AMYNTOR: OR, A DEFENCE OF Milton's Life. CONTAINING 

I A general Apology for all Writings of that kind.  
II. A Catalogue of Books attributed in the Primitive Times to JESUS CHRIST, his Apostles and other eminent Persons: With several important Remarks and Observations relating to the Canon of Scripture.  
III. A Complete History of the Book, Entitled, Icon Basilike, proving Dr. GAUDEN, and not King CHARLES' the First, to be the Author of it: With an Answer to all the Facts alleged by Mr. WAGSTAF to the contrary; and to the Exceptions made against my Lord ANGLESEY's Memorandum, Dr. WALKER's Book, or Mrs. GAUDEN's Narrative, which last Piece is now the first Time published at large.    
DI quibus imperium est animarum, umbraeque Silentes,  
Et Chaos, & Phlegeton, Loca N●cle tacentia late,  
Sit mihi fas audit a loqui; Sit numine vestro,  
Pandere res alta terra & caligine mersa●.  Virg. Aen. 6. 
London, Printed, and are to be Sold by the Booksellers of London and Westminster. M. DC.XC.IX.   

  Errors. Amendments. Page 5. line 1●. hose those 20. 5. Christ his Christ, his 21. 4. Ceretum Ceretium 37. 19 Cophtic Coptic ●8. 3. of of the 53. 15. Mat●hies Mathias 57 15. Ex mple example 65. 15. may be be any 66. 17. ●ittgius ●●itigius 101. 23. hoped o hoped to 105. 5. Consciences Conscience 113. 20. sometime Some time 131. 16. this his 137. 8. Mediations Meditations  
* In the Margin of Pag. 57, after Eus●bius, 〈◊〉 lib. 3. and 〈◊〉 of first read fifth.   

THE AUTHOR TO A FRIEND.  
THE Public is so seldom interested in the Debates of private Men, and I am so little concerned at the Malice or Mistakes of my Adversaries, that, without some better Motive, I would never presume to trouble the World with any thing merely personal. But if the Subject in question be of extraordinary Weight and Consequence, and that on the certain Decision of it should depend the Tranquillity of a considerable number of People, than I think a Man is indispensably obliged to appear for the Truth; and so, while he's endeavouring to serve others, no body will say he ought to neglect his own Defence. Whether the Treatise I now send you be of this Nature, is submitted to your equal judgement: And unless I really designed a Nobler End by it than the justification of one Person, neither you nor any body else should lose your time in reading, no more than I myself would be at the Pains of writing it, which yet I'll count the highest Pleasure if I understand it has never so little contributed to the Satisfaction of a Gentleman of such undisputed Learning and Merit.  
March 30. 1699. J. T.   

AMYNTOR: OR, A DEFENCE OF Milton's Life.  
WHEN I undertook to write the Life of the most celebrated MILTON, I was far from imagining that I should ever (much less so soon) be obliged to make an Apology in justification of such a Work, both harmless in itself, and greatly desired by the World. There was no positive Law or Custom against publishing the particular History of this extraordinary Person, considered in any respect whatsoever: for the Lives of Good Princes and Tyrants, of Orthodox and Heretical Divines, of Virtuous and Wicked, of Public and Private Men, are indifferently perused by every body; of which it would be superfluous to allege Examples, the thing being so commonly known by all that have learned to read. Nor without such a Liberty could we possibly form a true Taste, or have any certain Knowledge of Affairs, since the Excellence or Imperfection of all Matters best appears by opposing 'em to one another. And I was sure (which I find was no Mistake) that the Learning and Sentiments of JOHN MILTON were too considerable not to deserve the highest Commendation or Dislike, according to the Judgement or Affection of the Readers.  
SINCE therefore it was equally lawful for me to write whose Life I pleased (when my Hand was in) the first Charge against me, one would think, should have been, that I had not fairly represented my Hero. But, very far from that, the great Crime whereof I am arraigned, consists in telling more than some People would have me; or discovering Truths not fit to be known; and the Manner of my Relation is to them altogether as offensive and displeasing as the Matter of it. 'Tis strange that Men should be found of a Judgement weak enough to make a Crime of such Proceedings in a Writer, who labours to keep himself wholly independent from the Fears or Engagements of any Party; and who professed in the very beginning of his Book, that being neither provoked by Malice, nor bribed by Favor, he would as well dare to say all that was true, as scorn to write any Falsehood. But the rude Opposition with which I have met, notwithstanding such plain Declarations, convinces me more than ever how much I was in the Right by following the peculiar Method I proposed to myself in compiling MILTON's Life, and which I partly declared in these Terms: In the Characters of Sects and Parties, Books or Opinions, I shall produce his own Words as I find 'em in his Works; that those who approve his Reasons, may owe all the Obligation to himself; and that I may escape the Blame of such as may dislike what he says. Now, what could be more impartial than this? or more likely to secure me from all Imputations, whatever should be the Reception of MILTON from the Public? Yet if by adhering religiously to this Rule so loud a Clamour was raised against me, it is apparent how much worse I might expect to be treated, had I trod in the common Road. For if, like most Historians, I had in my own Words (tho' with never so much Candour) related the Actions or Sentiments of my Author, my Adversaries would presently have told the World that this was not the true MILTON, but one of my own Creation, whom I promted to speak what I durst not own; and by whose Mouth I had published all hose Opinions which I would recommend to other People. Well knowing therefore the ordinary Temper and Artifices of these Men, I did partly on that Account produce his own Words to obviate their Sophistry and Calumnies, their two principal offensive Weapons; and also to spare myself the Pains of Quotations afterwards, to prove I had neither injured him nor abused my Readers. Besides this particular Regard to them, I am also of opinion that this is the best and only good way of writing the History of such a Man. And had the Ancients always followed it, our Modern Critics would have been less exercised to discern their real Sentiments; nor would they be so often obliged to examine whether they understood or misrepresented their Authors.  
BUT instead of any Objections like these, I am expressly told that I ought not to meddle with MILTON's Books, nor to revive his Sentiments, or the Memory of those Quarrel's wherein he was engaged; which is only, in other Words, that I ought not to write his Life at all. For what, I pray, is the principal Part of a Learned Man's Life, but the exact History of his Books and Opinions, to inform the World about the Occasion of his writing, what it contained, how he performed it, and with what Consequences or Success? I have no Reason from my own second Thoughts, the Opinion of better Judges, or the Fortune of the ●●ok, to be dissatisfied with my Conduct on this Occasion. And had this Method, as I said before, been strictly observed, we might have more Knowledge and fewer Critics.  
AY but, say these Gentlemen, you have made an Inroad on our Persuasion, and directly attacked the sacred Majesty of Kings, the venerable Order of Bishops, the best constituted Church in the World, our holy Liturgy, and decent Ceremonies, the Authority of Councils, the Testimony of the Fathers, and a hundred other things which we profoundly respect and admire: nor are we the only Sufferers; for almost all other Sects and Parties have equal Reasons of Complaint against you. Well, be it so then; but, good Sirs, betake yourselves for Reparation to JOHN MILTON; or, if he is not to be brought to easy Terms, defend your Castles and Territories against him with all the Vigour you can. For, I assure you I am no further concerned in the Quarrel than to show you the Enemy, and to give a true Account of his Forces. And all this, if you were of a peaceable Disposition, you might learn from these plain Words in the Conclusion of the Life: 'Tis probable that you (as well as I, or any other) may disapprove of MILTON's Sentiments in several Cases; but I'm sure, you are far from being displeased to find 'em particularised in the History of his Life: For we should have no true Account of Things, if Authors related nothing but what they liked themselves: One Party would never suffer the Lives of TARQUIN, or PHALARIS, or SCYLLA, or CAESAR to appear, while another would be as ready to suppress those of CICERO, of CATO, of TRAJAN, or BRUTUS'. But a Historian ought to conceal or disguise nothing; and the Reader is to be left to judge of the V●tues he should imitat, or the Vices he ought to detest and avoid.  
THIS might serve for a sufficient Answer to all that has been yet objected to MILTON's Life, if any Reply were thought necessary: For the trivial and scurrilous Libels of mercenary Fellows I shall never regard, they being already sufficiently neglected by the World, and making themselves as little by this Practice, as any of a more vindictive Temper could desire: Besides, that to answer 'em in their own Dialect, I must first learn to speak it; which is absolutely contrary to my Genius, and below the Dignity of Human Nature, since no body openly approves it even at Billingsgate. I shall as little consider the censorious Tongues of certain more Zealous than Religious People, who judge of others by their own narrow Schemes, and despise all Knowledge in comparison of their private Imaginations, wherein they exceedingly please themselves; a Happiness no body envies them. Nor should I, if that were all, think myself concerned in making any Return to the obliging Compliments of those Gentlemen who (as Father PAUL formerly said of himself) remember me oftener in their Sermons than in their Prayers; tho' some of them are apt to say, that when they mention Turks, jews, Infidel's, and Heretics, they do not forget me. But when I am openly accused before the greatest Assembly in the World, the Representative Body of the People of England, let the Charge be never so frivolous in itself, or to be slighted on any other Occasion, yet such a Respect is due to the Dignity of those to whom it was exhibited, that I hold myself obliged to convince 'em of my Innocence; and to remove all Suspicion far from me, of what in its own Nature is acknowledged to be Criminal, or by them might be reputed Indecent.  
THE Matter of Fact is this▪ On the Thirtieth of january, Mr. OFFSPRING BLACKHALL, who styles himself Chaplain in Ordinanary to His Majesty, Preached a Sermon before the Honourable House of Commons; wherein, after exclaiming against the Author of MILTON's Life, for denying Icon Basilike to be the Production of King CHARLES the First, he pursues his Accusation in these Terms. We may cease to wonder, says he, that he should have the Boldness, without Proof, and against Proof, to deny the Authority of this Book, who is such an Infidel as to doubt, and is shameless and impudent enough, even in Print, and in a Christian Country, publicly to affront our Holy Religion, by declaring his Doubt, that several Pieces under the Name of Christ and his Apostles (he must mean those now received by the whole Christian Church, for I know of no other) are supposititious; tho' through the remoteness of those Ages, the Death of the Persons concerned, and the decay of other Monuments which might give us true Information, the Spuriousness thereof is yet undiscovered. Here is indeed a Charge of a very high Nature, I will not say in his own mean Language, an impudent and a shameless one; tho' if it be not better proved, I cannot hinder others from calling it what they please, or the thing deserves. But before I proceed to make Observations on it, I shall insert the entire Passage of my Book, which he has taken the liberty of abridging, and so joining the Words of two widely different Assertions, as if they were but one. About this little Artifice however I shall make no difference with him; for I can easily determine our Controversy, without using all the Advantages I might otherwise take.  
AFTER stating the Proofs therefore that Dr. GAUDEN, and not King CHARLES, was the true Author of Icon Basilike, I added a very natural Observation in the following Words. When I seriously consider how all this happened among ourselves within the Compass of Forty Years, in a time of great Learning and Politeness, when both Parties so narrowly watched over one another's Actions, and what a great Revolution in Civil and Religious Affairs was partly occasioned by the Credit of that Book, I cease to wonder any longer how so many supposititious Pieces under the Name of CHRIST, his Apostles, and other great Persons, should be published and approved in those Primitive times, when it was of so much Importance to have 'em believed; when the Cheats were too many on all sides for them to reproach one another, which yet they often did; when Commerce was not near so general as now, and the whole Earth entirely overspread with the Darkness of Superstition. I doubt rather the spuriousness of several more such Books is yet undiscovered, thro' the remoteness of those Ages, the death of the Persons concerned, and the decay of other Monuments, which might give us true Information. Here then in the first place it is plain, that, I say, a great many spurious Books were early fathered on CHRIST, his Apostles, and other great Names, part whereof are still acknowledged to be genuine, and the rest to be forged, in neither of which Assertions I could be justly supposed to mean any Books of the N. Testament, as I shall presently evince. But Mr. BLACKHALL affirms. That I must intend those now received by the whole Christian Church, for he knows of no other. A cogent Argument truly! and clearly proves his Logic to be just of a Piece with his Reading. I admire what this Gentleman has been doing so long at the University, that he should be such a great Stranger to these things. But now I find a Man may be a very good Divine without knowing any thing of the Fathers, tho' a Layman is always referred to 'em when he starts any Difficulties, which makes him sooner acquiesce and swallow what he cannot chew than get Information at so dear a rate. But had Mr. BLACKHALL been disposed to deal ingenuously 〈◊〉 me, he might see, without the help of the Fathers, that I did not mean the Books of the New Testament, when I mentioned Supposititious Pi●ces under the Name of CHRIST, since there is none ascribed to him in the whole Bible; nor do we read there that ever he wrote any thing, except once with his Finger on the Ground, 
Joh. 8. 5.  when he acquitted the Woman taken in Adultery: And, for aught appears to the contrary, Mr. BLACKHALL may deny that to be any Writing, because he knows not what it was; yet some Germane Divines, as well read as himself, have presumed to tell us the Contents of it, and came almost to excommunicating one another in their solemn Disputes about this weighty Affair. To this Negative Argument from the Silence of the New Testament, we may add the Positive Testimony of St. AUGUSTIN and St. JEROM, whereof the former affirms, That the Lord himself wrote 
* Dicit Augustinus (de Consensu Evangel. l. 1. c. 7.) quod ipse Dominus ni●il scripserit, ut aliis de illo scribentibus necesse sit credere.  nothing, which makes it necessary we should believe those who have written of him: And the latter says, That 
† Salvator nullum volumen doctrinae s●ae proproprium dereliquit, quod in plerisque; Apochryphorum deliramenta confingunt. Hieronym. in Commentar. ad Ezechielis, cap. 44.  our Saviour left no Volume of his own Doctrine behind him, as is extravagantly feigned in most of the Apocryphal Pieces.  
NOW to convince all the World that I did not intend by those Pieces the Books of the New Testament, as well as to show the Rashness and Uncharitableness of Mr. BLACKHALL's Assertion, I shall here insert a large Catalogue of Books anciently ascribed to JESUS CHRIST, his Apostles, their Acquaintance, Companions, and Contemporaries. Of these some remain still entirely extant, which I shall mark in their Places. We have several Fragments of others preserved by the Fathers; and all that is left us of the rest are only their bare Titles. I constantly refer to the Books wherein they are quoted, that every body may inform himself of the Fact. And after the Catalogue is ended, I shall distinguish the Books which the Ancicients alleged as the genuine Works of the Apostles or Apostolic Men, from those that they rejected as the Forgeries of Heretics; which is a good Argument however, that they were received by some Party of Christians to countenance their Opinions. Next I design to name those Pieces of whose Spuriousness I doubted, tho' their Authority is still received; and so conclude this Point with some material Observations.   

A Catalogue of Books mentioned by the Fathers and other Ancient Writers, as truly or falsely ascribed to JESUS CHRIST his Apostles, and other eminent Persons.  

I. Of Books reported to be written by CHRIST himself, or that particularly concern him.  
1. HIS Letter in answer to that of Abgarus King of Edessa. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. l. 1. c. 13. You may also consult Cedrenus, Nicephorus, Constantinus Porphyrogennetus in the Manipulus of Combesisius, p. 79, etc. extant.  
2. The Epistle of Christ to Peter and Paul. Augustin. contra Faustum, l. 28. c. 13.  
3. The Parables and Sermons of Christ. Euseb. Hist. Eccl. l. 3. c. 39  
4. A Hymn which Christ secretly taught his Apostles and Disciples, Augustin. Epist. 253. ad Ceretum Episcopum.  
5. A Book of the Magic of Christ, Augustin. de consensu evangelico, l. 1. c. 9, 10. If it be not the same with the Epistle to Peter and Paul.  
6. A Book of the Nativity of our Saviour, of the Holy Virgin his Mother, and her Midwife. Gelasius apud Gratianum, Decret. 1. part. Dist. 15. c. 3. But I believe this is the same with the Gospel of james; whereof in its due Order.   

