Hand-writing as well as the Corrections from the beginning The Author of the Memorandum saith That he inserted it there that is in the void Leaf of a small printed Copy for the Undeceiving others in this Point Ans I should guess that the Earl was scarcely undeceived himself in this Point by the little heed and care which he took for the undeceiving of others For first It is likely says Dr. Walker that no Eye had seen it from the time of the writing of it Anne 1675 Nor did I ever hear that he declared to any other though I presumed to ask the Reverend Doctor Richard Ansley the Earl's Son and Dean of Exeter concerning it and I agree with Dr. Walker in this That if Mr. Millington had not casually opened it it might have fallen into the hands of one that either had not regarded it or would have concealed it p. 31. If the Earl had been fully convinced of the King's Relation and intended to Undeceive others as by the Memorandum it seems he intended to do what should hinder him to have made a more publick Declaration of a Truth for which he had the Authority both of the King and Duke not only to secure him but to gratifie him for publishing what they were so willing should be known And if this thing was done in the House of Lords as the Memorandum says and where so great a Concourse was and a Matter fit to be known was offered the King viz. the sight of his Father's Book wherein were the Corrections and Alterations written with the King 's own hand it 's probable it was shown to some of the Nobles who also might hear the Discourse and yet it was not spoken or dreamt of until this Memorandum was by chance opened some Years after Lastly I shall believe unless the sight of that Book convince me of the contrary that it was wholly written with his Majesty's own hand as well as the Corrections because I have the Testimonies of many competent Witnesses to induce me so to believe viz. Mr. Levet Mr. Herbert Major Huntington and that Captain who was converted by it when the King was even ready to die on his Cross Nor can I believe that the Noble Earl did write that Memorandum as we have it there are many in London can counterfeit any Man 's Writing We know how his Majesty was abused by counterfeiting his Broad-Seal but neither doth the Memorandum say That the Book was not of the King 's Writing only that the Corrections were which excludes not the other and though that particular Book were not yet one there was written wholly by the King as is irrefragably proved I desire the Reader therefore to take notice that I reflect not on the Earl's hand for which we have no Proof and because we hear not of any thing spoken or done by the Earl to Undeceive the People in that Point which if he had been willing to do he could never have a better opportunity than then when the King the Duke and as we may believe a great number of the Lords the highest Judicature of the Nation were in the House then I say was the fittest time if the Earl had been as willing to Undeceive the Nation as the King and Duke were and the fairest opportunity to do it by shewing them the Book many of the Lords then present knowing the King's Hand and not to leave it in a void Leaf of a Twelve-peny Book left undiscovered to the day of his death I may also presume that that Learned Earl who was as great a Lover of Truth as of Books having such a Book sometime how long I know not in his hands would either before or after it had been shewn to the King and Duke have compared the Print with the Copy and then if he had found any considerable Alterations he would have mentioned them in his Memorandum as the Ground of being undeceived himself and a farther Means to Undeceive the Nation And thus much for the Memorandum which I think never did Undeceive any except Dr. Walker P. 6 and 7. Dr. Walker affirms That Dr. Gauden had taken the Covenant If this be true I see no cause why he should have a Promise of the best Bishoprick in England though he might be prefered to that of Exeter for other good Services which he did after he became a Convert and wrote against the Covenant for when Dr. Reynolds that had taken the Covenant and as some say the Engagement was preferred to Norwich which is much better than Exeter and other Bishopricks were offered to others that were less deserving And p. 129. of his Anti-Baal Berith he calls God to witness that Exeter was granted him by the King's Favour and the general Desire of the City and Diocess of Exeter without any his own or others ambitious procuring or solliciting in his behalf I cannot perswade myself that if Bp. Duppa and those other great Men to whom the dispose of the Bishopricks was committed had known that Dr. Gauden bad written the King's