the Restoration: It is more distinguished for abuse than argument. It must not be omitted that Salmasius, in his Defensio Regia, had pressed hard upon his adversary in a particular point; and that Milton, to maintain the point, was tempted to put on the fragile armour of untruth. A learned prelate, in modern times, has detected this diminished brightness of Milton. "When Salmasius upbraided Cromwell's faction with the tenets of the Brownists, the chosen advocate of that execrable faction [Milton] replied, that, if they were Brownists, Luther, Calvin, Bucer, Zuinglius, and all the most celebrated theologians of the Orthodox, must be included in the same reproach. A grosser falsehood, as far as Luther, Calvin, and many others are concerned, never fell from the unprincipled pen of a party-writer. k How ever sedition might be a part of the puritanick creed, the general faith of the Reformers rejects the infamous alliance." Dr. Symmons, who to an edition of Milton's Prose Works prefixed a life of the author, is indignant at this accusation; and protests against the rashness which incited the prelate to this violent paragraph; with singular humanity also deploring the "unhappy insertion" of it, pre * Appendix to Bishop Horsley's Sermon before the House of Lords, Jan. 30, 1793, p. 38. I had inadvertently named bishop Watson, as the author of the passage in question; a mistake, which others have followed. k Published in 1806. I Life, p. K 320. ceded by my "harsh imputation," into my account of the great poet. No less desirous than Dr. Symmons to avoid misrepresentation in speaking of Milton, I copied what he advanced in maintenance of his pity and indignation, and left the charge of rashness to be appropriated as impartiality may direct. ❝m To refute this incautious charge," says Dr. Symmons," nothing more can be necessary than the production of the passage in Milton's work, to which the reference is made. It concludes the fifth chapter of the Defensio pro Populo Anglicano, and it stands independently of any thing which precedes it. 'Quereris enim postremis hisce seculis disciplinæ vigorem laxatum, regulam corruptam,' quod uni scilicet tyranno, cunctis legibus soluto, disciplinam omnem laxare, mores omnium corrumpere, impunè non liceat. Hanc doctrinam Brunistas inter reformatos' introduxisse ais: Ita Lutherus, Calvinus, Zuinglius, Bucerus, et Orthodoxorum quotquot celeberrimi theologi fuere, tuo judicio Brunista sunt. Quo æquiore animo tua maledicta perferunt Angli, cùm in ecclesiæ doctores præstantissimos, totamque adeò ecclesiam reformatam, iisdem propè contumeliis debacchari te audiant.' 'You complain,' addressing himself to Salmasius, says Milton, that in this last age the vigour of discipline is impaired and its right rule Life, corrupted, because truly it is not in the power of one despot, released himself from the controul of all law, to relax with impunity the general discipline and to corrupt the morals of all. This doctrine, as you say, was first introduced among the reformed by the Brownists; so that, by your decision, Luther, Calvin, Zuinglius, Bucer, and all the most celebrated of the orthodox divines are included among the Brownists. The English, therefore, support your calumnies with the greater equanimity, when they hear you thus furious in your invectives against the most admirable doctors, and consequently against the body itself of the reformed church.'-If we admit the premises of Milton, can we refuse our assent to his conclusion? If to contend for liberty against the tyranny of a single person be the distinction of a Brownist, the first reformers were, beyond all question, Brownists; for one of the principal objects of their liberal and enlightened contention was to break the despotism of the Court of Rome. Milton asserts nothing but the truth; and he is justified in bringing it forward by that part of his adversary's work to which he replies. The first reformers were not only strenuous in their opposition to the papal despotism, but were on all occasions warm advocates and supporters of the civil liberties of man."--I subjoin Salmasius's own words. Postremis vero sæculis UT IN ALIIS REBUS ita et in hac mores, ut jam dictum, cum temporibus mutati sunt, disciplinæ vigor 66 n "Defensio Regia, edit. 12mo. 1650, p. 166. 4 laxatus est, et regula corrupta. Quinimo extitere tandem pestes Rerum publicarum, regumque μáσriyεs, et omnis à Deo ordinatæ potestatis hostes, sophistæ quidam qui contrariam illi, quæ à Christo tradita est, doctrinam introduxerunt de occidendis quasi jure regibus si displicerent subjectis. Tales in Pontificiis Jesuitæ, inter Reformatos qui vocantur • INDEPENDENTES et Brunista." Milton's reply then is unquestionably evasive. And it has been thought an effort to vindicate his own party 66 P upon the same principles," as Dr. Watkins has well observed, "which induced the reformers to separate from the Church of Rome; an artful manoeuvre to put rebellion against the king, and the reformation from popery, upon the same footing.". But I will not overpass the acute observation also of a recent annotator on Dr. Newton's Life of the poet, that perhaps" the real offence of Milton 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." That the death of Salmasius was hastened by the See this point before illustrated, in the present account. Salmasius speaks correctly. P Characteristick Anecdotes of men of learning and genius, &c. 8vo. 1808, 214. 4 Mr. Edward Hawkins, Milton's Poet. Works, &c. 1824, vol. i. p. xlij. neglect which he is said to have experienced, on the appearance of Milton's book, is by no means clear. His biographer, Clementius, gives a distinct account of the disorder which terminated his days, and to which he had long been subject, the gout. The supposed credit of destroying a literary antagonist may indeed be deducted, without injury, from the achievements of Milton. r The first reply to Milton's Defensio Populi was published in the same year, and was entitled, "Apologia pro Rege et Populo Anglicano, contra Johannis Polypragmatici (alias Miltoni Angli) Defensionem destructivam Regis et Populi." The author was unknown. Milton directed his younger nephew to answer it, who possibly prepared the first draught of a reply; which, before it went to press, was so carefully examined and corrected by Milton, that it may be considered almost as his own performance, although denominated " Johannis Philippi Angli Responsio ad Apologiam anonymi cujusdam tenebrionis pro Rege et Populo Anglicano infantissimam." This piece appeared in 1652. Bishop Bramhall is the ideal enemy with whom Phillips here encounters. Of so contemptible and barbarous a composition as İ Bentley justly observes, in the Preface to his Dissertation on Phalaris, that "he must be a young writer, and a young reader too, that believes Milton and Petavius had themselves as mean thoughts of Salmasius, as they endeavour to make others have." Milton could once avow his respectful opinion of the industry of the learned Salmasius.” Reason of Ch. Gov. B. 1. Ch. vi. |