II. MARY.  
1. An Epistle to Ignatius: Which is now extant among his Works.  
2. Another Epistle to the Inhabitants of Messina: To be read among the same Ignatius' Works.  
3. A Book of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary, Usually published with St. Ierome's Works.  
4. Another Book about the Death of Mary, is said by Lambecius to lie unpublished in the Emperor's Library, T. 4. p. 131.  
5. We shall not insist on the Book of Mary concerning the Miracles of Christ, and the Ring of King Solomon.   

III. PETER.  
1. The Gospel of Peter. Origen. T. 11. Comment. in Mat. Hieron. in Catalogue. Scriptor. Eccles. c. 1. Euseb. Hist. Eccl●s. l. 3. c. 3, 25. Idem, l. 6. c. 12.  
2. The Acts of Peter. Euscb. Hist. Eccles. l. 3. c. 3. Hieronym. in Catalogo. Origen. Tom. 21. Comment. in Joan. Isidorus Pelusiota, l. 2. Epist. 99  
3. The Revelation of Peter. Clem. Alex. in Epitome. Theodot. Euseb.. Hist. Eccles. l. 3. c. 25. l. 6. c. 14. Idem, l. 3. c. 3. Hieron. in Catalago, c. 1. Zozomen. Hist. Eccles. l. 7. c. 19  
4. The Epistle of Peter to Clemens, is still shown in the Aethiopic Language by the Eastern Christians. Tilmont, Hist. Eccles. Tom. 1. part. 2. pag. 497. And he has it from Cotelerius. The Epistle of Clemens to James, is published in the Clementines.  
5. The Doctrine of Peter. Origen, in praefat. ad libros principiorum Gregor. Nazian. epist. 16. Elias Levita in notis ad Nazianzeni Orationem ad cives trepidantes.  
6. The preaching of Peter (if it be not the same with his Doctrine) Origen. Tom. 14. in Joan. Idem, in praefat. ad Libros principiorum. Clem. Alex. Stromat. l. 1. & l. 6, etc. Lactant. l. 4. c. 21. Author libri de baptismo Haereticorum inter opera Cypriani. Joan. Damascen. l. 2. parallel. c. 16.  
7. The Liturgy of Peter, published by Lindanus at Antwerp in the Year 1588., and at Paris, Anno 1595.  
8. The Itinerary, or journys of Peter (mentioned by Epiphanius, Haeres. 30. n. 15. and by Athanasius in his Synopsis of the Scriptures;) I believe to be the same with the Recognitions of St. Clement still extant, wherein we have a very particular Account of Peter's Voyages and Performances.  
9 The judgement of Peter. Hieronym. in Catalogo, c. 1.   

IV. ANDREW.  
1. The Gospel of St. Andrew. Gelasius in Decreto, etc.  
2. The Acts of St. Andrew. Euscb. Hist. Eccles. l. 3. c. 25. Epiphan. Haeres. 47. n. 1. Item, 61, 63, 47. Philastrius in Haeres. 8. Gelasius in decreto; & Turribius Asturicensis apud Paschasium Quesnerum inter epistolas Leonis magni, p. 459.   

V. JAMES.  
1. The Gospel of St. James, or his Protoevangelion. Origen, Tom. 11. Comment. in Mat. Epiphan. Haeres. 30. n. 23. Eustathius Antiochen. Comment. in Hexaemer. Epiphanius monachus in notis Allatii ad Eustathium. Multa ex hoc Evangelio mutuasse Gregorium Nyssenum, tacito Jacobi nomine, monet Allatius ibid. This Book is now in Manuscript in the Library of Vienna, as is said by Lambecius, l. 5. p. 130. Father Simon says, he has seen two Manuscript Copies of it in the Kings of France's Library. Nouvelles Observations, etc. p. 4. It was printed by Neander and also by Grynaeus in the first Volume of his Orthodoxographs.  
2. The Liturgy of St. James is printed in the second Tome of the Bibliotheca Patrum, at Paris, Anno 1624.  
3. We mentioned before The Book of St. James concerning the Death of the Virgin Mary; but there want not Reasons to believe john, and not james, to be the Author of it.   

VI JOHN.  
1. The Acts of St. John. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. l. 3. c. 25. Epiphan. Haeres. 47. n. 1. Augustin. l. 1. contra adversarios legis & prophetarum. Turribii Scriptum inter Epistolas Leonis magni; & Phot. in codice 229.  
2. Another Gospel of john. Epiph. Haeres. 30. n. 23.  
3. The Itinerary, or Voyages of St. John. Gelasius in decreto.  
4. The Liturgy of St. John. It was together with several others printed in Syriac at Rome. See Father Simon in his Supplement to Leo of Modena.  
5. We spoke twice before of St. john or St. James' Book about the Death of the Virgin Mary.  
6. The Traditions of St. john. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. l. 3. c. ult.   

VII. PHILIP.  
1. The Gospel of St. Philip. Epiphan. Haeres. 26. n. 13. Timotheus Presbyter a Combefisio editus in tomo secundo Auctuarii.  
2. The Acts of St. Philip. Gelasius in Deceto.   

VIII. BARTHOLOMEW.  
2. The Gospel of St. Bartholomew, Hieronym. in prolegom. Com. in Mat. Dionysius Areopagita de Mystica Theologia, cap. 1.   

IX. THOMAS.  
1. The Gospel of St. Thomas. Origen. in Homil. ad Luc. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. l. 3. c. 25. Nicephor. in Stichometria. Ambros. in Comment. ad Luc. Augustin. contra Faustum, l. 22. c. 79. Cyril. Hierosolym. Catech. 4. 6. Gelasius in decreto.  
2. The Acts of St. Thomas. Epiphan. Haeres. 47. n. 1. Idem, Haeres. 61. n. 1. Augustin. contra Adimant. Idem, l. 1. de sermone Dei. Idem, contra Faustum, l. 22. c. 79.  
3. The Revelations of S. Thomas. Gelasius in Decreto.  
4. The Itinerary of St. Thomas. Gelasius in Decreto. Nicephor. in Stichometria.  
5. The Book of the Infancy of Christ by St. Thomas. Epiphan. Haeres. 34. n. 18. Nicephor. in Stichometria. Gelas. in Decreto. Lambecius says, that this Book lies in Manuscript in the Library of Vienna, Tom. 7. p. 20. Father Simon writes that there is a Manuscript Copy of it in the French King's Library; Nouvelles Observations, etc. It was printed two Years since in Latin, and Arabic with learned Notes by Mr. Syke at Vtrecht.   

X. MATTHEW.  
1. The Liturgy of St. Matthew. Tom. 27. Bibliothecae Patrum Lugdunensis. Natalis Alex. in saeculo 1. part 1. c. 11. art. 1. Gerardus, tom. 1. Conf. Cathol. There is also a Liturgy attributed to St. Mark.   

XI. THADDAEUS.  
1. The Gospel of St. Thaddaeus. Gelasius in Decreto.   

XII. MATHIAS.  
1. The Gospel of St. Mathias. Origen. Homil 1. in Luc. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. l. 3. c. 25. Hieronym. in prolegom. ad Comment. in Mat. Ambros. in Comment. ad Luc. Gelas. in Decreto.  
2. The Traditions of St. Mathias. Clem. Alex. Stromat. l. 7.   

XIII. PAUL.  
1. The Acts of St. Paul. Origen. l. 1. c. 2. de Principiis Idem, tom. 21. in Joan. Euseb. l. 3. c. 3. Hist. Eccles. c. 25. Philastrius, Haeres. 88  
2. The Acts of Paul and Thecla. Tertullian. de Baptismo. c. 17. Hieronym. de Script. Eccles. in Paulo & Luca. Augustin. l. 30. contra Faustum, c. 4. Gelasius in Decreto. Nuper Editus est hic Liber Oxonii. Epiphan. Haeres. 78. n. 16. Extant.  
3. The Epistle of Paul to the Laodiceans. Tertullian adversus Martion. l. 5. c. 17. Hieronym. in Catalogo, c. 5. Philastr. in Haeres. 88; Theodoret. tom. 8. Haeres. 47. n. 9 & alibi. Legatur etiam Theophylactus. extant.  
4. A third Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians. 2 Thes. 2. 2.  
5. A third Epistle to the Corinthians, and a second to the Ephesians. 1 Cor. 5. 9 Ephes. 3. 3.  
6. The Epistles of Paul to Seneca, with those of Seneca to Paul. Hieronym. in Catalogo, c. 12. Augustin. de Civitate Dei, l. 6. c. 10. Idem, in Epist. 54. ad Macedonium. extant.  
7. The Revelation of St. Paul. Epiphan. Haeres. 38. n. 2. Zozomen Hist. Eccles. l. 7. c. 19 Augustin Tract. 98. in Joan. Theophylact. in Scholar ad 2. ad Corinth. Mic. Glycas. annal. part 2. Gelas. in Decreto. Zozomen. Hist. Eccles. l. 7. c. 19  
8. The Preaching of St. Paul. Clem. Alex. Stromat. l. 6. Lactant. l. 4● c. 21. Author etiam Anonymus de non iterando Baptismo, à Rigaltio in observationibus ad Cyprianum insertus.  
9 Saint Paul's Narrative concerning the charming of Vipers, revealed to him by St. Michael in a Dream. Lambecius says, that there is now a Manuscript of this Book in the Library of Vienna, Tom. 5. p. 103.  
10. The Anabaticon of Saint Paul, wherein he relates what he saw when he was snatched up into the third Heavens. Epiphan. Haeres. 38. n. 2.  
11. Some would infer from his own Words, that he wrote a Gospel; In the day, says he, when God shall judge the Secrets of Men by Christ jesus according to my Gospel. Rom. 2. 16.   

XIV. Of the Gospels of Judas Iscariot, of Eve, and Abraham, etc.  
1. That none of the Apostles might be thought unable to write a Gospel we find one alleged by the Caianites, a Sect of the Gnostics, under the Name of judas Iscariot. Epiphan. Haeres. 38. Theodoret. l. 1. de Haeret. Fabul. c. 15.  
2. Nor should we wonder at Iudas' being an Author, when we read of the Prophetical Gospel of Eve, whom the Gnostics reckoned a Patroness of their Opinions, and to have received extraordinary Knowledge and Light in her Conference with the Serpent. Epiphan. Haeres. 26. n. 2.  
3. The Sethians, another sort of Gnostics, showed an Apocalypse under the Name of the Patriarch Abraham; not to mention his learned Pieces of Astrology, nor the Books of Adam believed by the jews. Epiphan. Haeres. 30. n. 16. Isidor. Pelusiot. l. 2. Epist. 99  
4. The Prophecy of Enoch, which St. jude quotes, is for the most part still extant, and was believed to be genuine by several Fathers, who allege it in defence of the Christian Religion. Origen. contra Cels. l. 5. Idem de Principiis. Tertullian. de habitu Muliebri, c. 3, etc.  
5. The Testament of the twelve Patriarches, the Assumption of Moses, the Book of Eldad and Medad, the Psalms of King Solomon, the Revelation of Zachary, and the Vision of Isaiah; but I forget that I am reciting the spurious Books of the Christians, and not of the Jews, who, when there's occasion, will afford as large a Catalogue.   

XV. Of the Gospels of the Hebrews and the Egyptians, with some general Pieces.  
1. The Gospel of the twelve Apostles. Origen Homil. 1. in Luc. Ambros. in Prooem. Commentar. in Luc. Theophylact. Comment. in cap. 1. v. 1. secundum Lucam, etc. But this Piece was, I believe, Originally the same with  
2. The Gospel of the Hebrews. Ignat. in Epist. ad Smyrnaeos. Clem. Alex l. 1. Stromat. Origen. tract. 8. in Matt. Idem, Homil. 14. in Jerem. & in Comment. ad Joan. Epiphan. Haeros. 30. n. 13, 22, etc. Hieronym. in Catalogo Script. Eccles. c. 4. & alibi Passim. This Gospel several have maintained to be the Original of St. Matthew.  
3. The Gospel of the Egyptians, Clem. Rom. Epist. 2. ad Corinth. c. 12. Clem. Alex. l. 3. Stromat. l. ibid. Origen. Homil. in Luc. Epiphan. Haeres. 62. n. 2.  
4. The Apostles Creed, tho' of late Years it begins to be called in question.  
5. The Doctrine and Constitution of the Apostles. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. l. 3. c. 25. Athanas. in Synopsi. Epiphan. Haeres. 80. n. 7. 45. n. 5. 70. n. 10. 75. n. 6. Idem in Compendiaria fidei expositione, n. 22. Incertus de Aleatoribus inter Scripta Cypriani. There are 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Doctrines, both attributed to every one of the Apostles singly, and also to their Companions and immediate Successors, too long to insert particularly. These Doctrines were bound with the other Books of the New Testament, as appears by the Stichometry of N●ephorus and Anastasius; tho' it was not always pretended, that they were Original Pieces, but rather Collections of what the Companions and Successors of the Apostles either heard, or pretended to hear from their own Mouths.  
6. We need not produce our Authorities for the Canons and Constitutions of the Apostles, since so many learned Members of the Church of England have written large Volumes to prove 'em genuine.  
7. The Precepts of Peter and Paul. This Book lies in Manuscript in the Great Duke's Library in Florence, if we believe Ludovicus jacobus a Sancto Carolo in his Bibliotheca Pontificia, l. 1. pag. 177.  
8. The present Cophtic Christians have a Book of Doctrines, which they believe was composed by the twelve Apostles, with the Assistance of St. Paul, etc.  
9 The Gospel of Perfection. Epiphan. Haeres. 26. n. 2  
10. The Acts of all the Apostles, written by themselves. Epiphan. Haeres. 30. n. 16. Isidor. Pelus. l. 2. epist. 99 Varadatus in epist. ad Leonem Imp. Tom. 4. Concil. Labbaei. col. 978. Io. Malala, Chronograph. l. x.  
11. The Itinerary of all the Apostles, as well as of every one of ●em singly, was formerly extant.   

XVI. Of the Writings of the Disciciples and Companions of the Apostles.  
OF the Books ascribed to the Disciples and Companions of the Apostles, and which are still extant, some are thought genuine and of great Authority at this time: Every one were approved at some time, or by some Party: And yet I am of Opinion, that it is the easiest Task in the World (next to that of showing the Ignorance and Superstition of the Writers) to prove them all Spurious, and fraudulently imposed on the Credulous. Those I mean, are the Epistles of Clemens Romanus to the Corinthians, his Recognitions, Decretals, and other Pieces bearing his Name: All the Epistles of Ignatius; the Epistle of Pol●carpus to the Philippians, with his other Writings; The Acts of the Martyrdom of Ignatius and Polycarpus; The Pastor of Hermas; The Epistle of Barnabas; The Works of Dionysius the Areopagite; The Epistle of Marcellus, Peter's Disciple, to Nereus and Achilleus, and his Treatise of the Conflict of Peter and Simon Magus; The Life of Saint john, by Prochorus; The Petition of Veronica to Herod on the behalf of CHRIST; The Passion of Timothy by Polycrates; The Passions of Peter and Paul in two Books by Linus; The two Epistles of Martial of Limousin, and the Life of the same by Aurelianus; The Gospel of Nicodemus; The History of the Apostolical Conflict by Abdias, who is said to be appointed first Bishop of Babylon by the Apostles; The Passion of Saint Andrew written by the Presbyters of Achaia; The Epistle of Evodius, entitled the Light; the Altercation of jason and Papiscus; The Acts of Titus composed by Zena, St. Paul's Companion, with a multitude of other Acts and Passions. The Gospel of Barnabas, the Revelation of Stephen, the Passion of Barnabas, and the Epistles of joseph the Arimathean to the Britons are quite lost; and were they extant, would probably appear to be as foolish and fabulous as the rest.   

