252 A discussion on toleration. [A.D. 1773, their doublets?' MAYO. I think the magistrate has no right to interfere till there is some overt act.' BOSWELL. 'So, Sir, though he sees an enemy to the state charging a blunderbuss, he is not to interfere till it is fired off?' MAYO. He must be sure of its direction against the state.' JOHNSON. 'The magistrate is to judge of that. He has no right to restrain your thinking, because the evil centers in yourself. If a man were sitting at this table, and chopping off his fingers, the magistrate, as guardian of the community, has no authority to restrain him, however he might do it from kindness as a parent.—Though, indeed, upon more consideration, I think he may; as it is probable, that he who is chopping off his own fingers, may soon proceed to chop off those of other people. If I think it right to steal Mr. Dilly's plate, I am a bad man; but he can say nothing to me. If I make an open declaration that I think so, he will keep me out of his house. If I put forth my hand, I shall be sent to Newgate. This is the gradation of thinking, preaching, and acting: if a man thinks erroneously, he may keep his thoughts to himself, and nobody will trouble him; if he preaches erroneous doctrine, society may expel him; if he acts in consequence of it, the law takes place, and he is hanged " But, Sir, ought not Christians to have liberty of conscience?' JOHNSON. I have already told you so, Sir. You are coming back to where you were.' BOSWELL. ‘Dr. Mayo is always taking a return post-chaise, and going the stage over again. He has it at half price.' JOHNSON. Dr. Mayo, like other champions for unlimited toleration, has got a set of words 2. Sir, it is no matter, politically, whether the magistrate be right or wrong. Suppose a club were to be formed, to drink confusion to King George the Third, and a happy restoration MAYO. * Baretti, in a MS. note on Piozzi Letters, i. 219, says:-'Johnson would have made an excellent Spanish inquisitor. To his shame be it said, he always was tooth and nail against toleration.' 2 Dr. Mayo's calm temper and steady perseverance, rendered him an admirable subject for the exercise of Dr. Johnson's powerful abilities. He never flinched: but, after reiter ated blows, remained seemingly unmoved as at the first. The scintillations of Johnson's genius flashed every time he was struck, without his receiving any injury. Hence he obtained the epithet of THE LITERARY ANVIL. BOSWELL. See post, April 15, 1778, for an account of another dinner at Mr. Dilly's, where Johnson and Mayo met. to Aetat. 64.] Goldsmith's wish to shine. 253 to Charles the Third, this would be very bad with respect to the State; but every member of that club must either conform to its rules, or be turned out of it. Old Baxter, I remember, maintains, that the magistrate should "tolerate all things that are tolerable." This is no good definition of toleration upon any principle; but it shews that he thought some things were not tolerable.' TOPLADY. 'Sir, you have untwisted this difficult subject with great dexterity 2' During this argument, Goldsmith sat in restless agitation, from a wish to get in and shine3. Finding himself excluded, he had taken his hat to go away, but remained for some time. with it in his hand, like a gamester, who at the close of a long night, lingers for a little while, to see if he can have a favourable opening to finish with success. Once when he was beginning to speak, he found himself overpowered by the loud voice of Johnson, who was at the opposite end of the table, and did not perceive Goldsmith's attempt. Thus disappointed of his wish to obtain the attention of the company, Goldsmith in a passion threw down his hat, looking angrily at Johnson, and exclaiming in a bitter tone, 'Take it. When Toplady was going to speak, Johnson uttered some sound, which led Goldsmith to think that he was beginning again, and taking the words from Toplady. The Young Pretender, Charles Edward. 