fhip; and more of them might, for any thing the Doctor knows to the contrary. The Doctor next attacks Milton's political character.

"His political notions were thofe of ❝an acrimonious and furly republican."

When an honeft man has occafion to characterise his enemy, particularly in matters of opinion, he should keep a ftrict watch over himself, that his prejudices do not transport him to imputations which are either false, or may be retorted upon himself.

The world would have given Dr. Johnfon credit for his inveterate hatred of republican notions, without his quali fying them with the epithets of acrimonious and furly, as exhibited by Milton,

whofe

whose defenders might, with equal juf-. tice at least, call him an acrimonious and furly Royalift.

But was Dr. Johnfon's quarrel with Milton's notions merely that they were republican, that is to say, notions adverse to kingly government? Hath he always revered kings as fuch, kings de fato, or kings only fo and fo qualified?

We confefs ourselves to be of that clafs of men who are willing to receive inftruction from all quarters; and the news-paper of the day being juft brought in, we learn, from an extract in it from Dr. Johnfon's Life of Smith, that Gilbert Walmsley was a Whig with all the virulence and malevolence of his party, and

1

that the Doctor was of different notions

and opinions*.

But we are well informed, that Mr. Walmfley was no republican, but strongly attached in principle to the fucceffion of the Houfe of Hanover. If for this attachment he was, in Dr. Johnfon's efteem, a virulent and malevolent Whig, we should be glad to know what precife.. ly are thofe notions and opinions wherein he differed from his friend Walmsley? Perhaps at the bottom the grudge is no. more than that neither Milton nor Walmfley would allow Dr. Johnson to chufe a King for them.

"It is not known," fays the Doctor, "that Milton gave any better reason

*St. James's Chronicle, July 31, 1779.

"[for

"[for his republican notions] than that a popular government was the most frugal; "for that the trappings of a monarchy "would set up an ordinary Common"wealth *."

In the Είκων Βασιλικη King Charles fays, or is made to fay, " that Kings are the greateft patrons of law, justice, "order, and religion, on earth."

To this Milton replies, "What patrons they be God in fcripture oft "enough hath expreft; and the earth "itself hath too long groaned under the burden of their injuftice, diforder, and "irreligion t."

A plain man would think this a better

reafon, if true, for a republican govern

*Life, p. 143.

Iconoclaftes, chap. xxviii.

I 2

ment,

ment, than merely the expence of monarchy. But let the Biographer have his

way.

"It is furely a very narrow policy that "supposes money to be the chief good." But it is as furely afferted by us, that no modeft man can find any fuch pofition in all Milton's works. The political maxim, that money is not the chiefeft good, would ftand with a much fairer face in the tract intituled, "Taxation no Ty

ranny," in order to prevail with the people to bleed freely, and fubmit chearfully to the pecuniary demands of the ministry; for that the expence of a court is for the most part only a particular "kind of traffick, by which money is

circulated without any national impo

"verifhment."

Tritical