XVII. Of Pieces alleged in favour of Christianity, which were forged under the Name of Heathens.  
1. The Works of Trismegistus and Asclepius, extant.  
2. The Books of Zoroaster and Hystaspes.  
3. The Sibyllin Oracles cited so frequently, and with such Authority by the Primitive Fathers, that 
* Origen. contr. Cels. l. 5.  Celsus takes occasion from thence to nickname the Christians Sibyllists. extant.  
4. The Letter of Pontius Pilate to Tiberius, with the Speech of Tiberius to the Senat. extant.  
5. The Epistle of Lentulus, giving a Description of the Person of CHRIST. extant.  
6. The Epistles or Orders of Adrian, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius, in favour of the Christians. extant in justin Martyr, etc. etc. etc.   
here'S a long List for Mr. BLACKHALL, who, 'tis probable, will not think the more meanly of himself for being unacquainted with these Pieces; nor, if that were all, shoul'd● I be forward to think the worse of him on this Account: but I think he is to blame for denying that there were any such, because he knew nothing of 'em; much less should he infer from thence, that I denied the Scriptures; which Scandal however, because manifestly proceeding from Ignorance, I heartily forgive him, as every good Christian ought to do.  
TO explain now therefore the several Members of the Passage in MILTON's Life; In the first place, by the spurious Pieces I meant, tho' not all, yet a good parcel of those Books in the Catalogue, which I am persuaded were partly forged by some more zealous than discreet Christians, to supply the brevity of the Apostolic Memoirs; partly by designing Men to support their private Opinions, which they hoped to effect by virtue of such respected Authorities: And some of 'em, I doubt, were invented by Heathens and Jews to impose on the Credulity of many wel-diposed Persons, who greedily swallowed any Book for Divine Revelation that contained a great many Miracles, mixed with a few good Morals, while their Adversaries laughed in their Sleeves all the while, to see their Tricks succeed, and were riveted in their ancient Prejudices by the greater Superstition of such Enthusiasts.  
IN the second place, by the Books of whose Spuriousness I said the World was not yet convinced, tho' in my private Opinion I could not think 'em genuine, I meant those of the other great Persons, or the supposed Writings of certain Apostolic Men (as they call 'em) which are at this present, as well as in ancient times, read with extraordinary Veneration. And they are the Epistle of BARNABAS, the Pastor of HERMAS, the Epistle of POLYCARPUS to the Philippians, the first Epistle of CLEMENS ROMANUS to the Corinthians, and the seven Epistles of IGNATIUS. These are generally received in the Church of Rome, and also by most Protestants; but those of the Church of England have particularly signalised themselves in their Defence, and by publishing the correctest Impressions of them. The Ancients paid them the highest Respect, and reckoned the first four of 'em especially, as good as any part of the New Testament. The Epistle of BARNABAS is by 
* Stromat. l. 2. & 5. Contra Cel●. l. 1. de Princip. l. 3.  CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, and ORIGEN, not only reckoned genuine, but cited as Scripture; tho' he says in express Terms, That the Apostles, before their Conversion, were the greatest Sinners in Nature; which, if believed, would rob us of an Argument we draw from their Integrity and Simplicity against Infidels, to say nothing now of the many other ridiculous Passages in BARNABAS. The Pastor, or Visions, Precepts, and Similitudes of HERMAS (who is supposed to be the Person mentioned by PAUL in his Epistle to the Romans) is cited as Canonical Scripture by 
* Advers. Haeres. l. 4. c. 3▪ Stromat. l. 1. 2. 4. 6. princip. l. 1. c. 3. l. 2. c. 1. Homil. 10. in Host & 〈◊〉 pa●sim.  IRENAEUS, CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, ORIGEN, and others, and was for such received by several Churches, tho' I think it the sillyest Book in the World. The Epistle of POLYCARPUS (the supposed Disciple of St. JOHN) was read in the Churches of Asia, and is quoted by 
† L. 1. contr. Haeres. Euseb. Hist. Eccles. l▪ 4. c. 14. Phot. 〈◊〉 126.  IRENAEUS, EUSEBIUS and others. The Epistle of CLEMENS ROMANUS (whom they would have to be the same that's mentioned by PAUL in his Epistle to the Philippians) is cited by 
* Contra Haeres. l▪ 3. c. 3. Stromat. l▪ 1, 4▪ 5, 6. De Princip. l. 2. Hist. Eccles. l. 3. c. 16, 36. l. 4. c. 22, 23.  IRENAEUS, CLEMENS ALEXANRINUS, ORIGEN, EUSEBIUS, and others. The Epistles of IGNATIUS are quoted by 
† Contra Haeres. l. 5. c. 28. Hist. Eccles. l. 2. c. 26.  IRENAEUS, EUSEBIUS, with several more; but particularly by 
* Hom●l. 6. in Luc.  ORIGEN, who says, that in one of 'em he found it very elegantly written, That the Virginity of MARY was a Secret to the Devil; which 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Ep. ad Ephes.  Virginity, with her Delivery, and the Death of our Lord, IGNATIUS says, were Three famous Mysteries wrought in the Silence of God. These Words may be now read in the Epistle of IGNATIUS to the Ephesians. Now these are the Books of whose Genuinness and Authority I took the Liberty to doubt, notwithstanding the better Opinion which is entertained of 'em by others. My present Business is not to insist on this Subject, but to clear myself of an Imputation, which I thought no body could infer from my Words. Yet since many were less knowing than I imagined, tho' Mr. BLACKHALL alone has the Candour of publishing his Weakness to the World, I assure 'em all that I alluded to these Books; and I hope they will be just enough in allowing me best to explain my own meaning, and prove so tender of their own Reputation, as to consider well of it, before they censure me another time.  
BUT tho' I will not, as I said, enter now into a particular Discussion of these Writings, yet I shall offer one thing to the Consideration of their Defenders. Either they really believe the Epistles of BARNABAS and CLEMENS (for Example) to be theirs, or to be supposititious. If not theirs, there's a speedy end of the Dispute, and I have attained my End without more Argumentation. But if they think 'em genuine, why do they not receive 'em into the Canon of Scriptures, since they were the Companions and Fellow laborers of the Apostles, as well as St. MARK or St. LUKE? If this Quality was sufficient to entitle the two last to Inspiration, why should it not do as much for the two first? And if this be not all the Reason, pray let us know the true one, having never heard of any other. To say, that tho' the Books are authentic, yet they ought not to be received now into the Canon, because the Ancients did not think fit to approve 'em, is but a mere Evasion: For 'tis well known, that till after EUSEBIUS' time, neither the second Epistle of PETER, nor that of JAMES, or JUDAS, with some others, were approved as Canonical; and yet they were afterwards received by the whole Church. Wherefore then may not we as well at this time establish the Epistles of CLEMENS and BARNABAS, if they be undoubtedly theirs, which I shall be persuaded their Patrons believe, when they quote 'em as Scripture, and then I know where to have them, and how to deal with 'em. But of this enough.  
I SAID above, that by the spurious Pieces I meant only a great part of the Books which are recited in the Catalogue; for others of 'em do not seem to deserve so mean a Rank: and I am so far from rejecting all those Books of the New Testament which we now receive, that I am rather solicitous lest, as in the dark Ages of Popery, those we commonly call Apocryphal Books, were added to the Bible, so at the same time, and in as ignorant Ages before, several others might be taken away, for not suiting all the Opinions of the strongest Party. Nor is it unworthy observation, that most of these Books are condemned by the Decree of Pope GELASIUS. How many true and spurious Gospels or Histories of C●RIST were extant in St. LUKE's time, God knows; but that there were several may be evidently inferred from. his own Words, who tells TH●OPH●LUS, 
Luc. 1. 1, 2, 3.  that many had undertaken the same Work before him, and, as if he alluded to some spurious Relations, assures him, that he'll write nothing but what he received from such as had a perfect knowledge of th●se Matters from the beginning. That there should be first and last, but just the number of Four, I never heard of any that w●nt about to demonstrat, except 〈◊〉 the famed Successor of the Apostles; and he positively 
* 〈…〉 personas Evangel●i. 〈◊〉 Haeres. l. 3. 11.  affirms, that there cannot be more, nor fewer than Four Gospels: Foyes▪ says he, there be Four Regions o● this World wherein we live, with Four principal Winds, and the Church is spread over all the Earth: But the Support and Foundation of the Church is the Gospel, and the Spirit of Life: Therefore it must follow, that it has Four Pillars, blowing Incorruptibility on all sides, and giving Life to Men. Then he corroborats his Argument from the Four Cherubims, and the Four Faces in EZE●I●L's Vision, 
Ezek. 6, 6, 10.  to wit, of a Lion, an Ox, a Man, and an Eagle; which is the Reason, by the way, why the Four Evangelists are painted with these Emblems in the Mass-Book and in our Common Prayer-book. So he concludes at last, That they are all vain, unlearned, and impudent, who after this would assert, that there were more or sewer than 4 Gospels. Where we may observe, that Mr. BLACKHALL has the Warrant of an ancient Father for giving hard Names to such as contemn precarious Reasoning: And indeed it is but too manifest to be denied, that no Order of Men have more violated the Rules of Decency and Civility in their Writings, than those whose Business it is to teach others Moderation, Patience, and Forgiveness; nor was there ever any Cause more defended by the Dint of Calumny than that of Religion, which lest needed it of any other.  
SEVERAL of these Books whereof I now treat, are quoted to prove important Points of the Christian Religion by the most celebrated Fathers, as of equal Authority with those we now receive; and the Testimony of these Fathers was the principal Reason of establishing these in our present Cannon, and is still alleged to that purpose by all that write in defence of the Scriptures. Of so much weight is this Testimony, that EUSEBIUS 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Hist. Eccles. l. 3. c. 3.  rejects the Acts, Gospel, Preaching, and Revelation of PETER from being Authentic, for no other Reason, but because no Ancient or Modern Writer (says he) has quoted Proofs out of them. But herein EUSEB●US was mistaken; for the contrary appears by the Testimonies marked in the Catalogue, and which any body may compare with the Originals. In another place he 
† 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉 c. 25.  says, That the Gospels of PETER, THOMAS, MATTHI●S, and such like, with the Acts of ANDREW, JOHN, and the other Apostles are spurious, because no Ecclesiastic Writer from the time of the Apostles down to his own, has vouchsafed to quote them, which is absolutely false of some, as we have already shown. So that Mr. BLACKHALL is not the only Man, I find, who makes his own Reading the Measure of all 〈◊〉▪ and a Thousand to One but now 〈◊〉 justifies this Practice, since he can prove it from Antiquity, 〈◊〉 he 〈◊〉 got the Authority of 〈…〉. Had 〈…〉 Pieces 〈◊〉 by 〈…〉 Orthodox Writers, he would have owned them as the genuine Productions of the 〈◊〉, and admitted them (as we say) into the Canon; but having m●t no s●ch Citations, he presently 〈◊〉 there were none, which made him reject those Books: And, I say, what I have already 〈◊〉, that Proofs 〈◊〉 quoted out of some of 'em long before, so th●● they might still 〈…〉 to the Canon for all 〈◊〉.  
TO these Considerations two Objections may perhaps be made. First, It is unlikely, they●ll say, that EUSEBIUS should not have read the Ancients; nay, that the contrary appears by his many Citations out of them; and that consequently those Works of the Fathers, which we have now in our Hands, are not the same which were read in his time, or that at least they are strangely adulterated, and full of Interpolations. With all my Heart: But then let us not be urged by their Authority in other Points no more than in this, since in one thing they may as well be alt●r'd and corrupted as in another; and indeed, by a common Rul● of Equity (being found charged in some places) they ought to be So reputed in all the r●st, till the contrary be evidently proved.  
THE 〈◊〉, Objection 〈◊〉 That altho' 〈…〉 have been 〈…〉 the Writings of those Apostles whose Names they bear, at certain times, and in some Churches, yet they were expressly rejected by others. To this I answer, That there is not one single Book in the New Testament which was not refused by some of the Ancients as unjustly fathered upon the Apostles, and really forged by their Adversaries; which as no body thinks it now a good Reason to disapprove them, so I see not how it should any more conclude against my Opinion. But because the various Sects of those early Days did, like us, condemn one another for damnable Heretics; and the admitting or refusing, the framing or corrupting of certain Books, were some of the Crimes which were mutually imputed, I shall n●w insist only on the Epistle to the Hebrews, that of JAMES, the second of PETER, the second and third of JOHN, the Epistle of JUDAS, and the Revelation. These seven Pieces were a long time plainly doubted by the 
* Let the third and twenty first Chapters of the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius be consulted, with what St. Jerome has written on the same Subject.  Ancients, particularly by those whom we esteem the soundest part; and yet they are received, (not without convincing Arguments) by the Moderns. Now, I say, by more than a Parity of Reason, that the Preaching and Revelation of PETER (for Ex●mple) were received by the Ancients, and ought not therefore to be rejected by the Moderns, if the Approbation of the Fathers be a proper Recommendation of any Books.  
THE Council of Laodicea, which was held about three hundred and sixty Years after CHRIST, and is the first Assembly wherein the Canon of Scripture was established, could not among so great a variety of Books as were then abroad in the World, certainly determine which were the true Monuments of the Apostles, but either by a particular Revelation from Heaven, or by crediting the Testimony of their Ancestors, which was always better preserved and conveyed by Writing than by Oral Tradition, the most uncertain Rule in Nature, witness the monstrous Fables of Papists, Rabbins, Turks, and the Eastern Nations both Christians and Idolaters. But of any extraordinary Revelation made to this Council we hear not a Word; and for the Books I defend, I have the same Testimony which is usually alleged in the behalf of others. However, I shall not be too hasty to make a final Decision of this 〈◊〉 with myself, lest I incur the 〈◊〉 Curse which the Auth●r of the Revelation pronounces 
〈…〉  〈◊〉 such as shall add or take away from that Book. Let Mr. BLACKHALL be assured, that if he must needs have me to be a Heretic I am not unteachable, tho' I would not have it reputed Obstinacy if I should not surrrender without satisfactory Reasons. Instead therefore of censuring and calumniating (which ought not to be reckoned Virtues in any Order of Men, and least of all in the Ministers of the Gospel) let such as are better enlightened endeavour to extricat the Erroneous out of these or the like Difficulties, that they may be able to distinguish truly, and that in such an extraordinary number of Books, all pretending equally to a Divine Origin, they may have some infallible Marks of discerning the proper 〈…〉 they unhappily mis●●ke the false one for the true.  
HOW necessary it is to have the Canon of Scripture s●t in its due light, we may 〈◊〉 from the Ancient as well as our Modern Unbelievers. CELSUS 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Origen. l. 2 contra Ce●●.  exclaims against the too great Liberty which the Christians (as if they were drunk, says he) took of changing the first writing of the Gospel three, or four, or more times, that so they might deny whatever was urged against 'em as retracted before. Nay, as low down as St. AUGUSTIN's time, was there not a very considerable Sect of the Christians themselves, I mean the Manichaeans, who showed other Scriptures, and denied the Genuinness of the whole New Testament. One of these called FAUSTUS, after showing that his Adversaries disapproved of several things in the Old Testament, thus pursues his 
† Solius hilii p●tatis testamentum non potuisse corrumpi; solum non habere aliqu●d quod in se debea● imp obari: p●aesertim q●o● n●c ab ipso scriptum constat, nec ab ejus apostolis: sed lonpo post tem●●●e à quib●idam ince●ti nominis viris, qui, ne 〈◊〉 non 〈…〉 scribent●bus qu●● 〈…〉 Apos●olo●um nomina, partim eo●●m qu● 〈…〉 Scriptorum suorum 〈…〉, a●●eve●anies ●ecundum ●os se scripsisse quae sc ipserint. Quo magis mihi videntur injuria gravi affe●●sse discipulos Christi, quia quae dissona iidem & repugnantia sibi scriberen●. ea referrent ad ipsos, & secundum eos hae● scribere se promitterentur Evangelia, quae tantis ●int reserta erro●ibus, tantis contrarietatibus narrationum simul a●●●ntentiarum, ut nec sibi pro●sas, necinter se conveniant. Quid ergo aliud est quam calumnia●i bonos, & Christi Discipulorum conco●dem c●tum in crimen devocare discording. Augustin. contra Faust. l. 32. c. 2.  Argument: You think, says he, that of all Books in the World, the Testament of the Son only could not be corrupted, that it alone contains nothing which ought to be disallowed; especially when it appears, that it was neither written by himself nor his Apostles, but a long time after by certain obscure Persons, who, lest no Credit should be given to the Stories they told of what they could not know, did prefix to their Writings partly the Names of the Apostles, and partly of those who succeeded the Apostles; affirming that what they wrote themselves was written by these: Wherein they seem to me (continues he) to have been the more heinously injurious to the Disciples of Christ, by attributing to them what they wrote themselves so dissonant and repugnant; and that they pretended to write those Gospels under their Names, which are so full of Mistakes, of contradictory Relations and Opinions, that they are neither coherent with themselves, nor consistent with one another. What is this therefore but to throw a Calumny on good Men, and to fix the Accusation of Discord on the Unanimous Society of CHRIST's Disciples? The same FAUSTUS a little after accuses his Adversaries, who had Power enough to be counted Orthodox, in these express Words: 
