Heinfius in Italy, and also criticized his Latin poems. writes again to Voffius from Holland, that he wondered that only one copy of Milton's book was brought to Stockholm, when three were fent thither, one to the Queen, another to Voffius which he had received, and the third to Salmafius; 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 translation was handed about, and a French one was expected. And 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 profody, and there was a great opening for Salmafius's Criticism: but as to Milton's having been a catamite in Italy, he fays, that it was a mere calumny; on the contrary he was difliked by the Italians, for the severity of his manners, and for the freedom of his discourses against popery. And in others of his letters to Voffius and to J. Fr. Gronovius from Holland, 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 fuppreffed by public authority. The first reply that appeared was published in 1651, and intitled an Apology for the king and people &c. Apologia pro rege et populo Anglicano contra Johannis Polipragmatici (alias Miltoni Angli) Defenfionem deftructivam regis et populi Anglicani. It is not known, who was the author of this piece. Some attribute it to one Janus a lawyer of Grays-Inn, and others to Dr. John Bramhall, who was then Bishop of Derry, and was made Primate of Ireland after the Restoration: but it is utterly improbable, that fo mean a performance, written in fuch barbarous Latin, and fo full of folæcifms, fhould come from the hands of a prelate of such distinguished abilities and 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 answer it; but he supervised and corrected the answer so much before it went to the prefs, that 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 et populo Anglicano infantiffimam; and it is printed with Milton's works; and throughout the whole Mr. Philips treats Bishop Bramhall with great feverity as the author of the Apology, thinking probably that fo confiderable an adversary would make the answer more confiderable. Sir Robert Filmer likewife published some animadverfions upon Milton's Defense of the people, in a piece printed in 1652, and intitled Observations concerning the original of government, upon Mr. Hobbes's Leviathan, Mr. Milton against Salmafius, andHugo Grotius de Jure belli: but I do not find that Milton or any of his friends took any notice of it; but Milton's quarrel was afterwards fufficiently avenged by Mr. Locke, who wrote against Sir Robert Filmer's principles of government, more I fuppofe in condefcenfion to the prejudices of the age, than out of any regard to the weight or importance of Filmer's arguments. It is probable that Milton, when he was first made La tin Secretary, removed from his house in High Holborn to be nearer Whitehall: and for fome time he had lodgings at one Thomson's next door to the Bullhead tavern at Charing Crofs, opening into Spring-garden, till the apartment, appointed for him in Scotland-Yard, could be got ready for his reception. He then removed thither; and there his third child, a fon, was born and named John, who thro' the ill usage or bad conftitution of the nurse died an infant. His own health too was greatly impaired; and for the benefit of the air, he removed from his apart apartment in Scotland-Yard to a house in Petty-France Westminster, which was next door to Lord Scudamore's, and opened into St. James's Park; and there he remained eight years, from the year 1652 till within a few weeks of the King's restoration. In this house he had not been fettled long, before his first wife died in child-bed; and his condition requiring fome care and attendance, he was easily induced after a proper interval of time to marry a second, who was Catharine daughter of Captain Woodcock of Hackney: and fhe too died in child-bed within a year after their marriage, and her child, who was a daughter, died in a month after her; and her hufband has done honor to her memory in one of his fon nets. Two or three years before this fecond marriage he had totally loft his fight. And his enemies triumphed in his blindness, and imputed it as a judgment upon him for writing against the King: but his fight had been decaying feveral years before, thro' his clofe application to ftudy, and the frequent head-akes to which he had been fubject from his childhood, and his continual tampering with phyfic, which perhaps was more pernicious than all the reft: and he himself has informed us in his fecond Defense, that when he was appointed by authority to write his Defense of the people against Salmafius, he had almost loft the fight of one eye, and the phyficians declared to him, that if he undertook that work, he would also lose the fight of the other: but he was nothing difcouraged, and chose rather to lose both his eyes than defert what he thought his duty. It was the fight of his left eye that he loft firft: and at the defire of his friend Leonard Philarus, the Duke of Parma's minister at Paris, he fent him a particular account of his cafe, and of the manner of his growing blind, for him to confult Thevenot the Physician, who was reckoned famous in cafes of the eyes. The letter is the fifteenth of his familiar epif tles, tles, is dated Septemb. 28, 1654; and is thus tranflated by Mr. Richardson. 66 "Since you advise me not to fling away all hopes of recovering my fight, for that you have a friend at Pa-ris, Thevenot the Physician, particularly famous for "the eyes, eyes, whom you offer to consult in my behalf if you receive from me an account by which he may judge "of the causes and symptoms of my disease, I will do what you advise me to, that I may not seem to refuse any affistance that is offered, perhaps from God. 66 66 66 "I think 'tis about ten years, more or lefs, fince I be"gan to perceive that my eye-fight grew weak and dim, and at the fame time my spleen and bowels to be oppreft and troubled with Flatus; and in the morning "when I began to read, according to cuftom, my eyes grew painful immediately, and to refufe reading, but "were refreshed after a moderate exercise of the body. A certain Iris began to surround the light of the can"dle if I looked at it; foon after which, on the left part of the left eye (for that was some years fooner clouded) "a mift arose which hid every thing on that fide; and looking forward if I fhut my right eye, objects appear"ed fmaller. My other eye alfo, for these last three years, "failing by degrees, fome months before all fight was a"bolished, things which I looked upon feemed to swim "to the right and left; certain inveterate vapors feem to poffefs my forehead and temples, which, after meat especially, quite to evening, generally, urge and depress my eyes with a fleepy heavinefs. Nor would I omit "that whilft there was as yet fome remainder of fight, I "no fooner lay down in my bed, and turned on my fide, "but a copious light dazzled out of my shut eyes; and "as my fight diminished every day colors gradually more obfcure flashed out with vehemence; but now "that the lucid is in a manner wholly extinct, a di rect "rect blackness, or elfe fpotted, and, as it were, wo"ven with afh-color, is ufed to pour itself in. Never"theless the conftant and fettled darkness, that is before me as well by night as by day, seems nearer to the whi"tish than the blackifh; and the eye rolling itself a little, "feems to admit I know not what little fmallness of light "as through a chink.' But it does not appear what answer he received; we may prefume, none that administered any relief. His blindness however did not disable him entirely from performing the business of his office. An affiftant was allowed. him, and his falary as fecretary ftill continued to him. And there was farther occafion for his fervice befides dictating of letters. For the controverfy with Salmafius did not die with him, and there was published at the Hague in 1652 a book intitled the Cry of the King's blood &c. Regii fanguinis Clamor ad cœlum adverfus Parricidas Anglicanos. The true author of this book was Peter du Moulin the younger, who was afterwards prebendary of Canterbury: and he transmitted his papers to Salmafius; and Salmafius intrufted them to the care of Alexander Morus, a French minister; and Morus published them with a dedication to King Charles II. in the name of Adrian Ulac the printer, from whence he came to be reputed the author of the whole. This Morus was the fon of a learned Scotfman, who was prefident of the college, which the proteftants had formerly at Caftres in Languedoc; and he is faid to have been a man of a most haughty difpofition, and immoderately addicted to women, hafty, ambitious, full of himself and his own performances, and fatirical upon all others. He was however efteemed one of the most eminent preachers of that age among the proteftants; but as Monfieur Bayle obferves, his chief talent must have confifted in the gracefulness of his delivery, or in thofe fallies of imagination and quaint |