malice suggesting to the World that although that Work carried the King's Name, yet it was not his own, but composed by some of his Chaplains; intending thereby to lessen his Majesty's great and excellent Parts, and to render that most excellent Piece less regarded, and their own Wickedness less observed. By this Testimony (saith the Bishop of Meath,) that false Assertion appears, and the Royal Author of that precious Work found to be the King himself, it being declared by such a Person dying, and so could hope for no Advantage by it. This Sermon was printed about thirteen Years since.  
To these may be added the Testimony of the Archbishop of Armagh, who was often heard to affirm, That after the Fight at Nazby, the King being much troubled for the loss of his Papers taken in his Cabinet, commanded him to endeavour the Recovery of them, which he did to the King's great Satisfaction.  
And that of Col. Hammond who was the King's Keeper in the Isle of Wight, who attested, That he saw those Papers in the King's hand, heard him reading them, and saw him correcting them. As Dr. Perinsheiff in the Life of Charles the First, p. 95.  
To these may be added that of Dr. Dillingham, p. 22. of Dr. Holling.'s Defence, That he waiting on the King after that he was seized by the Army, saw and read in the King's Bedchamber a whole Chapter of the King's Book fresh written with his own hand, in the Year 1647.  
Dr. Fowler's Testimony, the present Bishop of Gloucester, is another Confirmation, p. 23. of Dr. H.'s Defence, (viz.) That Mrs. Keightly of Albrohatch, in Barking Parish, in Essex, gave him this Account about twenty eight Years since, That she had a Servant who was made a Parliament Captain, and a little before the King's death, told her he had laid down his Commission; and she ask him the reason, he replied, That whereas he had been told, that the King was a very bad Man, he was now abundantly assured that he is an excellent good Man. And being asked what induced him to judge so; told her, That he was appointed to stand every Morning at his Majesty's Bed-Chamber-door, when he was a Prisoner in the Isle of Wight, observing for several days, that the King went into his Closet quickly after he was dressed, and there stayed a considerable time, and then went down into the Garden; and perceiving that he left the Key in the Closet-door, he adventured to go in, and found that he had been penning most devout and pious Meditations and Prayers, which he fell to reading, till he saw the King return to the Walk that lead to his Chamber: And thus the Captain did for several Mornings, and read the King's Morning-works, till he came to a Resolution no longer to be such a Prince's Jaybor. Mrs. Keighley told me further, That he gave such an account of those Meditations and Prayers, that she was confident they were printed in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, after she came to read that Book. This Mrs. Keighly was a very Religious and Pious Gentlewoman, and as Discreet and Prudent. This I attest, Edward Fowler, D. D. June 25th, 1691.  
Now let the Reader judge, who are likely to declare in the Faith of a Christian, what they had from the mouth of Major Huntingdon, whether the talkative Dr. Walker, who is Singularis Testis, or those many Persons of great Note whose agreeing Testimonies I have produced.  
P. 34. he answers Mr. William Levet's Testimony, which says, That he could depose, that the Book was his, (i. e.) the King's own, having oftentimes observed his Majesty writing his Royal Resentments of the Bold and Insolent Behaviour of the Soldiers that had him in their Custody; and that he had the Happiness oftentimes to read the same in Manuscript, under his Majesty's own hand, he being pleased to leave the same in the Window of his Bedchamber.  
Dr. Walker's Answer is, That there is no such Chapter in all that Book.  
Reply. Neither did Mr. Levet affirm there was; but he that shall read the 23d Chapter of the Scots delivering him up to the English, and his Captivity at Holmeby; and Chap. 26. of the Army's surprising him at Holmeby, and in the following Chapters, he may find too much both of the Insolency of his Rebellious Subjects, and the Barbarous Demeanour of the Soldiers, from whom he feared Assassination. Dr. Walker grants that Mr. Levet might read it in the Isle of Wight, but will not believe it was the King's writing, unless it be understood of the Corrections only, which he supposeth the King made in the Book sent by Dr. Gauden, or else that his Majesty had transcribed it. But Mr. Levet saith he often read it in Manuscript, under the King's own hand; and what a strange Fancy is it of Dr. Walker, that the King in that Hurry of Business should transcribe so large a Book with his hand, when he had so little time to dispatch more urgent Affairs.  
Mr. Levet's Testimony is as follows, p. 8 and 9 of Dr. Holling.'s Character of K. Charles the First, If any one desire to know the true Author of a Book entitled, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I, one of the Servants of K. Charles the First's, in his Bedchamber, do declare, That when his Majesty was a Prisoner in the Isle of Wight, that I read over the said Book, which was long before the Book was printed, in his Bedchamber, writ with his Majesty's own hand, with several Interlinings. Moreover, his Majesty, Charles the First, told me, Sure Levet, you do design to get this Book by heart; (having often seen me reading of it.) I can testify also, That Royston the Printer, told me, that he was imprisoned by O. Cromwell, because he would not declare, that King Charles the First was not the Author of the said Book. Signed and Sealed Octob. 16th, 1690.  
To which add this Testimony, I Robert Herne, formerly Servant to Sir Philip Warwick, do attest, That I have often heard Sir Philip Warwick, as also Mr. Odert, and Mr. Whitaker, declare, That they had transcribed Copies of the King's Book written with his own hand. Witness my hand, Robert Herne.  
Sect. 6. p. 34. Dr. Walker gives the Reasons for publishing his Book, p. 34 and 35. 1st, It was imposed on him by Dr. H. for his own Vindication, and to wipe off a false Accusation, That he was guilty of a false Story by a free owning of what he forced me to write. And p. 35. says, It was wrung and wrested from him by some Body's impertinent Affectation to meddle with what he understands not.  
Ans. It was was not impertinent Employment for any Member of that Church which honoureth that King as their Royal Martyr, to undertake the necessary Vindication of his being Author of that Book, which as Dr. W. observes, did render the Murder of so good a King to be more abhorred. 2. Did awaken many to Repentance, who had contributed to it. 3. Did dispose the Nation to recall the Royal Family, and many more good Effects; which if the Nation were imposed on, and it should pass as Dr. Walker would have it, that Dr. Gauden was the Author of it, would be accounted as a Shame, not only to the Infamy of Dr. Gauden, the Contriver, and Dr. Walker the Concealer, but to the Diminution of the King's deserved Honour, and revive their old Calumnies of covering foul Deeds with fair Pretences.  
