1776. He may warn them one by one in friendly converfe, or by a parochial vifitation. But if he may warn each man fingly, what shall forbid him to Etat. 67. warn them all together? Of that which is to be made known to all, how is there any difference whether it be communicated to each fingly, or to all together? What is known to all, muft neceffarily be publick. Whether it shall be publick at once, or publick by degrees, is the only queftion. And of a fudden and folemn publication the impreffion is deeper, and the warning. more effectual. "It may easily be urged, if a minifter be thus left at liberty to delate finners from the pulpit, and to publifh at will the crimes of a parishioner, he may often blast the innocent, and distress the timorous. He may be fufpicious, and condemn without evidence; he may be rafh, and judge without examination; he may be fevere, and treat flight offences with too much harshness; he may be malignant and partial, and gratify his private intereft or resentment, under the shelter of his paftoral character. "Of all this there is poffibility, and of all this there is danger. But if poffibility of evil be to exclude good, no good ever can be done. If nothing is to be attempted in which there is danger, we must all fink into hopeless inactivity. The evils that may be feared from this practice arise not from any. defect in the inftitution, but from the infirmities of human nature. Power, in whatever hands it is placed, will be fometimes improperly exerted; yet courts of law must judge, though they will sometimes judge amifs. A father must instruct his children, though he himself may often want in-struction. A minifter must cenfure finners, though his cenfure may be fometimes erroneous by want of judgement, and fometimes unjust by, want of honesty. "If we examine the circumftances of the present cafe, we shall find the fentence neither erroneous nor unjuft; we shall find no breach of private confidence, no intrufion into fecret tranfactions. The fact was notorious and indubitable; so easy to be proved, that no proof was defired. The act was. base and treacherous, the perpetration infolent and open, and the example naturally mischievous. The minifter, however, being retired and recluse, had not yet heard what was publickly known throughout the parish; and on occafion of a publick election, warned his people, according to his duty, against the crimes which publick elections frequently produce. His warning was felt by one of his parishoners, as pointed particularly at himself. But instead of producing as might be wished, private compunction and immediate reformation, it kindled only rage and refentment. He charged his minister, in. 1776. in a publick paper, with fcandal, defamation, and falfehood. The minister, Etat. 67. thus reproached, had his own character to vindicate, upon which his pastoral authority must neceffarily depend. To be charged with a defamatory lie is an injury which no man patiently endures in common life. To be charged with polluting the paftoral office with fcandal and falfehood was a violation. of character still more atrocious, as it affected not only his perfonal but his clerical veracity. His indignation naturally rofe in proportion to his honesty, and with all the fortitude of injured honesty, he dared this calumniator in the church, and at once exonerated himself from cenfure, and rescued his flock from deception and from danger. The man whom he accufes pretends not to be innocent; or at least only pretends, for he declines a trial. The crime of which he is accufed has frequent opportunities and strong temptations. It has already spread far, with much depravation of private morals, and much injury to publick happiness. To warn the people, therefore, against it was not wanton and officious, but neceffary and pastoral. "What then is the fault with which this worthy minifter is charged? He has ufurped no dominion over confcience. He has exerted no authority in fupport of doubtful and controverted opinions. He has not dragged into light a bashful and corrigible finner. His cenfure was directed against a breach of morality, against an act which no man juftifies. The man who appropriated this cenfure to himself, is evidently and notoriously guilty. His consciousness of his own wickedness incited him to attack his faithful reprover with open infolence and painted accufations. Such an attack made defence neceffary, and we hope it will be at laft decided that the means of defence were just and lawful.” When I read this to Mr. Burke, he was highly pleased, and exclaimed, "Well, he does his work in a workman-like manner.” Mr. Thomson wished to bring the cause by appeal before the House of Lords, but was diffuaded by the advice of the noble perfon who now prefides fo ably in that Moft Honourable House, and who was then Attorney-General. As my readers will no doubt be glad alfo to read the opinion of this eminent man upon the fame fubject, I fhall here infert it. As a proof of Dr. Johnfon's extraordinary powers of compofition, it appears from the original manufcript of this excellent differtation, of which he dictated the first eight paragraphs on the 10th of May, and the remainder on the 13th, that there are in the whole only feven corrections, or rather variations, and those not confiderable. Such were at once the vigorous and accurate emanations of his mind. CASE. "THERE is herewith laid before you, "I. Petition for the Reverend Mr. James Thomfon, minifter of Dunfermline. "2. Answers thereto. 