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, Entitul'd, Icon Basilike, proving Dr. GAUDEN, and not King CHARLES the First, to be the Author of it: With an Answer to all the Facts alledg'd 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 pub­lish'd at large.
DI quibus imperium est animarum, umbraeque Silentes,
Et Chaos, & Phlegethon, 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 Matthias
57. 15. Ex mple [...]xample
65. 15. may be be any
66. 17. [...]ittgius [...]itigius
101. 23. hop'd o hop'd to
105. 5. Consciences Conscience
113. 20. somtime Som 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 privat Men, and I am so little concern'd at the Malice or Mi­stakes of my Adversaries, that, with­out som 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, then I think a Man is indispensably oblig'd to ap­pear for the Truth; and so, while he's endeavoring to serve others, no body will say he ought to neglect his own [Page] Defence. Whether the Treatise I now send you be of this Nature, is submit­ted to your equal Iudgment: And unless I really design'd a Nobler End by it than the Iustification of one Person, neither you nor any body else should lose your time in reading, no more than I my self 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 oblig'd to make an Apology in justification of such a Work, both harmless in it self, and greatly desir'd by the World. There was no po­sitive Law or Custom against publishing the particular History of this extraordinary Person, con­sider'd [Page 2] in any respect whatsoever: for the Lives of Good Princes and Tyrants, of Orthodox and He­retical Divines, of Virtuous and Wicked, of Public and Privat Men, are indifferently perus'd by every body; of which it would be superfluous to alledg Ex­amples, the thing being so com­monly known by all that have learnt to read. Nor without such a Liberty could we possibly form a true Taste, or have any certain Knowledg 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 Judgment or Affection of the Readers.

[Page 3] SINCE therefore it was e­qually lawful for me to write whose Life I pleas'd (when my Hand was in) the first Charge against me, one would think, should have bin, that I had not fairly represented my Hero. But, very far from that, the great Crime whereof I am arraign'd, consists in telling more than som 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 Judg­ment weak enough to make a Crime of such Proceedings in a Writer, who labors to keep him­self wholly independent from the Fears or Eng [...]ments of any Party; and who [...]ofess'd in the very beginning of his Book, that ‘being neither provok'd by Ma­lice, nor brib'd by Favor, he [Page 4] would as well dare to say all that was true, as scorn to write any Falshood.’ 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 propos'd to my self in compiling MILTON's Life, and which I partly declar'd 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 [Page 5] religiously to this Rule so loud a Clamor 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 Candor) 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 publish'd 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 obviat their Sophistry and Calumnies, their two principal offensive Weapons; and also to spare my self the Pains of Quotations af­terwards, [Page 6] to prove I had nei­ther injur'd him nor abus'd 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 follow'd it, our Modern Critics would have been less exercis'd to discern their real Sentiments; nor wou'd they be so often oblig'd to ex­amin whether they understood or mis-represented their Authors.

BUT instead of any Objecti­ons like these, I am expresly 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 engag'd; 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 [Page 7] his Books and Opinions, to inform the World about the Occasion of his writing, what it contain'd, how he perform'd 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 dissatisfi'd with my Conduct on this Occa­sion. And had this Method, as I said before, been strictly ob­serv'd, we might have more Knowledg and fewer Critics.

AY but, say these Gentlemen, you have made an Inroad on our Persuasion, and directly attack'd 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 [Page 8] 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 your selves for Reparation to JOHN MILTON; or, if he is not to be brought to easie Terms, defend your Castles and Territo­ries against him with all the Vi­gor you can. For, I assure you I am no further concern'd in the Quarrel than to shew 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 displeas'd to find 'em particulariz'd in the History [Page 9] of his Life: For we should have no true Account of Things, if Authors related nothing but what they lik'd themselves: One Party would never suffer the Lives of TARQUIN, or PHALARIS, or SYLLA, 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 judg 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 bin 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 [Page 10] 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 pri­vat Imaginations, wherein they exceedingly please themselves; a Happiness no body envies them. Nor should I, if that were all, think my self concern'd in making a­ny Return to the obliging Com­plements of those Gentlemen who (as Father PAUL formerly said of himself) remember me oftner in their Sermons than in their Pray­ers; [Page 11] tho' som of them are apt to say, that when they mention Turks, Iews, In [...]idels, and He­retics, they do not forget me. But when I am openly accus'd before the greatest Assembly in the World, the Representative Body of the People of England, let the Charge be never so frivo­lous in it self, 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 my self oblig'd to convince 'em of my Innocence; and to remove all Suspicion far from me, of what in its own Na­ture is acknowledg'd to be Cri­minal, or by them might be repu­ted Indecent.

THE Matter of Fact is this▪ On the Thirtieth of Ianuary, Mr. OFSPRING BLACKHALL, who stiles himself Chaplain in Ordina­nary to His Majesty, Preacht a Ser­mon before the Honorable [Page 12] 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 re­ceiv'd by the whole Christian Church, for I know of no o­ther) are supposititious; tho' thro' the remoteness of those Ages, the Death of the Persons concern'd, and the decay of o­ther [Page 13] Monuments which might give us true Information, the Spuriousness thereof is yet un­discover'd.’ 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 prov'd, 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 intire 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 deter­min our Controversie, without using all the Advantages I might otherwise take.

AFTER stating the Proofs therefore that Dr. GAUDEN, and [Page 14] 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 happen'd among our selves within the Compass of Forty Years, in a time of great Learning and Politeness, when both Parties so narrowly watch'd over one anothers Actions, and what a great Revolution in Civil and Religious Affairs was partly occasion'd 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 publish'd and ap­prov'd in those Primitive times, when it was of so much Impor­tance to have 'em believ'd; when the Cheats were too ma­ny on all sides for them to re­proach one another, which yet [Page 15] they often did; when Com­merce was not near so general as now, and the whole Earth entirely over-spread with the Darkness of Superstition. I doubt rather the spuriousness of several more such Books is yet undiscover'd, thro the remote­ness of those Ages, the death of the Persons concern'd, 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 father'd on CHRIST, his Apostles, and other great Names, part whereof are still acknow­ledg'd to be genuin, and the rest to be forg'd, in neither of which Assertions I could be justly sup­pos'd to mean any Books of the N. Testament, as I shall presently e­vince. But Mr. BLACKHALL affirms. That I must intend those now re­ceiv'd by the whole Christian [Page 16] 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 bin 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 referr'd 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 dispos'd 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 mention'd Supposititious Pi [...]ces under the Name of CHRIST, since there is none ascrib'd to him in the [Page 17] 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 ought appears to the contra­ry, Mr. BLACKHALL may deny that to be any Writing, because he knows not what it was; yet som German Divines, as well read as himself, have presum'd 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 * nothing, which makes it neces­sary we should believe those who [Page 18] have written of him:’ And the latter says, ‘That † our Saviour left no Volum of his own Do­ctrin behind him, as is extra­vagantly feign'd in most of the Apochryphal 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 shew the Rash­ness and Uncharitableness of Mr. BLACKHALL's Assertion, I shall here insert a large Catalogue of Books anciently ascrib'd to JESUS CHRIST, his Apostles, their Ac­quaintance, Companions, and Con­temporaries. Of these som remain still entirely extant, which I shall mark in their Places. We have several Fragments of others pre­serv'd by the Fathers; and all that is left us of the rest are only their [Page 19] 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 alledg'd as the genuin 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 re­ceiv'd by som Party of Christians to countenance their Opinions. Next I design to name those Pie­ces of whose Spuriousness I doubt­ed, tho' their Authority is still re­ceiv'd; and so conclude this Point with som material Observations.

