in 1644, at which time there were of Calvinists at least seven separate congregations. I know not to which of these he belonged; but I think it fair to conclude, he was known to have united himself to one of them, or how could Dr. Featly have attributed his Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce to the Baptists? As to his principles of church government, they were congregational; and these are held equally by Baptists and Independents. In 1661, we find Ephraim Pagit reckoning him as an Independent, which he would not have done, had he not been known to belong to those whom Pagit considered sectaries. I suppose he was not a member of any congregational church after the early period of his life; as I conjecture he might have been excluded from Baptist church, for having published, in his work on 'The Doctrine and Discipline of Divorce;" principles which would procure the expulsion of even a MILTON now, and which nothing but a public retractation of them would be sufficient to procure his being restored.

Dr. Johnson, having laid the foundation of his remarks on the sand, proceeds to erect a castle in the air.

"To be of no church is dangerous. Religion, of which the rewards are distant, and which is animated only by Faith aud Hope, will glide by degrees out of the mind, unless it be invigorated and reimpressed by external ordinances, by stated calls to worship, and the salutary influence of example.”—P. 147.

This well applies to the form of "godliness," the only religion of which it appears Dr, J. knew any thing; but not to "the power of godliness," respecting his knowledge of which, MILTON, by his writings and by his holy life has afforded abundant evidence. Dr. J. proceeds:

66

MILTON, who appears to have had full conviction of the truth of Christianity, and to have regarded the Holy Scriptures with the profoundest veneration, to have been untainted by any heretical opinions, and to have lived in a confirmed belief of the immediate and occasional agency of Providence, yet grew

old without any visible worship. In the distribution of his hours there was no hour of prayer, either solitary or with his household: omitting publick prayer, he omitted all.”—P. 147.

Were there ever such gratuitous assertions and charges of atheism preferred upon such groundless suppositions? I admit that he "omitted the publick prayers" of the Established Church: he did not say after the priest, either in the petitions of the Liturgy, or the sublime chantings of the cathedral service; but is this a sufficient ground for the conclusion, that therefore "he omitted all prayer to God?" I doubt not but Dr. Johnson must have been acquainted with literary men among the Protestant dissenters, whom even he would not have placed with atheists. And as to his not having "any hour for solitary prayer," how was that to be ascertained? He might, if I may be forgiven the solecism, have enjoyed solitary prayer in the midst of his secular employments, or his intercourse with his friends. and family. Would Dr. J. have excluded all those who belong to the Society of Friends from the character of Christian, because they have in their families "no hour of prayer, either solitary or with their household?" Would he have said of William Penn, or Richard Reynolds, not to mention many besides, who have blessed the world with their patriotism and philanthropy, that "omitting publick prayers, they omitted all."

But let us hear this inconsistent dogmatizer declaim further on a subject of which he was not capable of forming a correct idea:

"Of this omission, the reason has been sought upon a supposition which ought never to be made, that men live with their own approbation, and justify their conduct to themselves. Prayer certainly was not thought superfluous by him, who represents our first parents as praying acceptably in the state of innocence, and efficaciously after the fall. That he lived without prayer can hardly be affirmed: his studies and meditations were an habitual prayer. The neglect of it in his family was

probably a fault for which he condemned himself, and which he intended to correct, but that death, as too often happens, intercepted his reformation!"--P. 148.

If this language be applied to the pious and evangelical MILTON, it is arrant nonsense: if it be considered the ebullitions of the accusing conscience of the formal and pharisaical Johnson, it will probably appear correct.

Let the reader judge, from the two following quotations from Paradise Lost, whether MILTON undervalued spiritual, evangelical prayer:

"Thus at their shady lodge arrived, both stood,

Both turn'd, and under open sky ador'd

That God that made both sky, air, earth, and heaven,

Which they beheld, the moon's resplendent globe,

And starry sky. Thou also mad'st the night,
Maker Omnipotent-

This said, unanimous, and other rites

Observing none, but adoration pure,

Which God likes best, into their inmost bower
Handed they went."

