« PreviousContinue »
Health ; a certain sign that he had no great molestation 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 Iconoclastes appeared ; which, according to Wagstaffe, was not till November 7, 1649. The
7, 1649. The proper inference from which premises, compared with Fuller's circumstantial and candid account, is, that all these
remained with Dr. Juxon till his communication of them to the King's friends occafioned their being published.
The author of Clamor Regii Sangui.nis, &c. as Englished by Wagstaffe, Wood, Athen. Ox. vol. II. p. 1145. 3
says, “ 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.” 1
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 justice, as if “ they all of them troubled themselves “: about it, or were solicitous to know << it * "
* Defenfio Secunda, p. 391. ed. 1753, Quarto.
From Milton's filence it might perhaps be suspected, that the Bishop was under fome sort of confinement, were it not that on the 7th of February we find him at full liberty, attending the King's funeral at Windsor, and standing ready with a Common-prayer-book to read the burial-office over the royal corpse *.
But what is beyond a thousand surmises, accumulated by Wagstaffe and others, to prove Milton's first publishing this prayer as selected by King Charles, for his own use, 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 conceal the forgery, his fears must be at * Biographia Britannica, Juxon, Rem. [C.]
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 least hint of the forgery, imputed afterwards to Milton and Bradshaw.
Let Dr. Johnson then make what he can of the adaptation of this prayer to the "case of King Charles; but let not his Tplenetic prejudice against Milton associate him with such a driveling crew, such a despicable groupe of knights of the post, as would persuade the world that Milton wanted the aid of such piti
ful forgeries as they themselves occafionally practised to support the noblest of all employments, the defence of public liberty against tyrants and oppreffors.
The Doctor's account of Milton's difpute with Salınafius we shall pass by, and leave his criticisms on some Latin expressions on either fide to those who have not forgotten a trade, which, in fome degree or other, is, or should be, original to every good writer, namely, the trade of a Grammarian. No man has exercised this trade with more emolument than Dr. Johnson, would he allow us to say, that in his political pamphlets " the rights of nations and kings sink es into a laborious folicitude for the