We saw, this day, Dundee and Aberbrothick, the last of which Dr. Johnson has celebrated in his Journey[213].  Upon the road we talked of the Roman Catholick faith.  He mentioned (I think) Tillotson’s argument against transubstantiation:  ’That we are as sure we see bread and wine only, as that we read in the Bible the text on which that false doctrine is founded.  We have only the evidence of our senses for both[214].’  ’If, (he added,) GOD had never spoken figuratively, we might hold that he speaks literally, when he says, “This is my body[215]."’ BOSWELL.  ’But what do you say, Sir, to the ancient and continued tradition of the church upon this point?’ JOHNSON.  ’Tradition, Sir, has no place, where the Scriptures are plain; and tradition cannot persuade a man into a belief of transubstantiation.  Able men, indeed, have said they believed it.’

This is an awful subject.  I did not then press Dr. Johnson upon it:  nor shall I now enter upon a disquisition concerning the import of those words uttered by our Saviour[216], which had such an effect upon many of his disciples, that they ‘went back, and walked no more with him.’  The Catechism and solemn office for Communion, in the Church of England, maintain a mysterious belief in more than a mere commemoration of the death of Christ, by partaking of the elements of bread and wine.

Dr. Johnson put me in mind, that, at St. Andrews, I had defended my profession very well, when the question had again been started, Whether a lawyer might honestly engage with the first side that offers him a fee.  ’Sir, (said I,) it was with your arguments against Sir William Forbes[217]:  but it was much that I could wield the arms of Goliah.’

He said, our judges had not gone deep in the question concerning literary property.  I mentioned Lord Monboddo’s opinion, that if a man could get a work by heart, he might print it, as by such an act the mind is exercised.  JOHNSON.  ’No, Sir; a man’s repeating it no more makes it his property, than a man may sell a cow which he drives home.’  I said, printing an abridgement of a work was allowed, which was only cutting the horns and tail off the cow.  JOHNSON.  ’No, Sir; ’tis making the cow have a calf[218].’

About eleven at night we arrived at Montrose.  We found but a sorry inn, where I myself saw another waiter put a lump of sugar with his fingers into Dr. Johnson’s lemonade, for which he called him ‘Rascal!’ It put me in great glee that our landlord was an Englishman.  I rallied the Doctor upon this, and he grew quiet[219].  Both Sir John Hawkins’s and Dr. Burney’s History of Musick had then been advertised.  I asked if this was not unlucky:  would not they hurt one another?  JOHNSON.  ’No, Sir.  They will do good to one another.  Some will buy the one, some the other, and compare them; and so a talk is made about a thing, and the books are sold.’

He was angry at me for proposing to carry lemons with us to Sky, that he might be sure to have his lemonade.  ’Sir, (said he,) I do not wish to be thought that feeble man who cannot do without any thing.  Sir, it is very bad manners to carry provisions to any man’s house, as if he could not entertain you.  To an inferior, it is oppressive; to a superior, it is insolent.’