Book would have set him below Dr. Reynolds and divers others that had done less Service if there had been no other reason for it but to engage him to Silence in so important a Secret But what if Dr. Walker do slander his Patron Dr. Gauden and it should appear that he never did take the Covenant no not in any sence I have so much Deference to the Worth of that Bishop as well as Gratitude as he was my Patron that I shall propose the Reasons why I think Dr. Walker hath injured him in this particular and if it appear to the Reader that Dr. Walker is injurious in this he will be induced to believe that he is not to be credited in his other Relation viz. That Dr. Gauden told him that he wrote the King's Book P. 275. of the Anti-Baal The same Objection was made and answered as followeth That Dr. Gauden had taken the Covenant For Dr. Gauden 's making one of the Number of his Covenanters as Mr. Crofton reckoneth without his Host. To satisfie Mr. Crofton and the Libeller's Curiosity who go by Hearsay Dr. Gauden assures the World That he never took any Oaths but those appointed by the Law no Protestation nor Engagement no League Vow or Negative Oath and for this Covenant he offered freely to some principle Authors of it his many just Scruples and Objections against it both as to its Matter and Authority He had some of their Answers under their Hands agreeable to that Sence his Charity was and is willing to interpret the meaning of the Covenant to reform not ruine Episcopacy then he declared publickly his Judgment for Bishops and Episcopacy to be such as now it is That he neither could nor ever would assent to the Covenant in any Sence but such as was in his Freedom to refuse and consistent with his former Oaths the Laws of the Land and the Preservation of Episcopal Government in its
persuaded by the little Knowledge that I had of Bp. Duppa that all the Art that Bp. Gauden had could never have drawn Bp. Duppa to consent with and assist him in what Dr. Walker accounts a Pious Fraud more than appearance of Evil the very concealing of which was a Trouble to Dr. Walker's Conscience forty Years together or if he had done such a thing he would have hazarded his Majesty's Favour whose Judgment was as he declares in the last of his Meditations on the Reformation of the Times That as good Ends cannot justifie evil Means so nor will evil Beginningâ—s ever bring forth good Conclusions And if Dr. Gauden had written that Period he had been Self condemned as well as by the Apostle those are who say Let us do evil that good may come of it Now if others how many Dr. Walker saith not and perhaps he might not know all that were privy to the whole it is probable some of them before their Deaths might have revealed this Secret or if any of them were living would have been produced to confirm the Doctor 's Testimony but we must take all on his word Though if Bp. Duppa had written on those two Heads there might be some difference observed in the Stile which appears to Dr. Walker himself to be exactly of the same Thread and hugely differing both from the Bishop's and the Doctor 's manner of writing as will appear hereafter But the reason which he gives why it was unlikely that Dr. Gauden neither thought nor wrote on these Subjects seems very infirm p. 7. he says Dr. Gauden was less concerned to think on them What less than to think of writing on the Covenant which Dr. Walker says he had taken p. 7. and against which not long after he wrote a large Treatise Or was he less concern'd to write of the Common Preyer Book which was made the Apple of Contention especially when that Dr. Walker observes a little before p. 7. That when Dr. Gauden discover'd his Error he endeavoured to redeem it by an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by bending to the contrary Extream Or was he less concern'd to write of the necessary Usefulness of his Majesty's Chaplains in his great Distress when the Doctor himself had the Attendance of two such as Dr. Walker and Mr. Gifford Doubtless the Doctor could not but apprehend it to be a most Unchristian Rigor to have the Attendance of his Spiritual Monitors and Comforters denied to him when he was in Extremity and appointed as a Sheep for the Slaughter Dr. Gauden knew better and was more concerned to write on this Subject than to give Rules to the Prince how to Govern the Kingdoms P. 5. Dr. Walker asking Dr. Gauden Whether the King had ever seen the Book Answered I know it certainly no more than you but I sent a Copy of it by the Marquess of Hartford when he went to the Isle of Wight intreating him on a private Opportunity to deliver it to his Majesty and humbly desire to know his Majesty's Pleasure concerning it but the