A Catalogue of Books mention­ed by the Fathers and other Ancient Writers, as truly or falsely ascrib'd 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, &c. 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.
  • [Page 21] 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 Savior, 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 Iames; 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's Works.
  • [Page 22] 3. A Book of the Nativity of the Virgin Mary, Usually publish [...]d with St. Ierome's Works.
  • 4. Another Book about the Death of Mary, is said by Lambecius to ly unpublish'd 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 Catalog. 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 Epitom. Theodot. Eu­seb. [Page 23] 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 shewn 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 publish'd 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 Doctrin) Origen. Tom. 14. in Joan. Idem, in praefat. ad Libros principio­rum. Clem. Alex. Stromat. l. 1. & l. 6, &c. Lactant. l. 4. c. 21. Autor libri de baptismo Haereti­corum inter opera Cypriani. Joan. Damascen. l. 2. parallel. c. 16.
  • [Page 24] 7. The Liturgy of Peter, publish'd by Lindanus at Antwerp in the Year 1588, and at Paris, Anno 1595.
  • 8. The Itinerary, or Iournys of Pe­ter (mention'd 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 Iudgment of Peter. Hie­ronym. in Catalogo, c. 1.
IV. ANDREW.
  • 1. The Gospel of St. Andrew. Gelasius in Decreto, &c.
  • 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 [Page 25] Asturicensis apud Paschasi­um Quesnerum inter epistolas Leonis magni, p. 459.
V. IAMES.
  • 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, &c. p. 4. It was printed by Neander and also by Grynaeus in the first Volum of his Orthodoxo­graphs.
  • [Page 26] 2. The Liturgy of St. James is printed in the second Tome of the Bibliotheca Patrum, at Paris, Anno 1624.
  • 3. We mention'd before The Book of St. James concerning the Death of the Virgin Mary; but there want not Reasons to believe Iohn, and not Iames, to be the Author of it.
VI. IOHN.
  • 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 Iohn. 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 [Page 27] printed in Syriac at Rome. See Father Simon in his Supplement to Leo of Modena.
  • 5. We spoke twice before of St. Iohn or St. Iames's Book about the Death of the Virgin Mary.
  • 6. The Traditions of St. Iohn. 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.
  • [Page 28]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 [Page 29] 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, &c. 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. THADDAEVS.
  • 1. The Gospel of St. Thaddaeus. Ge­lasius in Decreto.
XII. MATTHIAS.
  • [Page 30]1. The Gospel of St. Matthias. 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. Matthias. Clem. Alex. Stromat. l. 7.
XIII. PAVL.
  • 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.
  • [Page 31] 3. The Epistle of Paul to the Laodi­ceans. Tertullian adversus Mar­cion. 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 Schol. ad 2. ad Corinth. Mic. Glycas. annal. part 2. Gelas. in Decreto. Zozomen. Hist. Eccles. l. 7. c. 19.
  • [Page 32] 8. The Preaching of St. Paul. Clem. Alex. Stromat. l. 6. Lactant. l. 4 [...] c. 21. Autor etiam Anonymus de non iterando Baptismo, à Rigal­tio in observationibus ad Cypri­anum insertus.
  • 9. Saint Paul's Narrative concerning the charming of Vipers, reveal'd 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 snatch'd up into the third Heavens. Epiphan. Haeres. 38. n. 2.
  • 11. Som 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 Iesus according to my Gospel. Rom. 2. 16.
XIV. Of the Gospels of Judas Isca­riot, of Eve, and Abraham, &c.
  • [Page 33]1. That none of the Apostles might be thought unable to write a Go­spel we find one alledg'd by the Caianites, a Sect of the Gnostics, under the Name of Iudas Iscari­ot. Epiphan. Haeres. 38. Theodo­ret. l. 1. de Haeret. Fabul. c. 15.
  • 2. Nor should we wonder at Iu­das's being an Author, when we read of the Prophetical Gospel of Eve, whom the Gnostics recko­ned a Patroness of their Opinions, and to have receiv'd extraordi­nary Knowledg and Light in her Conference with the Serpent. Epiphan. Haeres. 26. n. 2.
  • 3. The Sethians, another sort of Gnostics, shew'd an Apocalypse under the Name of the Patriarch Abraham; not to mention his learned Pieces of Astrology, nor the Books of Adam believ'd by the [Page 34] Iews. Epiphan. Haeres. 30. n. 16. Isidor. Pelusiot. l. 2. Epist. 99.
  • 4. The Prophecy of Enoch, which St. Iude quotes, is for the most part still extant, and was believ'd to be Genuin by several Fathers, who alledg it in defence of the Christi­an Religion. Origen. contra Cels. l. 5. Idem de Principiis. Tertulli­an. de habitu Muliebri, c. 3, &c.
  • 5. The Testament of the twelve Pa­triarchs, 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 som general Pieces.
  • [Page 35]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, &c. 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, &c. Hieronym. in Catalogo Script. Eccles. c. 4. & alibi Pas­sim. This Gospel several have maintain'd 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. ld. ibid. [Page 36] Origen. Homil. in Luc. Epi­phan. Haeres. 62. n. 2.
  • 4. The Apostles Creed, tho' of late Years it begins to be call'd 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 immediat Successors, too long to insert particularly. These Do­ctrins 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 [Page 37] 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 Volums to prove 'em ge­nuin.
  • 7. The Precepts of Peter and Paul. This Book lies in Manuscript in the Great Duke's Library in Flo­rence, if we believe Ludovicus Iacobus a Sancto Carolo in his Bi­bliotheca Pontificia, l. 1. pag. 177.
  • 8. The present Cophtic Christians have a Book of Doctrins, which they believe was compos'd by the twelve Apostles, with the Assistance of St. Paul, &c.
  • 9. The Gospel of Perfection. Epiphan. Haeres. 26. n. 2
  • [Page 38] 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 ascrib'd to the Disciples and Companions of the Apostles, and which are still extant, som are thought genuin and of great Authority at this time: Every one were approv'd at som time, or by som Party: And yet I am of Opinion, that it is the ea­siest Task in the World (next to that of shewing the Ignorance and Superstition of the Writers) to [Page 39] prove them all Spurious, and frau­dulently impos'd 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 Iohn, 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 [Page 40] 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, entitul'd the Light; the Altercation of Ia­son and Papiscus; The Acts of Ti­tus compos'd 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 Ioseph 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 alledg'd in favor of Christianity, which were forg'd under the Name of Heathens.
  • 1. The Works of Trismegistus and Asclepius, extant.
  • [Page 41] 2. The Books of Zoroaster and Hy­staspes.
  • 3. The Sibyllin Oracles cited so fre­quently, and with such Autho­rity by the Primitive Fathers, that * Celsus takes occasion from thence to nick-name the Christi­ans Sibyllists. extant.
  • 4. The Letter of Pontius Pilat 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 favor of the Christians. extant in Iustin Martyr, &c. &c. &c.

