pointments 94 to remain in Sweden, and greatly regretted his departure; but the coldness of the climate was injurious to him: and after his death, she wrote a letter full of concern for his loss, and respect for his memory; the slander first thrown out in the Mercurius Politicus, and so frequently repeated, ought no longer to be believed. Salmasius went full of years, and honours to his grave.

The purpose of Salmasius 95 was to support the doctrine of the divine rights of kings: to prove that

94 He had a pension of 40,000 livres from Sweden. It will astonish some of my readers to know that Salmasius was a republican, Placebat Salmasio libera respublica.' He was invited by the University of Oxford to settle there on very handsome terms: 'and' says his biographer, he would have gone 'nisi aliquid ab eo petiissent, quamvis beatissima conditione, quod cum ad nationis utilitatem spectaret, non erat tamen ad genium ipsius ;' but so far was Salmasius, as all Milton's biographers assert, from being a slavish admirer of kings or regal governments, that 'Bataviam hac in parte præ Anglia preferebat quod majorem semper in respublica quam in regno libertatem esse judicaret.' v. Vit. Salmas. p.xvi. It was not solely on account of his superior learning that Salmasius was selected by the adherents of Charles, but that some of his previous writings on matters connected with the church and the sects, had produced much effect in England. 'Dissertatio de episcopis et presbyteris multum juverat optime sentientes (in Britannia) in abrogando jure Episcoporum, quod multi ex proceribus, et viris primariis ultro cum gratiarum actione testati sunt:' and it appears that he was in the habit of being consulted on ecclesiastical affairs by the persons of rank and influence in England, • Consilium Salmasii sæpius per deputationes implorarunt regni pro

ceres.'

95 Dr. Symmons has allowed the skill and eloquence displayed in the work of Salmasius, vide Life, p. 356, and has shown how much Burke was indebted to it. In that strange rambling work, T. Hollis's Memoirs, there is an engraving by Cipriani, representing Milton's head on a terminus, on which is a medallion suspended inclosing the portrait of Salmasius; this was a print emblematical of Milton's victory, v. p. 383.

the king is a person with whom the supreme power of the kingdom resides, and who is answerable to God alone. Milton asserted the undisputed sovereignty of the people. This he terms agreeable to the laws of God, and of nature. That by the laws of God, by those of nations, and by the municipal laws of our own country, a king of England may be brought to trial and to death; that the laws of God do in this exactly agree with the laws of nature and that this is a settled maxim of the law of nature never to be shaken, that the senate and the people are superior to kings; and that, if asked by what law, by what right or justice, the king was dethroned, the answer is, by that law which God and nature have created; that whatever things are for the universal good of the whole state, are for that reason lawful and just; and that a people obliged by an oath is discharged of that obligation, when a lawful prince becomes a tyrant, or gives himself over to sloth and voluptuousness. The rule of justice, the very law of nature dispenses with such a people's allegiance. That these doctrines have been always acknowledged by the common consent of mankind, he endeavours to prove from the history of ancient nations. Thus the kings of the Jews were subject to the very same laws as the people. He traces a similar belief through Egypt and Persia, through the Grecian history, and the annals of the Roman empire. He alleges the authority of the ancient Scriptures, the gospel, and the fathers. He then finds his doctrine supported by the usage and constitution of our government from the period of the British history, through the Saxon and Norman times, and traces the supreme power of the legislative assembly to the reign of Charles. Such is a faint outline of his argument; in this work he openly accuses Buckingham of

having poisoned King James, and afterwards even makes a bolder assertion, that Charles was accessory to the crime.

The first reply to Milton's Defensio Populi 96 was published in 1651. Milton, who assisted his nephew Philips in the answer, was willing to consider it as the production of that distinguished prelate, Bramhall, whom he treats with the same coarseness of sarcasm, and violence of invective which had been employed against Salmasius, imputing to him the greatest excesses, and the practice of the most degrading vices. Bramhall 97 had disowned the writing imputed to him, but the real author was not discovered till the industry of Mr. Todd brought the secret to light. He proves to be one John Rowland, and calls himself Pastor Ecclesiæ particularis.' In this tract the accusation of the death of James the First by poison is repeated.

