(t) Second

edition, pub

lifhed in

1650, re

P. 10.

prayers may be his, though his friends would,

many

laying taxes on their fubjects by the head; but of any king heretofore, that made a levy upon their wit, and feized it as his own legitimate, I have not whom befide to inftance (t).'

All this may be thought perhaps very fevere: but unluckily the thing charged on Charles, the ftealing this published by prayer from the Arcadia, is true, though it has been preBaronin4to. tended to be otherwife by fome gentlemen. I will quote Lond. 1756, Wagstaff, whofe vindication of king Charles, against Walker and others, is in good esteem with the admirers of this monarch.- I know but of one objection more, and that refpects a prayer added to fome editions of the king's book [Icon Bafilike], as ufed by the king, and faid to be taken out of a romance, &c. Now though I know of no manner of harm in this, and the objection is plainly peevifh and querulous; for why may not a man ufe good expreffions in his prayers, let them be borrowed from whom they will, as well as a good fen< tence out of a heathen writer, and which was never any blemish, tho' on the most pious occafions? yet there is great reason to believe that the king did never 'make use of it, for that it is not found in the first, nor • in feveral other the moft early editions of this book (u).' -The fame writer afterwards adds, Since the first ediking Charlestion of this Vindication, I have received full and conthe marty! vincing information, concerning the myftery of this prayer, that it was an artifice of Bradshaw, or Milton, or both, and by them furreptitiously thrust into the king's works, to difcredit the whole. This information comes originally from Mr. Hills the printer; but conveyed by two worthy gentlemen, and against whom there can be no poffible exception, Dr. Gill and Dr. • Bernard, who both were phyficians to him, and very intimate with him. What Hills declared, as these gentlemen say, was this: Mr. Dugard, who was Milton's intimate friend, happened to be taken printing an "edition of the king's book. Milton used his interest to bring him off, which he effected by the means of

() Vindication of

8vo. p. 50, Lond. 1697.

• Brad

many of them, have been glad they had not been

• Bradshaw; but upon this condition, that Dugard 'fhould add Pamela's prayer to the aforefaid books he was printing, as an attonement for his fault, they defigning thereby to bring a scandal upon the book, and blaft the reputation of its author; pursuant to which

' defign, they induftriously took care afterwards, as foon

6 as published, to have it taken notice of (w).'—In re- (w) Wagply to this, Toland fays, I wonder at the eafine's of Dr. staff, p. 51. Gill and Dr. Bernard to believe fo grofs a fable, when it does not appear that Dugard, who was printer to the parliament, ever printed this book; and the prayer is in the fecond edition, published by Mr. Royston, 'whose evidence is alledged to prove the genuineness of 'the book. And if the king's friends thought it not his ' own, what made them print it in the firft impreffion of his works in folio, by Royston in 1662, when Milton 'could not tamper with the prefs? Or why did they let it pafs in the laft impreffion in folio by Mr. Chifwell, in • the year 86, when all the world knew that it was long • before exposed in Iconoclaftes (x)?' This feems to (x) Toland's have some force, and will be deemed, perhaps, fatisfac- Amyntor, tory by many readers. But that nothing may be want- P. 154, 8vo. Lond. 1699. ing to give fatisfaction in this affair, I will add the words of a much abler writer than either of these gentlemen, and then leave the reader to his own judgment concerning it. In this controverfy [about Icon Bafilike] a heavy 6 charge hath been alledged againft Milton. Some edi❝tions of the king's book have certain prayers added at the end, and among them a prayer in time of capti'vity, which is taken from that of Pamela in fir Philip Sidney's Arcadia: and it is faid this prayer was added by the contrivance and artifice of Milton, who, together with Bradshaw, prevailed upon the printer to insert it, that from thence he might take occafion to bring a fcandal upon the king, and to blaft the reputation of his book, as he hath attempted to do in the first section of his answer. This fact is related chiefly upon the authority of Henry Hills the printer, who had fre

'quently

() Milton's

life, by Dr. Newton, prefixed to

the first vol. of Paradife

Loft, p. 30,

8vo. Lond.

Birch's life

been fo, on account of the prayer taken from fir Philip Sidney's Arcadia, which has given them much trouble, and caused his adverfaries triumphantly to infult over him. Whether Charles was the author of Icon Bafilike, is a question that has been (AA) frequently canvaffed, and feems yet pretty difficult to refolve.

quently affirmed it to Dr. Gill and Dr. Bernard, his phyficians, as they themselves have teftified. But • Hills was not himself the printer, who was dealt with in this manner, and confequently he could have the ftory only from hearfay: and though he was Cromwell's printer, yet afterwards he turned papift in the reign of James II. in order to be that king's printer, and it was at that time that he used to relate this ftory; fo that I think little credit is due to his teftimony. And ⚫ indeed I cannot but hope and believe, that Milton had a foul above being guilty of fo mean an action, to serve fo mean a purpofe; and there is as little reason for fixing it upon him, as he had to traduce the king for profaning the duty of prayer" with the polluted trash "of romances!" For there are not many finer prayers in the best books of devotion; and the king might as lawfully borrow and apply it to his own occafions, as the apostle might make quotations from heathen poems and plays: and it became Milton the leaft of all men 'to bring fuch an accusation against the king, as he was himself particularly fond of reading romances, and has made ufe of them in fome of the beft and latest of his writings (y)."