[Page 42] 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 deny'd 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 forg'd by som more zealous than discreet Christians, to supply the brevity of [Page 43] the Apostolic Memoirs; partly by designing Men to support their pri­vat Opinions, which they hop'd to effect by virtue of such respected Authorities: And som of 'em, I doubt, were invented by Heathens and Jews to impose on the Cre­dulity of many wel-dipos'd Per­sons, who greedily swallow'd any Book for Divine Revelation that contain'd a great many Miracles, mixt with a few good Morals, while their Adversaries laught in their Sleeves all the while, to see their Tricks succeed, and were rivetted 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 convinc'd, tho' in my privat Opinion I could not think 'em genuin, I meant those of the other great Persons, or the sup­pos'd Writings of certain Apostolic Men (as they call 'em) which are [Page 44] 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 re­ceiv'd in the Church of Rome, and also by most Protestants; but those of the Church of England have par­ticularly signaliz'd themselves in their Defence, and by publishing the correctest Impressions of them. The Ancients paid them the highest Respect, and reckon'd the first four of 'em especially, as good as any part of the New Testament. The Epi­stle of BARNABAS is by * CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, and ORIGEN, not only reckon'd genuin, but cited as Scrip­ture; tho' he says in express Terms, That the Apostles, before their Con­version, were the greatest Sinners in [Page 45] Nature; which, if believ'd, 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 suppos'd to be the Person mention'd by PAUL in his Epistle to the Romans) is cited as Canonical Scripture by * IRENAE­US, CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS, ORIGEN, and others, and was for such re­ceiv'd by several Churches, tho' I think it the sillyest Book in the World. The Epistle of POLYCAR­PUS (the suppos'd Disciple of St. JOHN) was read in the Churches of Asia, and is quoted by † IRENAEUS, EUSEBIUS and others. The Epistle of CLEMENS ROMANUS (whom they would have to be the same that's mention'd by PAUL in his Epistle to the Phi­lippians) [Page 46] is cited by * IRENAEUS, CLEMENS ALEXANRINUS, ORIGEN, EU­SEBIUS, and others. The Epistles of IGNATIUS are quoted by † IRENAEUS, EUSEBIUS, with several more; but particularly by * 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 † 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 entertain'd of 'em by others. My present Business is [Page 47] not to insist on this Subject, but to clear my self of an Imputation, which I thought no body could infer from my Words. Yet since many were less knowing than I imagin'd, tho' Mr. BLACKHALL alone has the Candor 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 attain'd my End without [Page 48] more Argumentation. But if they think 'em genuin, 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 receiv'd 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'S time, neither the second E­pistle of PETER, nor that of JAMES, or JUDE, with som others, were approv'd as Canonical; and yet they were afterwards receiv'd by the whole Church. Wherefore then may not we as well at this time e­stablish [Page 49] 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 Apochry­phal 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 condemn'd by the Decree [Page 50] 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 s [...]veral may be evidently infer'd 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 som spuri­ous Relations, assures him, that he'll write nothing but what he re­ceiv'd from such as had a perfect knowledg 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 sam'd Successor of the Apostles; and he positively * af­firms, [Page 51] that there cannot be more, nor fewer than Four Gospels: Fo▪ 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 Lyon, 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 Pray [...]r-Book. So he concludes at last, ‘That they are all vain, unlearn'd, and im­pudent, who after this would assert, that there were more or sewer than 4 Gospels.’ Where we may observe, [Page 52] 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 d [...]ny'd, that no Order of Men have more violated the Rules of D [...]cency 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 least 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 alledg'd to that purpose by all that write in defence of the Scrip­tures. [Page 53] Of so much weight is this Testimony, that EUSEBIUS * 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 ma [...]kt in the Catalogue, and which any bo­dy may compare with the Origi­nals. In another place he † 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 [Page 54] the time of the Apostles down to his own, has vouchsaf'd to quote them, which is absolutely false of som, as we have already shewn. 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 [...] Pie­c [...]s [...] by [...] Ortho­dox Writ [...]s, he would have own'd them as the genuin 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 som of 'em long before, so th [...] they might still [...] to the Canon for all [...].

[Page 55] 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 urg'd 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 charg'd in som places) they ought to be So re­puted in all the r [...]st, till the con­tr [...]ry be evidently prov'd.

THE [...], Objection [...] That altho' [...] have bin [...] the Writings [Page 56] of those Apostles whose Names they bear, at certain times, and in som Churches, yet they were ex­presly rejected by others. To this I answer, That there is not one single Book in the New Testa­ment which was not refus'd by som of the Ancients as unjustly father'd upon the Apostles, and really forg'd 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 som 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 [Page 57] of JUDE, 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. Ierome has written on the same Subject. Anci­ents, particularly by those whom we esteem the soundest part; and yet they are re­ceiv'd, (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 receiv'd 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 esta­blisht, could not among so great a [Page 58] variety of Books as were then a­broad in the World, certainly de­termin 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 preserv'd and convey'd 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 alledg'd in the behalf of others. However, I shall not be too hasty to make a final Decision of this [...] with my self, least I incur the [...] Curse which the Au­th [...]r of the Revelation pronoun­ces [...] [...] such as shall add or [Page 59] take away from that Book. Let Mr. BLACKHALL be assur'd, 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 reckon'd Virtues in any Order of Men, and least of all in the Ministers of the Gospel) let such as are better enlighten'd endeavor 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 som 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 [Page 60] Ancient as well as our Modern Un­believers. CELSUS * 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 urg'd 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 shewed other Scriptures, and deny'd the Genuin­ness of the whole New Testament. One of these call'd FAUSTUS, after shewing that his Adversaries disapprov'd of several things in the Old Testament, thus pursues his [Page 61] † 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 disallow'd; 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: [Page 62] Wherein they seem to me (con­tinues he) to have bin the more hainously 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 [Page 63] a little after accuses his Adversa­ries, who had Power enough to be counted Orthodox, in these ex­press Words: * ‘Many things were foisted by your Ancestors in­to the Scriptures of our Lord, which, tho' mark'd with his Name, agree not with his Faith. And no wonder, since, as those of our Party have already frequently prov'd, these things were neither written by himself nor his Apo­stles: but several Matters after their Decease were pick'd up from Stories and flying Re­ports by I know not what Set of Half- Iews; and these not a­greeing among themselves, who [Page 64] 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 Lyes and Errors to be written according to them.’