And as for Dr. Walker's Negative Reasons in p. 35. That he intended not by this Discovery to rob that excellent King of any Honour properly due to him, will appear to be no Reasons, nor will the Station in which he then was, (viz.) A Chaplain at Warwick-House, persuade the Reader to believe, that no Man of his Rank loved the King better, honoured him more while he lived, or more abhorred his Murder, bewailed his Death, giving more open Testimony against it, or sustaining greater Loss for so doing.  
2. Dr. Walker gives us his Positive Reasons drawn from two signal Providences, the one serving as an Apology why he did not reveal this Secret sooner, and the other why he did it now: It much amuseth me, that a Doctor of Divinity should make Providence a Party with himself, to cross itself, and justify two such contrary Ends, and declare, That whatever others may think, he judgeth it a sign that God would have that which he calls a pious Fraud, an officious Lie, a talking deceitfully for Man, to the maintaing of which he thinks he contributed by his Silence, and for which he was persuaded by many cogent Reasons, that God was not well pleased with Dr. Gauden, himself, and others. And then for what Reason he knows not, p. 35. as he confesseth, but only thinks that Providence may have other Reasons now to serve, by suffering this Discovery to be wrested and wrung from him by some Body's impertinent Affectation to meddle in what they understood not.  
The sense of which is this: God's Providence in recovering the King's Paper's, (which Arwaker had seized (as in p. 30, 31. he shows in a large Harangue,) and suffering them to be printed, was Dr. W.'s Reason why he did for about forty three Years conceal an Imposture put on the whole Nation, such as was a Trouble to his Conscience, and displeasing to God: And the same Providence by suffering Dr. Hollingworth to wring and wrest from him this Discovery, (which if his Conscience had been really grieved for concealing it, he should have revealed freely and meekly as a Penitent,) should force him afterward to publish to salve his own Reputation.  
Dr. Walker p. 31. mentions another signal Providence for his Discovery, viz. The Earl of Anglesey's Memorandum, found in a void Leaf of the King's Book, which if it had not been casually opened by Mr. Millington, but fallen into some hand that either might not regard it, or would have concealed it, than Dr. Hollingworth would not so unseasonably have provoked Dr. Walker, and Dr. Walker would have been as silent as Providence in this matter.  
To shut up this Part, If all those Imperfections which may Invalidate an Evidence, do meet in this of Dr. Walker's, and there are the joint Testimonies of several Unexceptionable Persons against his Evidence, the Case may easily be determined: First then, Dr. Walk.'s Evidence is but the single Testimony of what he heard from Dr. Gauden; and Mascard in his 1361 Conclusion de Probationibus says, Testis unicus de Auditis nil probat; and in his 1360 Conclusion, N. 5. Testis unicus ut faciat semiplenum probationem debet esse omni exceptione major. Which they that consider the Premises will hardly believe of Dr. Walker.  
2. A Witness that deposeth things very unlikely, doth not prove them because veri similitudine is the ground of Truth; so Conclus. 1364. Testis non veri similia deponens non probat; and, Testimonii fundamentum est fides.  
3. Because the King's Book had passed for his own above forty Years, and ad reprobandum instrumentum Testes omni exceptione majores requiruntur. Conclus. 1360. N. 3.  
4. He that producing another to confirm what he had witnessed, and finds his Fellow-witness to affirm what he denied, or deny what he affirmed, rendereth his Evidence suspected; this the Doctor hath often done, particularly in Major Hnntington's Evidence produced for him. Conclus. 1368.  
5. A Witness that without a Call offers himself to give Testimony, as Dr. Walker did to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and in several Companies, is not approved by Conclus. 1358. Nor he that prosecutes his Testimony with Eagerness and Animosity, for, Animose deponens suspectus redditur. Conclus. 1368.  
Testis sibi contrarius non probat: D. W. hath not only varied in his Testimony by increasing his Evidence, but often contradicting of it.  
So that we may conclude with that Great Civilian, That Dr. Walker's Testimony ought not to prevail against the Testimony of so many competent Witnesses, because he labours under so many Defects.  
The Result of what I have written will be this: That Dr. Walker's single and incoherent Evidence of what he pretends to have heard from Dr. Gauden, cannot deserve any Credit against the Testimonies of so many Authentic Witnesses of the Matter of Fact, as have given their Evidence for the King's being Author of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, nor consequently of what he pretends he had from Major Huntingdon, 1. Major Huntingdon. 2. Dr. Dillingham. 3. Mr. Herbert. 4. Mr. Levet. 5. Sir John Brattle. 6. Mr. Woitaker. 7. Mr. Gafford. 8. Mr. Clifford. 9 Mr. Royston. 10. Mr. simmond's and his Wife. 11. Mr. Robert Hearne. 12. Mrs. Gauden. 13. Mr. Odert. 14. Dr. Jer. Taylor. 15. Dr. Earl. 16. Two Archbishops of armagh. 17. Sir William Dugdale. 18. Mr. Milbourne. 19 Mrs. Keilegh, produced by the Bishop of Gloucester; besides those collateral Witnesses that corroorate their Testimonies: And I suppose the single Evidence of one of these may outweigh that of Dr. Walker, how much more the Verdict of so many Worthy and Reverend Persons, in the Judgement of any Person, but such as with Ludlow, have the Gild of that Royal Blood crying for Vengeance against them, and will not be convinced that Regicide is a Sin? And though he be the only Survivor of that Barbarous Crew, and hath escaped the Justice of Men, and glorieth in his Impenitency, shall receive the greater Condemnation, for the Royal Martyr's Sentence is most certain, That the severest Vengeances of God are then most accomplished, when Men are suffered to complete their wicked Purposes. See his Meditations on Death.  
If Dr Walker who professed so much Love to the Royal Martyr for his Wisdom and Piety, a Member of that Church for the Preservation of which in pursuance of his pious Resolution to defend it or make it his Tombstone, the King sacrificed his Life, hath so shamelessly martyred him a second time in his Essigies or Portraiture, what wonder is it if his professed Enemies that hated him as a King, to divide his Inheritance among them, should perpetuate their immortal Hatred against him, in hope to regain that part of his and the Church's Inheritance which by the Hire of their Rebellion, they had sacrilegiously purchased. And if the confident Reports of Dr. Walker be found so faulty, how incredible is it that the late Libels written under the Name of Ludlow, a Regicide, should have so much appearance of Truth or shadow of Honesty as to deserve any other Confutation, than what was long since due to their Authors: Sure I am a few such Accountants as the Doctor and Ludlow would soon make the Kingdom become Bankrupt.   

Dr. WALKER's True, Modest, and Faithful ACCOUNT OF THE AUTHOR of ' ΕΙΚΩΝ ΒΑΣΙΛΙΚΗ, Strictly Examined, and Demonstrated TO BE False, Impudent, and Deceitful.  
