him Milton's Latin poems; that they were nothing, compared with the elegance of his Apology; that. he had offended frequently against profody, and here was a great opening for Salmafius's criticifm: 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 feverity of his manners, and for the freedom of his dif courfes 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 fomething 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 & populo Anglicano contra Johannis Polypragmatici (alias Miltoni Angli) Defenfionem deftructivam regis & populi Anglicani. It is not known, who was the author of this piece. Some attributed it to one Janus a lawyer of GraysInn, and others to Dr. John Bramhall, who was then Bishop of Derry, and was made Primate of Ireland after the Reftoration: but it is utterly improbable, that fo mean a performance, written in fuch barbarous Latin, and fo full of folœcifms, fhould come from the hands of a prelate of fuch diftinguifhed 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 answer it; but he supervised and corrected the anfwer fo much before it went to the prefs, 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 & populo Anglicano infantiffimam; and it is printed with Milton's works; and throughout the whole Mr. Philips treats Bishop Bramhall with great severity as the author of the Apology, thinking probably that fo confiderable an adverfary would make the answer more confiderable. Sir Robert Filmer likewife published fome animadverfions upon Milton's Defenfe of the people, in a piece printed in 1652, and intitled Obfervations concerning the original of government, upon Mr. Hobbes's Leviathan, Mr. Milton against Salma→ fius, and Hugo 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 Latin Secretary, removed from his house in High Holborn to be nearer Whitehall: and for fome time he had lodgings at one Thomfon's next door to the Bull-head 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 ufage or bad conftitution of the nurfe died an infant. His own health too was greatly greatly impaired; and for the benefit of the air, he removed from his apartment in Scotland-Yard to a houfe in Petty-France Weftminster, 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 reftoration. In this house he had not been fettled long, before his firft wife died in childbed; and his condition requiring fome care and attendence, he was cafily induced after a proper interval of time to marry a fecond, who was Catharine daughter of Captain Woodcock of Hackney: and the too died in childbed within a year after their marriage, and her child, who was a daughter, died in a month after her; and her husband has done honor to her memory in one of his fonnets. Two or three years before this fecond marriage he had totally lost his fight. And his enemies triumphed in his blindness, and imputed it as a judg ment 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 headakes 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 lost the fight of one eye, and the phyficians declared to him, that if he undertook that work, he would alfo lofe the fight of the other: but he was nothing difcouraged, and chofe rather to lose both his eyes than defert what he thought his duty. It was the fight of his left eye that he lost first: and at the defire of his friend Leonard Philaras the Duke of Parma's minifter 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 phyfician, who was reckoned famous in cafes of the eyes. The letter is the fifteenth of his familiar epiftles, and is dated Septemb. 28. 1654: but it does not appear what answer he received; we may prefume, none that administered any relief. His blindnefs 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 tranfmitted 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 moft haughty difpofition, and immoderately addicted to women, hafty, ambitious, full full of himself and his own performances, and fatirical upon all others. He was however efteemed one of the moft eminent preachers of that age among the proteftants; but as Monfieur Bayle obferves, his chief talent muft have confifted in the gracefulness of his delivery, or in thofe fallies of imagination and quaint turns and allufions, whereof his fermons are full; for they retain not thofe charms in reading, which they were faid to have formerly in the pulpit. Against this man therefore, as the reputed author of Regii fanguinis Clamor &c, Milton published by authority his Second Defense of the people of England, Defenfio Secunda pro populo Anglicano, in 1654, and treats Morus with fuch feverity as nothing could have excufed, if he had not been provoked to it by fo much abufe poured upon himself. There is one piece of his wit, which had been published before in the news-papers at London, a diftich upon Morus for getting Pontia the maidfervant of his friend Salmafius with child. Galli ex concubitu gravidam te, Pontia, Mori Upon this Morus published his Fides Publica in answer to Milton, in which he inferted feveral teftimonies of his orthodoxy and morals figned by the confiftories, academies, fynods, and magiftrates of the places where he had lived; and difowned his being the author of the book imputed to him, and appealed to two gentlemen of great credit with the Parlament party, who knew the real author. This brought Du Moulin, who was then in England, |