Since therefore the Manichaeans rejected the whole New Testament, since the Ebionites or Nazarens, (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 deny'd by som, a different Co­py of 'em shewn by others; and that the seven Pieces we mention'd before, were rejected a long time by all Christians, al­most [Page 65] 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 injur'd 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 Enquiries; and without an exact Knowledge whereof it is not con­ceivable that any Man can be sit [Page 66] 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 receiv'd by the whole Christian Church. He might at his Leisure have learnt so much from the Fathers, or at least from others that had study'd 'em; such as RIV [...]T, Father SIMON, DU [...]PIN, [...]ITTGIUS, Dr. CAVF, ERN [...]STUS GRABIUS who has lately pub­lish'd som of those Fragments at Oxford, and several others; tho' he has occasion [...]d me to pr [...]sent him now with a much larger Ca­talogue than was publish'd by a­ny of these. I could add more not there mentioned, and other Authorities for those which are [Page 67] there: but I have already don more than enough to prove a thing, whereof, till the last thirti­eth of Ianuary, 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 clear'd 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 som 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 my self: and if I ever write it, I promise it shall be the fairest History, and the only one of that kind that ever appear'd; 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 Color in [Page 68] favor 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 shew 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 infinit­ly 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 talkt of spurious Pieces, and have now as well shewn what those Pieces were, as put a Distinction between 'em, and such as I thought genuin. 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 [Page 69] 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: * ‘The Cano­nical Writings lay conceal'd in the Coffers of privat Churches or Persons, till the later Times of TRAJAN; or rather perhaps of A­DRIAN; so that they could not com to the Knowledg of the whole Church. For if they had bin publish'd, they wou'd have bin overwhelm'd under such a Multitude as were then of Apo­cryphal and Supposititious Books, that a new Examination and a [Page 70] new Testimony would be neces­sary to distinguish 'em from these false ones. And it is from this New Testimony (whereby the ge­nuin Writings of the Apostles were distinguish'd from the spuri­ous Pieces which went under their Names) that depends all the Au­thority which the truly Apostolic Writings have formerly obtain'd, 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 heard [Page 71] and saw: for it is equally distant from the Original, and could not be made, except by such only as had reacht those remote Times. But 'tis very certain, that before the Period I mention'd of TRA­JAN's time, the Canon of the Sacred Books was not yet fixt, nor any certain number of Books re­ceiv'd in the Catholic Church, whose Authority must ever after serve to determin Matters of Faith; neither were the spurious Pieces of Heretics yet rejected, nor were the faithful admonisht to beware of them for the future. Likewise the true Writings of the [Page 72] Apostles us'd to be so bound up in one Volum with the Apocryphal, that it was not manifest by any Mark or public Censure of the Church, which of 'em should be prefer'd 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 nam'd 'em, and after all the other Writers of the New Testament, except Iu [...] and the two JOHNS. But in H [...]RM [...]S you shall not meet with one Passage, or any mention of [Page 73] the New Testament: Nor in all the rest is any one of the Evange­lists call'd by his own Name. And if somtimes they cite any Passages like those we read in our Gospels, yet you'll find 'em so much chang'd, and for the most part so interpolated, that it can­not be known whether they pro­duc'd them out of ours, or som Apocryphal Gospels: nay, they somtimes 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 Apochryphal [Page 74] and Canonical Books of the New Testament; especially if it be consider'd, that they pass no Censure on the Apochryphal, nor leave any Mark whereby the Rea­der might discern that they at­tributed less Authority to the spurious than to the genuin Go­spels: from whence it may reasonably be suspected, that if they cite somtimes any Passages conformable to ours, it was not don thro' any certain design, as if dubious things were to be con­firm'd only by the Canonical Books; so as it is very possible [Page 75] that both those and the like Pas­sages may have bin borrow'd 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 [Page 76] acknowledg'd for Scripture; for they most frequently cite the Books of the Old Testament, and would doubtle [...] have don so by those of the New, if they had then bin receiv'd as Cano­nical. St. PAUL cites 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 continu'd so con­ceal'd 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 bin so [Page 77] many apparent Contradictions, which, almost since the first Con­stitution of the Canon, have ex­ercis'd 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 produc'd 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 furnisht with the Relati­ons of such as were Eye-witnes­ses of what he writes, he plainly [Page 78] 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 [Page 79] all true; tho' I am far from draw­ing the same Inference from 'em as he has don, 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 Disciplin was better known, and preserv'd than the Do­ctrin of the Apostles. Whoever has an Inclination to write on this Subject is furnisht from this Passage with a great many curi­ous Disquisitions, wherein to shew his Penetration and Judgment, as how the immediat Successors and Disciples of the Apostles could so grossly confound the genuin Writings of their Masters, with such as were falsly attributed to them; or since they were in the dark about these Matters so early, how came such as follow'd 'em by a better Light; why all those Books which are cited by CLEMENS and the rest should not be counted e­qually [Page 80] 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 unprejudic'd as he is really learned.

THUS have I defended and explain'd my self 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 [Page 81] him odious or dangerous. All the Protestations in the World can signifie 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 Poyson of every Word, and will be sure to give loud warning of the Danger, to shew 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 moderat and discerning part of Mankind.

The Complete HISTORY OF Icon Basilike.

MR. BLACKHALL, who, by a public Provocation, would needs engage me in a Controversie about spurious Books, has not confin'd 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 favora­ble to a Modern Saint, as he is pleas'd to stile King CHARLES the First. ‘That excellent Book, which, he says, was compos'd by himself in the time of his Di­stresses, will, he supposes, be an [Page 83] everlasting Evidence of his pro­fiting under his Sufferings to after Ages, notwithstanding the Endeavours that have bin for­merly us'd 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 bin 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 bin produc'd to prove it Authentic.’ Whether this Book was compos'd by himself is our Business at pre­sent to enquire, and shall be quick­ly determin'd: for as to his improving by his Sufferings I will not deny what I hope, and Cha­rity commands me to believe. [Page 84] The Reason why I produc'd no new Evidence to prove the spuri­ousness of Icon Basilike was, be­cause I thought the old ones suffici­ent. I vouchsaf'd 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 bin since alledg'd to prove the Book Authentic, because I intended not before to write a just Dissertation on this Subject, and so was not oblig'd 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 pleas'd 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 [Page 85] 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 bin made to all these Pieces: And lastly, shew the invalidity of the Facts which are alledg'd 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 concern'd; but to clear my self from a pub­lic Charge, and to discover a pious Fraud, which deserves not to be exemted from Censure for being the Contrivance of a Modern Bishop, no more than those of the ancient Fathers of the Church.

[Page 86] THE Relation of the whole Fact in MILTON's Life is after this manner.