The Second PART.  
NOW suppose all that hath hitherto been spoken to prove that the King, and not Dr. Gauden was the Author of the Book, be laid aside, and taken as non dictum, yet I suppose what may be produced, 1st, From consideration of the K.'s Abilities to write such a Book. 2ly, From his Declaration, that he designed to write it. 3ly, From his Testimony that he had done it. 4ly, From the Characters which may be observed in that Book of the Royal Author, which appear as plain as his Image and Superscription on his Coin, and do as naturally own each other, as the Ewe doth the Lamb, will abundantly convince the Reader that it was the King's, and not Dr. Gauden's Work, for though he be dead, yet he speaks very intelligibly to any that have had any knowledge of his Royal Eloquence: And this I shall prove, First from his known Abilities to write such a Book; that his Majesty was from his Childhood devoted to his Studies, and being of a quick Apprehension, did lay up a great Stock of Humane and Divine Knowledge.  
That you may not read the Testimonies of his Friends with Prejudice, I shall first show you what Opinion his Adversaries had of him, one of the most bitter I account Cook, who solicited against him at his Trial, who in his Apology for their Proceeding against him, p. 35. says, He was well known to be a hard Student in his younger days: He had more Learning and dexterity in State-affairs undoubtedly, than all the Kings in Christendom; and for his Parts, if they had been sanctified, he was another Soloman.  
The second Testimony is that of Lily, who in his Discourse of Monarchy, or no Monarchy, (whom I mention not as an ginger, but as a Man of Sense, that was an Observer of the Persons and Actions of the Times,) he says, That he had singular Skill in Limning and Pictures, a good Mathematician, not unskilful in Music, well read in Divinity, excellently in History, and no less in the Laws and Statutes of the Nation, of a quick and sharp Conception, would write his Mind singularly well, in good Language and Style; he would apprehend a Difference between Parties with great Readiness, and Methodise a long Matter in few Lines; insomuch that I have heard Sir Robert Holborn oft say, He had a quicker Conception, and easier understood a Cause in Law, and with more Sharpness drove the Matter to a Head, than any of the Privy-Council; and when the King was not there, Sir Robert cared not to be there. He had also among other special Gifts, the Gift of Patience, so that he would hear out a long Discourse without Interruption or Distaste; he had a discerning Eye to judge of Men, and honoured the Virtuous; he was not at all given to Luxury, but extreme temperate in his Food and Apparel; he would Argue Logically, and frame his Arguments Artificially, etc.  
For which I may give an Instance in his Discourse with Henderson, who hath at large declared his Judgement of the King, after his Disputation with him, it is at large in the Character of Charles the First, in Dr. Hollingworth, to this effect: I do declare to God and the World, That since I had the Honour and Happiness to Converse and Consult with his Majesty, especially in Matters of Religion, that I found him the most Intelligent Man that ever I spoke with, as far beyond my Expression as Expectation: I profess that I was ofttimes astonished with the Quickness and Solidity of his Reasons and Replies, windering how among his Sports and Recreations he attained so great Knowledge. I confess ingeniously, that I was convinced in Conscience, and know not how to give him any reasonable Satisfaction; yet the Sweetness of his Disposition is such, that whatever I said was well taken: I must say that I never met with any Disputant let be a King, and in Matters of so high Concernment, of that mild and calm Temper, which convinced me more to think that such Wisdom and Moderation could not be without extraordinary measure of Divine Grace. I had heard much of his Carriage toward the Priests in Spain, and that K. James told the D. of Buckingham, That he durst venture his Son Charles against all the Jesuits, he knowing him to be so well grounded in the Protestant Religion; but could never believe it before I observed particularly his Devotion, which I must truly say was more than ordinary, and was observed by him before his Troubles; twice a Day constantly Morning and Evening for an Hour's space in private, twice a Day before Dinner and Supper in public, besides Preach twice on the Sundays, on Tuesdays, and other extraordinary Times. I dare say, that if his Advice had been followed, all the Blood that is shed, and all the Rapine committed, might have been prevented.  
The whole Confession of Mr. Henderson, is confirmed in few words by Mr. Vines, who heard him disputing a whole Day with fifteen Commissioners and Counsellors, and four Divines, especially concerning Church-Affairs, on the Propositions sent him, to their Conviction, who coming prejudiced against him as a Man of slender Parts, went away admiring how he became so Learned, and prevailed with their Masters, that his Concessions might be voted a Ground for a Treaty, which was voted to be with his Majesty's Honour, Safety, and Freedom; the Success whereof Cromwell feared, and foresaw, for he charged such of the Commissioners that he could best confide in, to be careful what Concessions they made, for he feared the King would be too subtle for them. But Mr. Vines, the most able of the Divines, repent of his being deluded to such unworthy Thoughts of the King, and gave him great Reverence, and persuaded others to do so, saying, He was sorry the King was no better understood, for he thought him the best Divine of any Layman in England. And the Dispute with Henderson, and this of the Isle of Wight, do sufficiently manifest his great Abilities and Virtues; which were such, that when a Dispute arose in favour of Cromwell, Whether a King or no King? Henry Martin told the House, If we must have a King, we had rather have kept him, (i. e.) King Charles, than any Gentleman in the Nation. And others said, If he had not been born to be a King, no Man deserved it better. So that by the Confession of his Enemies, his greatest Fault was, that he was born to be a King, and that God had anointed him above his Fellows.  
These great and good Qualities of his Majesty made his Enemies so averse from embracing his often renewed Solicitations for Treaties of Peace, especially when he desired a Personal Treaty, for they could not but observe, how by strength of Reason, and Meekness, and Piety of Conversation: He made Proselytes of such as had the Happiness to converse with him, whose Prejudices and Prepossessions he quite extinguished, and made them more real Friends than they had been Enemies.  
Dr. Gauden his Letter to the Army on the behalf of the King, urgeth, That the King was renowned by some of themselves for the Greatness of his Understanding, and many other Princely Virtues and Incomparable Endowments.  