Violence which threatned the King hastning so fast he ventured to print it and never knew what was the Issue of sending it Ans It looks very odly that Dr. Gauden having committed so great a Business to the Marquess's Management should never having many Opportunities after his return from the Isle of Wight enquire Whether the King had seen the Book and how he approved of the Design And no less strange that Dr. Gauden should presume to print such a Volume in the King's Name and make such Appeals and Protestations as if he had been made his Majesty's Proxy and were authorized Jurare in Animam suam And what great Hopes could the Doctor conceive that the publishing of the Book could stop the current of Violence which threatned the King when it had born down all the Mediation used by forreign Ambassadors all the Opposition made by the then Parliament voting his Majesty's Concessions a sufficient Ground for a Treaty of Peace the many Insurrections and Revolts of the People by Land and of the Navy by Sea and the Scots Remonstrances and Arming on his Majesty's behalf What hopes I say could Dr. Gauden conceive that his Book should be a Charm sufficient to calm that impetuous Torrent which grew the more rapid for all those Oppositions This and the Doctor 's Neglect to enquire of the Marquess whether the King did approve of the Pious Fraud may induce the considering Reader to believe that the Doctor did not convey any such Book of his to his Majesty by the Marquess for which we have no Evidence besides Dr. Walker's bare Word and in the first Testimony Dr. Walker says That Dr. Gauden had no account of it a little before his Death Tho' the Marquess and the Doctor lived somewhile after the Restauration And Dr. Walker says That Dr. Gauden being askt Whether K. Charles the Second knew that he wrote the Book answer'd That he could not certainly say he did because he never took notice of it to him but he took it for granted because the Duke of York knew it and spake of it to him and owned it as a seasonable and acceptable Service and he knowing it I question not but the King doth also Ans For all this we have only Dr. Walker's bare Word and that imports not that the King knew it but upon a Presumption that the Duke did Now to this Dr. Hollingworth replies p. 4. It is strange that if the King Charles the Second knew of it and the Marquess of Hartford and Bp. Duppa who could have informed the King of the great Merit of Dr. Gauden in writing and publishing that Book that Dr. Gauden should have no Preferment but the Bishoprick of Exeter for the present and that when as Dr. Walker says he had a Promise of Winchester he failed of it And as Dr. Gauden says The King seemed averse from giving it to him which was to fail of his Word And as Dr. Gauden confesseth he was not certain that the King knew of it a little before his Translation from Exeter to Worcester I say it is strange that the King should deny him any Kindness especially that which he had promised when he gave Dr. Reynolds the Bishoprick of Norwich and offered others to Persons that had deserved Rewards of another kind Dr. Walker says That Mrs. Gauden his Wife Mr. Gifford who he thinks transcribed a Copy of it and himself believed it as much as they could any Matter of Fact Ans As to Mrs. Gauden I have had a Report as from Dr. Walker That she being interrogated on the Sacrament Whether her Husband was the Author of this Book She declared upon her taking the Sacrament That he told her that he was This is confronted by Dr. Hollingworth p. 10. who was assured by a Reverend and Learned Minister in London that a Lady of good Quality told him That she being in company with Mrs. Gauden she
to believe that Dr. Symonds had a perfect Copy by which it was printed and by it he was enabled to correct the Proof-sheets And it is possible that Dr. Gauden might cause a Copy of this to be transcribed by Mr. Gifford as Dr. Walker thinks Mr. Clifford declares That the King for fear the Original should be lost ordered Mr. Odert Secretary to Sir Edw. Nicholas Principal Secretary of State to transcribe it and lodged the Original in the Marquess of Hartford's hands And by the Copy of Mr. Odert he i. e. Mr. Clifford and Mr. Milbourne did print the Book And further he saith That he never heard nay that he was sure that Dr. Gauden was never concerned in that Book by which Mr. Milbourne and Mr. Clifford printed it And Mr. milbourne the Printer and Mr. Clifford who were concerned in the printing of it say That the Copy by which it was printed came to his hands all at once Sect. 5. p. 23. Is an Answer to a Treatise intituled Restitution to the Royal Author wherein is set down this Memorandum of the E. of Anglesey on a