Next year appeared Regii Sanguinis clamor ad cœlum;' this work was written by Peter du Moulin, a Frenchman, afterwards Prebendary of Canterbury, but A. More, who had the care of the publication, was treated by Milton as the real author. The mistake was afterwards discovered, but Milton had exhausted his invective against More, and suffered Du Moulin to escape. Alexander More was a Scotchman by birth, settled in France, and was the son of the principal of the Protestant Col

96 In the original editions of the Defensio Populi, and Defensio Secunda, the name of the author is printed Joannis MiltonI, i. e. Miltonii; he therefore differed from those who would render the English termination ' on,' by 'onus' in Latin.

97 See extract from Bishop Bramhall's Letter to his son, May, 1654. That silly book, which he ascribes to me, was written by one John Rowland, who since hath replied upon him. I never read a wo d either of the first book or the

reply in my life.' v. Todd's Life, p. 83.

lege of Castres in Languedoc. He was a person of talent and learning, but more eminently distinguished as a brilliant though eccentric preacher. It was an unfortunate hour for him when he threw the shield of his name to protect Du Moulin's writings, for More's personal character was open to remark. He had, it appears, entered into a love-intrigue at Leyden, with an English girl, who is called Pontia, and who was waitingmaid to the wife of Salmasius.98 This occasioned much domestic dispute and jealousy in the house of the learned professor, and became the subject of raillery in the correspondence of the friends of Salmasius. It appears also, that a similar adventure with a servant maid, of the name of Claudia Peletta, with whom More is accused of intriguing before and after her marriage, was the occasion of his leaving Geneva; and a third amour, with a young female domestic of the name of Tibaltiana, is also mentioned. Milton did not spare his enemy on the side where he was so much exposed; and More shrunk from the bitter storm of invec

98 The wife of Salmasius was a great shrew, but she had a high opinion of her husband. Il se laissoit dominer par une femme hautaine et chagrine, qui se vantoit d'avoir pour mari, mais non pour maître le plus savant de tous les nobles, et le plus noble de tous les savans.' v. Huetiena, p. x. The 88th Letter of Sarravius opens a curious domestic picture of Salmasius's family. He had, it appears, applied to Sarravius to procure him some maid-servants, and his friend fairly answers him. Timeo ne itineris difficultates, cum uxoris tuæ moribus multas deterreant.' Salmasius was presented with the order of St. Michael by Louis XIII. hence Milton calls him Eques.'-The biographers of Milton have taken their account of Salmasius chiefly from N. Heinsius, without keeping in mind that Heinsius was his bitter and implacable enemy. Not wishing to give offence, still I must say, that not one of those who have written on this controversy, seems to me to be really acquainted with the works or character of Salma sius. See also N. Heinsii Poem. Lat. 152. 165.

tive, sarcasm, and irony, that his indignant antagonist poured on all sides upon him.99

The Second Defence' is one of the most interesting of Milton's writings. Johnson has quoted from it the eloquent eulogy on Cromwell: the character of Bradshaw is drawn with all the skill and power of Clarendon, and presents a noble portrait of the intrepid regicide; and the address to Fairfax has for ever exalted the character, and dignified the retirement of that illustrious soldier. I shall add Milton's commemoration of other names, not less celebrated in the history of that eventful time. First you, Fleetwood, whom I have known to have been always the same in the humanity, gentleness, and benignity of your disposition, from the time you first entered on the profession of a soldier, obtainment of those military honours, the next only to the first, and whom the enemy has found of dauntless valour, but the mildest of conquerors; and you, Lambert, who, when a young man, at the head of a mere handful of men, checked the progress of the Duke of Hamilton, attended with the power and strength of the Scottish youth, and kept him at check; you, Desborrow, and you, Whalley, whom, whenever I heard or read of the fiercest battles of this war, I always expected and found among the thickest of the enemy; you, Overton, who have been connected with me for these many years, in a more than brotherly union, by similitude of studies, and by the sweetness of your manners. In that memo

to your

99 In Sarravii Epistolæ are many addressed with respect and esteem to Al. More. He seems not to have been permanently injured by Milton's attack, and he would hardly be recognized as the same person in the party-statement of Milton, and the impartial life by Bayle. A copy of Latin verses by A. More, addressed to N. Heinsius, is in the Adoptivorum Carmina, p. 19.