Here I might inquire, 1. How well Dr. Gauden was qualified for this Work. And, 2. At what time he may be supposed to have begun and finished it, for he must be a Man of extraordinary Abilities, of great Experience, and diligent Inspection into the Polity and Intrigues of the Times, and one that wrote Memorials of them while they were fresh in Memory, one that was deeply concerned in them, and after long and mature Deliberation, digested them: And who but the King was sufficient for these things? Dr. Gauden probably might have heard, as many did, that the King had begun such Meditations; and having such an Opinion of his great Abilities, could not with any good Manners take the Work out of his hands. But suppose the Doctor had been competently qualified for such a Work, what time might be allowed for completing of such an incomparable Work? Dr. Walker says, He that would imitate another's Style, aught to be well acquainted with it, and bestow first, second and third Thoughts. And this aught to be done with greater Deliberation where the Work is more difficult to be imitated by reason of its Excellency and Perfection, and the Undertaker of a Genius agreeable to the Work: And if Dr. Gauden were a Covenanter, as Dr. Walker says, if his Style and Genius were such in 48 as it was in 61, if we hear not of any Correspondence between him and the Royalists until the time that the Book was ordered for the Press by the King himself, if after that it is supposed to be written by Dr. Gauden, it was transcribed by Mr. Gifford, and sent to the King by the E. of Hertford, in November 48, after which some things were added by the King, it will appear that such a Book as this which for one that was a Stranger to the Subject must be more than the Work of one Year, especially for a Man not duly qualified for it, as the King himself was confessed to be by Friends and Foes, for his Pen was incomparably the most Princely and best polished in his time, in the Council none reasoned more like a Senator, among the Lawyers as an Oracle, in the Camp like Caesar, among the Bishops as a Constantine, in the Temple as a Saint, on the Scaffold as an undaunted Martyr, who by his Arguments was more than Conqueror over them who overcame him by their brutish Valour and Arms; in a word, one of his greatest Failings was the excess of his Clemency, distrust of his own Judgement, and his easy Concessions to his subtle Adversaries, to whose Importunity he granted so much till they had no more to ask, nor he to give, and some of them were not ashamed to provoke him the more because they knew he had Charity enough to forgive them all; and indeed he forgave them that could not forgive themselves, such as God hath said he will not forgive, who continue to offend out of malicious Wickedness: Being asked of C. Hammond his Jailor, What Regret his Spirit had against his Enemies; he answered, I can forgive them, Colonel, with as good an Appetite, as ever I eat my Meat after Hunting, and that I'll assure thee was no small one. In his Meditations on Death, he prays not so much that the bitter Cup of a violent Death may pass from him, as that of God's Wrath may pass from all those whose hands by deserting him were sprinkled, or by acting or consenting to his Death were embrued with his Blood.  
After these Acknowledgements of his Enemies, it were as needless as it is endless to sum up the Testimonies of such of his Friends as best knew him, and his Conversation, As, first, of his Father, who could well judge of his Proficiency in Learning and Piety; of which I have given an account. Secondly, His Virtuous Brother Prince Henry, who perceiving how studious and reserved his Brother was, took the Archbishop's Cap and put it on his head, saying, If I live Charles, I will make thee Archbishop of Canterbury.  
At the Age of Thirteen, on Easter-Munday 1613, he was strictly examined in order to his Confirmation, by two Bishops, in Presence of Dr. Hackwell his Tutor, to the great satisfaction of them all.  
He read and noted several good Authors, and contracted their Arguments into a narrow but clear compass, such as Hooker, Bp. Andrews, and Archbishop Laud's Arguments against Fisher the Jesuit, of which he made excellent use in his Dispute with Henderson at Newcastle, and the Divines sent to worry him at the Isle of Wight. But they that will not be persuaded by what hath been already said, neither will they believe though one should rise from the Dead, no nor then neither will these Infidels be persuaded, for although as his Majesty both prayed, and foretold God hath in great Mercy granted the Royal Family and the Church which died with the Father and rose again with the Son, a Restauration most like to a Resurrection from the Dead, yet will they not be persuaded. But to prevent their seducing of others, I proceed, 2ly, to show that the King did design this Work, for although Dr. Walker pretends that Dr. Gauden would excuse his imposing this Book on the World, by showing the Title, and saying, No Man useth to draw his own Picture; yet we know that Caesar did, and none but Caesar could write his own Commentaries; so did that great Emperor and Philosopher Antoninus in that excellent Book De Seipso, which Dr. Merike Casaubon in his Englishing that Book calleth his Meditations. And how usual is it for great Men to keep Diaries of their special Actions and Concerns, as Archbishop Laud did.  
After which Examples the King may be presumed to have done the like; and that he did design so to do hath been shown by the undoubted Evidences which have been manifested, concerning some Chapters of that Book taken at Naseby, and restored by Major Huntingdon to the King at Holmeby; to which I may add, that he began it while he was besieged in Oxford, and more yet when confined at Holmeby, and that the whole was finished by his own hand at the Isle of Wight, where they were seen both by Friends and Enemies even by Col. Hammond himself, and that Captain of whom Bp. Fowler produceth a sufficient Testimony that he was convinced of his Majesty's Piety and Innocence, by reading his Meditations, which made him lay down his Commission, and become a Convert, as Major Huntingdon had done before.  