* Multa à majoribus vestris eloquiis Domini nostri in●erta verba sunt, quae 〈◊〉 signata ipsius cum ●jus f●de non congr●unt 〈◊〉 sertim quia, ut jam saepe pr●batum à nobis 〈◊〉 nec ab ipso haec sunt, 〈…〉 sed mu●●a post 〈…〉 quibus, & ipsis inter 〈…〉 judaeis, per sama● 〈…〉 Qui tamen omnia eadem in Apostolo●um Domini conserentes nomina, vel ●orum qui secu●i Apostolos viderentur, errores ac mendacia sua secundum eos ●escripsisse mentiti sunt. Augustin. ibid. l. 33. c. 3.  Many things were foisted by your Ancestors into the Scriptures of our Lord, which, tho' marked with his Name, agree not with his Faith. And no wonder, since, as those of our Party have already frequently proved, these things were neither written by himself nor his Apostles: but several Matters after their Decease were picked up from Stories and flying Reports by I know not what Set of Half- jews; and these not agreeing among themselves, who nevertheless publishing all these Particulars under the Names of the Apostles of the Lord, or of those that succeeded them, have ●eign'd their own Lies and Errors to be written according to them.  
Since therefore the Manichaeans rejected the whole New Testament, since the Ebionites or nazarenes, (who were the oldest Christians) had a different Copy of St. MATTHEW's Gospel, and the Marcionites, had a very different one of St. LUKE's; since St. JOHN's was attributed to CFRINTHUS, all the Epistles of St. PAUL were denied by some, a different Copy of 'em shown by others; and that the seven Pieces we mentioned before, were rejected a long time by all Christians, almost with universal Consent, it had much more become Mr. BLACK●ALL's Profession to appear better acquainted with these things, and commendably to spend his time in preventing the Mischievous Inferences which Heretics may draw from hence, or to remove the Scruples of doubting but sincere Christians, than so publicly to vent his Malice against a Man that never injured him, and who appears so little to deserve the Imputation of Incredulity, that his Fault (if it may be) does rather consist in believing more Scripture than his Adversaries.  
WHAT need had Mr● BLACKHALL to inform that August Assembly how little he kn●w of the History of the Canon? A History of the greatest Importance, as well as containing the most curious Inquiries; and without an exact Knowledge whereof it is not conceivable that any Man can be sit to convince Gainsayers, or to demonstrat the Truth of the Christian Religion, which, I suppose he will not think fit to deny is one of the principal Duties of a Minister. How little soever he knew before, he cannot be ignorant any longer that there were a Multitude of other Pieces attributed to CHRIST and his Apostles, besides those now received by the whole Christian Church. He might at his Leisure have learned so much from the Fathers, or at least from others that had studied 'em; such as RIVET, Father SIMON, DU●PIN, ●ITTGIUS, Dr. CALF, ERN●STUS GRABIUS who has lately published some of those Fragments at Oxford, and several others; tho' he has occasioned me to present him now with a much larger Catalogue than was published by any of these. I could add more not there mentioned, and other Authorities for those which are there: but I have already done more than enough to prove a thing, whereof, till the last thirtieth of january, I thought few Laymen wholly ignorant, much less any one of the Clergy. Indeed I never thought the History of our Canon so impartially handled, or so fully cleared as a Matter of such great Importance deserves; and I despair of Mr. BLACKHALL's giving the World any Satisfaction in their Doubts concerning it. But I hope some abler Person of his Order may particularly write on this Subject; which, if I see neglected also by them, I shall think it no Intrusion on their Office to undertake it myself: and if I ever write it, I promise it shall be the fairest History, and the only one of that kind that ever appeared; For I shall lay all the Matters of Fact together in their natural Order, without making the least Remark of my own, or giving it a Colour in favour of any Sect or Opinion, leaving all the Word to judge for themselves, and to build what they please with those Materials I shall furnish 'em.  
I CONCLUDE this Point with one Observation, to show with what Malice I am treated by some People, while others pass with them for the most Orthodox Men in the World, who have said infinitely more in plain and direct Words, than they could infer with all their Art from a few Expressions of mine, and which the most ignorant of my Adversaries could make no more than Insinuation at the worst. I talked of spurious Pieces, and have now as well shown what those Pieces were, as put a Distinction between 'em, and such as I thought genuine. But let us hear what a Person says, who, were he as much given to the World as many of his Friends, would make a more considerable Figure, considering his great Services to the National Church, and the Respect he reciprocally receives from it; I mean the famous DODWELL, who alone, tho' a Layman, understands as much of Ecclesiastic History as the Divines of all Churches put together. His Words are these: 
* Latitabant usque ad recentiora illa, seu Traj●ni, seu e●iam fortasse ●●driani tempora, in privata●um ecclesir●m, seu e●iam hominum S●r●niis scripta illa Canonica, nè ad Ecclesiae Catholi●● notitiam perveni●ent. Aut si in publicu●●ortasse p●odi●●sent, adhac tamen tanta Scripto●●m Apo●●yphorum, Pseudepig●aphoru●●●e turba obru● bantug, ut ab iis internosci non possent, quin novo opus esset examine, novoque Tef●●monio. Et ab illo novo testimonio, q●o ●actum est ut ab Apocryphis falsoque Apostolorum nomine insigni●is Scripta eorum genuina dist●●guerentu●, pendet omnis iila quam deinceps ob●●ne●an●, & quam hodieque obtinent in Eccl●sia Catholica Scripta vera Apostolica, Auto●i●as. Atqui recen●●or ill● Canonis attestatio iisde●● erat incommodis obnoxia quibus & nost●●e 〈◊〉, quos vid●t lren●●●● audivi●que, Traditiones; erat enim illa tanto intervallo ab origine remota, nec plurium esse poterat quam eorum qui etiam remotiora illa tempora attigerant. Atquì certè ante illam Epocham, quam dixi Trajani, nondum constitutus est libro●um Sacrorum Canon, nec receptus aliquis in Ecclesia Catholica lib●orum cutus numerus, quos deind● adhibere oportuerit in sacred fidei causis dijudicandis, ne● rejecti Haereticorum Pseudepigraphi, monitive ●idel●s, ut ab eorum usu deinde caverent. Si● autem vera Apostolorum Scripta cum Apocryphal in iisdem Volaminibus compingi solebant, ut nulla pro●sus no●a aut censura ●cclesiae publica constaret q●●a quibus essent antefetenda. Habemus hodi●que horum tem●orum Scriptores Ecclesiasticos luculentissimos Clementem Roman●m, B●rnabum, Hermam, ●gnatium, Polycarpum, qui hoc nimirum scrip●●●t, quo illos nominavi ordine, omnes reliquis ●●●●i Test 〈◊〉. Sc●iptis (exceptis Judae, & J●annis utriusque) 〈◊〉 At novi Testamenti in H●●ma ne qu●dem unum locum inveneris. Apud reliquos nè unum quidem Evangelistam nomine suo compellatum. Et ●i quos loeos fo●●è proserant quibus similia i● nostris leguntur ●vangeliis; ita tame● ill●s mutatos ut plurimum interpolatosque reperies, ut seiri nequeat an è nost●is illos, an ex aliis produxe●int Apocryphis Evangeliis. Sed & Apocrypha adhibent iidem aliquoties, quae 〈◊〉 est in ho●iernis non hab●i Evange●●i. Vt inde con●●et nullum adhue inter Apocryp●●os Canonicósque novi Testamenti libros constitutum esse ab Ecclesia discrimen, praesertim si & illa quoque accedat observatio quod censuram nullam Apocryphis adjungant; ●ed nec aliam aliquam notam unde possit lector colligere minus illos Apocryphis tribuisse, quam veris tribuerint Evangeliis. Ind prona est suspicio siqua fortè lo●a produxerint cum nostris consentientia, nullo ●amen certo id factum esse consilio, quo cons●itutum fuerat res dubias è Canonicis esse confirmandas; fierique adeo posse ut & illa similia ex aliis tamen, quam quae habemus, deprom●a fuerint Evangelii●▪ Sed quid ego libros memo 'em minin è Canonicos? Nè quidem è Cano●● is 〈…〉 constat Ecclesiae inpotu●s●e Evangeli●, atque Ecclesiasticis in usu ●uisse vulgari. Non ●olent ill●us aevi Scriptores ●ovi Test●menti locis Scripta sua velut opere 〈…〉, qui tamen recentiorum mos est, qui & suus erat in illis quas agnoscebant ipsi Scriptures: Veteris enim Testamen●i libros proferunt saepissimè, pro●●● i procul●ubio & no●i Testamenti Scripta, si & illa 〈◊〉 in Canonem recepta. Essatum Domini nostri profort Sanctus Paulus, Act. 20. 35 〈◊〉▪ Scripto al●quo produxit, non 〈…〉 Evangelio. Sic lat●●rant in 〈◊〉 ●●rrarum angulis. in quibus Scripta fuera●●, Evang●lio, ut ne quidem re●cive●int recentiores Evangeli● quid scripsis sent de i●●dem rebu● antiqu●o●●s Aliter foret ne tot essent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, quae ferè à prima usque Canonis constitutione Eruditorum H●minum ingenia exercuerint. Ce●●è Sanctus Lucas si Genealogiam illam Domini in Matthaeo vidisset, non alia● ipse, nihilque fe●è habentem communè, produxisset, nè quidem minima consilii tam diversi edita ratione. Et cum novae Scriptionis edit in praesatione causam, quod ipse 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 narrationibus adjutus eam fue●it aggressus, id planè innuit desti●utos hoc subsidio suisse visorum à se Evangeliorum auctores, ita nimirum non fuisse ipso 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut nè quidem 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cum cura aliqua & se sulitate consuluerínt, vacil●are proinde meritó ●ue dubiam eorum fuisse fidem; ut planè alios fuisse necesse sit Evang●licae H●storiae Scritores a Lu●● visos, à nostris, quos habemus, Evangelistis. Dissert. 1. in Iren. 99 38, 39  The Canonical Writings lay concealed in the Coffers of private Churches or Persons, till the later Times of TRAJAN; or rather perhaps of ADRIAN; so that they could not come to the Knowledge of the whole Church. For if they had been published, they would have been overwhelmed under such a Multitude as were then of Apocryphal and Supposititious Books, that a new Examination and a new Testimony would be necessary to distinguish 'em from these false ones. And it is from this New Testimony (whereby the genuine Writings of the Apostles were distinguished from the spurious Pieces which went under their Names) that depends all the Authority which the truly Apostolic Writings have formerly obtained, or which they have at present in the Catholic Church. But this fresh Attestation of the Canon is subject to the same Inconveniencies with those Traditions of the Ancient Persons that I defend, and whom IRENAEUS both herd and saw: for it is equally distant from the Original, and could not be made, except by such only as had reached those remote Times. But 'tis very certain, that before the Period I mentioned of TRAJAN's time, the Canon of the Sacred Books was not yet fixed, nor any certain number of Books received in the Catholic Church, whose Authority must ever after serve to determine Matters of Faith; neither were the spurious Pieces of Heretics yet rejected, nor were the faithful admonished to beware of them for the future. Likewise the true Writings of the Apostles used to be so bound up in one Volume with the Apocryphal, that it was not manifest by any Mark or public Censure of the Church, which of 'em should be preferred to the other. We have at this Day certain most authentic Ecclesiastic Writers of those times, as CLEMENS ROMANUS, BARNABAS, HERMAS, IGNATIUS, and POLYCARPUS, who wrote in this same Order wherein I have named 'em, and after all the other Writers of the New Testament, except Iu●● and the two john's. But in H●RM●S you shall not meet with one Passage, or any mention of the New Testament: Nor in all the rest is any one of the Evangelists called by his own Name. And if sometimes they cite any Passages like those we read in our Gospels, yet you'll find 'em so much changed, and for the most part so interpolated, that it cannot be known whether they produced them out of ours, or some Apocryphal Gospels: nay, they sometimes cite Passages, which it is most certain are not in the present Gospels. From hence therefore it is evident, that no difference was yet put by the Church between the Apocryphal and Canonical Books of the New Testament; especially if it be considered, that they pass no Censure on the Apocryphal, nor leave any Mark whereby the Reader might discern that they attributed less Authority to the spurious than to the genuine Gospels: from whence it may reasonably be suspected, that if they cite sometimes any Passages conformable to ours, it was not done through any certain design, as if dubious things were to be confirmed only by the Canonical Books; so as it is very possible that both those and the like Passages may have been borrowed from other Gospels besides these we now have. But what need I mention Books that were not Canonical? when indeed it does not appear from those of our Canonical Books which were last written, that the Church knew any thing of the Gospels, or that Clergymen themselves made a common use of 'em. The Writers of those times do not chequer their Works with Texts of the New Testament, which yet is the Custom of the Moderns, and was also theirs in such Books as they acknowledged for Scripture; for they most frequently cite the Books of the Old Testament, and would doubtless have done so by those of the New, if they had then been received as Canonical. St. PAUL citys a Saying of our Lord in the Acts of the Apostles; 
Act. 20. 35.  which, if he had it out of any Writing, was not certainly out of these we now have. The Gospels continued so concealed in those Corners of the World where they were written, that the latter Evangelists knew nothing of what the Precedent wrote: Otherwise there had not been so many apparent Contradictions, which, almost since the first Constitution of the Canon, have exercised the Wits of learned Men. Surely if St. LUKE had seen that Genealogy of our Lord which is in St. MATTHEW, he would not himself have produced one wholly different from the other, without giving the least Reason for this Diversity. And when in the Preface to his Gospel he tells the occasion of his Writing; which is, that he undertook it, being furnished with the Relations of such as were Eye-witnesses of what he writes, he plainly intimats, that the Authors of the Gospels which he had seen, were destitute of this Help: So that neither having seen themselves what they relate, nor with any Care or Diligence consulted such as had seen them, their Credit was therefore dubious and suspected; whence it must necessarily follow, that the Writers of those Gospels, which LUKE had seen, were not at all the same with our present Evangelists. So far Mr. DODWELL; and (excepting the Genuinness of the Epistles of CLEMENS, BARNABAS, and the rest; for they are incontestably ancient) I agree with him that the Matters of Fact are all true; tho' I am far from drawing the same Inference from 'em as he has done, that there is an equal Proof for Episcopacy as for the Canon of Scripture, which is the Testimony of the Fathers of the Second and Third Centuries; and that the Discipline was better known, and preserved than the Doctrine of the Apostles. Whoever has an Inclination to write on this Subject is furnished from this Passage with a great many curious Disquisitions, wherein to show his Penetration and Judgement, as how the immediate Successors and Disciples of the Apostles could so grossly confound the genuine Writings of their Masters, with such as were falsely attributed to them; or since they were in the dark about these Matters so early, how came such as followed 'em by a better Light; why all those Books which are cited by CLEMENS and the rest should not be counted equally Authentic; and what stress should be laid on the Testimony of those Fathers, who not only contradict one another, but are often inconsistent with themselves in their Relations of the very same Facts; with a great many other Difficulties, which deserve a clear resolution from any capable Person, tho' none may safely propose 'em but Mr. DODWELL, who I heartily wish were always as free and unprejudiced as he is really learned.  
THUS have I defended and explained myself against Mr. BLACHALL's Accusation: nor do I question but I have given entire Satisfaction to all impartial Men, and lovers of Truth. But there's another sort of People whom I despair of ever contenting. These never fail of finding in the Writings of their Adversary, not what is there, but what they have a mind should be so, to represent him odious or dangerous. All the Protestations in the World can signify nothing with them; nor is it more safe than otherwise to prove the contrary of what is laid to one's Charge; for they are sagacious enough to discover the hidden Poison of every Word, and will be sure to give loud warning of the Danger, to show where the Snake lies in the Grass, and to tell what's in the Belly of the Trojan Horse. But I shall not be in great pain how such People apprehend me, if I have the Happiness to please the moderate and discerning part of Mankind.   

