passage of Salmasius is as follows: "Postremis vero sæculis, ut in aliis rebus, ita et in hac, mores, ut jam dictum, cum temporibus mutati sunt, disciplinæ vigor laxatus est, et regula corrupta. Quinimo extitere tandem pestes rerum publicarum, regumque μaσTiyes, et omnis a Deo ordinatæ potestatis hostes, sophistæ quidam, qui contrariam illi, quæ a Christo tradita est, doctrinam introduxerunt de occidendis quasi jure regibus, si displicerent subjectis. Tales in Pontificiis Jesuitæ, inter Reformatos, qui vocantur Independentes et Brunistæ *."

It is evident that Milton does not make the comparison imputed to him by Bishop Horsley, but considers it to be made or implied by Salmasius's assertion, that the doctrina de occidendis regibus originated

*Defensio Regia, edit. 12mo. 1649, p. 169.

with the Reformers, because it was taught "Ita

by a sect of the Reformed Church. Lutherus, &c. tuo judicio Brunistæ sunt."

In another passage* Salmasius says, "that it will be called the doctrine of the Reformed Church, because they who profess to be Reformed, Puritans, and Saints, have lately put the atrocious doctrine in practice. Quid nunc respondebimus Jesuitis? Quo ore, qua fronte nos Reformati ipsis imputabimus, quod habeant doctrinam regibus infensam, in regum necem armatam, et populos ad rebellionem incitantem? Qua sunt malitia præditi, et qua calumniandi cupiditate ardent, non sibi extorqueri sinent, quin hæc doctrina propria sit Reformatis, quam et tam belle in usum norint convertere; quia pro Reformatis, Catharis, et Sanctis se jactant, qui

* Defensio Regia, edit. 12mo. 1649, p. 34.

tam infandum facinus nuper commiserint. Tros Rutulusve fuat, nullo habebunt discrimine. Omnes, qui se Reformatos dicunt, pro Independentibus habebunt, et avagxias vitio laborantibus."" The Independents, or Brownists, are here identified with the whole Reformed Church. To the same effect he says (p. 168), Quis non miretur Anglos gentiles reverentiores regum fuisse quam Anglos Christianos? Plus adhuc dicam, quam Anglos Refor

matos?

suorum

Milton's argument, therefore, is not, as Bishop Horsley states it," If Cromwell's party were Brownists, the Reformers were Brownists;" but "if the Reformers are (Salmasii judicio) stigmatized as Brownists, Cromwell's party may be very content to bear the same reproach."

Dr. Symmons was as much mistaken in his defence of Milton as Bishop Horsley

was in his censure. "If we admit the

can we

premises of Milton," he says, "refuse our consent to his conclusion? "If to contend for liberty against the "tyranny of a single person be the dis"tinction of a Brownist, the first Re"formers 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*.* A little consideration might have convinced Dr. Symmons that his premises are not Milton's premises, and that his conclusion cannot follow from his premises. The contention of subjects against a natural sovereign, whether tyrant or not tyrant, to whom they have sworn obedience, is so wholly different a case from their contention against

* Life of Milton, p. 322, Note, Prose Works, vol. vii.

the despotism of the Pope, to whom they owe no obedience, as to bear no comparison with it. The right of subjects to put their sovereign to death, was, according to Salmasius, a tenet of Jesuitism and Brownism. And it would be a most glaring inconsequence to say, " If putting "If Kings to death be Brownism, the rejection of the Pope's authority is Brownism." Milton would never have called it Brownism to contend against a foreign enemy,the common enemy of all Protestant Churches, the pretender to supremacy over all Protestant sovereigns,—and especially against that enemy who," since "this country has shaken off his Baby"Ionish yoke, hath not ceased, by his

spies and agents, to seduce, corrupt, " and pervert as many of the people as "he can;" and who "once employed "his emissaries to destroy both King and

d