In the Year 1686, Mr. MILLINGTON hap'ning 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 Sur­prize he perceiv'd 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 shew'd them in the Lords House the written Copy of this Book, wherein are som Corrections and Alterati­ons written with the late [Page 87] 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 occasion'd the World to talk; and several knowing the Relation which the late Dr. AN­THONY WALKER, an Essex Divine, had to Bishop GAUDEN, they in­quir'd of him what he knew con­cerning this Subject, which he then verbally communicated to them: But being afterwards highly provok'd by Dr. HOLLINGS­WORTH's [Page 88] harsh and injurious Re­flections, he was oblig'd 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 pleas'd to acquaint him with the whole Design, and shew'd him the Heads of divers Chapters, with som others that were quite finish'd: and that Dr. GAUDEN asking his Opinion of the thing and he declaring his Dis­satisfaction that the World should be so impos'd upon, GAUDEN bid him look on the Title, which was the King's Portraiture; for that no Man is suppos'd to draw his own Picture. A very nice Evasi­on! he further acquaints us, that som time after this, being both in London, and having din'd together, Dr. GAUDEN took him [Page 89] 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 shew him what he had since writ­ten: and that upon their return from th [...] place, after GAUDEN and DUPPA were a while in pri­vat together, the former told him the Bishop of Salisbury wish'd he had thought upon two other Heads, the Ordinance a­gainst the Common Pray'r Book, and the denying his Majesty the Attendance of his Chaplains; but that DUPPA desir'd 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 [Page 90] admire; and secondly, that he had never bin the King's Chap­lain, whereas Dr. DUPPA was both his Chaplain, his Tutor, and a Bishop, which made him more concern'd about these Par­ticulars. Thirdly, Dr. WALKER informs us that Dr. GAUDEN told him he had sent a Copy of Icon Ba­silike by the Marquiss 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, men­tion'd in my Lord ANGLESEY's Memorandum: and which gave oc­casion to som 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 own'd it to be a great Service; in con­sideration of which, it may be, [Page 91] the Bishoprick of Winchester, tho' he was afterwards put off with that of Worcester was promis'd 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 transcrib'd it, did believe it as firmly as any Fact don 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 [Page 92] what was last sent to London; and after shewing him what it was, seal'd 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 finish'd, 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 favorably men­tion'd 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 privat and public were conceiv'd or extemporary; and that to his Knowledge it was [Page 93] Dr. GAUDEN, being best acquain­ted with the Beauty of his own Sayings, who made that Colle­ction of Sentences out of Ikon Basilike, intitul'd, Apophthegma­ta Caroliniana. These and som Observations about the same in­dividual Persons variation of Stile on different Subjects, with the facility and frequency of perso­nating others, may be futher consider'd 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, marry'd the Sister of her that was Wife to the Doctor's Son, CHARLES GAUDEN, who dying, left som Papers with his Widow, a­mong which Mr. NORTH, being [Page 94] concern'd 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 don like a King, should have a Kinglike Retributi­on; and that his design in it was to comfort and incourage the King's Friends, to expose his E­nemies, and to convert, &c. There is, 3. The Copy of a Let­ter from the Bishop to the Duke of York, wherin 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 [Page 95] yet to serve him: but to­wards the Conclusion it contains these remarkable Words: The Particular you mention has indeed bin 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 shewing her Husband to be Author of Ikon Basilike. It intirely 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; wherfore 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 intitul'd, Truth brought to Light [Page 96] Thus came all the World to be convinc'd of this notorious Im­posture; which as it was dexte­rously contriv'd, and most cun­ningly improv'd by a Party whose Interest oblig'd 'em to keep the Secret, so it happen'd to be discover'd by very nice and unforeseen Accidents. Had not GAUDEN bin 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 bestow'd one half Years Rent on her after her Husband's decease; which, upon her Peti­tion, and considering her nume­rous Family, none could ima­gin should be refus'd. It was a slighter Accident that begot a a Confession from two Kings, and CHARLES's own Sons. And I doubt if any other than one of Mr. MILLINGTON's great Curiosity, and no Bigotry, had the dispo­sal [Page 97] of my Lord ANGLESEY's Books, we should never have heard of the Memorandum. Had not Dr. HOLLINGWORTH's indiscreet Zeal provok'd the only Man then a­live who had any personal know­ledg of this Business, Dr. WALKER had never publish'd 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 suppos'd to be a Forgery; and we must next proceed to examin 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 urg'd, 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 [Page 98] the Year 75. when it is plain that he meant the last or Win­ter Session; and that it was therefore the immediat 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 Lord­ships 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 discover'd; and yet 'tis a thing unheard till now, that they were deny'd to be theirs whose Names they bear, because the Day of the Month was not mention'd, nor the [Page 99] Names of any Witnesses added, when the Hand was confest 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 som to shew, as in the Book intitul'd, 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 communicat 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 disturb'd by the Clamors of som Churchmen, who carry'd things so high at that time, that [Page 100] I do not believe they would par­don such a Discovery to either of the Brothers themselves. There was never any poor Prince more notoriously abus'd by many of those he took for his best Friends than CHARLES the First. They put him on all those unhappy Measures which prov'd 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 concern'd so much for his Ho­nor, as their own Interest; and having contriv'd this Forgery to carry their Cause, they thought themselves afterwards oblig'd to support it. Mr. WAGSTAF affirms that there is no presumtion 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 [Page 101] 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 al­ledge more than a Presumtion, that both King CHARLES the Second and the late King JAMES declar'd thier 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 judg of the Exceptions we may expect to Dr. WALKER's Ac­count. That GAUDEN hop'd o make a Fortune by this Book, as well as to promote the Cause of the Church, ought by no means [Page 102] 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 liv'd depriv'd here in England, or that accompany'd CHARLES the Second in his Exile, pleaded their Loyalty, and magni­fy'd their Services at the Restora­tion, as many others would que­stionless do, if King JAMES should ever return again? Were not great Persons employ'd to solicit and make an Interest for them? And, in a Word, are not Divines ob­serv'd 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 [Page 103] 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 som People to have this business unravell'd, tho' their impolitic Conduct has bin since the occasion of divulging what every body suspected be­fore.

THE Immorality of this Forgery is urg'd 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 ly 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 Mens [Page 104] 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 don with that of King JESUS. Mr. WAG­STAF knows, tho' Mr. BLACKHALL does not, that TERTULLIAN * tells us of a certain Presbyter of Asia, who when he was accus'd of having forg'd a Book containing the Tra­vels of PAUL and THECLA, confest the Fact, and alledg'd 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.

[Page 105] AS for the plausible Accounts given in that Book of the King's Secret Intentions, his particular Trobles, his Remorses of Consci­ences, and the like, it is very ri­diculous to alledge '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 Color 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 thro'ly hand­led by JOHN MILTON in his Icono­clastes, to which I refer those who want Satisfaction.

[Page 106] 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 finisht Dr. GAUDEN was pleas'd to acquaint him with his Design, and shew him the Heads of diverse Chapters, with som of the Dis­courses written of them, and that Mr. GIFFORD transcrib'd a Copy of it. This is all that can be said of any Author in the World: and if Dr. WALKER had said more expres­ly, or rather superfluously, that it was likewise D. GAUDEN's Hand­writing, we should then have bin told, that it was a Transcript from the King's Copy in the Hands of Mr. SYMMONDS, of which more here­after.

[Page 107] WE proceed now to those Pieces commonly call'd 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 mention'd had indeed bin imparted to him as a Secret, which he was sorry he ever knew; and that when it ceast 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 question'd the Genuinness of this Book, and offer'd a fair Proof of the Spuriousness thereof from intrinsic Evidence only, without any further Light; would be extreamly pleas'd to find his Reasonings and Judgment confirm'd by undeniable [Page 108] 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 [Page 109] Bishop to his Father, he bad him tell him, that the King had very ill People about him, who turn'd all things into Ridicule; that they endeavor'd 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 deliver'd his Father these Particu­lars among others) to that con­cerning the Book, his Father re­ply'd, Good God! I thought the Marquiss of Hartford had satis­fy'd 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 won­dred any should go about to induce CHARLES the Second to question it. But for my part I think it very plain [Page 110] on the contrary, that he believ'd King CHARLES the First not to be the Author of that Book, and won­dred that King CHARLES the Second should not understand so much from the Marquiss of Hartford, who, as Dr. WALKER, and Mrs. GAUDEN inform us, was the Person that carry'd 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 imagin 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 don like a King, should have a [Page 111] 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 publisht against the King's Death, neither of which could be term'd such extraordina­ry Services, when many others had don the same, and more: much less could it be said that either of these Books was don like a King, or deserv'd a Kinglike Retribution; whereas Mr. WAGSTAF, and those who are of his Opinion, maintain that the the Stile 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 Stile 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 [Page 112] if CHARLES the First had seen the Book: but Mrs. GAUDEN affirms, that the Marquiss of Hartford told her Husband the King had seen and approv'd it, both which Assertions are consistent enough together. For Dr. GAUDEN might be ignorant that the King had seen it, when Dr. WALKER askt him that Question, who perhaps never mention'd 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 oblig'd 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 suppos'd 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 [Page 113] he might, because the Duke of York did, who own'd it to have bin 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 exa­min 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 prov'd Mortal to him; and that the Rea­son of it was, because he saw som Persons who were privy to it de­sire nothing more than to have it conceal'd, which he was not wil­ling it should be in consideration of his numerous Family, to whom it might somtime or other do sea­sonable Service?