The Complete HISTORY OF Icon Basilike.  
MR. BLACKHALL, who, by a public Provocation, would needs engage me in a Controversy about spurious Books, has not confined me to expose the Impostures of Antiquity alone, tho' it be pretty plain, that this is Employment enough for one body; but he likewise accuses me of not being more favourable to a Modern Saint, as he is pleased to style King CHARLES the First. That excellent Book, which, he says, was composed by himself in the time of his Distresses, will, he supposes, be an everlasting Evidence of his profiting under his Sufferings to after Ages, notwithstanding the Endeavours that have been formerly used to prove it spurious, and the Confidence of a late Writer (the Author of MILTON's Life) asserting it to be so, without either producing any new Evidence for the Proof of his Assertion; or offering one Word in answer to those just and rational Exceptions that had been made before to those only Testimonies which he insists upon to prove it a Forgery; or making any Exceptions to those later Evidences that have been produced to prove it Authentic. Whether this Book was composed by himself is our Business at present to inquire, and shall be quickly determined: for as to his improving by his Sufferings I will not deny what I hope, and Charity commands me to believe. The Reason why I produced no new Evidence to prove the spuriousness of Icon Basilike was, because I thought the old ones sufficient. I vouchsafed no Answer to the Exceptions made to those Testimonies, because I neither thought 'em just nor reasonable. And I would not discuss the Facts that have been since alleged to prove the Book Authentic, because I intended not before to write a just Dissertation on this Subject, and so was not obliged to mention all the Particulars relating to it. If Mr. BLACKHALL does not think this Answer satisfactory, I shall make amends now for all former Omissions; and, being very desirous to content him, will follow that same Method he was pleased to chalk me out in his Sermon.  
IN the first place therefore, to make this Discourse complete, and that the Evidence of the several Parts whereof it consists, may the better appear by laying 'em all together, I shall here insert the Abstract which I made of Dr. WALKER's Book in MILTON's Life, with ANGLESEY's Memorandum, and the other Testimonies; I shall secondly give particular Answers to the Exceptions that have been made to all these Pieces: And lastly, show the invalidity of the Facts which are alleged to prove King CHARLES the First was the true Author of Icon Basilike. I have not undertaken this Work out of Affection or Opposition to any Party, nor to reflect on the Memory of that unfortunat Prince, whose officious Friends are much more concerned; but to clear myself from a public Charge, and to discover a pious Fraud, which deserves not to be exempted from Censure for being the Contrivance of a Modern Bishop, no more than those of the ancient Fathers of the Church.  
THE Relation of the whole Fact in MILTON's Life is after this manner.  
In the Year 1686, Mr. MILLINGTON happening to sell the late Lord ANGLESEY's Library by Auction, put up an Ikon Basilike; and a few bidding very low for it, he had leisure to turn over the Leaves, when to his great Surprise he perceived written with the same noble Lord's own Hand, the following Memorandum.  
KING CHARLES' the Second, and the Duke of York, did both (in the last Sessions of Parliament, 1675▪ when I showed them in the Lord's House the written Copy of this Book, wherein are some Corrections and Alterations written with the late King CHARLES the First's own Hand) assure me, that this was none of the said King's compiling, but made by Dr. GAUDEN Bishop of Exeter; which I here insert for the undeceiving of others in this point, by attesting so much under my own H●nd.  
ANGLESEY.  
This occasioned the World to talk; and several knowing the Relation which the late Dr. ANTHONY WALKER, an Essex Divine, had to Bishop GAUDEN, they enquired of him what he knew concerning this Subject, which he then verbally communicated to them: But being afterwards highly provoked by Dr. HOLLINGSWORTH's harsh and injurious Reflections, he was obliged in his own Defence to print an Account of that Book, wherein are sufficient Answers to all the Scruples or Objections that can be made, and whereof I here insert an exact Epitome. He tells us in the first place, that Dr. GAUDEN was pleased to acquaint him with the whole Design, and showed him the Heads of divers Chapters, with some others that were quite finished: and that Dr. GAUDEN ask his Opinion of the thing and he declaring his Dissatisfaction that the World should be so imposed upon, GAUDEN bid him look on the Title, which was the King's Portraiture; for that no Man is supposed to draw his own Picture. A very nice Evasion! he further acquaints us, that some time after this, being both in London, and having dined together, Dr. GAUDEN took him along with him to Dr. DUPPA the Bishop of Salisbury (whom he made also privy to his Design) to fetch what Papers he had left before for his perusal, or to show him what he had since written: and that upon their return from th●● place, after GAUDEN and DUPPA were a while in private together, the former told him the Bishop of Salisbury wished he had thought upon two other Heads, the Ordinance against the Common Prayer Book, and the denying his Majesty the Attendance of his Chaplains; but that DUPPA desired him to finish the rest, and he would take upon him to write two Chapters on those Subjects, which accordingly he did. The reason, it seems, why Dr. GAUDEN himself would not perform this, was, first, that during the Troubles he had forborn the use of the Liturgy, which he did not extraordinarily admire; and secondly, that he had never been the King's Chaplain, whereas Dr. DUPPA was both his Chaplain, his Tutor, and a Bishop, which made him more concerned about these Particulars. Thirdly, Dr. WALKER informs us that Dr. GAUDEN told him he had sent a Copy of Icon Basilike by the Marquis of Hartford to the King in the Isle of Wight; where it was, we may be sure, that he made those Corrections and Alterations with his own Pen, mentioned in my Lord ANGLESEY's Memorandum: and which gave occasion to some then about him that had accidentally seen, or to whom he had shown the Book, to believe the whole was his own. Fourthly, Dr. GAUDEN, after the Restoration, told Dr. WALKER, that the Duke of York knew of his being the real Author, and had owned it to be a great Service; in consideration of which, it may be, the Bishopric of Winchester, tho' he was afterwards put off with that of Worcester was promised him. And, notwithstanding it was then a Secret, we now know that in expectation of this Translation, the great House on Clapham Common was built indeed in the Name of his Brother Sir DENYS, but really to be a Mansion●house for the Bishops of Winchester. Fifthly, Dr. WALKER, says, that Mr. GAUDEN the Doctor's Son, his Wife, himself, and Mr. GIFFORD who transcribed it, did believe it as firmly as any Fact done in the place where they were; and that in that Family they always spoke of it among themselves (whether in Dr. GAUDEN's Presence or Absence) as undoubtedly written by him, which he never contradicted. We learn, Sixthly, that Dr. GAUDEN, after part of it was printed, gave to Dr. WALKER with his own Hand what was last sent to London; and after showing him what it was, sealed it, giving him cautionary Directions how to deliver it, which he did on Saturday the 23d of December, 1648. for Mr. ROYSTON the Printer, to Mr. PEACOCK Brother to Dr. GAUDEN's Steward, who, after the Impression was finished, gave him, for his Trouble, six BOOKS, whereof he always kept one by him. To these Particulars Dr. WALKER adds, that the Reason why the Covenant is more favourably mentioned in Ikon Basilike, than the King or any other of his Party would do, was because Dr. GAUDEN himself had taken it: That in the Devotional part of this Book there occur several Expressions which were habitual to GAUDEN in his Prayers, which always in private and public were conceived or extemporary; and that to his Knowledge it was Dr. GAUDEN, being best acquainted with the Beauty of his own Sayings, who made that Collection of Sentences out of Ikon Basilike, entitled, Apophthegmata Caroliniana. These and some Observations about the same individual Persons variation of Style on different Subjects, with the facility and frequency of personating others, may be further considered in Dr. WALKERS Original Account. In this condition stood the Reputation of this Book, till the last and finishing discovery of the Imposture was made after this manner. Mr. ARTHUR NORTH, a Merchant now living on Tower hill, London, a Man of good Credit, and a Member of the Church of England, married the Sister of her that was Wife to the Doctor's Son, CHARLES' GAUDEN, who dying, left some Papers with his Widow, among which Mr. NORTH, being concerned about his Sister in Law's Affairs, found a whole Bundle relating to Ikon Basilike: These Papers old Mrs. GAUDEN left to her darling Son JOHN, and he to his Brother CHARLES. There is first a Letter from Secretary NICHOLAS to Dr. GAUDEN. 2. The Copy of a Letter from Bishop GAUDEN to Chancellor HYDE, where, among his other Deserts, he pleads that what was done like a King, should have a Kinglike Retribution; and that his design in it was to comfort and encourage the King's Friends, to expose his Enemies, and to convert, etc. There is, 3. The Copy of a Letter from the Bishop to the Duke of York, wherein he strongly urges his Services. 4. A Letter under Chancellor HYDE's own Hand, dated the 13th of March, 1661. wherein he expresses his uneasiness under the Bishop's importunity, and excuses his inability yet to serve him: but towards the Conclusion it contains these remarkable Words: The Particular you mention has indeed been imparted to me as a Secret; I am sorry I ever knew it: and when it ceases to be a Secret, it will please none but Mr. MILTON. There are other Papers in this Bundle, but particularly a long Narrative of Mrs. GAUDEN's own writing, irrefragably showing her Husband to be Author of Ikon Basilike. It entirely confirms Dr. WALKER's Account, and contains most of the Facts we have hitherto related, with many other curious Circumstances too long to be here inserted, yet too extraordinary not to be known; wherefore I refer the Reader to the Original Paper, or to the faithful Extract made out of it before several learned and worthy Persons, and which is printed in a Paper entitled, Truth brought to Light Thus came all the World to be convinced of this notorious Imposture; which as it was dexterously contrived, and most cunningly improved by a Party whose Interest obliged 'em to keep the Secret, so it happened to be discovered by very nice and unforeseen Accidents. Had not GAUDEN been disappointed of Winchester, he had never pleaded his Merit in this Affair; nor would his Wife have written her Narrative, had King CHARLES the Second bestowed one half Years Rend on her after her Husband's decease; which, upon her Petition, and considering her numerous Family, none could imagine should be refused. It was a slighter Accident that begot a a Confession from two Kings, and Charles' own Sons. And I doubt if any other than one of Mr. MILLINGTON's great Curiosity, and no Bigotry, had the disposal of my Lord ANGLESEY's Books, we should never have heard of the Memorandum. Had not Dr. HOLLINGWORTH's indiscreet Zeal provoked the only Man then alive who had any personal knowledge of this Business, Dr. WALKER had never published his Account; nor would the whole Discovery be so complete, without the least Intricacy or Question, without Mr. NORTH's Papers.  
THIS is the complete History of Ikon Basilike, as it is supposed to be a Forgery; and we must next proceed to examine the Exceptions made to it, as they are collected by Mr. WAGSTAF in his Vindicatiof King CHARLES the Martyr. To begin with my Lord ANGLESEY's Memorandum, 'tis urged, that it does not particularly express by the Date whether it meant the last Session of Parliament before the writing of it, or the last Session of the Year 75. when it is plain that he meant the last or Winter Session; and that it was therefore the immediate Session preceding the writing of this Memorandum. To say that there is no Witness to it is a very singular sort of Objection, when his Lordship's Relations, and all that have seen this and his other Writings, own it to be his Hand. It is not likely that there were any Witnesses of the Royal Brother's telling him their Opinion of Icon Basilike: Nor is there any thing more common than for learned or great Men to leave such Memorandums in a Book concerning the Author of it when it was a Question, or about any other Secret relating to it, which they thought they had discovered; and yet 'tis a thing unheard till now, that they were denied to be theirs whose Names they bear, because the Day of the Month was not mentioned, nor the Names of any Witnesses added, when the Hand was confessed to be the same with their other Writings. Many instances of this kind appear in the Books of Mr. HAMDEN lately sold, and whereof I have some to show, as in the Book entitled, Apollonii Grallae, he writes, that LANSBERGIUS was the Author of it, of whom he there gives a Character.  
IT is no just Exception to this Memorandum, that my Lord ANGLESEY did not communicate the Contents of it to any of his Friends or Relations: for tho' the Two Royal Brothers imparted the Secret to him, it does by no means follow, that they intended he should publish it to the World. And supposing they did not oblige him to silence, yet 'tis probable that his Lordship was not very fond of being disturbed by the Clamours of some Churchmen, who carried things so high at that time, that I do not believe they would pardon such a Discovery to either of the Brothers themselves. There was never any poor Prince more notoriously abused by many of those he took for his best Friends than CHARLES the First. They put him on all those unhappy Measures which proved his Ruin in the end. And as they made use of his Temper to serve their own Purposes when he was alive, so they did of his Name for the same Reason after his Death. They were not concerned so much for his Honour, as their own Interest; and having contrived this Forgery to carry their Cause, they thought themselves afterwards obliged to support it. Mr. WAGSTAF affirms that there is no presumption that the Royal Brothers communicated this Affair to any other Person besides my Lord ANGELSEY, which is a negative Argument, and proves nothing. 'Tis possible enough that my Lord ANGLESEY himself told of this to others, tho' they may be since dead, or are not willing to tell it again. If the Royal Brothers had spoke of it to no body else, it follows not that a Secret was never committed to one, because it was not to more; as if it were necessary for a Man to call Witnesses that he imparted a Secret to his Friend. But we shall presently allege more than a Presumption, that both King CHARLES' the Second and the late King JAMES declared their Opinion to other People besides my Lord ANGLESEY, that Icon Basilike was not their Father's Book.  
By such nice Cavils against the Memorandum we can easily judge of the Exceptions we may expect to Dr. WALKER's Account. That GAUDEN hoped o make a Fortune by this Book, as well as to promote the Cause of the Church, aught by no means to be counted strange; for who is it, pray, that serves the King any more than God, for nought? Have not most of the Bishops and other Clergymen of those times, that either lived deprived here in England, or that accompanied CHARLES the Second in his Exile, pleaded their Loyalty, and magnified their Services at the Restoration, as many others would questionless do, if King JAMES should ever return again? Were not great Persons employed to solicit and make an Interest for them? And, in a Word, are not Divines observed to make the same Steps, and take the same Measures that all other sorts of Men do to get Preferment. I should rather doubt that Dr. GAUDEN was not the Author of this Forgery, if he had not expected a Reward for it from CHARLES the Second; for 'tis certain, that the Credit of Icon Basilike contributed more to his Establishment than any other single Motive whatsoever. But 'tis well known that this Prince was not the kindest in the World to his Father's Friends, who would too often forget his own; and that it was not the Interest of some People to have this business unravelled, tho' their impolitic Conduct has been since the occasion of divulging what every body suspected before.  
THE Immorality of this Forgery is urged as an Argument against it; and, if it could by any means hold Water, is indeed an Argument worth a Million. Then it would clearly follow that because it was a most immoral thing to lie for God, and to forge Books, Epistles, or the like, under the Names of CHRIST and his Apostles, there were therefore never any such Pieces; and that because it was an ill thing to feign Miracles, or to destroy men's Lives for the Advancement of Religion, there never was therefore any Priestcraft, nor any of these infamous Practices known in the World. But if the contrary be as clear as the Day, I believe Men might be found that would make as bold with the Name of King CHARLES, as others have done with that of King JESUS. Mr. WAGSTAF knows, tho' Mr. BLACKHALL does not, that TERTULLIAN 
* De Baptismo, c. 17. etiam Hiero●ym. in Catalogo Scriptor. Eccles.  tells us of a certain Presbyter of Asia, who when he was accused of having forged a Book containing the Travels of PAUL and THECLA, confessed the Fact, and alleged that he did it for the love of PAUL, and I say, that Dr. GAUDEN wrote Icon Basilike for the Church's sake, the King's, and his own.  
AS for the plausible Accounts given in that Book of the King's Secret Intentions, his particular Troubles, his Remorses of Consciences, and the like, it is very ridiculous to allege 'em as an Argument of the Genuinness of it, when the Book was written for that very end. For the Design of the Author was to give such a Colour to all the King's Actions, and to tell such fine things of his gracious Purposes, as would beget a better Opinion of him in the Readers Mind, and move his Indignation against the Parliament, or Compassion of his Misfortunes. But that Dr. GAUDEN has frequently made the King's Thoughts to contradict his Actions, is evident to any Man that has both read Icon Basilike, and the History of those times: And this Subject is thoroughly handled by JOHN MILTON in his Iconoclastes, to which I refer those who want Satisfaction.  
BUT there is an Objection still behind, and as strong, be sure, as any of the rest, which is that Dr. WALKER did not see Dr. GAUDEN write this Book, nor tells us that it was in his own Hand. But I believe Mr. WAGSTAF is the only Man living that questions whether Dr. WALKER meant Dr. GAUDEN's own Writing, when he says, that before the whole was finished Dr. GAUDEN was pleased to acquaint him with his Design, and show him the Heads of divers Chapters, with some of the Discourses written of them, and that Mr. GIFFORD transcribed a Copy of it. This is all that can be said of any Author in the World: and if Dr. WALKER had said more expressly, or rather superfluously, that it was likewise D. GAUDEN's Handwriting, we should then have been told, that it was a Transcript from the King's Copy in the Hands of Mr. symmond's, of which more hereafter.  
WE proceed now to those Pieces commonly called Mr. NORTH's Papers, he being the Discoverer. Chancellor HYDE in his Letter to Dr. GAUDEN, tells him, as was said before, That the Particular he mentioned had indeed been imparted to him as a Secret, which he was sorry he ever knew; and that when it ceased to be a Secret, it would please none but Mr. MILTON. Was there no other Secret in the World but this, says Mr. WAGSTAF, that the divulging of it would gratify Mr. MILTON? Yes doubtless; but I believe not one that would please none but Mr. MILTON, as the Chancellor expresses it: For he having particularly questioned the Genuinness of this Book, and offered a fair Proof of the Spuriousness thereof from intrinsic Evidence only, without any further Light; would be extremely pleased to find his Reasonings and Judgement confirmed by undeniable Matters of Fact. Nor does any indifferent Person in the World understand this Passage otherwise that weighs Dr. GAUDEN's Pretences with Mr. MILTON's Concern, and considers that Mrs. GAUDEN put this and the other Papers relating to Icon Basilike in one Bundle, together with her own Narrative, for the Information of her Son. Besides that all those who ever saw other Writings of the Chancellor own this to be his Hand, and particularly his eldest Son, the present Farl of CLARENDON, as Mr. WAGSTAF himself acknowledges.  
BUT he says, That my Lord CLARENDON, (from whom he had it in a Letter) by leave of the King and Queen preparing to attend his Father in France in the beginning of the Summer, 1674. his Lordship went first to Farnham to the late Bishop of Winton the 14th of May, and among several things he had in Charge from the Bishop to his Father, he bade him tell him, that the King had very ill People about him, who turned all things into Ridicule; that they endeavoured to bring him to have a mean Opinion of the King his Father, and to persuade him that he was not the Author of the Book which goes under his Name. And (when after his Lordship's Arrival in France, the 30th. of the same Month, he had delivered his Father these Particulars among others) to that concerning the Book, his Father replied, Good God I thought the Marquis of Hartford had satisfied the King in that Matter. From hence Mr. WAGSTAF would infer, that my Lord Chancellor did not believe any other besides CHARLES' the First to be the Author of Icon Basilike, and that he wondered any should go about to induce CHARLES' the Second to question it. But for my part I think it very plain on the contrary, that he believed King CHARLES the First not to be the Author of that Book, and wondered that King CHARLES the Second should not understand so much from the Marquis of Hartford, who, as Dr. WALKER, and Mrs. GAUDEN inform us, was the Person that carried the Manuscript to the King in the Isle of Wight, and so next to Dr. GAUDEN himself, was best able to convince his Son of the Truth. Moreover, how could the Bishop of Winton imagine that the ill People about CHARLES the Second could bring him to doubt of his Father's being the Author of Icon Basilike, if he really knew it to be written by him? when upon this Supposition he was rather capable of satisfying all those who had any Scruples in this Affair.  
AS for Dr. GAUDEN'S great Services, and his saying in a Letter to the Chancellor, That what was done like a King, should have a Kinglike Retribution, Mr. WAGSTAF says that those are Mystical Expressions, and that by them he might probably mean a Book he wrote against the Covenant, and a Protestation he published against the King's Death, neither of which could be termed such extraordinary Services, when many others had done the same, and more: much less could it be said that either of these Books was done like a King, or deserved a Kinglike Retribution; whereas Mr. WAGSTAF, and those who are of his Opinion, maintain that the the Style and Matter of Icon Basilike are so like a King's, that no Subject could possibly write it: but a Multtiude of others agree with me, that the Style is infinitely liker that of a Doctor than a King.  
LASTLY, It is objected that Dr. WALKER's and Mrs. GAUDEN's Testimonies contradict one another. But how? Dr. WALKER says, that Dr. GAUDEN told him he did not know if CHARLES' the First had seen the Book: but Mrs. GAUDEN affirms, that the Marquis of Hartford told her Husband the King had seen and approved it, both which Assertions are consistent enough together. For Dr. GAUDEN might be ignorant that the King had seen it, when Dr. WALKER asked him that Question, who perhaps never mentioned it to him again in their Discourses about this Matter, or might easily forget it, as he says he did several other Particulars, little foreseeing he should ever be obliged to make this Discovery: and besides we must upon all Accounts allow his Wife to know more Circumstances of th●s Business, as of most others, than his Friend. The next supposed Contradiction is, that Dr. WALKER says Dr. GAUDEN once told him, after the Restoration, that he did not positively and certainly know if King CHARLES' the Second knew he wrote Icon Basilike, tho' he believ●d he might, because the Duke of York did, who owned it to have been a seasonable and acceptable Service. But Mrs. GAUDEN affirms, that her Husband acquainted the King with it himself, which is very true. But pray let us examine at what time. After his Discourse with Dr. WALKER most certainly: For does she not in clear and direct Terms say, that it was in his last Sickness, which proved Mortal to him; and that the Reason of it was, because he saw some Persons who were privy to it desire nothing more than to have it concealed, which he was not willing it should be in consideration of his numerous Family, to whom it might sometime or other do seasonable Service?  
NOW that no Mistakes may be occasioned hereafter by imperfect Fragments of Mrs. GAUDEN's Narrative, and that this Affair may be set in the clearest Light, I shall, before I proceed to the Examination of the positive Testimonies produced for the King, insert the Narrative here at large, as it was exactly copied from the Original, to which the curious are referred.  

