Milton was ordered to prepare an answer to it, which was published by authority, and entitled Exovoxλaor7,5, or the image-breaker, the famous surname of many Greek emperors, who in their zeal against idolatry broke all superstitious images to pieces. This piece 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. In this controversy a heavy charge hath been alleged against Milton. Some editions of the King's book have certain prayers added at the end, and among them a prayer in time of captivity, which is taken from that of Pamela in Sir Philip Sidney's Arcadia: and it is said, that this prayer was added by the contrivance and artifice of Milton, who together with Bradshaw prevailed upon the printer to insert it, that from thence he might take occasion to bring a scandal upon the King, and to blast the reputation of his book, as he hath attempted to do in the first section of his answer. This fact is related chiefly upon the authority of Henry Hills the printer, who had frequently affirmed it to Dr. Gill and Dr. Bernard his physicians, as they

These replies were called the Είκων ακλαδος, (1651.) and the Vindicia Carolinæ, (1692.) Milton in the Iconoclastes frequently intimated his suspicions that the Icon Basilike was not the production of the King; and the Einwy Arndon was published in 1649 to enforce the charge of spuriousness against the "King's "Book," as it was then called. This piece was answered the same year by a very inferior writer, according to Dr. Sym

mons, in a pamphlet entitled Είκων ή πίστη. And these pieces were the precursors of a violent controversy, upon the question of the genuineness of the Icon Basilike; the credit of that work being claimed, and with great shew of reason, by Dr. Gauden, afterwards Bishop of Worcester. The public is at this moment expecting a work on this subject from the pen of Dr. Wordsworth, Master of Trinity College, Cambridge. E.

themselves have testified. But Hills was not himself the printer, who was dealt with in this manner, and consequently he could have the story only from hearsay: and though he was Cromwell's printer, yet afterwards he turned papist in the reign of James. II, in order to be that king's printer, and it was at that time that he used to relate this story; so that, I think, little credit is due to his testimony. And indeed I cannot but hope and believe, that Milton had a soul above being guilty of so mean an action to serve so mean a purpose; and there is as little reason for fixing it upon him, as he had to traduce the King for profaning the duty of prayer "with the polluted trash of ro"mances." For there are not many finer prayers in the best books of devotion; and the King might as lawfully borrow and apply it to his own occasions, as the Apostle might make quotations from Heathen poems and plays: and it became Milton the least of all men to bring such an accusation against the King, as he was himself particularly fond of reading romances, and has made use of them in some of the best and latest of his writings d.

4 Du Gard, printer to the Parliament, was the person said to have been prevailed on by Milton to interpolate an edition of the Icon which he was printing with the prayer from the Arcadia. But Royston, who was reported to have received the manuscript from the King, and whose press was not suspected of any connection with Milton or Bradshaw, did in fact, as Toland remarked, publish the edition which originally contained the controverted

prayer. Peck, it is true, assures us that he had seen the earliest

English edition without the prayer. And Mr. Todd found that it was not contained in Dr. Earle's Latin translation of the Icon, printed in 1649. But Dr. Symmons asserts, that he had in his possession the first edition of the Icon printed in 1649, for R. Royston, and to which this prayer is attached'; and this seems to establish the point that the charge of interpolation was an unfounded

But his most celebrated work in prose is his Defence of the people of England against Salmasius, Defensio pro populo Anglicano contra Claudii Anonymi, alias Salmasii, Defensionem Regiam. Salmasius, by birth a Frenchman, succeeded the famous Scaliger as honorary Professor of the University of Leyden, and had gained great reputation by his Plinian Exercitations on Solinus, and by his critical remarks on several Latin and Greek authors, and was generally esteemed one of the greatest and most consummate scholars of that age: and is commended by Milton himself in his Reason of Church Government, and called the learned Salmasius. Besides his great learning, he had extraordinary talents in railing. "This prince of scholars, as somebody said "of him, seemed to have erected his throne upon 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, and the book was published in 1649 with this title, Defensio Regia pro Carolo I. ad Carolum II. No sooner did this book appear in England, but the Council of State unanimously appointed Milton, who was then present, to answer it: and 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

calumny against Milton. See also a sufficient refutation of this calumny in the Remarks on John

son's Life of Milton, p. 67—82. ed. 1780. E.

piece-meal, and to break off almost every hour, as he says himself in the introduction. This necessarily occasioned some delay, so that his Defence of the people of England was not made public till the beginning of the year 1651: and they who cannot read the original, may yet have the pleasure of reading the English Translation by Mr. Washington of the Temple, which was printed in 1692, and is inserted among Milton's Works in the two last editions. It was somewhat extraordinary, that Salmasius, a pensioner to a republic, should pretend to write a defence of monarchy; but the States showed their disapprobation by publicly condemning his book, and ordering it to be suppressed. On the other hand Milton's book was burnt at Paris, and at Toulouse by the hands of the common hangman; but this served only to procure it the more readers: it was read and talked of every where, and even they who were of different principles, yet could not but acknowledge that he was a good defender of a bad cause; and Salmasius's book underwent only one impression, while this of Milton passed through several 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 esteemed 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 ambassador from the Duke of Parma to the French king, wrote a fine encomium of his Defence, and sent him his picture, as appears from Milton's

letter to Philaras, dated at London in June 1652. And what gave him the greatest satisfaction, the work was highly applauded by those, who had desired him to undertake it; and they made him a present of a thousand pounds, which in those days of frugality was reckoned no inconsiderable reward for his performance". But the case was far otherwise with Salmasius. He was then in high favour at the court of Christina Queen of Sweden, who had invited thither several of the most learned men of all countries: but when Milton's Defence of the people of England was brought to Sweden, and was read to the Queen at her own

e Mr. Todd cites a passage from the Appendix to Bishop Watson's Sermon before the House of Lords, Jan. 30, 1793, in which Milton is accused of gross falsehood, in imputing the seditious principles of the Brownists to the most eminent of the first Reformers. Dr. Symmons indignantly cites the passage from the Defence, which had occasioned the charge, as a complete refutation of it. But whoever would judge fairly of the question should compare the attack of Salmasius with the answer of Milton, (both passages being extracted by Mr. Todd;) and he will probably be of opinion that Milton's real offence 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. See the Lives of Milton, by Todd, p. 78-81. ed. 2. and by Symmons, p. 372, 373. ed. 2.

From a passage in the Second Defence, Dr. Symmons is led to express some doubt of the correctness of Toland's assertion, that Milton's performance was rewarded by the presentof £1000. Yet upon the whole he seems willing to admit it, in concurrence with the other Biographers of Milton. In the passage alluded to, after speaking of the reproaches which his services to the state had brought upon him, Milton adds, nec præmii et commodorum inde provenientium partem longe minimam, ignominiæ longe maximam pervenisse ad me queror; contentus quæ honesta factu sunt, ea propter se solum appetisse, et gratis persequi: id alii viderint, tuque scito, me illas "opimitates" atque "opes" quas mihi exprobas, non attigisse, neque eo nomine quo maxime accusas, obolo factum ditiorem." Pr. W. ii. p. 378. Mr. Hayley conjectures that the reward was conferred upon him subsequently. E.