2 Mr. Croker, quoting Johnson's letter of May 20, 1775 (Piozzi Letters, i. 219), where he says, 'I dined in a large company at a dissenting bookseller's yesterday, and disputed against toleration with one Doctor Meyer,' continues :-‘This must have been the dinner noted in the text; but I cannot reconcile the dates, and the mention of the death of the Queen of Denmark, which happened on May 10, 1775, ascertains that the date of the letter is correct. Boswell . . . must, I think, have misdated and misplaced his note of this conversation.' That the dinner did not take place in May, 1775, is, however, quite clear. By that date Goldsmith had been dead more than a year, and Goldsmith bore a large part in the talk at the Dillys' table. On the other hand, there can be no question about the correctness of the date of the letter. Wesley, in his Journal for 1757 (ii. 340), mentions 'Mr. Meier, chaplain to one of the Hanoverian regiments.' Perhaps he is the man whom Johnson met in 1775. 3 See ante, i. 423, note 2. 4 'It is very possible he had to call at Covent-garden on his way, and that for this, and not for Boswell's reason, he had taken his hat early. The actor who so assisted him in Young Marlow was taking his benefit this seventh of May; and for an additional attraction Goldsmith had written him an epilogue.' Goldsmith, ii. 376. Forster's Upon 254 Langton rebuked by Johnson. [A.D. 1773. Upon which, he seized this opportunity of venting his own envy and spleen, under the pretext of supporting another person: 'Sir, (said he to Johnson,) the gentleman has heard you patiently for an hour; pray allow us now to hear him.' JOHNSON. (sternly,) 'Sir, I was not interrupting the gentleman. I was only giving him a signal of my attention. Sir, you are impertinent.' Goldsmith made no reply, but continued in the company for some time. A gentleman present2 ventured to ask Dr. Johnson if there was not a material difference as to toleration of opinions which lead to action, and opinions merely speculative; for instance, would it be wrong in the magistrate to tolerate those who preach against the doctrine of the TRINITY? Johnson was highly offended, and said, 'I wonder, Sir, how a gentleman of your piety can introduce this subject in a mixed company.' He told me afterwards, that the impropriety was, that perhaps some of the company might have talked on the subject in such terms as might have shocked him3; or he might have been forced to appear in their eyes a narrow-minded man. The gentleman, with submissive deference, said, he had only hinted at the question from a desire to hear Dr. Johnson's opinion upon it. JOHNSON. 'Why then, Sir, I think that permitting men to preach any opinion contrary to the doctrine of the established church tends, in a certain degree, to lessen the authority of the church, and consequently, to lessen the influence of religion.' 'It may be considered, (said the gentleman,) whether it would not be politick to tolerate in such a case.' JOHNSON. 'Sir, we have been talking of right: this is another question. I think it is not politick to tolerate in such a case.' Though he did not think it fit that so aweful a subject should be introduced in a mixed company, and therefore at this time waved the theological question; yet his own orthodox belief in 'Johnson was not given to interrupting a speaker. Hawkins (Life, p. 164), describing his conversation, says For the pleasure he communicated to his hearers he expected not the tribute of silence; on the contrary, he encouraged others, particularly young men, to speak, and paid a due attention to what they said.' See post, under April 29, 1776, note. 2 That this was Langton can be seen from Boswell's Hebrides, Aug. 22, 1773, and from Johnson's letters of July 5, 1773, July 5, 1774, and Jan. 21, 1775. 3 See post, April 28, 1783. the Aetat. 64.] Persecutions of Irish Catholicks. 255 the sacred mystery of the TRINITY is evinced beyond doubt, by the following passage in his private devotions: 'O LORD, hear my prayer [prayers], for JESUS CHRIST's sake; to whom with thee and the HOLY GHOST, three persons and one GOD, be all honour and glory, world without end, Amen '.' BOSWELL. 