NOW that no Mistakes may be occasion'd hereafter by imperfect Fragments of Mrs. GAU­DEN's [Page 114] Narrative, and that this Af­fair may be set in the clearest Light, I shall, before I proceed to the Examination of the positive Testimonies produc'd for the King, insert the Narrative here at large, as it was exactly copy'd from the Original, to which the curious are refer'd.

Mrs. GAVDEN's NARRATIVE.

MY Husband understand­ing the great Value and Esteem the People had of CROMWELL and of others in the Army, occasion'd by the high Opinion which they had of their Parts, and Piety; he being also well assur'd, 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 som [Page 116] Person who had found the Pa­pers in his Majesty's Chambers at Holmeby, being by chance left or scatter'd there. And to this pur­pose he had prefix'd an Epistle, which might be suppos'd 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, extream Merits, and admira­rable Endowments deserv'd. when my Husband had writ it, he shew'd 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 [Page 117] 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 Marquiss of Hartf [...]rd that then was, and to him deliver'd the Manuscript, and he deliver'd it to the King at the Isle of Wight, and likewise told him who the Author was. When my Lord Marquiss return'd; 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 exc [...]edingly approve of them, and asked whether they could not be put out in some other Name. The Bishop reply'd, that the De­sign was, that the World should take them to be his Majesty's. Whereupon his Majesty desir'd 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, [Page 118] and what will become of his Ma­jesty God knows. Upon this my Husband told my Lord Mar­quiss, 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 resolv'd 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 [Page 119] Imprisonment at Carisbrook Ca­stle. Now the Instrument which my Husband employ'd to get it printed, was one Mr. SIMMONDS, 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 call'd 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 destroy'd 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 finish'd till som few [Page 120] Days after his Majesty was de­stroyed. When it was com out, they who were then in Power were not only extremely displeas'd 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 suffer'd: or at least impossible that he should have writ it all; for after the Attendance of his Chaplains was deny'd 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 examin the Business; of which my Hus­band having notice, he went pri­vatly in the Night away from his [Page 121] own House to Sir JOHN WENT­WORTH'S, who liv'd 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. SYM­MONDS was taken in a Disguise; but God in his Providence so or­der'd it, that he sickned immedi­atly, and dy'd before h [...] came to his Examination: nor could the Committee find out any thing by any means whatever; which alter'd 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 som Let­ters, which, I am sure, will put it out of all Dispute. My Husband contin [...]d at Bo [...]king till the return of his Majesty King CHARLES the [Page 122] Second; and upon his Resto­ration, knowing his Princely Disposition, did not unjustly ex­pect a suitable Reward for his Endeavors 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 don his present Majesty and the Royal Family, in compo­sing and setting forth that excellent Piece, call'd the King's Book; and also assur'd him, that it had bin 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 bin to his Majesty, that according to his great Merit, he might have what Preferment he desir'd. Dr. MOR­LEY also told him, That he had acquainted Sir EDWARD HYDE with [Page 123] 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; som 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 foremen­tion'd Book) he told Dr. SHEL­DON, that since he had bin in­form'd that his Majesty, out of his Princely Disposition, would (without doubt) when once ac­quainted with it, reward that Ser­vice which he had endeavor'd to do his Father and himself; he thought it most convenient for himself, and also that he might [Page 124] be serviceable to his Majesty in the Diocess 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 pleas'd, with a great deal of Gravity to tell him that was a great Leap at first. Whereupon my Hus­band desisted, and was resolv'd 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 Bi­shopricks being otherwise dispos'd of. Not long after this it pleas'd. 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 som Persons who were privy to [Page 125] it, desir'd nothing more than to have it conceal'd, and bury'd 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 privatly with him, he told him the whole Matter as I have related it, and for the Truth of it, appeal'd to Dr. DUP­PA, then Bishop of Winchester, and formerly his Majesty's Tu­tor. The King then was pleas'd to entertain som Discourse with my Husband about it, and said that he did often wonder how his Father should have gotten [Page 126] Time and Privacy enough in his Troubles to compose so excel­lent a Piece, and written with so much Learning.

BY the Extract that was pub­lish'd of this Narrative it would seem as if it were somwhat 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 hinder'd the rest (if there be any) from being copy'd, I cannot certainly tell; tho', when ever I com by a true Information, I shall (if Oc­casion be) publish my Knowledg 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 Bishoprick of Win­chester; [Page 127] and that the Duke of York had also assur'd him of his Favor: 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 ob­tain [...]d the See of Winchester: That her Husband dying soon after, Mrs. GAUDEN petition'd the King, shewing 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 pray'd his Majesty to bestow the half years Rents upon her, which he deny'd, and gave then to another.’

WE learn further from Dr. WALKER, that immediatly upon Dr. GAUDEN'S Nomination to the Bishoprick 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 [Page 128] Majesty being pensive and out of Humor; in which Temper he still found him for two Mornings after: But having learnt the third Day that my Lord Chancellor had by all his Interest press'd the King to bestow Winchester on Dr. MOR­LEY, he presum'd to tell his Ma­jesty how uneasie he perceiv'd him to be between the Honor of his Word that he shou'd suc­ceed his Friend Dr. DUPPA, and the Importunity of those who sollicited for Dr. MORL [...]Y; and that therfore he most willingly releas'd his Majesty of his Pro­mise. Here, continues Dr. GAUDEN, the King stopt me, and vouch­saf'd 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 shew 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 [Page 129] 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 uneasie, and occa­sion'd Sir WILLIAM TEMPLE (whom he had serv'd after this manner) to fay 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 easie to change Hands, when those he imploy'd seem'd to have engag'd him in any Difficulties; so as no­thing lookt steddy in the Conduct of his Affairs, nor aim'd at any certain end.’