3. Copy of the judgement of the Court of Seffion upon both. 4. Notes of the opinions of the Judges, being the reasons upon "Thefe papers you will please to perufe, and give your opinion, "I DON'T think the appeal adviseable: not only because the value of the judgement is in no degree adequate to the expence, but because there are many chances, that, upon the general complexion of the case, the impreffion will be taken to the difadvantage of the appellant. "It is impoffible to approve the style of that fermon. But the complaint was not lefs ungracious from that man, who had behaved fo ill by his original libel, and, at the time, when he received the reproach he complains of. In the last article all the plaintiffs are equally concerned. It ftruck me alfo with fome wonder, that the Judges should think so much fervour appofite to the occafion of reproving the defendant for a little excess. "Upon the matter, however, I agree with them in condemning the behaviour of the minifter; and in thinking it a fubject fit for ecclefiaftical cenfure; and even for an action, if any individual could qualify a wrong, and a damage arifing from it. But this I doubt. The circumftance of publishing the reproach in a pulpit, though extremely indecent, and culpable in another view, does not conftitute a different fort of wrong, or any other rule of law, than would have obtained, if the fame words had been pronounced elsewhere. I don't know, whether there be any difference in the law of Scotland, in the definition of flander, before the Commiffaries, or the Court of Seffion. The common law of England does not give way to actions for every reproachful word. An action cannot be brought for general damages, upon any words It is curious to obferve that Lord Thurlow has here, perhaps in compliment to NorthBritain, made ufe of a term of the Scotch law, which to an English reader may require explanation. To qualify a wrong, is to point out and establish it.. Etat. 67. which 1776. Etat. 67. which import less than an offence cognisable by law; confequently no action could have been brought here for the words in queftion. Both laws admit the truth to be a juftification in actions for words; and the law of England does the fame in actions for libels. The judgement, therefore, feems to me to have been wrong, in that the Court repelled that defence. "E. THURLOW." I am now to record a very curious incident in Dr. Johnson's Life, which fell under my own obfervation; of which pars magna fui, and which I am perfuaded will, with the liberal-minded, be much to his credit. My defire of being acquainted with celebrated men of every description, had made me, much about the fame time, obtain an introduction to Dr. Samuel Johnson and to John Wilkes, Efq. Two men more different could perhaps not be selected out from all mankind. They had even attacked one another with some asperity in their writings; yet I lived in habits of friendfhip with both. I could fully relifh the excellence of each; for I have ever delighted in that intellectual chymistry which can feparate good qualities from evil in the fame perfon. Sir John Pringle, " mine own friend and my Father's friend," between whom and Dr. Johnson I in vain wished to establish an acquaintance, as I refpected and lived in intimacy with both of them, obferved to me once, very ingeniously, "It is not in friendship as in mathematicks, where two things, each equal to a third, are equal between themselves. You agree with Johnson as a middle quality, and you agree with me as a middle quality; but Johnfon and I fhould not agree." Sir John was not fufficiently flexible; fo I defifted; knowing, indeed, that the repulfion was equally ftrong on the part of Johnfon; who, I know not from what caufe, unless his being a Scotchman, had formed a very erroneous opinion of Sir John. But I conceived an irresistible wifh, if poflible, to bring Dr. Johnson and Mr. Wilkes together. How to manage it, was a nice and difficult matter. My worthy bookfellers and friends, Meffieurs Dillys in the Poultry, at whofe hofpitable and well-covered table I have feen a greater number of literary men than at any other, except that of Sir Joshua Reynolds, had invited me to meet Mr. Wilkes and fome more gentlemen on Wednesday, May 15. Pray (faid I,) let us have Dr. Johnson."-" What, with Mr. Wilkes? not for the world, (faid Mr. Edward Dilly): Dr. Johnson would never forgive me."-"Come, (faid I,) if you'll let me negociate for you, I will be answerable. that all fhall go well." DILLY. "Nay, if you will take it upon you, I am fure I fhall be very happy to fee them both here." 1776. Ætat. 67. Notwithstanding the high veneration which I entertained for Dr. Johnfon, I was fenfible that he was fometimes a little actuated by the spirit of contradiction, and by means of that I hoped I should gain my point. I was perfuaded that if I had come upon him with a direct propofal, " Sir, will you dine in company with Jack Wilkes?" he would have flown into a paffion, and would probably have answered, "Dine with Jack Wilkes, Sir! I'd as foon dine with Jack Ketch"." I therefore, while we were fitting quietly by ourselves at his house in an evening, took occafion to open my plan thus:" Mr. Dilly, Sir, fends his refpectful compliments to you, and would be happy if you would do him the honour to dine with him on Wednesday next along with me, as I muft foon go to Scotland." JOHNSON. "Sir, I am obliged to Mr. Dilly. I will wait upon him" BOSWELL. "Provided, Sir, I fuppofe, that the company which he is to have is agreeable to you." JOHNSON. "What do you mean, Sir? What do you take me for? Do you think I am fo ignorant of the world, as to imagine that I am to prescribe to a gentleman what company he is to have at his table?" BoSWELL. "I beg your pardon, Sir, for wifhing to prevent you from meeting people whom you might not like. Perhaps he may have some of what he calls his patriotick friends with him." JOHNSON. Well, Sir, and what then? What care I for his patriotick friends? Poh!" BOSWELL." I should not be furprized to find Jack Wilkes there." JOHNSON. "And if Jack Wilkes bould be there, what is that to me, Sir? My dear friend, let us have no more of this. I am forry to be angry with you; but really it is treating me ftrangely to talk to me as if I could not meet any company whatever, occafionally." BOSWELL. "Pray forgive me, Sir: I meant well. But you shall meet whoever comes, for me." Thus I fecured him, and told Dilly that he would find him very well pleased to be one of his guests on the day appointed. " Upon the much-expected Wednesday, I called on him about half an hour before dinner, as I often did when we were to dine out together, to fee that. he was ready in time, and to accompany him. I found him buffeting his books, as upon a former occafion', covered with dust, and making no preparation for going abroad. "How is this, Sir? (faid I). recollect that you are to dine at Mr. Dilly's?" JOHNSON. "Sir, I did not Don't you • This has been circulated as if actually faid by Johnson, when the truth is it was only fuppofed by me. See page 47 of this volume. VOL. II. M think |