health; a certain fign that he had no great moleftation from the ruling party*. Milton fays, the King "bequeathed this prayer among his deifying friends "to be published by them." And published it actually was, twice if not thrice, before Milton's Iconoclaftes appeared; which, according to Wagstaffe, was not till November 7, 1649. The proper inference from which premifes, compared with Fuller's circumftantial and candid account, is, that all these prayers remained with Dr. Juxon till his communication of them to the King's friends occafioned their being published.

The author of Clamor Regii Sanguinis, &c. as Englished by Wagstaffe,

*Wood, Athen. Ox. vol. II. p. 1145.

fays, "The Bishop being brought be"fore the King's judges, was command

"ed by them, not without dreadful me

naces, to reveal the meaning of the "word Remember, repeated to him twice "by the King upon the scaffold." į

To this latter charge Milton replies, "I will not deny that the Bishop might "be interrogated by one or other of "these judges, by the way, concerning "this matter; but I do not find that he "was convened on purpose by the coun"cil, or the high court of juftice, as if "they all of them troubled themselves

about it, or were folicitous to know " it *."

* Defenfio Secunda, p. 391. ed. 1753, Quarto. From

From Milton's filence it might perhaps be suspected, that the Bishop was under fome fort of confinement, were it not that on the 7th of February we find him at full liberty, attending the King's funeral at Windfor, and standing ready with a Common-prayer-book to read the burial-office over the royal corpfe *.

But what is beyond a thousand furmifes, accumulated by Wagftaffe and others, to prove Milton's first publishing this prayer as felected by King Charles, for his own ufe, is the dead filence of Bp. Juxon from this period to the time of his death. If his timidity during the Interregnum prevailed with him to cenceal the forgery, his fears must be at

* Biographia Britannica, JuxoN, Rem. [C.]

an

an end at the Restoration. The prayer had been published as King Charles's over and over during that interval; Milton's reproach was equally and repeatedly made public. Yet this worthy Bishop fuffers this prayer to be published in a collection of King Charles's works in the year 1662, without giving the leaft hint of the forgery, imputed afterwards to Milton and Bradshaw.

Let Dr. Johnfon then make what he can of the adaptation of this prayer to the cafe of King Charles; but let not his fplenetic prejudice against Milton associate him with fuch a driveling crew, fuch a defpicable groupe of knights of the poft, as would perfuade the world. that Milton wanted the aid of fuch pitiG

ful

ful forgeries as they themfelves occafionally practifed to fupport the nobleft of all employments, the defence of public liberty againft tyrants and oppreffors.

The Doctor's account of Milton's dif pute with Salmafius we fhall pafs by, and leave his criticifms on fome Latin expreffions on either fide to those who have not forgotten a trade, which, in fome degree or other, is, or fhould be, original to every good writer, namely, the trade of a Grammarian. No man has exercised this trade with more emolument than Dr. Johnfon, would he allow us to fay, that in his political pamphlets "the rights of nations and kings fink

into a laborious folicitude for the "choice