[Page 130] THUS we have don 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, then Bishop of Glocester, did, on her receiving of the Sacra­ment, put the Question to her, affirm'd, 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 Labor, and that is to shew the Invalidity of the Facts which are alledg'd 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, [Page 131] which, says Mr. WACSTAF, contra­tradicts what he's believ'd to have said to my Lord ANGLES [...]Y. But with his good leave the Conclusi­sion does not follow: for these Letters were issu'd 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 convinc'd that his Father had not written the Book. But if King CHARLES the Second had dissembled his Knowledge of this Affair, it had not bin at all a thing inconsistent with this Character, but a Piece of his Grandfather's boasted Kingcraft, and which he practic'd on many less pardonable Occasions. Have not Princes in all Ages, as well as other Men, bin allow'd to keep things secret which it was not their Inte­rest should be known, and which are commonly call'd by the Name of State Mysteries? How many Juggles are us'd by the Eastern Prin­ces [Page 132] 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 m [...]erly 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 particula [...]ly 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 affirm'd of King EDWARD'S Wonder working Touch. 'Tis strange, that a Protestant Bishop, [Page 133] 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 my self that King CHARLES the Second (who is said to have cur'd 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 ab [...]lisht 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 [Page 134] WILLIAM DUGDALE relates in his P. 380. short View of the Troubles of England) did, thro' the Favor 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 order'd to be pub­lish'd were infinitely of greater consequence, and made him a [Page 135] world of Enemies, which oblig'd the Author of Icon Basilike to write a Chapter on this very Sub­ject; whereas the Papers in que­stion would probably mollify som of his Opposers. But now when all is don, tho' General FAIRFAX was afterwards against putting the King to death, yet he was not at that time dispos'd to grant him any Favors, 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 publish'd and confidently reported to be the Kings, all he said was that he sure­ly believ'd 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 [Page 136] Testimony are diverse 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 scratch'd out or blotted som Lines or Words of som 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 [Page 137] can be intimated from, Sir, your humble Servant RICHARD DUKE.’ Then one Mr. CAVE BECK writes to Dr. HOLLINGWORTH ‘That Ma­jor HUNTINGTON at Ipswich as­sur'd him that so much of the sa'd Book as contain'd his Maje­sty's Mediations before Naseby- [...]ight was taken in the King's Cabinet; and that Sir THOMAS FAIRFAX deliver'd the said Papers to him, and order'd him to carry them to the King; and also told him, that when he de­liver'd them to the King, his Majesty appear'd very joyful, and said he esteem'd '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 enq [...]r'd of him; but in­deed 'tis no great Wonder that these Gentlemen should so widely differ from one another, both as to [Page 138] 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 shew 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 ex­presly writes, That Mr. HERBERT did often see the Icon Basilike while [Page 139] he waited on the King in the Isle of Wight; wheras all that Sir THO­MAS (for he was Knighted after the Restoration) has said in the Manuscript which Sir WILLIAM perus'd, and wherof 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's 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 presum'd, (continues Sir THOMAS) that he compos'd his Book, call'd Suspiria Regalia, publish'd soon after his Death, and entitul'd, The King's Portraiture in his Solitudes and Suf­ferings: [Page 140] which Manuscript Mr. HERBERT found among those Books his Majesty was pleas'd to give him, those excepted which he bequeath'd to his Children here­after mention'd. In regard Mr. HERBERT, tho' he did not see the King write that Book, his Majesty being always privat when he writ; and those his Servants never coming into the Bed Cham­ber when the King was privat, til he call'd; yet comparing it with his Hand-writing 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 it self 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) [Page 141] that he often saw it in the Isle of Wight when he waited on the King in his Bed-Chamber. 'Tis to be observ'd, 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 examin the Force of Sir THOMAS's 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 Knowledg he can depose the Book was truly the Kings, having observ'd his Ma­jesty oftentimes writing his Royal Resentments of the bold and in­solent Behavior 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 [Page 421] in Manuscript under his Maje­sty's own Hand, being pleas'd to leave it in the Window of his Bed-Chamber: And that when the King was remov'd to Hurst-Castle, he had the Charge of this Book, and a Cabinet of other Papers, which at the said Castle he deliver'd 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 privat, when he wrote, and his Servants never coming into his Bed-Cham­ber till he call'd;) yet Mr. LEVET, a Page of the Back Stairs, often saw him write, knew what he wrote, and could read the Book when he [Page 143] pleas'd. Then that the King, who is said to value this Book more than all his Jewels, should so careles­ly leave it in his Bed-chamber 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 concern'd 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 talk'd 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 shar'd, or could reasonably expect; but yet they neither [Page 144] dreamt of this Business then, nor believ'd 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 interlin'd or tran­scrib'd it, which he ought to have don, 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, allow'd, 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 [Page 145] midst of Treaties, in the Hurry of Removals, while he meditated his Escape, and was strictly observ'd by his Guards. But these Gentle­men tell us of as many Copies, as the Papists shew 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) shew'd 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 de­liver'd to the King at Hurst-Ca­stle? But why, in the Name of God, is none of these ever since produc'd? How came this Prince's Autographs to be thus neglected, when his Day is so strictly ob­serv'd? This is a Piece of Re­spect that's usually paid to less con­siderable Persons; and I believe ei­ther of the Universities, would rea­dily [Page 146] give Five Hundred Pounds to have such a Copy plac'd 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 join'd together, which is, that one saw the King write he knew not what, but believ'd it might be this Book; another observ'd him writing his Resentments against the rude Behavior 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 genuin 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 [Page 147] read, which was never deny'd by any that I know.

IT is further urg'd 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 alledg'd by Mr. WAG­STAF, we shall hear and examin them when they'll please to tell us their Names, tho' all they have to say is answer'd 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.

[Page 148] MR. LE PLA Minister of Fin­chingfield writes to Dr. GOODAL, that one WILLIAM ALLEN, who collected his Tythes for two Years, and was formerly a Servant to Dr. GAUD­EN, affirm'd to him, ‘That the Doctor told him he had borrow'd the Book, and was oblig'd to re­turn it by such a time; that (besides what other time he might imploy 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 PLA thinks (for he's not positive) it was from Mr. SYMMONDS of Rayne that he said the Doctor had borrow'd the Book.’ Dr. HOLLINGWORTH has formerly af­firm'd this Story of SYMMONDS's, who indeed assisted afterwards in printing the Book at London; but was so far at this time from liv­ing at Rayne in the Neighborhood of Bocking where Dr. GAUDEN dwelt, that as Dr. WALKER shews, [Page 149] Mr. SYMMONDS was long before sequestred for his Loyalty, fled to the King's Quarters, and one Mr. ATKINS plac'd 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 com to the late King JAMES's Letters Patents to Mr. CHISWEL for Liberty to print his Father 's Works; for they are urg'd as an Argument that he thought Icon Basilike genuin, tho' this Book be not specially menti­on'd 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 som Light to this Matter. In the Year 1677, the House of Commons having voted two [Page 150] 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 con­cern'd 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, wherof every Parish in Eng­land should be oblig'd 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 fram'd of Brass or Marble. This Thought was very well lik'd by several great Men of the Church and State, who shew'd themselves ready to promote it; and he did not, we may imagin, spare any Cost or Labor to have it succeed, tho' 'tis well known how little CHARLES the Second himself encourag'd it. But the [Page 151] 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 Favor to the Church of England, Mr. CHISWEL thought again of rev [...] ­ving his Project, and employ'd Sir ROGER L ESTRA [...]GE to procure him only King JAMES's 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 [...] Basilik [...] was not his Father's Book, and he could not therefore in Con­science recommend it as his. [Page 152] Mr. CHISWEL being inform'd of this Resolution by Sir ROGER, an­swer'd, that he thought he could accommodat the Matter: For since the publishing of the rest would signifie 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 som 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 propos'd, 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, [Page 153] who told me this Story himself, not to gratifie or injure any side, but as a Matter of Fact, wherein he was personally con­cern'd; 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 som eminent Persons now living, who told me so much themselves, with a Liber­ty of mentioning their Names, which, after all that has bin offer'd, I see no Necessity of doing.