In a Book called the Princely Pelican, printed 1649, the Author gives us (as he affirms in the Title-page) satisfactory Reasons that his Sacred Majesty was the sole Author of the Book in question, which he wrote at the instance of several Persons of Quality, who knew him to have been a constant Attender on his Majesty's Person, against such Reflection as had been published against those Divine Essays, and first he tells, us that the occasion of them was, that the Parliament had misrepresented him to his People, of which he complained in these words, O that my Subjects knew the Integrity of my Heart towards them, and that as they could not see his Heart, so neither would the Parliament permit his Presence to plead his own Cause. But many odious, scurrilous, and treacherous Libels were published against him, which yet he perused with a modest Smile, saying, I intent to wipe off these with a Sponge of Truth; it shall be my Task at spare hours, and many such it seems my Parliament will admit me, to undeceive my People, and to rectify their misguided Judgements. These were the grounds, says that Author, which induced his Majesty to this Work: After this the King in his Garden at Theobalds' communicated this Design to some of his Gentlemen of whose Abilities he was most confident, particularly that he would show the Reason of his Receding from the Parliament, which he hoped would be to the full Satisfaction of his Subjects, and of which he said, That not one Line had fallen from his Pen which he might not confirm with Honour, were it racked by never so rigid and uncharitable Construction. Then he told us, that another Subject of his writing should be, The most Faithful Servant and Incomparable Statesman that any Christian Prince could rely upon; one (said he) whom I cannot without a pious and religious Sorrow remember, condemning myself in nothing more than suffering my Hand to thwart the Resolution of my Heart, having so expressly delivered my Thoughts, and in so public a manner as besides my own conscientious Fears which incessantly awakened me, the Relation of so ungrateful an Action cannot but in succeeding Times succeed highly to my Dishonour. To which a Gentleman of his Privy Chamber made answer, That this could not be imputed to his Majesty, but to their Doctrinal Assurance, who maintained the Conveniency of it. To which, with a deep Sigh, the King replied, It is not safe for Princes to pin their Faith on Timing Prelates sleeves, their future account shall neither lessen my Gild nor solve my Honour. And when another Gentleman said, Sir, If the sense of that Action have so strong an influence on your Thoughts, I hold it a more Princely Act rather to close then to lay open such a Wound to your Fame. Oh no! in no cases, (Ned) said his Majesty, the way to cure Wounds is not to close but to discover them, they rankle by being closed before they be cured: As for Princely Policy, I hold none better than sincere Piety, it is my constant Resolve, and shall be my daily Prayer, that my Sins may be ever before me, for there is such precious Eyesalve in a pious Tear that it allays the Distemper of an afflicted Spirit. The next thing the King reflected on was, how contrary the Actings of the Parliament were to their Promises in making him a most glorious King, on which he said, It should be his most supreme Care to rely on God's sacred Providence, which I am confident will never fail me, but full of Deceit is the Heart of Man. In this manner says the Author, frequently and fervently did the King deliver his Mind, and return to his Study. The Author also gives the reason why his Majesty concluded every Section with a distinct Psalmody, It was observed (saith he) by his Majesty's Chaplains, and by us that waited on him, that though he spoke occasionally of all parts of Scripture, yet he took such Comfort in the Psalms of David, that he would usually repeat whole Psalms: Mentioning that of St. Augustine, In every part of Scripture I find something useful, but in the Book of Psalms I find a Storehouse of all things; and if David a Man after God's own Heart, were so afflicted, that not only his Enemies but his familiar Friends who fed at his Table, made that a Snare to catch him, what may I expect in these evil days? He acknowledged God's Kindness to him in afflicting him, which he thus expressed, I have seen, saith he, and applied it to myself, and found Comfort in the Application, how when many Children were playing the Wags in the Street, one amongst the rest was taken hold of and corrected, and I found it to be by the Father of that Child, and that 'twas his Affection that caused him to correct it; this is my Heavenly Father's course with me, and I kiss his Rod, his Afflictions hath gained me a Tongue for Passion, (said the King) which made my Tongue inarticulate, and the long course of Sufferings hath so lessened my Opinion of Sufferings, that Passion is now a Stranger to me, and I think myself happy in the cheerful embracing of my Unhappiness, and the Distaste of the Public hath made me my own private Secretary. Then he mentioneth with what Comfort the King received these Papers after Naseby Fight, saying, I see that the gracious Eye of Heaven would not suffer me to be deprived of all Comfort: Posterity shall see by these Papers that I know how to subdue my own Passion, and solace myself with Divine Comforts in the height of my Affliction; though the Enemy gain the Field, a composed Patience shall crown me with a braver Victory; I know no Triumph more Absolute than a Self-Conquest. The Author adds, That his Majesty's Idiom was so well known not only to his Attendants and Enemies, but to foreign Kings and States, that none but such as were guilty of Weakness or Perverseness, could question his Ability for such a Work. His own Testimony at his Trial that he knew the Laws of the Kingdom as well as any Gentleman that did not make Profession of them, is an Authentic Proof of his Ability.  
Another Argument I shall urge is, the vast difference between the Kings Style not only in his Portraiture, but in many other Writings, as may be seen first in several of those Letters and Papers which were taken at Naseby, and set forth by the Parliament as the King's, of which though they intended to make an ill use, yet as his Majesty observes on that Subject, His Enemies might be convinced by them he could both mind and act his own and his Kingdom's Affairs, so as becomes a Prince, which my Enemies are loath should be believed of me, as if I were wholly confined to the Dictates and Directions of others whom they brand with the name of Evil Counsellors. He that believeth the Disputations that past between his Majesty and Henderson at Newcastle, and these between him and the Commissioners in the Isle of Wight, which his Enemies knew to be his, being personally and viva voce managed, and were admired by his Opponents, must own the King's Ability, and see the same strength and nerves in the Chapter of Church-Government, though in the one he urgeth them as a Disputant, in the other as an Orator, but like himself in all: Both Disputes are to be seen among his other Works. I shall choose to commend such Works as are best known to be his Majesty's, and recommend those which he wrote during his strict Confinement in Carisbrook after the Vote of Non-addresses, which may be seen p. 279. of his Works, to 295, which will show a great Identity both in his way of Arguing, and in the Style.  
After this to recompense my Reader's pains, (if at least he account it so) I shall compare Dr. Gauden's Style with the King's; I choose a Book which the Doctor wrote concerning the Covenant, to see whether he did imitate his Majesty in writing on that Subject, because Dr. Walker affirms that Chapter was written by Dr. Gauden, defend himself against some that said he wrote Nonsense, whom he answers in these words, p. 19 of his Anti-Baal, He tells his Reader how the City of London were affected with Dr. Gauden's Pious Nonsense and Honest Blasphemy, when preaching at St. Paul's before the Lord-Mayor and General Monk, he did so Anatomize those cruel Medicasters' and crafty Empirics of the Times, the slight Healers who made their Profit and Pleasure out of the Diseases, Pain, and Miseries of their Country; How did the Rumpers than rage and tremble at the Truth and Courage of Dr. Gauden's Nonsense? How were the Regicides astonished at the Sword of his Mouth, that Word of God? How were the Sacrilegious Merchants of Church Lands appalled before that Blasphemy, which being like Thunder and Lightning by Dr. Gauden's Tongue and Pen quite blasted, all the Glory of their Purchases, of which so seasonable Sermons and Writings, especially that of the Tears of the Church of England, the Libeler expresseth a deep sense, for from that time the bloody Babel fell, and could rise no more from that day: Many wicked Men began to look what Rocks and Mountains might cover them; and by this time they may have a quicker sense of Dr. Gauden's Nonsense, notwithstanding they have thick Skins, brawny Hearts, and cauterised Consciences.  
