« 이전계속 »
He on the same account made a similar remark on Patrick Lord Elibank : “Sir, there is nothing conclusive in his talk."
When I complained of having dived at a splendid table without hearing one sentence of conversation worthy of being remembered, he said, Sir, there seldom is any such conversation. Boswell. Why then meet at table? Johnso:). Why to eat and drink together, and to promote kindness; and, Sir, this is better done when there is no solid conversation; for when there is, people differ in opinion, and get into bad humour, or some of the company who are not capable of such conversation, are left out, and feel themselves uneasy. It was for this reason Sir Robert Walpole said, he always talked bawdy at his table, because in that all could join.
Being irritated by heariog a gentleman ask Mr. Levet a variety of questions concerning him, when he was sitting by, he broke ont, “Sir, you have but two topics, yourself and me. I am sick of both." “A man, (said he,) should not talk of himself, por much of any particular person. He should take care not to be made a proverb; and, therefore, should avoid having any one topic of which people can say •We shall liear him upon it.' There was a Dr. Oldfield, who was always talking of the Duke of Marlborough. He came into a coffee-bouse one day, and told that bis Grace had spoken in the House of Lords for half an hour. Did he indeed speak for half an hour? (said Belchier, the surgeon, ) Yes. And what did he say of Dr. Oldfield ?-Nothing: Why then, Sir, he was very ungrateful; for Dr. Oldfield could not have spoken for a quarter of an hour, without saying something of him.”
Every man is to take existence on the terms on which it is given to him. To some men it is given on condition of not taking liberties, which other men may take without much harm. One may drink wine, and be nothing the worse for it; on another, wine maș have effects so inflammatory as to injure him both in body and mind, and perhaps, make him commit something for which he may deserve to be hanged.”
“Lord Hailes's “Annals of Scotland' have not that painted form which is the taste of this age; but it is a book which will always sell, it has such a stability of dates, such a certainty of facts, and such a punc. tuality of citation. I vever before read Scotch history with certainty."
I asked him whether he would advise me to read the Bible with a com. meutary, and what commentaries he would recommend. Johnson. To be sure, Sir, I would have you read the Bible with a commentary ; and I would recommend Louth and Patrick on the Old Testament, and Hammond on the New."
During my stay in London this spring, I solicited his attention to another law case, in which I was engaged. In the course of a contested election for the Borough of Dumfermline, which I attended as one of my friend Colonel (afterwards Sir Archibald) Campbell's counsel, one of his political agents, who was charged with having been unfaithful to his employer, and having deserted to the opposite party for a pecuniary
reward-attacked very rudely in a news-paper the Reverend Mr. James Thomson, one of the ministers of that place, on account of a supposed allusion to him in one of his sermons. Upon this the minister, ou a subsequent Sunday, arraigned him by name from the pulpit with some severity; and the agent, after the sermon was over, rose up and asked the minister aloud, 6. What bribe he had received for telling so many lies from the chair of verity." I was present at this very extraordinary scene. The person arraigned, and his father and brother, who also had a share both of the reproof froin the pulpit, and in the retaliation, brought an action against Mr. Thomson, in the Court of Session, for defamation and damages, and I was one of the counsel for the reverend defendant. The Liberty of the pulpit was our great ground of defence; but we argued also on the provocation of the previous attack, and on the instant retaliation. The Court of Session, however-the fifteen Judges, who are at the same time the jury, decided against the minister, contrary to my humble opinion; and several of them expressed themselves with indignation against him. He was an aged gentleman, formerly a military chaplin, and a man of high spirit and honour. Johnson was satisfied that the judgment was wrong, and dictated to me the following argument in confutation of it.
“Of the censure pronounced from the pulpit, our determination must be formed, as in other cases, by a consideration of the act itself, and the particular circumstances with which it is invested.
“The right of censure and rebuke seems necessarily appendant to the pastoral office. He, to whom the care of a congregation is entrusted, is considered as the shepherd of a flock, as the teacher of a school, as the father of a family. As a shepherd tending not his own sheep but those of his master, he is answerable for those that stray, and that lose themselves by straying. But no man can be answerable for losses which he has not power to prevent, or for vagrancy which he has not authority to restrain.
“As a teacher giving instruction for wages, and liable to reproach, if those whom he undertakes to inform make po proficiency, he must have the power of enforcing attendance, of awakening negligence, and repressing contradiction.
“ As a father, he possesses the paternal authority of admonition, rebuke, and punishment. He cannot, without reducing his office to ao empty name, be hindered from the exercise of any practice necessary to stimulate the idle, to reform the vicious, to check the petulant, and correct the stubborn,
“ If we enquire into the practice of the primitive church, we shall, I believe, find the ministers of the word, exercising the whole authority of this complicated character. We shall find them not only encouraging the good by exhortation, but terrifying the wicked by reproof and denunciation. In the earliest ages of the Church, while religion was yet pure from secular advantages, the puvishment of sinners was public
censure, and open penance; penalties inflicted merely by ecclesiastical authority, at a time while the church had yet no help from the civil power; while the hand of the magistrate lifted only the rod of persecus tion; and when governors were ready to afford a refuge to all those who Aed from clerical authority.
“ That the Church, therefore, had once a power of public censure is evident, because that power was frequently exercised. That it borrowed not its power from the civil authority is likewise certain, because civil authority was at that time its enemy.
