We talked of the Roman Catholic religion, and how little difference there was in essential matters between ours and it JOHNSON." True, Sir; all denominations of Christians have really little difference in point of doctrine, though they may differ widely in external forms. There is a prodigious difference between the external form of one of your Presbyterian churches in Scotland, and the church in Italy; yet the doctrine taught is essentially the same."

I mentioned the petition to parliament for removing the subscription to the Thirty-nine Articles. (1) JOHNSON. "It was soon thrown out. Sir, they talk of not making boys at the University subscribe to what they do not understand; but they ought to consider, that our Universities were founded to bring up members for the Church of England, and

(1) This was a petition drawn up by Mr. Francis Blackburn, who, though an archdeacon of the Church of England, had published several works against her discipline and peculiar doctrines: the petition was presented on the 6th of February, and, after an animated debate, rejected (not being even allowed to lie on the table) by 217 voices against 71. Mr. Gibbon thus notices this debate, in a letter to Lord Sheffield: "I congratulate you on the late victory of our dear mamma, the Church of England. She had, last Thursday (Feb. 6.), 71 rebellious sons, who pretended to set aside her wall, on account of insanity; but 217 worthy champions, headed by Lord North, Burke, Hans Stanley, Charles Fox, Godfrey Clarke, &c. supported the validity of it with infinite humour. By the by, Charles Fox prepared himself for that holy war, by passing twenty-two hours in the pious exercise of hazard: his devotion only cost him 500l. per hour, in all 11,000l." Misc. Works, vol. ii. p. 74. The argument which seemed to make most effect in the House, was against requiring subscription from every youth entering the University, of whatever age, or intended for whatever profession. To this point Johnson's observation particularly alludes.-C.

we must not supply our enemies with arms from our arsenal. No, Sir, the meaning of subscribing is, not that they fully understand all the articles, but that they will adhere to the church of England. Now take it in this way, and suppose that they should only subscribe their adherence to the church of England, there would be still the same difficulty; for still the young men would be subscribing to what they do not understand. For if you should ask them, what do you mean by the church of England? Do you know in what it differs from the Presbyterian church? from the Romish church? from the Greek church? from the Coptic church? they could not tell you. So, Sir, it comes to the same thing." Boswell. "But, would it not be sufficient to subscribe the Bible?" JOHNSON. " Why no, Sir; for all sects will subscribe the Bible; nay, the Mahometans will subscribe the Bible; for the Mahometans acknowledge Jesus Christ, as well as Moses, but maintain that God sent Mahomet as a still greater prophet than either.

I mentioned the motion which had been made in the House of Commons, to abolish the fast of the 30th of January. (1) JOHNSON. "Why, Sir, I could have wished that it had been a temporary act, per

(1) Dr. Nowell had preached, as usual, before the House on the 30th of January, and had been thanked for his sermon. Some days afterwards, Mr. Thomas Townshend complained of certain unconstitutional passages in the sermon; and on the 21st of February, after a debate, the thanks were ordered to be expunged from the Journals; and on the 2d of March, Mr. Frederic Montague moved for leave to bring in a bill to repeal the observance of that day altogether. This motion was rejected by 125 to 97. C.

haps, to have expired with the century. I am against abolishing it; because that would be declaring it wrong to establish it; but I should have no objection to make an act, continuing it for another century, and then letting it expire."

He disapproved of the Royal Marriage bill; “because," said he, "I would not have the people think that the validity of marriage depends on the will of man, or that the right of a king depends on the will of man. I should not have been against making the marriage of any of the royal family without the approbation of king and parliament, highly criminal.” (1)

In the morning we had talked of old families, and' the respect due to them. JOHNSON. "Sir, you have a right to that kind of respect, and are arguing for yourself. I am for supporting the principle, and am disinterested in doing it, as I have no such right." BOSWELL. "Why, Sir, it is one more incitement to a man to do well." JOHNSON. "Yes, Sir, and it is a matter of opinion, very necessary to keep society together. What is it but opinion, by which we have a respect for authority, that prevents us, who are the rabble, from rising up and pulling down you who are gentlemen from your places, and saying We will be gentlemen in our turn?' Now, Sir, that respect

(1) It is not very easy to understand Dr. Johnson's objection as above stated. Does not the validity of all marriages "depend on the will of man," that is, are there not in all civilised nations certain legal formula and conditions, requisite to constitute a marriage? If all human institutions are to be disregarded, what is marriage? And as to the indefeasible rights of kings, see Johnson's opinions, antè, Vol. II. pp. 207. 215. 445. ; and finally, if it be competent to the legislature to make an act highly criminal, does not that imply a competency to forbid it altogether? - C.

66

for authority is much more easily granted to a man whose father has had it, than to an upstart, and so society is more easily supported." Boswell. "Perhaps, Sir, it might be done by the respect belonging to office, as among the Romans, where the dress, the toga, inspired reverence." JOHNSON. 'Why, we know very little about the Romans. But, surely, it is much easier to respect a man who has always had respect, than to respect a man who we know was last year no better than ourselves, and will be no better next year. In republics there is no respect for authority, but a fear of power." BOSWELL." At present, Sir, I think riches seem to gain most respect." JOHNSON. "No, Sir, riches do not gain hearty respect; they only procure external attention. A very rich man, from low beginnings, may buy his election in a borough ; but, cæteris paribus, a man of family will be preferred. People will prefer a man for whose father their fathers have voted, though they should get no more money, or even less. That shows that the respect for family is not merely fanciful, but has an actual operation. If gentlemen of family would allow the rich upstarts to spend their money profusely, which they are ready enough to do, and not vie with them in expense, the upstarts would soon be at an end, and the gentlemen would remain; but if the gentlemen will vie in expense with the upstarts, which is very foolish, they must be ruined." (1)

(1) Though a man of obscure birth himself, Dr. Johnson's partiality to people of family was visible on every occasion; his zeal for subordination warm even to bigotry; his hatred to innovation, and reverence for the old feudal times, apparent, whenever any possible manner of showing them occurred. Piozzi.

I

gave him an account of the excellent mimicry of a friend (1) of mine in Scotland; observing, at the same time, that some people thought it a very mean thing. JOHNSON. "Why, Sir, it is making a very mean use of man's powers. But to be a good mimic, requires great powers; great acuteness of observation, great retention of what is observed, and great pliancy of organs, to represent what is observed. I remember a lady of quality in this town, Lady

who was a wonderful mimic, and used to make me laugh immoderately. I have heard she is now gone mad." BOSWELL. "It is amazing how a mimic can not only give you the gestures and voice of a person whom he represents, but even what a person would say on any particular subject.” JOHNSON. "Why, Sir, you are to consider that the manner and some particular phrases of a person do much to impress you with an idea of him, and you are not sure that he would say what the mimic says in his character." BOSWELL. "I don't think Foote a good mimic, Sir." JOHNSON. "No, Sir; his imitations are not like. He gives you something different from himself, but not the character which he means to assume. He goes out of himself, without going into other people. He cannot take off any person unless he is strongly marked, such as George Faulkner. (2) He is like a painter who can draw

(1) This friend was Mr. Cullen, advocate, son of the celebrated physician, afterwards a judge, by the name of Lord Cullen. C. 1835.

“ In his portraits

(2) [The printer of the Dublin Journal. of Faulkner, Foote found the only sitter, whom his extravagant pencil could not caricature; for he had a solemn intrepidity of