You shall seldom find the Genius of two Authors more differing than these of the King and the Doctor; his Majesty's Discourses were exceeding rational and curt, but very convincing, and the Meekness of his Expressions insinuated as Oil to mollify the hardest Temper: By your Favour Sir, was his usual Condescension in his Disputes; yea, even at his Trial to Bradshaw: In every Paragraph of his there is as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a great height of Reason and Contemplation to entertain the learned, and a great Plainness and Facility of Sense and Expression; so that as some say of the Scripture, The Elephant may swim, and the Lamb wade through. Dr. Walker talked of peculiar Expressions used by Dr. Gauden in his private Devotion, but names not one. I beg the Reader's Patience therefore to repeat a few of them in the Book lately quoted, p. 10. he says, His Adversary struts in his Rhodomontade Titles of Defiance, in his prodigious Rail, in his sarcastical Ironies, in his sophistical Sophisms, in his dull Argumentations, in his specious Pretences of Zeal, and Clamours for Reformation. And p. 13. speaking of his Analisis of the Covenant, he talks of the solid weight and Divine Truth of that free and rational Analisis void of Obscurity, Popularity, Partiality, Sophistry, or Flattery. P. 16. he tells his Adversaries of their Cacotomy, their Idolized Sacrilegious Sectors and Pasquil Oratory, the Atrocity of their Facts and Impudicities, a By-blow of Devotion, the Gorgon's Head, and Devil of Mascow, the Spirit of Asmodeus, Leopardike Presbyters, Talismanik Charms; he calls them Medicasters' and crafty Empyricks, compares his two Opponents to Sancho Pancho and Don Quixot, with their Pickvant Darts and Lippient Eyes, Herds of good Words, and Flooks of Figures. It is a wonder, as others have observed, that if Dr. Gauden had penned that Book, that no such Expressions are found in it, no not one, when his Writings are stuffed with Bombast, and Greek Words, and Latin Sentences, yea, with some of his Peculiarities Dr. W. calls them, such as his Analeptist, Cacotomy, Impostarage, Borborites, Grassant, Traculent, Brontes, Fanto, Farrago, Paradoe, Sempervive, Corbonist, Ecobolian, Antisectical, Simoniac, Privado, Offa and Buccoone, Cordolium, Ephialta, Parrhesy, Caecinnations, Diabolettoes; and many such other Expressions which may deserve an Explanation when Blunts or Chamberlain's Dictionary of hard Words are next printed. How one small Book should abound with such Words and Phrases, and not one of them in the King's Book, considering how fond the Doctor seems to be of them, is a probable Argument that the Doctor had no hand in that Book. Besides it is a wonder to think, how Dr. Gauden at or before 48 should be Master of so grave, significant and polite Style, and in the Year 61, should when he was a Bishop, use such an Exotic, Verbose and almost Barbarous Style; this is another Argument to convince that not Dr. Gauden but the King was the Author of that Book.  
If I should trace all the Footsteps and Characters of the King's Image and Superscription, I must transcribe the whole, which is an express Image of his Royal Soul, which as the Philosophers say of the Souls informing the Body is, Tota in toto & tota in qualibet parte; His humble Confessions, his solemn Appeals to God, his Vows and Resolutions to persevere in suffering any Affliction rather than to break the Peace of his Conscience, or be guilty of deserting the Church, which he shown to be dearer than his Life. He that will find a Parallel to the Life and Writings of our Royal Martyr, must ascend to the Apostolical and Primitive Times, for among all our Modern Examples if there may be any one found that may be compared with him in any one Grace or Virtue, yet there is none that comes near him for all those Graces which shined in him, as illustriously as the Sun doth above the other Luminaries: Where is there such an instance of Condescension and Charity to Enemies, of greater Love and Constancy to his Friends, of Patience and Submission in Affliction, of Humility and Devotion to God, of the Contempt of Death in its most terrible Approaches, and dreadful Aspect? That which would have astonished and stupefied the Spirits of other Men, comforted and elevated his Passage from a Crown of Thorns to a Crown of Glory.  
The next Argument to prove that the King was the Author of this Book, is the Testimony of those several Persons which were concerned in the Printing and Publishing of his Majesty's Book; and first I have this Testimony from Mr. John Norman, who was well acquainted with Mr. Royston, when the Book was first published, who had it from Mr. Royson's own mouth, viz. That there was Information given that such a Book was to be printed, and great Endeavours were used to prevent it, but that he had removed a Press at some distance from the City to secure the Impression; which he did, and speedily finished it, not without some Hazard, there being diligent Search made in all the known Printers Houses for it: but in one night he caused several Hawkers to come to a certain place where the Books were delivered them, and they sold above two thousand Copies for the price of 15 s. each: That the Care and Chargewhich he used for concealing the Impression, cost him some hundreds of Pounds, which notwithstanding he was taken up on Suspicion, and made a Prisoner, till after some time he had his Liberty on giving 500 l. Bail. Now what caused this great Care and Expense in Mr. Royston, but the Letter which he had formerly received from the King to prepare a Press for some Papers which should be sent him? What caused so great Endeavours to suppress them, but because they were truly informed that the King had of a long time been writing somewhat in Vindication of himself, and they had a hint that it was then in the Press. Mr. Norman is an aged Person well known in the City of Exon, and County of Devon.  
It will be too tedious to recite all the Testimonies of those several Persons who had a hand in Methodizing the lose Papers, in Transcribing, and Publishing them in Print, as Sir John Brattle and his Father, Mr. Odert, Mr. Gifford, the Transcribers, Mr. Royston, Mr. simmond's, and others concerned in the Printing, whose Testimonies have been produced, and are above all Exception: And yet his Majesty's own Testimony, though he bore Witness of himself, is most material, for in that Letter to the Prince from the Isle of Wight, which I presume none could be so daring to write in his Majesty's Name, and publish it while he was living, and might have survived much longer, and call the Queen his Wife, and the Prince his Son, and prescribe Rules to him, he thus gins, Son if those Papers, with some others wherein I have set down the private Reflections of my Conscience, and my most Impartial Thoughts touching the chief Passages which have been most remarkable or disputed in my late Troubles, come to your hands, to whom they are chief designed, they may be so far useful to you as to state your Judgement aright, as to what is past, whereof a pious is the best use that can be made: And they may also give you some Directions how to remedy the present Distempers, and prevent (if GOD will) the like for the time to come. It is some kind of lessening and deceiving the Injury of my long Restraint, when I find my Laeisure and Solitude have produced something worthy of myself, and useful to you, that neither you nor any other may hereafter measure my Cause by the Success, nor my Judgement of Things by my Misfortune, etc. I cannot think that any but the King could be the Author of this Letter, 1st, Because it is affirmed by many that it was delivered to Bishop Juxton to be conveyed to the Prince. 2ly, Because as K. James, his Father, had left large Instructions to his Son, with a Charge to observe them, which he called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, so in Imitation of him, King Charles would not leave the World without giving his Son whom he left in a Sea of Troubles, without some Directions, which he had learned by long Experience, how to steer his Course: And if this Letter be the King's, we have an Assurance that the rest of his Meditations were so too, to which the King refers the Prince for further Direction. One instance I cannot omit, because I think that this being joined with that of the Letter to the Prince, may, if well considered, put an end to the Controversy, it is the Answer which the King made to the Commissioners in the Isle of Wight, when they pressed him to yield to their Desires for the Abrogating of Episcopacy in England. To which Dr. Gauden says the King answered, That he had granted all he could to save his Life, which might consist with the saving of his Soul. And being urged again, That his Majesty had abolished Episcopacy in Scotland. He answered, That it is no Plea to sin again because he had once sinned in this kind, but rather to repent and do so no more. This Answer of the King's Dr. Gauden might have known in the Year 1661., when he quoted it in Anti-Baal, p. 134. but he could not know it so early as to place it in the middle of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if he had written that Book, the Chapter being the 17th of that Book, was in all probability written by the King some Years before, which was not known to the Bishop before that Book was printed: But the King had opportunity after the Treaty to correct, altar, and add what he thought fit, till his close Imprisonment; so that he had either written the Answer which we have in that Chapter before, (which the Doctor had not seen so long ago as to write it in that place) or inserted it after the Treaty was over; the King's Answer is this: If any shall impute my yielding to them (the Scots) as my Failing and Sin, I can easily acknowledge it; but that is no Argument to do so again, or much worse, being now more convinced in that Point; nor indeed hath my yielding to them been so Happy and Successful as to encourage me to grant the like to others.  