THAT nothing may be wanting I shall in the last place consider what is objected to the Prayer us'd 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 [Page 154] Contrivance of MILTON, who catching his Friend Mr. Du GARD 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 GARD, who was Printer to the Parliament, ever printed this Book, and that the Prayer is in the se­cond Edition publish'd by Mr. ROYSTON, whose Evidence is al­ledg'd 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 [Page 155] long before expos'd in Iconocla­stes? After this I need not go about to shew that Dr. GILL had no Reason for the great Opinion he entertain'd of HENRY HILL, and how little he consulted his own Reputation by asserting that no Man was better vers'd in the secret History of those times; that he was intrusted with Intrigues by the great ones of that Go­vernment, who, as all the World knows, manag'd their Affairs af­ter another rate. Nor will I in­sist upon his turning Papist in King JAMES's time to becom his Printer, as he was OLIVER's be­fore, or any other Circumstance to lessen his Credit, since it appears that what he averr'd is inconsistent with Matter of Fact, Mr. ROYSTON, and not Du GARD, having publish'd the Celebrated Prayer which I add in this Place laid Parallel with the Original.

The Prayer of King CHARLES, stil'd 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 contemn'd, look upon my Misery with thine Eye of Mercy, and let thine infinite Power vouchsafe to limit out som 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 Iustice. But yet, my God, if in thy Wisdom this be the aptest Chastisement for my unexcusable Transgressions, if [Page 158]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 thy self, thou wilt suffer some Beam of thy Majesty so to shine in my Mind, that I, who in my greatest Affli­ctions acknowledg it my noblest Title to be thy Creature, may still depend considently 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 [Page 460] to serve thee without Fear or Presumtion, yet with that hum-Confidence which may best please thee; so that at the last I may com to thy Eternal Kingdom, through the Merits of thy Son, our a­lone Savior, JESUS CHRIST. Amen.

The PRAYER of PAME­LA (to a Heathen Deity) In Pembroke's Arcadia, pag. 248, 1674.

O All-seeing Light, and Eter­nal Life of all things, to whom nothing is either so great that it may resist, or so small that it is contemn'd, look upon my Mi­sery with thine Ey of Mercy, and let thine infinite Power vouchsafe to limit out som 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 [Page 159]Bondage be fittest for my over­high 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 my self, that I am thy Creature, and by thy Goodness, which is thy self, that thou wilt suffer som 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; [Page 161]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 sa­tisfy'd Mr. BLACKHALL, since I have not only laid together the first Testimonies concerning this Mat­ter, but also answer'd the Excepti­ons that were made to those Te­stimonies, and disprov'd the fresh Evidence which was produc'd 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 Scribler, yet I'll be misrepresented and abus'd by no body worth my notice.

INDEED Mr. BLACKHALL is not the first who has occasion'd Con­troversies by a Thirtieth of Ianuary Segmon. Every body knows how [Page 163] much the Observation of that Day was abus'd in the two last Reigns by servil Flatterers, who, not content to run shameful Parallels between the Sufferings of our Savior and the King (wherein the latter was often made to exceed) they taught the Peo­ple the ridiculous Doctrin of Pas­sive Obedience, as they allow'd the Prince an Unlimited and Despotic Power. This render'd 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 fail'd not to improve it to the utmost. It was likewise observ'd 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 abolish'd, or bu­ry'd in eternal Oblivion. Besides [Page 164] 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: wherfore 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 Ianuary. Other Holydays have bin recommended to a constant Observation, tho' they are since grown into disuse, or are legally abolish'd, 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 [Page 165] mind of that Set of Men who preach'd '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 concern'd in that Act, and many of 'em far from ap­proving it, conceive themselves un­kindly us'd in most of those Dis­courses; nor are the Posterity of the greatest Royalists in a better Condition, if that be a National Guilt that's never to be expiated, tho' neither they nor their Ancestors consented to it; to say nothing of the frequent Intermarriages and o­ther Tyes 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 constrain'd to it by som officious Chaplain: But [Page 166] they cannot endure to hear the Members of the Parliament of 40 so infamously branded, considering how lately they were oblig'd them­selves to assert their Laws and Li­berties against the Martyrs Son, who violated and broke them at his Pleasure: And in this Sense ma­ny were of Opinion that King CHARLES's Blood lay heavy on the Nation, which made them for the ease of the same to shake off the Burden of King JAMES.

SOM, who otherwise Honor the Memory of King CHARLES the First, are angry to hear him, in Mr. BLACK­HALL's Language, call'd 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 infinitly excel him in all Moral and Heroic Vir­tues. As for Princes, if good Manners could not make Mr. BLACK­HALL except the present King, Ju­stice [Page 167] at least might well oblige him to do it. King WILLIAM has never dispens'd with express Laws in fa­vor of Popish Recusants. He never protected any of his Chaplains a­gainst the Parliament for preaching up Arbitrary Power. He never re­quir'd Soldiers to be try'd by Mar­tial Law in time of Peace; nor levy'd Loans or Ship mony contra­ry to Law, much less imprison'd, fin'd or banish'd such as refus'd to pay those illegal Taxes. He does not countenance any SIBTHORPS, MAN­WARINGS, or MOUNTAGUES to teach his Subjects Non-Resistance, 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 [Page 168] that Freedom of Debate which is Essential to their Constitution. He never threaten'd 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 seiz'd the Customs without any Act to impow­er him. He never promis'd (as King CHARLES did in a Letter to his Queen) that he would take away all the Penal Laws against Roman Catholicks 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 shew how little som sort of People seem to value his present Majesty for ge­nerously restoring the Constitu­tion, and for so willingly passing [Page 169] 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 guess, when he says, That King CHARLES's 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 [Page 170] 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 som Portions of his pretended Book read in the Church for the fur­ther enlightning of our Under­standing: Nor that Dr. PERINCHIFF should tell us in his Life how som purchas'd Chips of the Block on which he was beheaded, and Par­cels of the Sands discolor'd with his Blood, as also som 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 Reliques, experienc'd, fail'd not of the Effect. Now who can laugh at the Popish Legends, and be serious when he reads this Pas­sage? Wheras, if there was [...]ver any Power in England of curing the King's Evil, it was plainly lodg'd in the People.

[Page 171] BEFORE I conclude, I must re­mark, that tho 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 entitul'd to the Philip­picks and the Aeneids. There is an interpolated Copy of it in the first Volum of RUSHWORTH's Col­lections: It is rightly inserted in the Quarto Edition of a Book call'd Cabala, or Mysteries of State: It is also in the Italian Mercury of VITTORIO SIRI: in Du 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. [Page 172] Now was not the omitting of this Letter a notorious Fraud, since that it alone, with those Letters which the Parliament publish'd to disgrace him, and a few Pieces besides, make up all his genuin 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 deny'd me by Equity or Law, and which, if I neglected to improve, I should be more unjust to my self than my Adversaries, whose Malice I shall readily forget, and heartily pray God to forgive.

FINIS.

This keyboarded and encoded edition of the work described above is co-owned by the institutions providing financial support to the Text Creation Partnership. This Phase I text is available for reuse, according to the terms of Creative Commons 0 1.0 Universal. The text can be copied, modified, distributed and performed, even for commercial purposes, all without asking permission.