Mrs. GAVDEN's NARRATIVE.  
MY Husband understanding the great Value and Esteem the People had of CROMWELL and of others in the Army, occasioned by the high Opinion which they had of their Parts, and Piety; he being also well assured, that one of the main Designs of those wicked Politicians, was to Eclipse his Majesty that then was, as much as might be, and to give a false Misrepresentation of him to the World; he, that he might do his Majesty right, did pen that Book which goes by the Name of the King's●Book. The Title which he gave it then was Suspiria Regalia; and the Design was to have it put forth as by some Person who had found the Papers in his Majesty's Chambers at Holmeby, being by chance left or scattered there. And to this purpose he had prefixed an Epistle, which might be supposed to be written by that Person, who having found them by that Accident, thought it not fit to conceal them. His Design also in the Book, was to give such a Character of her Majesty to the World, as her great Worth, extreme Merits, and admirarable Endowments deserved. when my Husband had writ it, he showed it to my Lord CAPEL, who did very highly approve of it; and though he thought it would do very well to have it printed, yet he said it was not fit to do so without his Majesty's Approbation; and to come to speak to his Majesty in private was then impossible, in regard of the strict Guard which they kept about him. Immediately after this there was a Treaty with his Majesty at the Isle of Wight, whereupon my Husband went to my Lord Marquis of Hartf●rd that then was, and to him delivered the Manuscript, and he delivered it to the King at the Isle of Wight, and likewise told him who the Author was. When my Lord Marquis returned; my Husband went to him, to whom my Lord said, That his Majesty having had some of those Essays read to him by Bishop DUPPA, did exceedingly approve of them, and asked whether they could not be put out in some other Name. The Bishop replied, that the Design was, that the World should take them to be his Majesty's. Whereupon his Majesty desired time to consider of it; and this (says my Lord) is all the Account I can give of it: What is become of the Manuscript I know not, and what will become of his Majesty God knows. Upon this my Husband told my Lord Marquis, That, in his Opinion, there was no way so probable to save his Majesty's Life, as by endeavouring to move the Hearts and Affections of the People as much as might be towards him; and that he also thought that that Book would be very effectual for that purpose. Then my Lord bad my Husband to do what he would, in regard the Case was desperate. Then immediately my Husband resolved to print it with all speed that might be, he having a Copy of that which he sent to the King, and that he printed was just the same, only he then added, the Essay upon their denying his Majesty the Attendance of his Chaplains, and the Meditation of Death, after the Votes of the Non-addresses, and his Majesty's close Imprisonment at Carisbrook Castle. Now the Instrument which my Husband employed to get it printed, was one Mr. simmond's, a Divine, and a great Sufferer for his Majesty; and he got one Mr. ROYSTON to print it; which ROYSTON never knew any thing but that it was of his Majesty's own penning: my Husband did then alter the Title of it, and called it Icon Basilike. Now when it was about half printed, they, who were in power, found the Press where it was printing, and likewise a Letter of my Husbands, which he sent up to the Press; whereupon they destroyed all that they then found printed, but could not find out from whence the Letter came, in regard it had no Name to it. Notwithstanding all this, my Husband attempted the printing of it again, but could by no means get it finished till some few Days after his Majesty was destroyed. When it was come out, they who were then in Power were not only extremely displeased at it, but also infinitely solicitous to find out the Author of it, thinking it very improbable that his Majesty should write it, in regard of the great Disturbances and Troubles which for many Years he had suffered: or at least impossible that he should have writ it all; for after the Attendance of his Chaplains was denied him and he a close Prisoner, they well understood that he could not write any thing without their Discovery. They also took that very Manuscript which my Husband had sent his Majesty, and saw that it was none of his Majesty's Handwriting. Upon this they appointed a Committee to examine the Business; of which my Husband having notice, he went privately in the Night away from his own House to Sir JOHN WENTWORTH'S, who lived near Yarmouth, and him he acquainted with the Business, and the great Danger he was then in: when Sir JOHN did not only promise to conceal him, but also to convey him out of England, it being in his Power to give Passes to go beyond Sea. About this time Mr. symmond's was taken in a Disguise; but God in his Providence so ordered it, that he sickened immediately, and died before h● came to his Examination: nor could the Committee find out any thing by any means whatever; which altered my Husband's Resolutions of going out of England. Now, besides these Circumstances, to a●●ert the Truth of what I say, I can produce some Letters, which, I am sure, will put it out of all Dispute. My Husband continued at Bo●king till the return of his Majesty King CHARLES the Second; and upon his Restoration, knowing his Princely Disposition, did not unjustly expect a suitable Reward for his Endeavours to serve his Majesty's Father and himself in that Book. And meeting with Dr. MORLEY, he fell into Discourse how sensible he was of the great Service which he had done his present Majesty and the Royal Family, in composing and setting forth that excellent Piece, called the King's Book; and also assured him, that it had been very effectual not only at home, but abroad, to move the Hearts and Affections of People towards his Majesty, instancing in several Persons who were most exceedingly affected with it; and so advantageous he said it had been to his Majesty, that according to his great Merit, he might have what Preferment he desired. Dr. MORLEY also told him, That he had acquainted Sir EDWARD HYDE with the Business, and that he did very much commend and admire it: but we have not (said he) acquainted his Majesty with it, but did assure him, that his Majesty did set a high Value upon the Book, and had commanded Dr. EARL to translate into Latin; some having taken the Pains to put it into other Languages before. My Husband being encouraged by this Discourse of Dr. MORLEY'S, and shortly after meeting with Dr. SHELDON (who he knew was not ignorant that he was the only Author of the forementioned Book) he told Dr. SHELDON, that since he had been informed that his Majesty, out of his Princely Disposition, would (without doubt) when once acquainted with it, reward that Service which he had endeavoured to do his Father and himself; he thought it most convenient for himself, and also that he might be serviceable to his Majesty in the Diocese of London (a Place where he was well known) if it would please his Majesty to make him Bishop of that See. Dr. SHELDON was pleased, with a great deal of Gravity to tell him that was a great Leap at first. Whereupon my Husband desisted, and was resolved to leave his Preferment to God's dispose. Soon after this, the King being still ignorant of what he had done, he was by the Mediation of a Person perfectly ignorant of his Merit as to this Matter, made Bishop of Exeter; all the considerable Bishoprics being otherwise disposed of. Not long after this it pleased. God to visit my Husband with an Infirmity, which he had great cause to fear would (as it did) prove mortal to him. This made him resolve to acquaint the King with the whole Matter, and the rather, because he saw some Persons who were privy to it, desired nothing more than to have it concealed, and buried in Oblivion: but my Husband was not willing it should be so, in regard he had at that time four Sons living; and they (he thought) if he should die, might be capable of his Majesty's Favour. Besides, the Duke of Somerset was dead, and the Bishop of Winchester (the Person who was best able to attest it) was very ill. These Considerations made him go to his Majesty; and having the Opportunity of discoursing privately with him, he told him the whole Matter as I have related it, and for the Truth of it, appealed to Dr. DUPPA, than Bishop of Winchester, and formerly his Majesty's Tutor. The King then was pleased to entertain some Discourse with my Husband about it, and said that he did often wonder how his Father should have gotten Time and Privacy enough in his Troubles to compose so excellent a Piece, and written with so much Learning.  
BY the Extract that was published of this Narrative it would seem as if it were somewhat longer; but this is all that came to my Hands, two Witnesses attesting. that as far as it goes, it is exactly conformable to the Original. What Accident hindered the rest (if there be any) from being copied, I cannot certainly tell; tho', when ever I come by a true Information, I shall (if Occasion be) publish my Knowledge of that Particular, in an Appendix to this Book. The Substance of what remains in the Abstract, is, That when King CHARLES the Second (as we saw but now) was made acquainted with this Mystery, he gave a Promise to Dr. GAUDEN of the Bishopric of Winchester; and that the Duke of York had also assured him of his Favour: That upon Dr. DUPPA'S Death, tho' Dr. GAUDEN put the King in mind of his Promise, he was only made Bishop of Worcester, Dr. MORLEY having obtained the See of Winchester: That her Husband dying soon after, Mrs. GAUDEN petitioned the King, showing that she was left a Widow, with four Sons and a Daughter; that it cost her Husband 200l. to remove from Exeter to Worcester; and prayed his Majesty to bestow the half years' Rents upon her, which he denied, and gave then to another.  
WE learn further from Dr. WALKER, that immediately upon Dr. GAUDEN'S Nomination to the Bishopric of Worcester, he told him, that waiting upon the King the next Morning after the Bishop of Winchester's Death, he found a remarkable Alteration in him, his Majesty being pensive and out of Humour; in which Temper he still found him for two Mornings after: But having learned the third Day that my Lord Chancellor had by all his Interest pressed the King to bestow Winchester on Dr. MORLEY, he presumed to tell his Majesty how uneasy he perceived him to be between the Honour of his Word that he should succeed his Friend Dr. DUPPA, and the Importunity of those who solicited for Dr. MORL●Y; and that therefore he most willingly released his Majesty of his Promise. Here, continueth Dr. GAUDEN, the King stopped me, and vouchsafed to embrace me in his Arms, with these Expressions; My Lord, I thank you; and it may not be long ere I have Opportunity to show you how kindly I take it. And in the mean time you shall have Worcester; and, to make it to you as good as I can, all the Dignities of that Church (I know not how it comes to pass) being in my Disposal, I give you the diposing of them all during your time, that you may prefer your Friends, and have them near about you.  
IT was an ordinary thing with King CHARLES' the Second thus to forget his Promises, which made him frequently uneasy, and occasioned Sir WILLIAM TEMPLE (whom he had served after this manner) to faith of him in his incomparable Memoirs, That this Temper made him apt to fall into the Persuasions of whoever had his Kindness and Confidence for the time, how different soever from the Opinions he was of before: and that he was very easy to change Hands, when those he employed seemed to have engaged him in any Difficulties; so as nothing looked steady in the Conduct of his Affairs, nor aimed at any certain end.  
THUS we have done with the Narrative of Mrs. GAUDEN, who was often heard to relate the substance of it to her Friends and Relations, and who, when Dr. N●CHOLSON, than Bishop of Gloucester, did, on her receiving of the Sacrament, put the Question to her, affirmed, that her Husband wrote that Book, which several now living in that City do very well remember.  
WE come at length to the last Period of our Labour, and that is to show the Invalidity of the Facts which are alleged to prove CHARLES' the First was the true Author of Icon Basilike. And the first Evidence we shall hear is his own Son and Successor, CHARLES II. who granted his Letters Patents to Mr. ROYSTON for printing all his Father's Works, and particularly this Piece, which, says Mr. WACSTAF, contratradicts what he's believed to have said to my Lord ANGLES●Y. But with his good leave the Conclusision does not follow: for these Letters were issued out in the Year 60, before Dr. GAUDEN gave the King true Information; and it was in 75, that he told his Opinion to my Lord ANGLESEY long after he was convinced that his Father had not written the Book. But if King CHARLES' the Second had dissembled his Knowledge of this Affair, it had not been at all a thing inconsistent with this Character, but a Piece of his Grandfather's boasted Kingcraft, and which he practised on many less pardonable Occasions. Have not Princes in all Ages, as well as other Men, been allowed to keep things secret which it was not their Interest should be known, and which are commonly called by the Name of State Mysteries? How many Juggles are used by the Eastern Princes to beget an extraordinary Opinion of their Persons in the Minds of their Subjects, who, by the force of such fantastical Stories, carry their Respect even to Adoration? But what need I go out of England for Examples? When our own Kings have for so many Ages pretended to cure the King's Evil, by merely touching the affected Part; and this Power of Healing is said to be communicated to them by the Blessing of King EDWARD the Confessor, one of the weakest and most Priest ridden Princes that ever wore a Crown. All the Monkish Historians, and particularly the Abbot of Rievalle, who wrote his Life, have given us a large Catalogue of his Miracles: but I wonder why our Princes have not also pretended to restore Sight to the Blind; for this is also affirmed of King EDWARD'S Wonder working Touch. 'Tis strange, that a Protestant Bishop, should compose a Form of Divine Service to be read on this Occasion, when he might as warrantably believe all the other Legends of those dark and ignorant times. If I did persuade myself that King CHARLES the Second (who is said to have cured very many) was a Saint, it should be the greatest Miracle I could believe. But King WILLIAM, who came to 〈◊〉 us from Superstition as well as from Slavery, has now abolished this Remnant of Popery: For it is not, as his Enemies suggest, because he thinks his Title, which is the best in the World, defective, that he abstains from Touching; but because he laughs at the Folly, and scorns to take the Advantage of the Fraud. So much for the Letters Patents of CHARLES II. and we shall consider those of the late King JAMES in their due order.  
THE next Witness shall be Major HUNTINGTON, who (as Sir WILLIAM DUGDALE relates in his 
* P. 380.  short View of the Troubles of England) did, through the Favour of General FAIRFAX, restore to King CHARLES the First, after he was brought to Hampton-Court, the Manuscript of Icon Basilike written with the said King's own Hand, and found in his Cabinet at Naseby Fight. By the way, they should have said, for the Grace of the Story, part of the Manuscript; for a good deal of the Book was written afterwards, be the Author who you please. And they should have told us likewise how General FAIRFAX durst send one part of his Papers to the King, when he sent the rest to the Parliament; or, since they would make us believe he was so kind to the King, why he did not restore him all the Papers, when 'tis very evident, that those which the Parliament ordered to be published were infinitely of greater consequence, and made him a world of Enemies, which obliged the Author of Icon Basilike to write a Chapter on this very Subject; whereas the Papers in question would probably mollify some of his Opposers. But now when all is done, tho' General FAIRFAX was afterwards against putting the King to death, yet he was not at that time disposed to grant him any Favours, and acted with as hearty Zeal against him as any in the Nation, which appears by all the Histories of those times, as well as by his own and the Memoirs of the Lord HOLLIS. As for Major HUNTINGTON Dr. WALKER assures us, That he told him, when he heard such a Book was published and confidently reported to be the Kings, all he said was that he surely believed those were the Papers he saw him so usually take out of his Cabinet, and that he never read one Line or Word of them. This and Sir WILLIAM DUGDAIE'S Testimony are divers from that of Mr. RICHARD DUKE, of Otterton in Devon, who writes the following Letter to Dr. GOODAL, famous for his Zeal on the behalf of Icon Basilike. Sir, I confess that I heard Major HUNTINGTON to say more than once, that whilst he guarded CHARLES the First at Holmby-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. Then one Mr. CAVE BECK writes to Dr. HOLLINGWORTH That Major HUNTINGTON at Ipswich assured him that so much of the sa'd Book as contained his Majesty's Mediations before Naseby-●ight was taken in the King's Cabinet; and that Sir THOMAS FAIRFAX delivered the said Papers to him, and ordered him to carry them to the King; and also told him, that when he delivered them to the King, his Majesty appeared very joyful, and said he esteemed 'em more than all the Jewels he had lost in the Cabinet. This Major HUNTINGTON was a strange Man to vary so often in his Story, and to tell so much more or less to every body that enquir'd of him; but indeed 'tis no great Wonder that these Gentlemen should so widely differ from one another, both as to Time and Place, as well as to Matters of Fact, when Sir WILLIAM DUGDALE has printed under Major HUNTINGTON's Name quite another Story from the written Memorial out of which he had it. In his short View he positively says, as we read before, that the Manuscript was written with the King's own Hand: But in his Warrant for this, it is only said, as Mr. WAGSTAF himself acknowledges, that all the Chapters in it were written by the Hand of Sir EDWARD WALKER, but much corrected with Interlineations of the King's Hand, and that the Prayers were all so.  
NOW, to show further how cautiously People should rely on Sir WILLIAM DUGDALE, and Historians like him, we shall produce another remarkable Instance. In the Book before-quoted, he expressly writes, That Mr. HERBERT did often see the Icon Basilike while he waited on the King in the Isle of Wight; whereas all that Sir THOMAS (for he was Knighted after the Restoration) has said in the Manuscript which Sir WILLIAM perused, and whereof Mr. WAGSTAF has printed an Abstract, is, that he had there the Charge of the King's Books; and that those he most read, after the Sacred Scriptures, were Bishop Andrews' Sermons, HOOKER's Ecclesiastical Policy, VILLALPANDUS on EZEKIEL, SANDY's Paraphrase on the Psalms, HERBERT's Poems, the Translation of GODFREY of Bulloign by Mr. FAIRFAX, of ORLANDO FURIOSO by Sir JOHN HARRINGTON, and SPENCER's Fairy Queen (to which he might have added PEMBROKE's Arcadia.) And at this time it was, as is presumed, (continueth Sir THOMAS) that he composed his Book, called Suspiria Regalia, published soon after his Death, and entitled, The King's Portraiture in his Solitudes and Sufferings: which Manuscript Mr. HERBERT found among those Books his Majesty was pleased to give him, those excepted which he bequeathed to his Children hereafter mentioned. In regard Mr. HERBERT, tho' he did not see the King write that Book, his Majesty being always private when he writ; and those his Servants never coming into the Bed Chamber when the King was private, till he called; yet comparing it with his Handwriting in other things, he found it so very like as induces his Belief that it was his own, having seen much of the King's Writings before. Here Sir THOMAS only presumes the King might write the Book in the Isle of Wight, and directly says he never saw the King write it, nor the Book itself till after his Death; but Sir WILLIAM affirms from these very Papers (for they are said to be written at his Request by Sir THOMAS) that he often saw it in the Isle of Wight when he waited on the King in his Bedchamber. 'Tis to be observed, that the Title of Suspiria Regalia is as agreeable to Mrs. GAUDEN's Narrative, as the rest of the Particulars are different from Sir WILLIAM's Relation.  
BEFORE we examine the Force of Sir Thomas' Testimony, we must first consider what is said by Mr. LEVET, who attended the King at the same Time and Place. In short, he says, That of his own certain Knowledge he can depose the Book was truly the Kings, having observed his Majesty oftentimes writing his Royal Resentments of the bold and insolent Behaviour of his Soldiers when they had him in their Custody: That being nominated by his Majesty to be one of his Servants during the Treaty in the Isle of Wight, he had the Happiness to read the same oftentimes in Manuscript under his Majesty's own Hand, being pleased to leave it in the Window of his Bedchamber: And that when the King was removed to Hurst-Castle, he had the Charge of this Book, and a Cabinet of other Papers, which at the said Castle he delivered again to his Majesty; where, by the way, he does not inform us if the Book was distinctly given him from the Cabinet, or that he only concluded it was in it. Here are several very observable Circumstances: As, First, that altho' Mr. HERBERT who was of the King's Bed Chamber, never saw him write a Syllable of this Book, his (Majesty, he says, being always in private, when he wrote, and his Servants never coming into his Bedchamber till he called;) yet Mr. LEVET, a Page of the Back Stairs, often saw him write, knew what he wrote, and could read the Book when he pleased. Then that the King, who is said to value this Book more than all his Jewels, should so carelessly leave it in his Bedchamber when he was abroad, and where Mr. HERBERT and others, nay the very Soldiers might see it as well as Mr. LEVET, is not very likely. And lastly, that the King should have so much leisure to mind this Book during a Treaty with his Subjects, or would lose any time in writing of it, when the Business in agitation concerned no less than his re-establishment or Abdication, is not credible; besides, that there is nothing particularly written concerning the Insolence of the Soldiers in all Icon Basilike. And I have talked with Persons of Quality and good Reputation now alive, who had much more of his Majesty's Company and Confidence in the Isle of Wight than Mr. LEVET either shared, or could reasonably expect; but yet they neither dreamt of this Business then, nor believed a jot of it afterwards, as well knowing how the King spent his time in that place. But now supposing Mr. LEVET's Relation to be all true, yet it is very from amounting to a Proof, that King CHARLES the First was was the real Author of Icon Basilike, which is the Point in question; and not whether he interlined or transcribed it, which he ought to have done, if he had a mind it should pass for his own: besides that Dr. GAUDEN sent it to him for that very purpose, to be corrected, allowed, or laid aside, as his Majesty should think fit. But tho' the King in all reason might, and I really believe did, correct or interline a part, and perhaps transcribe the whole Book; yet I can by no means be persuaded that he could find Leisure enough to write so many Copies of it in his Solitudes and Sufferings, in the midst of Treaties, in the Hurry of Removals, while he meditated his Escape, and was strictly observed by his Guards. But these Gentlemen tell us of as many Copies, as the Papists show Heads of St. JOHN BAPTIST, or Quarts of the Virgin MARY's Milk. Mr. HERBERT had one left him by the King for a Legacy; CHARLES the Second (as Dr. CANARIFS writes to Mr. WAGSTAF) showed another to Mr. WOOD, a Commishoner from the Scotish Kirk at Breda; and who knows which of these, or whether it was either of them, that Mr. LEVET delivered to the King at Hurst-Castle? But why, in the Name of God, is none of these ever since produced? How came this Prince's Autographs to be thus neglected, when his Day is so strictly observed? This is a Piece of Respect that's usually paid to less considerable Persons; and I believe either of the Universities, would readily give Five Hundred Pounds to have such a Copy placed in their Library, tho' if they had the Manuscript, it would make nothing at all for their Purpose.  
NOW let us consider the the Force of all those Testimonies joined together, which is, that one saw the King write he knew not what, but believed it might be this Book; another observed him writing his Resentments against the rude Behaviour of the Soldiers, and so was ready to depose of his certain Knowledge, that Icon Basilike was his own; a third presumes the King might write it, because he read a great many Books; and they unanimously conclude, that he was the genuine Author, because the Book was written with his own Hand; all which Testimonies, considering the Promises, prove no more nor less than that the King could write and read, which was never denied by any that I know.  
IT is further urged by the Admirers of this famous Book, that Mr. ROYSTON had it to print as from the King, in which all sides are agreed, and signifies nothing to the Merits of the Cause; for, be sure, the Bookseller was not made privy to the Secret. And as for the Anonymous Authors of two Books which are alleged by Mr. WAGSTAF, we shall hear and examine them when they'll please to tell us their Names, tho' all they have to say is answered already. When Dr. HOLLINGWORTH tells us who are his sufficient Witnesses, we shall likewise consider their Evidence; for such Affirmations must go for nothing in proving a Fact of this Nature, and may well serve for a Flourish, but not for an Argument, no more than several more Assertions of his concerning this Ma●ter, which were exploded by other Hands, and not defended by Mr. WAGSTAF.  
MR. LE PLAM Minister of Finchingfield writes to Dr. GOODAL, that one WILLIAM ALLEN, who collected his Tithes for two Years, and was formerly a Servant to Dr. GAUDEN, affirmed to him, That the Doctor told him he had borrowed the Book, and was obliged to return it by such a time; that (besides what other time he might employ in it) he sat up one whole Night to transcribe it; that he sat up in the Chamber with him, to wait upon him, to make his Fires, and snuff his Candles: and Mr. LE PLAM thinks (for he's not positive) it was from Mr. symmond's of rain that he said the Doctor had borrowed the Book. Dr. HOLLINGWORTH has formerly affirmed this Story of Symmonds', who indeed assisted afterwards in printing the Book at London; but was so far at this time from living at Rain in the Neighbourhood of Bocking where Dr. GAUDEN dwelled, that as Dr. WALKER shows, Mr. symmond's was long before sequestered for his Loyalty, fled to the King's Quarters, and one Mr. ATKINS placed in his room by the Parliament. Nor is it credible that Dr. GAUDEN, whether he meant a a Fraud or not, should give an Account of his Studies, much less discover the Secret of this Book for no Reason in the World, to never so trusty a Servant, especially to one that was to look after his Fire and snuff his Candles.  
NOW we come to the late King James' Letters Patents to Mr. CHISWEL for Liberty to print his Father 's Works; for they are urged as an Argument that he thought Icon Basilike genuine, tho' this Book be not specially mentioned in these Letters, which are general, and refer not to those of his Brother in 60. But here I must beg Leave to relate a Story that will give some Light to this Matter. In the Year 1677, the House of Commons having voted two Months Tax for the more dccent Interment of CHARLES I. and to raise a Monument for him, Mr. CHISWEL, being Mr. ROYSION's Son in law, thought of a Project that would answer the End of the Parliament, and not be unserviceable to his Father, with whom he was concerned in Trade: and it was, that a Part of that Sum might be appropriated towards bearing the Charge of an Impression of the King's Works, whereof every Parish in England should be obliged to have a Copy, and to chain it in the Church; which, in his Opinion, would prove a more glorious and lasting Monument than any could be framed of Brass or Marble. This Thought was very well liked by several great Men of the Church and State, who showed themselves ready to promote it; and he did not, we may imagine, spare any Cost or Labour to have it succeed, tho' 'tis well known how little CHARLES the Second himself encouraged it. But the Distrusts arising afterwards between the King and People, the Heats in Parliament, and particularly the Popish Plot, broke this, and all such Designs to Pieces: So that there was no farther Mention of any Monument for his Father. But when the Duke of York mounted the Throne, and had given Assurances of his Favour to the Church of England, Mr. CHISWEL thought again of rev●ving his Project, and employed Sir ROGER L ESTRANGE to procure him only King James' recommendatory Letter; for he did not expect any thing from Parliament as before, only 〈◊〉 how agreeable this would seem to the King's Design (if it were real) of bege●●ing a Confidence of himself in the Church. This Request the King Icon, giving for his Reason, that 〈◊〉 Basilisk's was not his Father's Book, and he could not therefore in Conscience recommend it as his. Mr. CHISWEL being informed of this Resolution by Sir ROGER, answered, that he thought he could accommodat the Matter: For since the publishing of the rest would signify nothing without the Addition of Icon Basilike, he would remove it from the Front where it stood in the former Edition, and place it in the Rear after Finis, as Books of uncertain Authority use to be printed. To this the King consented, on condition some Expressions which he thought injurious to the Monarchy should be left out: with which Mr. CHISWEL said he could by no means comply, as being a disingenuous Practice towards any Author, and a great Abuse on the Public; but proposed, as another Expedient, that those Words should be put within Crotchets. And thus Icon Basilike stands now printed after the End of the second Part of the King's Works of the Edition of 86, by Mr. CHISWEL, who told me this Story himself, not to gratify or injure any side, but as a Matter of Fact, wherein he was personally concerned; and from whence he draws no manner of Inference. The Royal Brothers said the same to several others besides my Lord ANGLESEY, and particularly to some eminent Persons now living, who told me so much themselves, with a Liberty of mentioning their Names, which, after all that has been offered, I see no Necessity of doing.  
THAT nothing may be wanting I shall in the last place consider what is objected to the Prayer used by the King as his own in the time of his Captivity; but is, with very small Variation, the same that is said by PAMELA to a Heathen Deity in Sir PHILIP SYDNEY's Arcadia. This Discovery, as we said before, was first made by MILTON in his Iconoclastes. But Dr. GILL affirms, That his Patient HENRY HILL the Printer said it was put in by a Contrivance of MILTON, who catching his Friend Mr. Du GARDINER printing an Edition of Icon Basilike, got his Pardon by BRADSHAW's Interest, on Condition he would insert PAMELA's Prayer to bring Discredit on the Book and the Author of it. I wonder at the Easiness of Dr. GILL and Dr. BERNARD to believe so gross a Fable, when it does not appear that Du GUARD, who was Printer to the Parliament, ever printed this Book, and that the Prayer is in the second Edition published by Mr. ROYSTON, whose Evidence is alleged to prove the Genuinness of the Book. And if the King's Friends thought it not his own, what made them print it in the first Impression of his Works in Folio, by ROYSTON in 62, when MILTON could not tamper with the Press? Or why did they let it pass in the last Impression in Folio by Mr. CHISWEL in the Year 86, when all the World knew that it was long before exposed in Iconoclastes? After this I need not go about to show that Dr. GILL had no Reason for the great Opinion he entertained of HENRY HILL, and how little he consulted his own Reputation by asserting that no Man was better versed in the secret History of those times; that he was entrusted with Intrigues by the great ones of that Government, who, as all the World knows, managed their Affairs after another rate. Nor will I insist upon his turning Papist in King James' time to become his Printer, as he was OLIVER's before, or any other Circumstance to lessen his Credit, since it appears that what he averred is inconsistent with Matter of Fact, Mr. ROYSTON, and not Du GARDINER, having published the Celebrated Prayer which I add in this Place laid Parallel with the Original.  