Nor is it so likely that the Bishop would accuse the King of Sin, (though he doth it himself,) which might have put a better Argument into his Enemy's mouths than any the had invented against him, (viz.) His Obstinacy to grant that to the English which he had granted to the Scots.  
More Instances may be collected from almost every Chapter by the Judicious, to convince him that not Dr. Gauden but the King was the Author of that Book: I suppose therefore that the King might insert that Answer after he had given it to the Commissioners at the Treaty, for evident it is, that the Title was altered after the Book was in the Press by the King's order, on Dr. Taylor's Letter, which is another good Argument. That Dr. Gauden's showing the Title (〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) to evade the Fault of imposing a Book of his own on the Nation in the King's Name, was a mere Fiction of Dr. Walker's; for the Book which was sent to the Press had another Title, viz. Suspiria Regalia: or, The Royal Defence; and was not altered until the Book was begun to be printed.  
I am loath to defile my hands again by meddling with Milton, but I must to stop the foul Mouths of some People whom he hath taught to object, that his Majesty made use of a Prayer made by a Heathen to a false God or Goddess in time of Captivity. To which I answer, 1st, By denying what Milton says, That the King had unhallowed and unchristned Christianism, by borrowing to a Christian use Prayers offered to a Heathen God. To which Dr. Earle's Answer to Milton saith, Did St. Paul by applying to a Christian use the Words of a Heathen Philosopher and Poet, unhallow the Scripture? Doth not Milton confess that Book of Sir Philip Sidney's is full of Wit and Worth? And why might not a Christian Prince collect what is good out of a worthy Book of such a Religious Author, for Sir Philip Sidney was known to be a Man of great Piety and Wisdom, as well as of Courage and Wit: I have heard that the King for his Recreation did divert himself by reading that Book, the best of its kind then extant; and he did it with great Observation and good Improvement. Now which is more commendable, the King who made his very Recreations subservient to his Devotion, or those Adversaries of his that profaned the Scriptures and their Prayers with preaching up Rebellion, Cursing the King, and venting their Malice and bitter Passions against their Brethren? The King had great Examples for what he did, no less than of our Saviour, who in the Institution of both Sacraments, and in composing the Form of Prayer for his Disciples, made use both of the Matter and Words which were used by the Jews, adapting them to his Sacred Ordinances, that are to continue till the World's end: And when Celsus objected to St. Origen, That he could parallel most of our Saviour's Precepts with the Saying of some of his Heathens; Origen thought it a great Recommendation of the Evangelical Precepts, that they so well accorded with the Moral and Natural Truths which the Reason of Mankind did approve of. Were the Jews ever blamed for Adorning the Temple with the Riches and Spoil of Egypt? Did not Solomon borrow Materials and Architecks from an Idolatrous King, to build the Temple of the True God? God permitted his own People to do what the King (if he did it) hath done: They might marry a Moabitish Woman that was a Captive, after her Purification by paring her Nails and shaving her Hair, and so she became a Daughter of Zion. It is easy to collect from such Heathen as Seneca, M. Antonius Epictetus, M. Tyrias, etc. such Petitions to their Unknown Gods, as might shame the hasty Harangues of many who profess a more perfect Knowledge than others of the True God.  
Dr. Patrick in his Parable of the Pilgrim, written after the manner of a Romance, hath said more to insinuate Piety and Devotion to the Hearts of his Readers, than can be found in all the Sermons writ by Cromwel's and the Army-Chaplains, whose Preaching and Prayers were of Cursing and Lies, as David expresseth it.  
The PRAYER objected is in these Words: 
O Powerful and Eternal GOD, to whom nothing is so great that it may resist, or so small that it is contemned, look upon my Misery with Thine Eye of Mercy, and let Thy infinite Power vouchsafe to limit out some Proportion of Deliverance unto me, as to Thee shall seem most convenient: Let not Injury, O Lord, triumph over me; Let my Faults by Thy Hand be corrected, and make not my unjust Enemies the Ministers of Thy Justice; but yet, my GOD, if in Thy Wisdom this be the aptest Chastisement for my Unexcusable Transgressions, if this ungrateful Bondage be fittest for my over-high Desires; if the Pride of my (not enough humble) Heart be thus to be broken: O Lord, I yield unto thy Will, and cheerfully embrace what Sorrow thou wilt have me suffer; only thus much let me crave of thee, (let my craving, O Lord, be accepted of, since it even proceeds from thee,) That by thy Goodness, which is thyself, thou wilt suffer some Beam of thy Majesty so to shine in my Mind, that I who acknowledge it my noblest Title to be thy Creature, may still in my greatest Afflictions, depend considerably on thee, let Calamity be the Exercise but not the Overthrow of my Virtue: O let not their prevailing Power be to my Destruction; and if it be thy Will that they more and more weaken me with Punishment, yet, O Lord, never let their Wickedness have such a hand but that I may still carry a pure Mind and steadfast Resolution ever to serve thee without Fear or Presumption, yet with that humble Confidence which may please thee, so that at the last I may come to thy Eternal Kingdom, through the Merits of thy Son, our alone Saviour, Jesus Christ. Amen.   