printed Copy of the King's Book K. Charles the Second and the Duke of York did both in the last Sessions of Parliament 1675 when I shewed them in the Lord's House the written Copy of this Book wherein are some Corrections and Alterations written with the late K. Charles the First 's own hand assure me that this was none of the said King 's Compiling but made by Dr. Gauden Bishop of Exon which I here insert for the Undeceiving others in this Point by attesting so much under my Hand Anglesey Ans Whether the whole or any part of this Memorandum were the Hand writing of the E. of Anglesey is not proved and therefore the Author of the Restitution might more freely reflect on it supposing it not to be the Earl's and that First by the Impropriety of the Expressions as calling his then Royal Highness which was the proper Court-phrase the D. of York but what is more material is that both the King and Duke should assure him That this was none of K. C. 1st's Compiling but made by Dr. Gauden Bp. of Exeter which is a greater Impropriety to call him that dyed Bp. of Worcester Bp. of Exeter which Charles the 2d must needs know having had so great a Contest with him when he granted him the Bishoprick of Worcester who had a Promise of Winchester of which Dr. Walker gives a large account p. 15 16 17 18. And whereas the Earl says they both did assure him c. Quere what Arguments they used Dr. W. himself would not have taken their bare Words for an Assurance seeing that he still reserved a liberty to dissent from what he says He was so well perswaded of as of any matter of Fact if more probable Arguments were produced But against the bare Word of this Royal Pair the Author observes the publick Acts of Charles the 2d who Anno 1660 gave Mr. Royston as a Requital of printing his Father's Book the sole Priviledge of printing all the Works of K. C. 1st among which this Book hath a particular Character of Recommendation the substance of the Priviledge is in these words Charles the Second c. whereas we have received sufficient Testimony of the Fidelity and Loyalty of our Servant Richard Royston and of the great Losses and Troubles he sustained for his Faithfulness to our Royal Father of Blessed Memory and Our self in printing and publishing many Messages and Papers of our said Blessed Father especially those most excellent Discourses and Soliloquies by the Name of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Know ye that it is our Royal Will and Pleasure and we do by these Presents grant to the said Richard Royston c. the sole printing and publishing of the said Messages Papers and Discourses contained in the Book intituled Reliqiuae Sacrae Carolinae with other Papers and Declarations concerning our said Royal Father c. The same Priviledge was granted to Mr. Royston by K. James the Second Anno 1685 whence the Author of the Restitution leaves it to the Readers to judge whether these publick Declarations of both the Kings made with all the Circumstance of Advantage are to be believed before a blind Manuscript written by a doubtful Hand and grounded on a private Relation to which may be added that K. James the Second in a Letter from Rochester before his Departure quoted a Passage out of his Father's Book viz. There is but little between the Prisons and the Graves of Princes To this Dr. W. answers That Kings are not so Critical as to inspect the Particulars of their Royal Grants To which it may be replied That if they had been well informed that this Book was written by Bp. Gauden as the Memorandum says they did affirm it was a Crime Laesae Majestatis to say they publickly and personally attested that to be their Father's when they believed the contrary To this Dr. Walker rejoyns an Answer by a Parallel Case Of a Printer's having a License to print K. David 's Psalms containing in number 150 Would this saith he prove that David was the Pen-man of them all No say I because the Titles prefixt to many of the Psams declare that some of them were penned by other Authors as Moses who lived long before David Heman Asaph c. who lived after him and yet the Denomination may be taken from the greater part of the Psalms which are acknowledged to be David ' s. But how could that King give a Priviledge to print his Father's Works if he knew that the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which is especially recommended and for the sake of which the Collection was made were not his Father's But as if this Objection had been foreseen it is sufficiently confuted by the Distinction made by both the Kings between the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which they own to be their Royal Father's and other Papers and Declarations concerning