will introduce religious
discourse without seeing whether it will end in instruction and
improvement, or produce some profane jest. He would introduce it in the
company of Wilkes, and twenty more such.'

I mentioned Dr. Johnson's excellent distinction between liberty of
conscience and liberty of teaching[666]. JOHNSON. 'Consider, Sir; if you
have children whom you wish to educate in the principles of the Church
of England, and there comes a Quaker who tries to pervert them to his
principles, you would drive away the Quaker. You would not trust to the
predomination of right, which you believe is in your opinions; you would
keep wrong out of their heads. Now the vulgar are the children of the
State. If any one attempts to teach them doctrines contrary to what the
State approves, the magistrate may and ought to restrain him.' SEWARD.
'Would you restrain private conversation, Sir?' JOHNSON. 'Why, Sir, it
is difficult to say where private conversation begins, and where it
ends. If we three should discuss even the great question concerning the
existence of a Supreme Being by ourselves, we should not be restrained;
for that would be to put an end to all improvement. But if we should
discuss it in the presence of ten boarding-school girls, and as many
boys, I think the magistrate would do well to put us in the stocks, to
finish the debate there.'

Lord Hailes had sent him a present of a curious little printed poem, on
repairing the University of Aberdeen, by David Malloch, which he
thought would please Johnson, as affording clear evidence that Mallet
had appeared even as a literary character by the name of _Malloch_; his
changing which to one of softer sound, had given Johnson occasion to
introduce him into his _Dictionary_, under the article _Alias_[667].
This piece was, I suppose, one of Mallet's first essays. It is preserved
in his works, with several variations. Johnson having read aloud, from
the beginning of it, where there were some common-place assertions as to
the superiority of ancient times;--'How false (said he) is all this, to
say that in ancient times learning was not a disgrace to a Peer as it is
now. In ancient times a Peer was as ignorant as any one else. He would
have been angry to have it thought he could write his name[668]. Men in
ancient times dared to stand forth with a degree of ignorance with which
nobody would dare now to stand forth. I am always angry when I hear
ancient times praised at the expence