Now who could find such a Jewel, though lying in a Dunghill, and not think it worthy to be taken up and set in Gold? Yet be it known, that this Prayer was not the Conception of a Heathen to a Pagan God, but of a serious and eminent Christian to direct others how to Address themselves to the True GOD in time of Extremity; for as it was the Business even of Heathen Poets and Satirists to expose Vice and commend Virtue in their Satyrs and Interludes; so and much more was it intended by that noble Person throughout his Arcadia. 'Tis an excellent Directory for Prayer, which Persius, none of the best Poets, hath given, 
Demus superis jus fasque animi sanctosque recesus,  
Mentivole is & incoctum generoso pectore honestum,  
Haec codo ut admoveam templis & fare lisabo.  Now who can wonder that the King is blamed for using this Prayer by them that reject our Lord's Prayer. This yet I observe for the Honour of his Majesty, that what his Enemies would account a Virtue in others, they impute as a Fault to him, his most innocent Actions are charged with transcendent Gild, their transcendent Gild represented as pious Actions, for thus that Miscreant discants on the finding this Prayer printed among the King's Papers, Who would have imagined so little Rear in him of the True Allseeing Deity, so little Reverence of the Holy Ghost, whose Office it is to dictate and present our Christian Prayers, so little Care of Truth in his last Words, or Honour to himself or to his Friends, or Sense of his Afflictions, or of that sad Hour which was upon him, as immediately before his Death to pop into the hand of that grave Bishop who attended him, as a special Relic of his Family Exercise, a Prayer stolen out, etc.  
The ground of this Devilish Invective he makes that which he calls the stolen Prayer; But what one Sentence or Word in all that Prayer may not become a Christian in his deepest Affliction? Do all that pray by set Forms despise the Office of the Holy Ghost? What shall become then of all those Primitive Christians, and the Reformed Churches that pray by Forms? And how can be fix that Hellish Accusation of his Majesty on a false Conceit, that this was the Prayer used by him in his last Words? This is a Suggestion of his own Malice and Delusion.  
Lastly, This Prayer was not heard of until a considerable time after the King's Death: I have seen his Majesty's Book printed and reprinted, one of which I can produce where there is no Footstep of this Prayer, it might perhaps be found among some other lose Papers of his Majesty, which the Printer for his Benefit, finding how great Esteem the People had of his Majesty's Devotions, clapped in with his Book, as we are wont to bind up the Apocryphas with the Canonical Scriptures. This therefore is the Malice of a Rebel, and the Scoff of an Atheist, of one that exceeds the Grand Regicide Bradshaw, who when Mr. Royston told him on his Oath, That he knew no other but that it was the King's Book; Asked him, How he could believe that so ill a Man could make so good a Book? And how, say I, could so good a Book be made by an ill Man? The whole Book was but a Transcript of his Life, which answer each other as Face to Face; as Philo in the Life of Moses, such as his Words were such were his Deeds; as in a Musical Instrument all was Harmonious and Uniform, his Heart and Mind was seen in his Actions, and his Actions expressed in lively, charming, pious, and powerful Words.  
Thus lived this Glorious King, and thus he died as another Moses, though of a stammering Tongue, yet Mighty in Words and Deeds; his whole Life, as Philo says, was a Martyrdom to God, being worried by the Contradiction of a Rebellious People, who chose Idols to go before them, a Chorah, Dathan, and Abiram, rather than Moses and Aaron; he was the meekest Man on the Earth, when a rude Soldier spit in his Face, he wiped it off with a pious Thought, My Saviour (saith he) endured this and more for my sake. He was not appalled when he saw the Red Sea before him, and Armies of Egyptian Soldiers on every side, he did not as Moses, exceedingly quake and fear, being more concerned for his Murderers than for himself: And as Philo says of Moses, Non calligavit oculus nec mutatus est splendor gratiae ejus; As Majestic on the Scaffold as on the Throne; which he ascended as more than Conqueror from an Egypt to Canaan, whereof he had a full Prospect from his Mount Pisgah; there he Blessed the Tribes of Israel, and Prophesied of their future Prosperity, as in Deut. 33. There God promised to go up with him and give him Rest, Exod. 33.14. There he could converse with God as a Man with his Friend, face to face: And having prayed to see the Glory of God, it was wonderfully displayed before him, as in Exod. 34.6, 7. in Grace and Mercy to him, and in Terror to his Enemies, that were guilty of his Death. And so he died as the Rabbins say, With a Kiss of GOD's Mouth.  
But the Malice of his Enemies is not yet dead, for the Devil and his Angels are still disputing with Michael and his Angels about his Book, as they did about the Body of Moses, (i. e.) as some interpret it the Book of his Law and Instructions for the Service of God; the reason is the same as is given why the Apostate Julian removed the Bones of Babylas the Martyr, because as long as the Relics of the Martyr were so nigh, the Devil's Oracles could not assist him; nor will the Consults of Papists, Republicans, or Regicides have any Operation upon us, as long as the Reliquiae Carolina have their due Respect and Influence upon us.   
FINIS.   

A Catalogue of Books written by the Reverend Mr. Long. one of the prebend's of St. Peter's Exon.  

A Resolution of certain Queries concerning Submission to the Present Government. 

The QUERIES.  
I. Concerning the Original of Government.  
II. What is the Constitution of the Government of England?  
III. What Obligation lies on the King by the Coronation Oath?  
IU. What Obligation lies on the Subject by the Oaths of Supremacy? etc.  
V Whether if the King Violate his Oath, and actually Destroys the Ends of it, the Subjects are freed from their Obligation to him?  
VI Whether the King hath Renounced or Deserted the Government?  
VII. Whether on such Desertion, the People, to preserve themselves from Confusion, may admit another, and what Method is to be used in such Admission?  
VIII. Whether the Settlement now made, is a Lawful Est ablishment and such at with a good Conscience may be Submitted to?    
Restections upon a late Book, entitled, The Case of Allegiance condered; wherein is shown, that the Church of England's Doctrine of Nonresistance and Passive Obedience, is not inconsistent with Taking the New Oaths to their present Majesties.  
The Historian Unmasked: or, some Reflections on the late History of Passive Obedience; wherein the Doctrine of Passive Obedience and Nonresistance is truly stated and asserted.  
The Case of Persecution, charged on the Church of England, considered and discharged, in order to Her Justification, and a desired Union of Protestant Dissenters.  
An Answer to a Socinian Treatise, called, The Naked Gospel, which was decreed by the University of Oxford, in Convocation, Aug. 19th, Anno Dom. 1690. to be publicly Burnt, as containing divers Heretical Propositions: With a Postscript, in Answer to what is added by Dr. Bury, in the Second Edition.