their Royal Father for the drawing up of which they conceived he made use of his Ministers and Secretaries though it be well-known that his Majesty of Blessed Memory was wont not only with great Deliberation to review the first Draughts but taking his Pen in hand to tell them merily That he was a pretty good Cobler and made such Additions and Alterations as he thought fit insomuch as they who knew him most intimately affirmed That if he had been a Secretary to any other Prince he would have been esteemed as an Oracle But here it may be enquired How the two Kings were so well assured themselves that the Book was written by Bp. Gauden as to assure others of it Whereas Dr. Walker says That Dr. Gauden himself knew not to his dying day whether Charles the Second ever knew it but by Conjecture because the Duke of York knew it It seems then the King must have the certainty from the Duke and he that considers the Circumstances in which the Duke
was and what Dependance for Certainty might be grounded on his solemn Words especially when the Cause of his espoused Church of Rome was interposed will not be easily persuaded Jurare in verba It is too evident how little he regarded either the Reputation or the Desire and Charge of his dying Father p. 138. of that Book viz. I intreat and require you as your Father and King That you never suffer your Heart to receive the least Check against or Disaffection from the true Religion established in the Church of England c. But the Author of the Restitution urgeth a more considerable Objection p. 24. of Dr. Walker That in the written Copy of this Book the Memorandum says there were some Corrections and Alterations written by K. Charles 's own hand which the Author of the Restitution presseth as an Argument that the King was the Author or otherwise there could be no reason given for his Majesty's correcting the Manuscript and suffering it to pass as a Book of his own Composure for without question the King knew of the printing of it having sent to Royston to prepare his Press for something that he would send him to be printed four Months before And the whole Book as Dr. Walker owns was in the Printer's hands in December and the Copies published about the end of January of which the King most probably was certified it being his great Concern Yet Dr. Walker answers That what the Corrections by the King 's own hand seemed to his Adversary to be a Reason of seems to Dr. Walker to be quite contrary and says That he assuredly believes this corrected Copy was that sent by the Marquess of Hartford from Dr. Gauden To which it may be replied That as Dr. Walker says it is not certain that Dr. Gauden's Book was ever delivered to the King of which as hath been acknowledged by him the Doctor had never any notice Nor secondly that the King had leisure at that important Season being worried by the Divines that were sent to him in a tedious Dispute concerning Church-Government which he so well defended against them as in the Account printed in his Reliquiae Carolina which no Man did ever question to be the King 's own but also by the Commissioners who were limited to a certain day and by Delays and Unreasonable Demands against both his Honour and Conscience so perplexed him that he had but little time or heart either to View or Correct another Man's Writings But thirdly if Dr. Gauden's Copy sent by the Marquess was the Copy that was corrected by the King 's own hand as Dr. Walker says he verily believes then do I assuredly believe that it was not that Copy by which the Book was printed 1. Because Dr. Walker says that Dr. Gauden having no return from the King concerning his Approbation and Publishing of the Book sent the last parts of it to the Press by Dr. Walker in December see p. 33. whereas he acknowledgeth that Mr. Herbert and Mr. Levet might see the corrected Copy at the Isle of Wight as Sir W. Dugdale affirms they did and they attending his Majesty till he was made a close Prisoner and by a Vote of the then Parliament for Non-addresses and the imprisoning his Sacred Person in Hurst-Castle by order from the Army which was as Whitlock in his Memoirs notes to be on the 4th of December The King had no opportunity after that to send Dr. Gauden's Book to the Press And Dr. Walker says That Dr. Gauden would not write for a return of that Copy but sent another So that the Premises considered it is most probable that the whole Book was long before finished by the King with the Corrections viewed and brought into order and fairly transcribed by Sir John Brattle and his Father as Sir John hath attested and then the Original returned to the King who had it by him at the Isle of Wight But the Copy written by Sir