against the King, in defence of the parliament and people of England.

After this he retired again to his private studies; and thinking that he had leisure enough for fuch a work, he applied himself to the writing of a history of England, which he intended to deduce from the earliest accounts down to his own times. He had fi nished four books of that history, when, neither court. ing nor expecting any fuch preferment, he was invited by the council of state to be their Latin secretary for foreign affairs. And he served in the same capacity under Oliver, and Richard, and the Rump, till the restoration; and, without doubt, a better Latin pen could not have been found in the kingdom. For the republic and Cromwell scorned to pay that tribute to any foreign prince, which is usually paid to the French King, of managing their affairs in his language: they thought it an indignity and meanness, to which this or any free nation ought not to submit; and took a noble resolution, neither to write any letters to any foreign states, nor to receive any answers from them, but in the Latin tongue, which was common to them all. And it would have been well, if fucceeding princes had followed their example; for, in the opinion of very wife men, the universality of the French language will make way for the universa lity of the French monarchy.

But it was not only in foreign dispatches that the government made ufe of his pen. He had discharged the business of his office, a very little time before he was called to a work of another kind. For foon after the king's death was published a book under his name, intitled, Εικων βασιλικη, or, The royal image. This book, like Cæfar's last will, making a deeper impreffion, and exciting greater commiferation in the minds of the people, than the King himself did while alive, Milton was ordered to prepare an answer to it; which was published by authority, and intitled, Εικονοκλασης, or, The image-breaker; the famous firname of many Greek Emperors, who, in their zeal against idolatry, broke all superstitious images to pieces. This piece

was

was translated into French; and two replies to it were published, one in 1651, and the other in 1692, upon the reprinting of Milton's book at Amsterdam.

But his most celebrated work in profe is his Defence of the people of England against Salmafius; Defenfio pro populo Anglicano contra Claudii anonymi, alias Salmafii, defenfionem regiam. Salmafius, by birth a Frenchman, fucceeded the famous Scaliger as honorary Profeffor of the univerfity of Leyden; had gained great reputa tion by his Plinian exercitations on Solinus, and by his critical remarks on several Latin and Greek authors, was generally esteemed one of the greatest and moft confummate scholars of that age; and is commended by Milton himself in his Reason of church-government, and called the learned Salmafius. Besides his great learning, he had extraordinary talents in railing. "This prince of scholars," as fome body faid of him, " seemed to have erected his throne up

on 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. His book was published in 1649, under the title of Defenfio regia pro Carolo I. ad Carolum II. No sooner did this piece appear in England, but the council of state upani-moufly appointed Milton, then present, to answer it. 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 piece-meal, and to break off almost every hour. This necessarily occafioned fome delay; so that his Defence of the people of England was not made public till the beginning of 1651. They who cannot read the original, may yet have the pleasure to read the English tranflation by Mr. Washington of the Temple, which was printed in 1692, and is inferted among Milton's works in the two last editions. It was somewhat extraordinary, that Salmafius, a pensioner to a republic, should pretend

tend to write a defence of monarchy: But the states fhowed their disapprobation by publicly condemning his book, and ordered it to be fuppreffed. On the other hand, Milton's book was burnt at Paris, and at Thoulouse, by the hands of the common hangman: But this ferved only to procure it the more readers. It was read and talked of every where; even they who were of different principles, could not but acknowledge, that he was a good defender of a bad cause. Salmafius's book underwent only one impreffion, while Milton's passed through feveral 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 esteened 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 ambaffador from the Duke of Parma to the French king, wrote a fine encomium of his defence, and fent him his picture. And what gave him the greatest fatisfaction, the work was highly applauded by those who had defired him to undertake it; and they made him a prefent of 10001. which, in those days of frugality, was reckoned no inconfiderable reward for his performance. But the cafe was far otherwise with Salmafius. He was then in high favour at the court of Christina Queen of Sweden, who had invited thither feveral of the most learned men of all countries: But when Milton's Defence was brought to Sweden, and was read to the Queen at her own defire, he funk 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 fometime afterwards at Spa in Germany, and it is faid more of a broken heart than of any distemper; leaving a posthumous reply to Milton, which was not published published till after the restoration, and was dedicated to Charles II. by his fon Claudius: But it has done no great honour to his memory, abounding with abuse much more than argument.

Ifaac Voffius, who was at Stockholm when Milton's book was brought thither, in some of his letters to Nicholas Heinfius, fays, that he had the only copy of Milton's book, that the Queen borrowed it of him, was very much pleased with it, and commended Milton's wit and manner of writing; and that Salmafius was very angry, and very bufy in preparing his anfwer, wherein he abused Milton as if he had been one of the vileft catamites in Italy, and also criticised his Latin poems. Heinfius writes again to Voffius 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 Voffius, and the third to Salinasius; that the book was in every body's hands, and there had been four editions in a few months, befides the English one; that a Dutch tranflation was handed about, and a French one was expected. Afterwards he writes from Venice, that Holstenius had lent him Milton's Latin poems; that they were nothing, compared with the elegance of his Apology; that he had offended frequently against prosody, and here was a great opening for Salmafius's criticism: But as to Milton's having been a catamite in Italy, he says, that it was a mere calumny; on the contrary, he was disliked by the Italians, for the severity of his manners, and for the freedom of his discourses against Popery. In others of his letters Heinfius mentions how angry Salmafius was with him for commending Milton's book; and fays, that Grafwinkelius had written, something against Milton, which was to have been printed by Elzevir, but it was suppressed by public authority.

The first reply was published in 1651, intitled, An apology for the King and people, &c. Apologio pro rege & populo Anglicano, contra Johannis Polypragmatici (alias Miltoni Angli) defenfionem destructivam regis & populi Anglicani. Anglicani. It is not known who was the author of this piece. Some attributed it to one Janus a lawyer of Gray's-inn, and others to Dr. John Bramhall, then Bishop of Derry, and after the restoration Primate of Ireland. But it is utterly improbable, that so mean a performance, written in such barbarous Latin, and fo full of folecisms, should come from the hands of a prelate of such distinguished abilities and learning. But, whoever was the author of it, Milton did not think it worth his while to animadvert upon it himself, but employed the younger of his nephews to anfwer it; only as he supervised and corrected the anfwer before it went to the press, it may in a manner be called his own. It came forth in 1652 under this title, Johannis Philippi Angli refponfio ad apologiam anonymi cujufdam tenebrionis pro rege & populo Anglicano infantissimam. It is printed with Milton's works. Throughout the whole Mr. Philips treats Bp. Bramhall with great severity, as the author of the Apology, thinking probably that so considerable an adverfary would make the answer more confiderable.

Sir Robert Filmer likewise published some animadversions upon Milton's Defence of the People, in a piece printed in 1652, intitled, Obfervations concerning the original of government, upon Mr. Hobbes's Leviathan, Mr. Milton against Salmafius, and Hugo Grotius de jure belli. But I do not find, that Milton or any of his friends took notice of it. But Milton's quarrel was afterwards sufficiently avenged by Mr. Locke, who wrote against Sir Robert Filmer's principles of government, more I suppose in condescension to the prejudices of the age, than out of any regard to the weight or importance of Filmer's arguments.

Milton, foon after he was made Latin secretary, removed from his house in High Holburn, to an apart. ment appointed for him in Scotland-yard. There his third child, a fon, was born, and named John; but, through the ill usage or bad constitution of the nurse, he died an infant. His own health too was greatly impaired. This made him remove from Scotlandyard to a house in Petty-France, Westminster, for

the