Johnson’s profound reverence for the Hierarchy[250] made him expect from bishops the highest degree of decorum; he was offended even at their going to taverns; ’A bishop (said he) has nothing to do at a tippling-house.  It is not indeed immoral in him to go to a tavern; neither would it be immoral in him to whip a top in Grosvenor-square.  But, if he did, I hope the boys would fall upon him, and apply the whip to him.  There are gradations in conduct; there is morality,—­decency,—­propriety.  None of these should be violated by a bishop.  A bishop should not go to a house where he may meet a young fellow leading out a wench.’  BOSWELL.  ’But, Sir, every tavern does not admit women.’  JOHNSON.  ’Depend upon it, Sir, any tavern will admit a well-drest man and a well-drest woman; they will not perhaps admit a woman whom they see every night walking by their door, in the street.  But a well-drest man may lead in a well-drest woman to any tavern in London.  Taverns sell meat and drink, and will sell them to any body who can eat and can drink.  You may as well say that a mercer will not sell silks to a woman of the town.’

He also disapproved of bishops going to routs, at least of their staying at them longer than their presence commanded respect.  He mentioned a particular bishop.  ’Poh! (said Mrs. Thrale) the Bishop of ——­[251] is never minded at a rout.’  BOSWELL.  ’When a bishop places himself in a situation where he has no distinct character, and is of no consequence, he degrades the dignity of his order.’  JOHNSON.  ’Mr. Boswell, Madam, has said it as correctly as it could be.’

Nor was it only in the dignitaries of the Church that Johnson required a particular decorum and delicacy of behaviour; he justly considered that the clergy, as persons set apart for the sacred office of serving at the altar, and impressing the minds of men with the aweful concerns of a future state, should be somewhat more serious than the generality of mankind, and have a suitable composure of manners.  A due sense of the dignity of their profession, independent of higher motives, will ever prevent them from losing their distinction in an indiscriminate sociality; and did such as affect this, know how much it lessens them in the eyes of those whom they think to please by it, they would feel themselves much mortified.

Johnson and his friend, Beauclerk, were once together in company with several clergymen, who thought that they should appear to advantage, by assuming the lax jollity of men of the world; which, as it may be observed in similar cases, they carried to noisy excess.  Johnson, who they expected would be entertained, sat grave and silent for some time; at last, turning to Beauclerk, he said, by no means in a whisper, ‘This merriment of parsons is mighty offensive.’

Even the dress of a clergyman should be in character, and nothing can be more despicable than conceited attempts at avoiding the appearance of the clerical order; attempts, which are as ineffectual as they are pitiful.  Dr. Porteus, now Bishop of London, in his excellent charge when presiding over the diocese of Chester, justly animadverts upon this subject; and observes of a reverend fop, that he ’can be but half a beau[252].’