"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] {488} 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.