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.

TESTIMONIALS TO DONKEYS

The following extract from an article on "Angling in North Wales," which appeared in The Field newspaper of October 22nd, contains a specimen of an entirely original kind of testimonial, which seems to me worthy of preservation in "N. & Q.'s" museum of curiosities:

"Beguiled by the treacherous representations of a certain Mr. Williams, and the high character of his donkeys, I undertook the ascent of Dunas Bran, and poked about among the ruins of Crow Castle on its summit, where I found nothing of any consequence, except an appetite for my dinner. The printed paper which Mr. Williams hands about, deploring the loss of his 'character,' and testifying to the wonderful superiority of all his animals, is rather amusing. Mr. Williams evidently never had a donkey 'what wouldn't go.' This paper commences with an affidavit from certain of the householders and literati of Llangollen, that he 'had received numerous testimonials, all of which we are sorry to say has been lost.' Those preserved, however, and immortalised in print, suffice to establish Mr. Williams' reputation:

"Mr. W. and his son and daughter bear testimony to the civility and attention of Mr. Williams and his donkeys.

"S. P., Esquire, attended at the Haud Hotel, 24th June, 1851, and engaged four of Mr. Williams' donkeys for the use of a party of ladies, who expressed themselves highly gratified. The animals were remarkably tractable, and void of stupidity.

"Mrs. D. A. B. visited Valle Crucis Abbey on the back of Mr. Williams' ass, and is well satisfied.

"Sept. 4. 1852. This is to certify that LADY MARSHALL Is to Donkeys very partial, And no postilion in a car, shall Ever more her drive O'er all the stones; On 'Jenny Jones' She'll ride while she's alive!"

Those who have visited Malvern will remember the vast quantity of donkeys who rejoice in the cognomen of "The Royal Moses." Their history is as follows:—When the late Queen Dowager was at Malvern, she frequently ascended the hills on donkey-back; and on all such occasions patronised a poor old woman, whose stud had been reduced, by a succession of misfortunes, to a solitary donkey, who answered to the name of "Moses." At the close of her visit, her majesty, with that kindness of heart which was such a distinguishing trait in her character, not only liberally rewarded the poor old woman, but asked her if there was anything that she could do for her which would be likely to bring back her former prosperity. The old woman turned the matter over in her mind, and then said, "Please your majesty to give a name to my donkey." This her Majesty did. "Moses" became "the Royal Moses;" every body wanted to ride him; the old woman's custom increased, and when the favoured animal died (for he is dead) he left behind him a numerous family, all of whom called after their father, "the Royal Moses."

Cuthbert Bede, B.A.

Страница 2 из 22

Назад 1 2 3…22 Далее