"So spake our father penitent, nor Eve

Felt less remorse: they forthwith to the place
Repairing where he judg'd them, prostrate fell
Before him reverent, and both confess'd

Humbly their faults, and pardon begg'd, with tears
Watering the ground, and with their sighs the air
Frequenting, sent from hearts contrite, in sign
Of sorrow unfeign'd, and humiliation meek.

Thus they in loveliest plight repentant stood
Praying, for from the mercy seat above
Prevenient grace descending had removed
The stony from their hearts, and made new flesh
Regenerate grow instead, that sighs now breath'd
Unutterable, which the Spirit of prayer

Inspir'd, and wing'd for heaven with speedier flight
Than loudest oratory."

End of the Tenth, and beginning of the Eleventh Books.

Let us hear Dr. J. on another part of MILTON's character: "His political notions were those of an acrimonious and surly republican, for which it is not known that he gave any better reason, than that a popular government was the most frugal; for the trappings of a monarchy would set up an ordinary commonwealth. It is surely very shallow policy, that supposes money to be the chief good; and even this without considering that the support and expense of a court is, for the most part, only a particular kind of traffick, by which money is circulated without any national impoverishment."-P. 148.

It is true that MILTON has pleasantly assigned the reason quoted by Johnson; but that he never gave a better is a most silly statement, and I appeal to his writings as my proof. And must it not have been " very shallow" casuistry, to have inferred from his notions of a republican government being the most economical, that his notions were those of an acrimonious and surly republican? No, Dr. J.; he certainly objected to monarchy and to an oligarchy, but he would not have objected to an aristocracy, as being, in some cases, to be preferred to a democracy. Nor was he "surly" or "acrimonious:" let him be placed in contrast with the smiling and milk-of-human kindness Dr. J., and then let the world judge which of them deserved the application of these offensive terms, the moderate republican, or the ultra supporter of jure divino monarchy!

But Dr. J. has not done with MILTON yet: his ability for abusing a republican was pre-eminent; nor has he ceased till he has expended all the poisoned arrows of his quiver at the object of his malignity.

"MILTON'S republicism was, I am afraid, founded in an envious hatred of greatness, and a sullen desire of independence, in petulance impatient of control, and pride disdainful of superiority. He hated monarchs in the state, and prelates in the church; for he hated all whom he was required to obey. It is to be suspected, that his predominent desire was to destroy rather than establish, and that he felt not so much the love of liberty, as repugnance to authority."-P. 148.

To repel these malignant assertions, unsupported by the least proof, would be "to answer a fool according to his folly," and I should appear "a fool like unto him." I shall therefore adopt the language of the Psalmist, and say, "What shall be done unto thee, and what shall be given to thee, THOU FALSE TONGUE!"

Again, says Dr. J.

"It has been observed, that they who most loudly clamour for liberty, do not most liberally grant it. What we know of MILTON'S character in domestic relations is, that he was severe and arbitrary. His family consisted of women; and there appears something like a Turkish contempt of females, as subordinate and inferior beings. That his own daughters might not break the ranks, he suffered them to be depressed by a mean and penurious education. He thought women made only for obedience, and men only for rebellion."-P. 149.

How far the publications of MILTON, to prove he had the right to put away his wife, because she was not of an amiable, uniting temper, may support the above caricature, let the reader judge. I have given my opinion that he was erroneous in his principles, and unwise in his conduct on that subject. That he has treated females with a sort of "Turkish contempt, as subordinate and inferior beings," Dr. J., one is ready to think, must have been conscious that he was uttering a malicious falsehood: no one can produce the passages from his work which afford a shadow of evidence in support of the calumnious charges. Speaking of his death, Dr. Johnson admits, with great impartiality, "His funeral was very splendidly and numerously attended." How could this have been, sapient Sir, if MILTON was the domestic monster, and the public, restless barbarian, which you have represented him to be? An unbought funeral train of mourners is about as good a test of the real character of any person as can be supplied! And Dr. J. knew, if he would have stated, that no one was more esteemed in life, or lamented at his death, than MILTON, by that class