J. Brattle and his Father or which is more probable by Mr. Odert for it was transcribed more than once for fear of miscarrying Was the Copy recommended to Mr. Simmonds to fit it for the Press who most probably did procure the printing of it because the Proof-sheets were sent back to him as they were printed off as Dr. Walker confesseth in a memorable Scory p. 30. And this answers those two Objections made by Dr. Walker p. 25. If the King himself had been the Author why was not the Book in his own Hand-writing as well as the Corrections and Alterations And why any Corrections of a fair Copy if he had finished the Original himself before it was copied Or why if he sent it to be printed did he not send the corrected Copy rather than an imperfect one which needed his Correction and Alteration All these Questions are briefly answered thus The King's Book which was both written and corrected by his own hand as Mr. Levet affirms was transcribed fairly by another hand and the Transcript sent to the Press the Original being returned to the King at the Isle of Wight and this is the Reason why the corrected Copy was not sent to the Press P. 20. Dr. Walker says That in more than forty Years there may be some Mistake in Sir J. B. of other Papers for these or some other lapse of Memory c. Reply And why might not Dr. Walker in forty Years be guilty of a Mistake or Lapse of Memory about a Matter in which he was less concern'd than Sir John for Dr. Walker says He never read the Book in Manuscript which Sir John transcribed and affirms it still to have been the King 's own hand And why might he not mistake Dr. Gauden's declaring it to be his Book when he declared only that he published the King's Book though I see no ground to believe either As for the corrected Copy it will appear that the whole Book as well as the Corrections was the King's Hand-writing by this following Testimony under Mr. Richard Duke's hand communicated to me Sir I confess that I heard Major Huntington to say more than once That whilst he guarded Charles the First at Holmeby-house as I remember he saw several Chapters or Leaves of that Great King's Meditations lying on the Table several Mornings with a Pen and Ink with which the King scratched out or blotted some Lines or Words of some of them Upon which I must also confess that I concluded they were originally from the King but others have drawn a contrary Argument from the King 's correcting the Papers yet I put this under my hand that the Major told me That he did suppose them originally from that Learned Prince Which is the Totum that can be intimated from Sir your humble Servant Richard Duke This was written to Dr. Charles Goodall June 15 1692 from whom I received it This shews that the King was wont to correct his Meditations shortly after his penning of them and the whole was his
may also give you some Directions how to remedy the present Distempers and prevent if GOD will the like for the time to come It is some kind of lessening and deceiving the Injury of my long Restraint when I find my Laeisure and Solitude have produced something worthy of myself and useful to you that neither you nor any other may hereafter measure my Cause by the Success nor my Judgment of Things by my Misfortune c. I cannot think that any but the King could be the Author of this Letter 1st Because it is affirmed by many that it was delivered to Bishop Juxton to be conveyed to the Prince 2ly Because as K. James his Father had left large Instructions to his Son with a Charge to observe them which he called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so in Imitation of him King Charles would not leave the World without giving his Son whom he left in a Sea of Troubles without some Directions which he had learned by long Experience how to steer his Course And if this Letter be the King 's we have an Assurance that the rest of his Meditations were so too to which the King refers the Prince for further Direction One instance I cannot omit because I think that this being joyned with that of the Letter to the Prince may if well considered put an end to the Controversie it is the Answer which the King made to the Commissioners in the Isle of Wight when they prest him to yield to their Desires for the Abrogating of Episcopacy in England To which Dr. Gauden says the King answered That he had granted all he could to save his Life which might consist with the saving of his Soul And being urged again That his Majesty had abolished Episcopacy in Scotland He answer'd That it is no Plea to sin again because he had once sinned in this kind but rather to repent and do so no more This Answer of the King's Dr. Gauden might have known in the Year 1661 when