(AA) Whether Charles was the author of Icon Bafi1750.--- like, is a question that has been frequently canvaffed, &c.] See alfo Dr. The controverfy concerning the author of Icon Bafilike, has been of long ftanding. It was published foon after the death of Charles, in his name, and was received as his by the generality of the three kingdoms. Milton printed an answer to it in 1649, under the title of Iconoclaftes,

of Milton, prefixed to

the first vol. of his profe

works, in

4to. p. 33.

which

refolve. Probabilities there are on both fides;

which had several editions, and has been frequently reprinted among the collection of his works.-In the preface to this answer, a doubt is made whether the author of these foliloquies were the late king, or fome secret coadjutor? But throughout the body of the reply, the Icon Bafilike is treated as the king's, whofe actions it was intended to defend. In 1651, William Lilly publifhed his Monarchy, or no Monarchy in England, which is what has been fince reprinted (as I take it) under the title of • Observations on the Life and Death of King Charles.' In this piece, fpeaking of the Icon Bafilike, he fays, 'It ⚫ maintains fo many contradictions unto those things ma⚫nifested by his own letters, under his own hands, unto the queen, that I conceive the moft part of it apocrypha the meditations or pfalms wholly were added by others: fome loofe papers he had, I do well know; but they were nothing fo well methodized, but rather papers • intended after for the prefs, or as it were a memorial < or diary, than fuch a well-couched piece, and to fo ⚫ little purpose (z).' But Milton and Lilly were adver- (≈) Lilly, faries to Charles, and therefore little attention was paid P. 13. to them by the public. On the contrary, Milton, for his doubt, was treated as a bafe fcribe, naturally fitted ⚫ to compose fatyrs and invent reproaches, and branded < as one of thofe who was hired to defpoil the king of the credit of being the author of this performance (a).' (a) PerinIn the fame ftile fir William Dugdale fpeaks concerning this book. Charles's adverfaries difcerning, foon after his death, thofe moft divine meditations made public by the prefs, and intituled Icon Bafilike, which in his deplorable and difconfolate folitudes he had pathetically put in writing; whereby his great prudence, patience, and piety in thofe his woful fufferings would be made openly confpicuous to the world; and not being able to suppress them (as they did earneftly endeavour to do), they made it their work to blast them, by their falfe and impudent reports, that they were none of his own, but compofed by fome royalift to gain a reputa

6

• tion

chief, p. 59.

fides; on which they are the strongest, the reader

tion to his memory, which they ftudied by all malicious projects and practices to fupprefs, and to that ⚫ purpose encouraged a needy pedagogue, preferring him to the office of a fecretary, to write that fcandalous ' book called Iconoclaftes, being a bitter invective against (b) Short thofe his divine meditations (b).' In the fame ftile view, p. 380. writes Barwick, and others. But little did these warm writers imagine, that a time was foon approaching, when the fons of Charles would be found among those who made it their work to blaft these his meditations, by ⚫ their false and impudent reports, that they were none ' of his own, but composed by fome royalift to gain a • reputation to his memory.' Lord Anglesey left a memorandum under his hand, that king Charles II. and the duke of York, did both in the year 1675, when he 'fhewed them in the lords house the written copy of this book, (wherein are fome corrections and alterations written with the late king Charles the Firft's own hand) affure him, that this was none of the faid king's compiling, but made by Dr. Gauden, bishop of Exeter (c). ftaff's vindi- Agreeably hereunto is the teftimony of bishop Burnet. 'I was not a little furprised, fays he, when in the year 1673, in which I had a great fhare of favour and free ⚫ conversation with the then duke of York, afterwards king James II. as he fuffered me to talk very freely to him about matters of religion; and as I was urging ' him with fomewhat out of his father's book, he told < me that book was not of his father's writing, and that the letter to the prince of Wales was never brought to him. He faid Dr. Gauden writ it. After the reftoration, he brought the duke of Somerfet and the earl of Southampton both to the king and to himself, who af'firmed that they knew it was his writing; and that it < was carried down by the earl of Southampton, and thewed the king during the treaty of Newport, who read it, and approved of it, as containing his sense of things. Upon this he told me, that though Sheldon, and other bishops, oppofed Gauden's promotion, be

(c) Wag

cation of

K. Charles,

P. 3.

• caufe