'Pray, Mr. Dilly, how does Dr. Leland's History of Ireland sell?' JOHNSON. (bursting forth with a generous indignation,) 'The Irish are in a most unnatural state; for we see there the minority prevailing over the majority3. There is no instance, even in the ten persecutions1, of such severity as that which the protestants of Ireland have exercised against the Catholicks. Did we tell them we have conquered them, it would be above board: to punish them by confiscation and other penalties, as rebels, was monstrous injustice. King William was not their lawful sovereign: he had not been acknowledged by the Parliament of Ireland, when they appeared in arms against him.' I here suggested something favourable of the Roman Catholicks. TOPLADY. Does not their invocation of saints suppose omnipresence in the saints?' JOHNSON. 'No, Sir; it supposes only pluri-presence, and when spirits are divested of matter, it seems probable that they should see with more extent than when in an embodied state. There is, therefore, no approach to an invasion of any of the divine attributes, in the invocation of saints. But I think it is will-worship, and presumption. I see no command for it, and therefore think it is safer not to practise it'.' He and Mr. Langton and I went together to THE CLUB, where we found Mr. Burke, Mr. Garrick, and some other members, and Pr. and Med. p. 40. BOSWELL. 2 See ante, i. 489. 3 In England,' wrote Burke, 'the Roman Catholics are a sect; in Ireland they are a nation.' Burke's Corres. iv. 89. 'The celebrated number of ten persecutions has been determined by the ecclesiastical writers of the fifth century, who possessed a more distinct view of the prosperous or ad verse fortunes of the church, from amongst 256 Johnson's apology to Goldsmith. [A.D. 1773. amongst them our friend Goldsmith, who sat silently brooding over Johnson's reprimand to him after dinner. Johnson perceived this, and said aside to some of us, 'I'll make Goldsmith forgive me ;' and then called to him in a loud voice, 'Dr. Goldsmith, something passed to-day where you and I dined; I ask your pardon'.' Goldsmith answered placidly, 'It must be much from you, Sir, that I take ill.' And so at once the difference was over, and they were on as easy terms as ever, and Goldsmith rattled away as usual2. In our way to the club to-night, when I regretted that Goldsmith would, upon every occasion, endeavour to shine, by which he often exposed himself, Mr. Langton observed, that he was not like Addison, who was content with the fame of his writings, and did not aim also at excellency in conversation, for which he found himself unfit; and that he said to a lady who complained of his having talked little in company, 'Madam, I have but ninepence in ready money, but I can draw for a thousand pounds". I Reynolds said :-'Johnson had one virtue which I hold one of the most difficult to practise. After the heat of contest was over, if he had been informed that his antagonist resented his rudeness, he was the first to seek after a reconciliation.' Taylor's Reynolds, ii. 457. He wrote to Dr. Taylor in 1756:-'When I am musing alone, I feel a pang for every moment that any human being has by my peevishness or obstinacy spent in uneasiness.' Notes and Queries, 6th S., v. 324. More than twenty years later he said in Miss Burney's hearing:-'I am always sorry when I make bitter speeches, and I never do it but when I am in sufferably vexed.' Mme. D'Arblay's Diary, i. 131. When the fray was over,' writes Murphy (Life, p. 140), 'he generally softened into repentance, and, by conciliating measures, took care that no animosity should be left rankling in the breast of the antagonist.' See ante, ii. as well as Goldsmith this day, yet of Goldsmith only did he ask pardop. Perhaps this fact increased Langton's resentment, which lasted certainly more than a year. See post, July 5, 1774, and Jan. 21, 1775. 3 'Addison, speaking of his own deficiency in conversation, used to say of himself, that with respect to intellectual wealth he could draw bills for a thousand pounds, though he had not a guinea in his pocket.' Johnson's Works, vii. 446. Somewhat the same thought may be found in The Tatler, No. 30, where it is said that ‘a man endowed with great perfections without good-breeding, is like one who has his pockets full of gold, but always wants change for his ordinary occasions.' I have traced it still earlier, for Burnet in his History of his own Times, i. 210, says, that 'Bishop Wilkins used to say Lloyd had the most learning in ready cash of any he ever knew.' Later authors have used the same image. Lord Chesterfield (Letters, ii. 291) in 1749 wrote of I observed, |