“ The hour came at length, when after three hundred years of struggle and distress, Truth took possession of imperial power, and the civil laws lent their aid to the ecclesiastical constitutions. The magistrate from that time co-operated with the priest, and clerical sentences were inade efficacious by secular force. But the State, when it came to the assiste ance of the Church, had no intention to diminish its autbority. Those rebukes and those censures which were lawful before, were lawful still. But they had hitherto operated only upon voluntary submission. Tbe refractory and contemptuous sere at first in vo danger of temporal severities, except what they might suffer from the reproaches of conscience, or the detestation of their fellow Christians. When religion obtained the support of law, if admonitions and censures had no effect, they were seconded by the magistrates with coerciou and punishment.
“ It therefore appears from ecclesiastical history, that the right of inflicting shame by public censure has been always considered as inherent in the Church; and that this right was not conferred by the civil power; for it was exercised when the civil power operated against it. By the civil power it was never taken away; for the Christian magistrate interposed his office, not to rescue sinners from censure, but to supply more powerful means of reformation; to add pain where shame was insufficient; and when men were proclaimed unworthy of the society of the faithful, to restrain thein by imprisonment, from spreading abroad the contagion of wickedness.
“ It is not improbable that from this acknowledged power of public censure, grew in time the practice of auricular confession. Those who dreaded the blast of public reprehension, were willing to submit theinselves to the priest, by a private accusation of themselves ; and to obtain a reconciliation with the church by a kind of a clandestine absolution and invisible penance; conditions with which the priest would, in times of ignorance and corruption, easily comply, as they increased his influence, by adding the knowledge of secret sins to that of notorious offences, and enlarged his authority, hy making him the sole arbiter of the terms of reconcilement.
“ From this bondage the Reformation set us free. The minister has no longer power to press into the retirements of conscience, to torture us by interrogatories, or put himself in possession of our secrets and our lives
But if he way
But though we have thus controlled his usurpations, his just and original power remains onimpaired. He may still see, though he may not pry: he may yet hear, though he may not question. And that knowledge which his eyes and ears force upon him it is still his duty to use, for the benefit of his flock. A father who lives near a wicked neighbour may forbid a son to frequent his company. A minister who has in his congregation a man of open and scandalous wickedoess, may warn his parishioners to shon his conversation, To warn them is not only lawful, but not to warn them would be criminal, He
may warn them one by one in friendly converse, or by a parochial visitation. warn each man singly, what shall forbid him to waru them all togetber! Of that which is to be made known to all, how is there any difference whether it be communicated to each singly, or to all together? What is koown to all, must necessarily be public. Whether it shall be public at once, or public by degrees, is the only question. And of a sudden and solemo publication the impression is deeper, and the warning more effectual.
" It may easily be urged, if a minister be thus lest at liberty to delate siapers from the pulpit, and to publish at will the crimes of a parishioner, he may often blast the innocent, and distress the timorous. He may be suspicious, and condemn without evidence: he may be rash, and judge without examination; he may be severe, and treat slight offences with too much harshness; he may be maligoant and partial, and gratify hiş private interest or resentment under the shelter of his pastoral character.
“Of all this there is possibility, and of all this there is danger. But if possibility 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 sink into hopeless inactivity. The evils that may be feared from this practice, arise pot from any defect in the institution, but fron the infirmities of human nature. Power, in whatever hands it is placed, will be some tines improperly exerted; yet courts of law must judge, though they will sometimes judge amiss. A father must instruct his children, though he himself may often want instruction. A minister must censure sin, ners, though his censure may be sometimes erroneous by want of judge ment, and sometimes unjust by want of honesty.
“ If we examine the circumstances of the present case, we shall find the sentence neither erroneous or unjust; we shall find no breach of private confidence, no intrusion into secret transactions. The fact was notorious and indubitable; so easy to be proved, that do proof was desired. The act was base and treacherous, the perpetration insolent and open, and the example naturally mischievous. The minister, however, being retired and recluse, had not yet heard what was publicly known throughout the parish; and on occasion of a public election, warned his people, according to his duty, against the crimes which public elections frequently produce. His warning was felt by one of his parishioners, as pointed particularly at himself. But instead of producing, as might be wished, private compunction and immediate reformation, it kindled only rage and resentment. He charged his minister, in a public paper, with scandal, defamation, and falsehood. The minister thus reproached, had his own character to vindicate, upon which his pastoral authority must necessarily 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 pastoral office with scandal and falsehood, was a violation of character still more atrocious, as it affected not only his personal but his clerical veracity. His indignation naturally rose 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 censure, and rescued his flock from deception and from danger. The man whom he accuses pretends not to be innocent; or at least only pretends ; for he declines a trial, The crime of which he is accused has frequent opportunities and strong temptations. It has already spread far, with much depravation of private morals, and much injury to public happiness. To warn the people, therefore, against it was not wauton and officious, but necessary and pastoral.
“What then is the fault with which this worthy minister is charged ? He has usurped no dominion over conscience. He has exerted no authority in support of doubtful and controverted opinions. He has vot dragged into light a bashful and corrigible sinner. His censure was directed against a breach of morality, against an act which no man justifies. The man who appropriated this censure to himself, is evidently and potoriously guilty. His consciousness of his own wickedness incited him to attack his faithful reprover with open insolence and printed accusations. Such an attack made defence necessary; and we hope it will be at last 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 work man-like manner.”
Mr. Thomson wished to bring the cause by appeal before the House of Lords, but was dissuaded by the advice of the noble person who lately presided so ably in that Most Honourable House, and who was then Attorney-General. As my readers will no doubt be glad also to read the opinion of this eminent man upon the same subject, I shall here insert it,
“ There is herewith laid before you,