The Prayer of King CHARLES, styled A Prayer in Time of Captivity, Printed in pag. 94. of his Works, 1686; and also in Icon Basilike.  
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 thine 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, and let my Fault 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 sittest 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 in my greatest Afflictions acknowledge it my noblest Title to be thy Creature, may still depend confidently 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 vex me with Punishment, yet, O Lord, never let their Wickedness have such a Hand, but that I may still carry a pure Mind and sledfast Resolution ever to serve thee without Fear or Presumption, yet with that hum-Confidence which may best 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.   

The PRAYER of PAMELA (to a Heathen Deity) In Pembroke's Arcadia, pag. 248, 1674.  
O Allseeing Light, and Eternal Life of all things, to whom nothing is either so great that it may resist, or so small that it is contemned, look upon my Misery with thine Ey of Mercy, and let thine 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, and let my Faults by thy Hand be corrected, and make not mine unjust Enemy the Minister of thy Justice. But yet, my God, if in thy Wisdom this be the aptest Chastisement for my unexcusable Folly, if this low 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 joyfully embrace what Sorrow thou wilt have me suffer; only thus much let me crave of thee (let my Craving, O Lord, be accepted of thee, since even that proceeds from thee) let me crave even by the noblest Title which in my greatest Affliction I may give myself, that I am thy Creature, and by thy Goodness, which is thyself, that thou wilt suffer some Beams of thy Majesty to shine into my Mind, that it may still depend confidently on thee. Let Calamity be the Exercise, but not the overthrow of my Virtue; Let their Power prevail, but prevail not to Destruction; Let my Greatness be their Prey: Let my Pain be the Sweetness of their Revenge; let them (if so it seem good unto thee) vex me with more and more Punishment; But, O Lord, let never their Wickedness have such a Hand, but that I may carry a pure Mind in a pure Body; and pausing a while; and O most gracious Lord, said she, whatever becomes of me, preserve the Virtuous MUSIDORUS.    

