« AnteriorContinuar »
land, he said, “ He has a great deal of good about 1772.
well." I mentioned a cause in which I had appeared as counsel at the bar of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland, where a Probationer, (as one licensed to preach, but not yet ordained, is called,) was opposed in his application to be inducted, because it was alledged that he had been guilty of fornication five years before. Johnson. “Whíy, Sir, if he has repented, it is not a sufficient objection. A man who is good enough to go to heaven, is good enough to be a clergyman.” This was a humane and liberal sentiment. But the character of a clergyman is more sacred than that of an ordinary Christian. As he is to instruct with authority, he should be regarded with reverence, as one upon whom divine truth has had the effect to set him above such transgressions, as men less exalted by spiritual habits, and yet upon the whole not to be excluded from heaven, have been betrayed into by the predominance of passion, That clergymen may be considered as sinners in general, as all men are, cannot be denied; but this reflection will not counteract their good precepts so much, as the absolute knowledge of their having been guilty of certain specifick immoral acts. I told him, that by the rules of the Church of Scotland, in their ss Book of Discipline,” if a scandal, as it is
1772. called, is not prosecuted for five years, it cannot
afterwards be proceeded upon, “unless it be of a Ætat. 63.
heinous nature, or again become flagrant;" and that hence a question arose, whether fornication was a sin of a heinous nature; and that I had maintained, that it did not deserve that epithet, in as much as it was not one of those sins which argue very great depravity of heart: in short, was not, in the general acceptation of mankind, a heinous sin. Johnson.
No, Sir, it is not a heinous sin. A heinous sin is that for which a man is punished with death or banishment." Boswell. “But, Sir, after I had argued that it was not a heinous sin, an old clergyman rose up, and repeating the text of scripture denouncing judgement against whoremongers, asked, whether, considering this, there could be any
doubt of fornication being a heinous sin. Johnson.“ Why, Şir, observe the word whoremonger. Every sin, if persisted in, will become heinous. Whoremonger is a dealer in whores, as ironmonger is a dealer in iron. But as you don't call a man an ironmonger for buying and selling a pen-knife; so you don't call a man a whoremonger for getting one wench with child."
I spoke of the inequality of the livings of the clergy in England, and the scanty provisions of some of the Curates. JOHNSON.
JOHNSON. “Why yes, Sir; but it cannot be helped. You must consider, that the revenues of the clergy are not at the disposal of the state, like the
pay of the army. Different men have founded different churches; and some are better endowed,
13 It must not be presumed that Dr. Johnson meant to give any countenance to licentiousness, though in the character of an Advocate he made a just and subtle distinction between casional and habitual transgression.
The State cannot interfere and make 1772. an equal division of what has been particularly appro- Ætat. 63. priated. Now when a clergyman has but a small living, or even two small livings, he can afford very little to a Curate."
He said, he went more frequently to church when there were prayers only, than when there was also a sermon, as the people required more an example for the one than the other ; it being much easier for them to hear a sermon, than to fix their minds on prayer.
On Monday, April 6, I dined with him at Sir Alexander Macdonald's, where was a young officer in the regimentals of the Scots Royal, who talked with a vivacity, fluency, and precision so uncommon, that he attracted particular attention. He proved to be the Honourable Thomas Erskine, youngest brother to the Earl of Buchan, who has since risen into such brilliant reputation at the bar in Westminster-hall.
Fielding being mentioned, Johnson exclaimed, “ he was a blockhead ;” and upon my expressing my astonishment at so strange an assertion, he said, « What I mean by his being a blockhead is, that he was a barren rascal." BOSWELL.
66 Will you not allow, Sir, that he draws very natural pictures of human life .?” Johnson. Why, Sir, it is of very low life. Richardson used to say, that had he not known who Fielding was, he should have believed · he was an ostler. Sir, there is more knowledge of
the heart in one letter of Richardson's, than in all • Tom Jones.'* I, indeed, never read Joseph
* [Johnson's severity against Fielding did not arise from any
1772. Andrews.” ERSKINE.“ Surely, Sir, Richardson is Art. 6. very tedious.” Johnson, “Why, Sir, if you were
to read Richardson for the story, your impatience would be so much fretted that you would hang yourself. But you must read him for the sentiment, and consider the story as only giving occasion to the sentiment."-I have already given my opinion of Fielding; but I cannot refrain from repeating here my wonder at Johnson's excessive and unaccountable depreciation of one of the best writers that England has produced. “ Tom Jones” has stood the test of publick opinion with such success, as to have established its great merit, both for the story, the sentiments, and the manners, and also the varieties of diction, so as to leave no doubt of its having an animated truth of execution throughout.
A book of travels, lately published under the title of Coriat Junior, and written by Mr. Paterson,* was mentioned. Johnson said, this book was in imitation of Sterne, and not of Coriaț, whose name Paterson had chosen as a whimsical one.
66 Tom Coriat, (said he,) was a humourist about the court of James the First. He had a mixture of learning, of wit, and of buffoonery. He first travelled through
viciousness in his style, but from his loose life, and the profligacy
Mr. Paterson, in a pamplilet, produced some evidence to show that his work was written before Sterne's · Sentimental Journey' appeared.
Europe, and published his travels. He afterwards 1772. travelled on foot through Asia, and had made many Ætat. 63. remarks; but he died at Mandoa, and his remarks were lost.”
We talked of gaming, and animadverted on it with severity. Johnson. “ Nay, gentlemen, let us not aggravate the matter. It is not roguery to play with a man who is ignorant of the game,
you are master of it, and so win his money; for he thinks he can play better than you, as you think you can play better than he; and the superiour skill carries it. ERSKINE. " He is a fool, but you are not a rogue.” JOHNSON. “That's much about the truth, Sir. It must be considered, that a man who only does what every one of the society to which he belongs would do, is not a dishonest man.
In the republick of Sparta, it was agreed, that stealing was not dishonourable, if not discovered. I do not commend a society where there is an agreement that what would not otherwise be fair, shall be fair ; but I maintain, that an individual of any society, who practises what is allowed, is not a dishonest man.” Boswell. “So then, Sir, you do not think ill of a man who wins perhaps forty thousand pounds in a winter?” Johnson. “Sir, I do not call a gamester a dishonest man; but I call him an unsocial man, an unprofitable man. Gaming is a mode of transferring property without producing any intermediate good. Trade gives employment to numbers, and so produces intermediate good.”
Mr. Erskine told us, that when he was in the island of Minorca, he not only read prayers, but preached two sermons to the regiment. He seemed to object to the passage in scripture where we are told that