Notes and Queries, Number 197, August 6, 1853 | Page 4

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.
JARLTZBERG.
[Footnote 1: There is a book called History of Party, from the Rise of
the Whig and Tory Factions Chas. II. to the Passing of the Reform Bill,
by G. W. Cooke: Lond. 1836-37, 3 vols. 8vo.; but, as the title shows, it
is limited in scope.]
[Footnote 2: See Haweis's Sermons on Evangelical Principles and
Practice: Lond. 1763, 8vo.; The True Churchmen ascertained; or, An
Apology for those of the Regular Clergy of the Establishment, who are
sometimes called Evangelical Ministers: occasioned by the
Publications of Drs. Paley, Hey, Croft; Messrs. Daubeny, Ludlam,
Polwhele, Fellowes; the Reviewers, &c.: by John Overton, A. B., York,
1802, 8vo., 2nd edit. See also the various memoirs of Whitfield,
Wesley, &c.; and Sir J. Stephens Essays on "The Clapham Sect" and
"The Evangelical Succession."]
[Footnote 3: It is not so very "singular," when we remember that the
bishops were what Lord Campbell and Mr. Macauley call "judiciously
chosen" by William. On this point a cotemporary remarks, "Some steps
have been made, and large ones too, towards a Scotch reformation, by
suspending and ejecting the chief and most zealous of our bishops, and
others of the higher clergy; and by advancing, upon all vacancies of
sees and dignities, ecclesiastical men of notoriously Presbyterian, or,

which is worse, of Erastian principles. These are the ministerial ways
of undermining Episcopacy; and when to the seven notorious ones shall
be added more, upon the approaching deprivation, they will make a
majority; and then we may expect the new model of a church to be
perfected." (Somers' Tracts, vol. x. p. 368.) Until Atterbury, there were
few High Church Bishops in Queen Anne's reign in 1710. Burnet
singles out the Bishop of Chester: "for he seemed resolved to
distinguish himself as a zealot for that which is called High
Church."--Hist. Own Time, vol. iv. p. 260.]
[Footnote 4: Of Izaak Walton his biographer, Sir John Hawkins,
writing in 1760, says, "he was a friend to a hierarchy, or, as we should
now call such a one, a High Churchman."]
* * * * *
CONCLUDING NOTES ON SEVERAL MISUNDERSTOOD
WORDS.
(Continued from Vol. vii., p. 568.)
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