CONCLUSION.  
I HOPE by this time I have satisfied Mr. BLACKHALL, since I have not only laid together the first Testimonies concerning this Matter, but also answered the Exceptions that were made to those Testimonies, and disproven the fresh Evidence which was produced no the behalf of Icon Basilike. But if he's offended at my Performance he may thank himself; seeing without his causeless Provocation I had never written a Word more on this Subject, as I shall not do hereafter, unless for as justifiable a Reason: For notwithstanding I may not answer every Scribbler, yet I'll be misrepresented and abused by no body worth my notice.  
INDEED Mr. BLACKHALL is not the first who has occasioned Controversies by a Thirtieth of january Segmon. Every body knows how much the Observation of that Day was abused in the two last Reigns by servile Flatterers, who, not content to run shameful Parallels between the Sufferings of our Saviour and the King (wherein the latter was often made to exceed) they taught the People the ridiculous Doctrine of Passive Obedience, as they allowed the Prince an Unlimited and Despotic Power. This rendered those Persons justly odious to the Nation, and made sober Men frequently wish that such an Opportunity of doing Mischief might be taken away from those who failed not to improve it to the utmost. It was likewise observed how much these Sermons contributed to raise Animosities and Feuds in the Kingdom, and to continue the fatal Distinctions of Names and Parties, which every good Man should desire might be abolished, or buried in eternal Oblivion. Besides that for many weighty Reasons such Days ought not to be perpetuated, or otherwise in a little time ours will be as full as the Roman Calendar: wherefore I readily approve of the learned Bishop of Salisbury's Opinion, That our Deliverances should wear out the Memory of such tragical Accidents, which no body pretends to justify; and indeed I think it very reasonable (if our Legislators be of the same Opinion) that the Commemoration of his present Majesty's Landing to deliver us from Slavery on the Fifth of November, should hereafter take place of the Thirtieth of january. Other Holydays have been recommended to a constant Observation, tho' they are since grown into disuse, or are legally abolished, which the best Friends of the Clergy desire may be the Fate of that Day out of their respect to the Church: For these Sermons do constantly put the People in mind of that Set of Men who preached 'em out of their Liberties in former times; and the honest Clergy themselves are still under an unhappy Necessity of saying many things, that (let 'em think what they will) are not extremely pleasing to the Body of the Nation. The Descendants of those concerned in that Act, and many of 'em far from approving it, conceive themselves unkindly used in most of those Discourses; nor are the Posterity of the greatest Royalists in a better Condition, if that be a National Gild that's never to be expiated, tho' neither they nor their Ancestors consented to it; to say nothing of the frequent Intermarriages and other Ties between both the Parties.  
IF the Extravagancies of those Sermons had terminated with the late Reign, few People, perhaps, would trouble themselves now about what's past, unless constrained to it by some officious Chaplain: But they cannot endure to hear the Members of the Parliament of 40 so infamously branded, considering how lately they were obliged themselves to assert their Laws and Liberties against the Martyr's Son, who violated and broke them at his Pleasure: And in this Sense many were of Opinion that King Charles' Blood lay heavy on the Nation, which made them for the ease of the same to shake off the Burden of King JAMES.  
SOME, who otherwise Honour the Memory of King CHARLES the First, are angry to hear him, in Mr. BLACKHALL's Language, called the best of Kings, and the best of Men; when they consider especially, that the Apostles were Men, and that several Persons among the Greek and Roman Heathens, did infinitely excel him in all Moral and Heroic Virtues. As for Princes, if good Manners could not make Mr. BLACKHALL except the present King, Justice at least might well oblige him to do it. King WILLIAM has never dispensed with express Laws in favour of Popish Recusants. He never protected any of his Chaplains against the Parliament for preaching up Arbitrary Power. He never required Soldiers to be tried by Martial Law in time of Peace; nor levied Loans or Ship money contrary to Law, much less imprisoned, fined or banished such as refused to pay those illegal Taxes. He does not countenance any SIBTHORPS', MANWARINGS, or MOUNTAGUES to teach his Subject's Nonresistance, or to compliment himself with Arbitrary Power. He is so far from sending for Foren Troops to enslave the Nation, that he readily sent those away which he kept here by Law, as soon as he understood the Kingdom had no further need of their Service. He does not use to imprison Members of the House of Commons for using that Freedom of Debate which is Essential to their Constitution. He never threatened to betake himself to other Councils than his Parliament (as CHARLES the First did) saying that Parliaments were in his Power, and that he might grow out of Love with them. Nor is it known that he went into the House of Commons to demand any of their Members; no more than he has seized the Customs without any Act to empower him. He never promised (as King CHARLES did in a Letter to his Queen) that he would take away all the Penal Laws against Roman Catholics as soon as he should be able, nor any thing else of this nature: For these are only a few Instances, not to blacken that Prince, but to show how little some sort of People seem to value his present Majesty for generously restoring the Constitution, and for so willingly passing many excellent Laws for enlarging or securing the Liberty of his Subjects; as well as for always paying such a Deference to Parliaments, which he not only assembles willingly, but likewise, according to ancient Custom, annually. In short, if King CHARLES' the First was the best of Kings, the late King JAMES is not half so bad as I think him: Nor is there any Doubt, if a second Restoration (which God and all Freemen forbid) should ever happen, but that the Abdication-Day would be appointed as a perpetual Fast. What Mr. BLACKHALL thinks of dispensing with the Laws and acting without, or contrary to them, we may guests, when he says, That King Charles' greatest Enemies could not charge him with any Vice or Immorality; as if only Whoring, Drinking, or Swearing were immoral Practices.  
SINCE this King (who truly was not the worst) must needs be counted the best of Men, I do not much wonder that Mr. LONG of Exeter was for having some Portions of his pretended Book read in the Church for the further enlightening of our Understanding: Nor that Dr. PERINCHIFF should tell us in his Life how some purchased Chips of the Block on which he was beheaded, and Parcels of the Sands discolored with his Blood, as also some of his Hair, Hoping, continues he, they would be a means of Cure for that Disease, which our English Kings, through the Indulgence of kind Heaven, by their Touch did usually heal: And it was reported that these Relics, experienced, failed not of the Effect. Now who can laugh at the Popish Legends, and be serious when he reads this Passage? Whereas, if there was ●ver any Power in England of curing the King's Evil, it was plainly lodged in the People.  
BEFORE I conclude, I must remark, that though his pretended Friends were so ready to father such Books on CHARLES the First wherein he had no Hand, yet they industriously left out of his Works a Letter to Pope GREGORY XV, whereof I can prove him as evidently to be the Author as CICERO or VIRGIL may be entitled to the Philippics and the Aeneids. There is an interpolated Copy of it in the first Volume of RUSHWORTH's Collections: It is rightly inserted in the Quarto Edition of a Book called Cabala, or Mysteries of State: It is also in the Italian Mercury of VITTORIO SIRI: in Duke CHESNE's French History of England, Scotland and Ireland: and in several Spanish and Italian Authors. Pope URBAN VIII mentions it in the Letter which he likewise sent this Prince, with another to his Father King JAMES; both which may be read in RUSHWORTH's Collections. Now was not the omitting of this Letter a notorious Fraud, since that it alone, with those Letters which the Parliament published to disgrace him, and a few Pieces besides, make up all his genuine Writings; For as to those Messages, Propositions, Declarations, Treaties, and other public Papers, which fill that bulky Folio they call his Works, whoever takes them to be his, is likewise capable of believing he was the true Author of Icon Basilike.  
THIS is all I had to write concerning this famous Book, not to reflect on the Memory of CHARLES the First, but in my own Vindication; being a Liberty not denied me by Equity or Law, and which, if I neglected to improve, I should be more unjust to myself than my Adversaries, whose Malice I shall readily forget, and heartily pray God to forgive.  
FINIS.