As the tide of the time and circumstance rolled on, this simile gained additional force and depth; and to understand the admirable aptitude of its application in the passage I shall next quote, a few preliminary remarks are necessary.

There was always in the Church of England a portion of her members who could not forget that the Puritans, though external to her communion, were yet fellow Protestants; that they differed not in kind, but in degree—and that these differences were insignificant compared with those of Rome. At the same time, they reflected that perhaps the Church of England was not exactly in the middle, and that she would not lose were she to move a little nearer the Puritan side. Accordingly, various attempts were made to enlarge the terms of her communion, and eject from her service-book any lingering "relics of Popery" which might offend the weaker brethren yclept the Puritans: thus to make a grand Comprehension Creed—a Church to include all Protestants.

This was tried in James I.'s reign at the Savoy Conference; but in spite of Baxter's strenuous efforts and model prayer-book, it was a failure. Even Archbishop Sancroft was led to attempt a similar Comprehensive Scheme, so terrified was he at the dominance of the Roman Church in the Second James's reign: however, William's accession, and his becoming a nonjuror, crossed his design. In 1689, Tillotson, Burnet, and a number of William's "Latitudinarian" clergy made a bold push for it. A Comprehension Bill actually passed the House of Lords, but was thrown out by the Commons and Convocation. From William's time toleration and encouragement were extended to all save "Popish Recusants;" so that there were a large number in the Church of England ready to assist their comrades outside in breaking down her fences. The High Churchmen, however, as may be guessed, would not sit tamely by, and see the leading idea of the Anglican Church thrown to the winds, her via media profaned, her park made a common, and her distinctive doctrines and fences levelled to the ground. What their feelings were, may be gathered from this indignant invective:

"The most of the inconveniences we labour under to this day, owe their original to the weakness of some and to the cowardice of others of the clergy. For had they stood stiff and inflexible at first against the encroachments and intrigues of a Puritanical faction, like a threefold cord, we could not have been so easily shattered and broken. The dissenters, as well skilled in the art of war, have besieged the Church in form: and at all periods and seasons have raised their batteries, and carried on their saps and counter-scarps against her. They have left no means unessayed or practised, to weaken her. And when open violence has been baffled, and useless, stratagem and contrivance have supplied what force could never effect. Hence it is, that under the cant of conscience and scruple, they have feigned a compliance of embracing her communion; if such and such ceremonies and rules that then stood in force could be omitted, or connived at: and having once broke ground on her discipline, they have continued to carry on their trenches, and had almost brought the Great Comprehension-Horse within our walls; whilst the complying, or the moderate clergy (as they are called), like the infatuated Trojans, helped forward the unwieldy machine; nor were they aware of the danger and destruction that might have issued out of him."—The Entertainer, London, 1718, p. 153.[[5]]

I shall but add a postscript to my former Note. In "N. & Q." (Vol. viii., p. 156.), a number of pamphlets on High Church and Low Church are referred to. A masterly sketch of the two theories is given at pp. 87, 88. of Mr. Kingsley's Yeast, London, 1851.

Jarltzberg.

Footnote 1:[(return)]

Dr. Eachard, in his work on The Grounds and Occasions of the Contempt of the Clergy and Religion inquired into, London, 1712, after ably showing up the pedantry of some preachers, next attacks the "indiscreet and horrid Metaphor Mongers." "Another thing that brings great disrespect and mischief upon the clergy ... is their packing their sermons so full of similitudes" (p. 41.). Eachard has a museum of curiosities in this line. The Puritan Pulpit, however, far outstrips even the incredible nonsense and irreverence which he adduces. Let any one curious in such matters dip into a collection of Scotch Sermons of the seventeenth century. Sir W. Scott, in some of his works, has endeavoured to give a faint idea of the extraordinary way in which passages of Holy Scripture were applied in the same century. I have a very curious book of soliloquies, which unfortunately wants the title-page. From internal evidence, however, it appeals to have been written in Ireland in the seventeenth century: the writer signs himself "P. P." The editor of this little 12mo., in "An Epistle to the Reader," after reprehending "the wits of our times" for "quibbling and drolling upon the Bible," says immediately after:—"This author's innocent abuse of Scripture is so far from countenancing, that it rather shames and condemns that licentious and abominable practice. Nor can we admit of the most useful allusions without that harmless (nay helpful and advantageous) καταχρησις, or abuse here practised: wherein the words are indeed used to another, but yet to a Holy end and purpose, besides that for which they were at first instituted and intended." The most reverend of our readers must need smile, were I to give a specimen of this "innocent abuse."

While noticing the false wit which passed current in that century, we must not forget that the same age produced a South and a Butler: and that in beauty of simile, few, if any, surpass Bishop Jeremy Taylor.