Life, 3rd edit. 1834, p. 272.
I quote this passage partly because it gives Sir Walter's interpretation of that obscure passage in Lycidas, respecting which I made a Query (Vol. ii., p. 246.), but chiefly as a preface to the remark that in James II.'s reign, and at the time these party names originated, the Roman Catholics were in league with the Puritans or Low Church party against the High Churchmen, which increased the acrimony of both parties.
In those days religion was politics, and politics religion, with most of the belligerents. Swift, however, as if he wished to be thought an exception to the general rule, chose one party for its politics and the other for its religion.
"Swift carried into the ranks of the Whigs the opinions and scruples of a High Church clergyman… Such a distinction between opinions in Church and State has not frequently existed: the High Churchmen being usually Tories, and the Low Church divines universally Whigs."—Scott's Life, 2nd edit.: Edin. 1824, p. 76.
See Swift's Discourse of the Contests and Dissensions between the Nobles and Commons of Athens and Rome: Lond. 1701.
In his quaint Argument against abolishing Christianity, Lond. 1708, the following passage occurs:
"There is one advantage, greater than any of the foregoing, proposed by the abolishing of Christianity: that it will utterly extinguish parties among us by removing those factious distinctions of High and Low Church, of Whig and Tory, Presbyterian and Church of England."
Scott says of the Tale of a Tub:
"The main purpose is to trace the gradual corruptions of the Church of Rome, and to exalt the English Reformed Church at the expense both of the Roman Catholic and Presbyterian establishments. It was written with a view to the interests of the High Church party."—Life, p. 84.
Most men will concur with Jeffrey, who observes:
"It is plain, indeed, that Swift's High Church principles were all along but a part of his selfishness and ambition; and meant nothing else, than a desire to raise the consequence of the order to which he happened to belong. If he had been a layman, we have no doubt he would have treated the pretensions of the priesthood as he treated the persons of all priests who were opposed to him, with the most bitter and irreverent disdain."—Ed. Rev., Sept. 1846.
The following lines are from a squib of eight stanzas which occurs in the works of Jonathan Smedley, and are said to have been fixed on the door of St. Patrick's Cathedral on the day of Swift's instalment (see Scott, p. 174.):
"For High Churchmen and policy,
He swears he prays most hearty;
But would pray back again to be
A Dean of any party."
This reminds us of the Vicar of Bray, of famous memory, who, if I recollect aright, commenced his career thus:
"In good King Charles's golden days,
When loyalty no harm meant,
A zealous High Churchman I was,
And so I got preferment."
How widely different are the men we see classed under the title High Churchmen! Evelyn and Walton4, the gentle, the Christian; the arrogant Swift, and the restless Atterbury.
It is difficult to prevent my note running beyond the limits of "N. & Q.," with the ample materials I have to select from; but I cannot wind up without a definition; so here are two:
"Mr. Thelwall says that he told a pious old lady, who asked him the difference between High Church and Low Church, 'The High Church place the Church alcove Christ, the Low Church place Christ above the Church.' About a hundred years ago, that very same question was asked of the famous South:—'Why,' said he, 'the High Church are those who think highly of the Church, and lowly of themselves; the Low Church are those who think highly of themselves, and lowly of the Church."—Rev. H. Newland's Lecture on Tractarianism, Lond. 1852, p. 68.
The most celebrated High Churchmen who lived in the last century, are Dr. South, Dr. Samuel Johnson, Rev. Wm. Jones of Nayland, Bp. Horne, Bp. Wilson, and Bp. Horsley. See a long passage on "High Churchmen" in a charge of the latter to the clergy of St. David's in the year 1799, pp. 34. 37. See also a charge of Bp. Atterbury (then Archdeacon of Totnes) to his clergy in 1703.
CONCLUDING NOTES ON SEVERAL MISUNDERSTOOD WORDS
Not being minded to broach any fresh matter in "N. & Q.," I shall now only crave room to clear off an old score, lest I should leave myself open to the imputation of having cast that in the teeth of a numerous body of men which might, for aught they would know to the contrary, be as truly laid in my own dish. In No. 189., p. 567., I affirmed that the handling of a passage in Cymbeline, there quoted, had betrayed an amount of obtuseness in the commentators which would be discreditable in a third-form schoolboy. To substantiate that assertion, and rescue the disputed word "Britaine" henceforth for ever from the rash tampering of the meddlesome sciolist, I beg to advertise the ingenuous reader that the clause,—
"For being now a favourer to the Britaine,"
is in apposition with Death, not with Posthumus Leonatus. In a note appended to this censure, referring to another passage from L. L. L., I averred that Mr. Collier had corrupted it by chancing the singular verb dies into the plural die (this too done, under plea of editorial licence, without warning to the reader), and that such corruption had abstracted the true key to the right construction. To make good this last position, two things I must do first, cite the whole passage, without change of letter or tittle, as it stands in the Folios '23 and '32; next, show the trivial and vulgar use of "contents" as a singular noun. In Folio '23, thus:
"Qu. Nay my good Lord, let me ore-rule you now;
That sport best pleases that doth least know how.
Where Zeale striues to content, and the contents
Dies in the Zeale of that which it presents:
Their forme confounded, makes most forme in mirth
When great things labouring perish in their birth."
With this the Folio '32 exactly corresponds, save that the speaker is Prin., not Qu.; ore-rules is written as two words without the hyphen, and strives for striues. I have been thus precise, because criticism is to me not "a game," nor admissive of cogging and falsification.
I must now show the hackneyed use of contents as a singular noun. An anonymous correspondent of "N. & Q." has already pointed out one in Measure for Measure, Act IV. Sc. 2.:
"Duke. The contents of this is the returne of the Duke."
Another:
"This is the contents thereof."—Calvin's 82nd Sermon upon Job, p. 419., Golding's translation.
Another:
"After this were articles of peace propounded, ye contents wherof was, that he should departe out of Asia."—The 31st Booke of Justine, fol. 139., Golding's translation of Justin's Trogus Pompeius.
Another:
"Plinie writeth hereof an excellent letter, the contents whereof is, that this ladie, mistrusting her husband, was condemned to die," &c.—Historicall Meditations, lib. iii. chap. xi. p. 178. Written in Latin by P. Camerarius, and done into English by John Molle, Esq.: London, 1621.
Another:
"The contents whereof is this."—Id., lib. v. chap. vi. p. 342.
Another:
"Therefore