he quoted it in Anti-Baal p. 134. but he could not know it so early as to place it in the middle of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if he had written that Book the Chapter being the 17th of that Book was in all probability written by the King some Years before which was not known to the Bishop before that Book was printed But the King had opportunity after the Treaty to correct alter and add what he thought fit till his close Imprisonment so that he had either written the Answer which we have in that Chapter before which the Doctor had not seen so long ago as to write it in that place or inserted it after the Treaty was over the King's Answer is this If any shall impute my yielding to them the Scots as my Failing and Sin I can easily acknowledge it but that is no Argument to do so again or much worse being now more convinced in that Point nor indeed hath my yielding to them been so Happy and Successful as to encourage me to grant the like to others Nor is it so likely that the Bishop would accuse the King of Sin though he doth it himself which might have put a better Argument into his Enemies mouths than any the had invented against him viz. His Obstinacy to grant that to the English which he had granted to the Scots More Instances may be collected from almost every Chapter by the Judicious to convince him that not Dr. Gauden but the King was the Author of that Book I suppose therefore that the King might insert that Answer after he had given it to the Commissioners at the Treaty for evident it is that the Title was altered after the Book was in the Press by the King's order on Dr. Taylor 's Letter which is another good Argument That Dr. Gauden's shewing the Title 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to evade the Fault of imposing a Book of his own on the Nation in the King's Name was a meer Fiction of Dr. Walker's for the Book which was sent to the Press had another Title viz. Suspiria Regalia or The Royal Defence and was not altered until the Book was begun to be printed I am loath to defile my hands again by medling with Milton but I must to stop the foul Mouths of some People whom he hath taught to object that his Majesty made use of a Prayer made by a Heathen to a false God or Goddess in time of Captivity To which I answer 1st By denying what Milton says That the King had unhallowed and unchristned Christianism by borrowing to a Christian use Prayers offered to a Heathen God To which Dr. Earle's Answer to Milton saith Did St. Paul by applying to a Christian use the Words of a Heathen Philosopher and Poet unhallow the Scripture Doth not Milton confess that Book of Sir Philip Sidney's is full of Wit and Worth And why might not a Christian Prince collect what is good out of a worthy Book of such a Religious Author for Sir Philip Sidney was known to be a Man of great Piety and Wisdom as well as of Courage and Wit I have heard that the King for his Recreation did divert himself by reading that Book the best of its kind then extant and he did it with great Observation and good Improvement Now which is more commendable the King who made his very Recreations subservient to his Devotion or those Adversaries of his that prophaned the Scriptures and their Prayers with preaching up Rebellion Cursing the King and venting their Malice and bitter Passions against their Brethren The King had great Examples for what he did no less than of our Saviour who in the Institution of both Sacraments and in composing the Form of Prayer for his Disciples made use both of the Matter and Words which were used by the Jews adapting them to his Sacred Ordinances that are to continue till the World's end And when Celsus objected to St. Origen That he could parallel most of our Saviour's Precepts with the Saying of some of his Heathens Origen thought it a great Recommendation of the Evangelical Precepts that they so well accorded with the Moral and Natural Truths which the Reason of Mankind did approve of Were the Jews ever blamed for Adorning the Temple with the Riches and Spoil of Aegypt Did not Solomon borrow Materials and Architecks from an Idolatrous King to build the Temple of the True God God permitted his own People to do what the King if he did it hath done They might marry a Moabitish Woman that was a Captive after her Purification by paring her Nails and shaving her Hair and so she became a Daughter of Sion It is easie to collect from such Heathen as Seneca M. Antonius Epictetus M. Tyrias c. such Petitions to their Unknown Gods as might shame the hasty Harangues of many who profess a more perfect Knowledge than others of the True God Dr. Patrick in his Parable of the Pilgrim written after the manner of