virtuous, in one respect, as when he was a younger man.  It was well known, that his amorous inclinations were uncommonly strong and impetuous.  He owned to many of his friends, that he used to take women of the town to taverns, and hear them relate their history[1205].  In short, it must not be concealed, that, like many other good and pious men, among whom we may place the Apostle Paul upon his own authority, Johnson was not free from propensities which were ever ’warring against the law of his mind[1206],’—­and that in his combats with them, he was sometimes overcome[1207].

Here let the profane and licentious pause; let them not thoughtlessly say that Johnson was an hypocrite, or that his principles were not firm, because his practice was not uniformly conformable to what he professed.

Let the question be considered independent of moral and religious association; and no man will deny that thousands, in many instances, act against conviction.  Is a prodigal, for example, an hypocrite, when he owns he is satisfied that his extravagance will bring him to ruin and misery?  We are sure he believes it; but immediate inclination, strengthened by indulgence, prevails over that belief in influencing his conduct.  Why then shall credit be refused to the sincerity of those who acknowledge their persuasion of moral and religious duty, yet sometimes fail of living as it requires?  I heard Dr. Johnson once observe, ’There is something noble in publishing truth, though it condemns one’s self[1208].’  And one who said in his presence, ’he had no notion of people being in earnest in their good professions, whose practice was not suitable to them,’ was thus reprimanded by him:—­’Sir, are you so grossly ignorant of human nature as not to know that a man may be very sincere in good principles, without having good practice[1209]?’

But let no man encourage or soothe himself in ‘presumptuous sin[1210],’ from knowing that Johnson was sometimes hurried into indulgences which he thought criminal.  I have exhibited this circumstance as a shade in so great a character, both from my sacred love of truth, and to shew that he was not so weakly scrupulous as he has been represented by those who imagine that the sins, of which a deep sense was upon his mind, were merely such little venial trifles as pouring milk into his tea on Good-Friday.  His understanding will be defended by my statement, if his consistency of conduct be in some degree impaired.  But what wise man would, for momentary gratifications, deliberately subject himself to suffer such uneasiness as we find was experienced by Johnson in reviewing his conduct as compared with his notion of the ethicks of the gospel?  Let the following passages be kept in remembrance:—­