themselves have testified. But Hills was not himself the printer, who was dealt with in this manner, and consequently he could have the story only from hearsay: and though he was Cromwell's printer, yet afterwards he turned papist 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 story; so that, I think, little credit is due to his testimony. And indeed I cannot but hope and believe, that Milton had a soul above being guilty of so mean an action to serve so mean a purpose; 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 ro❝mances." 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 occasions, as the Apostle might make quotations from Heathen poems and plays: and it became Milton the least of all men to bring such an accusation against the King, as he was himself particularly fond of reading romances, and has made use of them in some of the best and latest of his writings d.

d Du Gard, printer to the Parliament, was the person said to have been prevailed on by Milton to interpolate an edition of the Icon which he was printing with the prayer from the Arcadia. But Royston, who was reported to have received the manuscript from the King, and whose press was not suspected of any connection with Milton or Bradshaw, did in fact, as Toland remarked, publish the edition which originally contained the controverted

prayer. Peck, it is true, assures us that he had seen the earliest English edition without the prayer. And Mr. Todd found that it was not contained in Dr. Earle's Latin translation of the Icon, printed in 1649. But Dr. Symmons asserts, that he had in his possession the first edition of the Icon printed in 1649, for R. Royston, and to which this prayer is attached; and this seems to establish the point that the charge of interpolation was an unfounded

But his most celebrated work in prose is his Defence of the people of England against Salmasius, Defensio pro populo Anglicano contra Claudii Anonymi, alias Salmasii, Defensionem Regiam. Salmasius, by birth a Frenchman, succeeded the famous Scaliger as honorary Professor of the University of Leyden, and had gained great reputation by his Plinian Exercitations on Solinus, and by his critical remarks on several Latin and Greek authors, and was generally esteemed one of the greatest and most consummate scholars of that age: and is commended by Milton himself in his Reason of Church Government, and called the learned Salmasius. Besides his great learning, he had extraordinary talents in railing. "This prince of scholars, as somebody said "of him, seemed to have erected his throne upon a "“heap of stones, that he might have them at hand to "throw at every one's head who passed by." He was therefore courted by Charles II, as the most able man to write a defence of the late King his father, and to traduce his adversaries, and a hundred Jacobuses were given him for that purpose, and the book was published in 1649 with this title, Defensio Regia pro Carolo I. ad Carolum II. No sooner did this book appear in England, but the Council of State unanimously appointed Milton, who was then present, to answer it: and he performed the task with amazing spirit and vigour, though his health at that time was such, that he could hardly endure the fatigue of writing, and being weak in body, he was forced to write by

calumny against Milton. See also a sufficient refutation of this calumny in the Remarks on John

son's Life of Milton, p. 67-82. ed. 1780. E.

piece-meal, and to break off almost every hour, as he says himself in the introduction. This necessarily occasioned some delay, so that his Defence of the people of England was not made public till the beginning of the year 1651: and they who cannot read the original, may yet have the pleasure of reading the English Translation by Mr. Washington of the Temple, which was printed in 1692, and is inserted among Milton's Works in the two last editions. It was somewhat extraordinary, that Salmasius, a pensioner to a republic, should pretend to write a defence of monarchy; but the States showed their disapprobation by publicly condemning his book, and ordering it to be suppressed. On the other hand Milton's book was burnt at Paris, and at Toulouse by the hands of the common hangman; but this served only to procure it the more readers: it was read and talked of every where, and even they who were of different principles, yet could not but acknowledge that he was a good defender of a bad cause; and Salmasius's book underwent only one impression, while this of Milton passed through several editions. On the first appearance of it, he was visited or invited by all the foreign ministers at London, not excepting even those of crowned heads; and was particularly honoured and esteemed by Adrian Paaw, ambassador from the States of Holland. He was likewise highly complimented by letters from the most learned and ingenious persons in France and Germany; and Leonard Philaras, an Athenian born, and ambassador from the Duke of Parma to the French king, wrote a fine encomium of his Defence, and sent him his picture, as appears from Milton's

letter to Philaras, dated at London in June 1652. And what gave him the greatest satisfaction, the work was highly applauded by those, who had desired him to undertake it; and they made him a present of a thousand pounds, which in those days of frugality was reckoned no inconsiderable reward for his performance®. But the case was far otherwise with Salmasius. He was then in high favour at the court of Christina Queen of Sweden, who had invited thither several of the most learned men of all countries: but when Milton's Defence of the people of England was brought to Sweden, and was read to the Queen at her own

e Mr. Todd cites a passage from the Appendix to Bishop Watson's Sermon before the House of Lords, Jan. 30, 1793, in which Milton is accused of gross falsehood, in imputing the seditious principles of the Brownists to the most eminent of the first Reformers. Dr. Symmons indignantly cites the passage from the Defence, which had occasioned the charge, as a complete refutation of it. But whoever would judge fairly of the question should compare the attack of Salmasius with the answer of Milton, (both passages being extracted by Mr. Todd;) and he will probably be of opinion that Milton's real offence consists in the usual sophistry of controversialists. His adversary having spoken of sedition, he speaks of liberty, and contends, that in advocating the principles of civil liberty the Brownists agreed with the most orthodox of the first Reformers. See the Lives of Milton, by Todd, p. 78-81. ed. 2. and by Symmons, p. 372, 373. ed. 2.

From a passage in the Second Defence, Dr. Symmons is led to express some doubt of the correctness of Toland's assertion, that Milton's performance was rewarded by the present of £1000. Yet upon the whole he seems willing to admit it, in concurrence with the other Biographers of Milton. In the passage alluded to, after speaking of the reproaches which his services to the state had brought upon him, Milton adds, nec præmii et commodorum inde provenientium partem longe minimam, ignominie longe maximam pervenisse ad me queror; contentus quæ honesta factu sunt, ea propter se solum appetisse, et gratis persequi: id alii viderint, tuque scito, me illas "opimitates" atque "opes" quas mihi exprobas, non attigisse, neque eo nomine quo maxime accusas, obolo factum ditiorem." Pr. W. ii. p. 378. Mr. Hayley conjectures that the reward was conferred upon him subsequently. E.

desire, he sunk immediately in her esteem and the opinion of every body; and though he talked big at first, and vowed the destruction of Milton and the Parliament, yet finding that he was looked upon with coldness, he thought proper to take leave of the court; and he who came in honour, was dismissed with contempt'. He died some time afterwards at Spa in Germany, and it is said more of a broken heart than of any distemper, leaving a posthumous reply to Milton, which was not published till after the Restoration, and was dedicated to Charles II. by his son Claudius; but it has done no great honour to his memory, abounding with abuse much more than argument.

Isaac Vossius was at Stockholm, when Milton's book was brought thither, and in some of his letters to Nicolas Heinsius, published by Professor Burman in the third tome of his Sylloge Epistolarum, he says that he had the only copy of Milton's book, that the Queen borrowed it of him, and was very much pleased with it, and commended Milton's wit and manner of writing in the presence of several persons, and that Salmasius was very angry, and very busy in preparing his answer, wherein he abused Milton as if he had been one of the vilest catamites in Italy, and also criticised his Latin poems. Heinsius writes again to Vossius from Holland, that he wondered that only one copy of Milton's book was brought to Stockholm, when three were sent thither, one to the Queen, another to Vossius which

f Christina must have commended the Defence of the People in order to torment Salmasius; and this might incline him to leave Sweden, from which how

ever he was dismissed not with any mark of contempt, but with a train of attendance scarcely less than regal. Johnson.