« PoprzedniaDalej »
these, and their reconcilement with the rubrick, I leave to the critical sagacity of experts, to the good sense of congregations, and to the judgment of ordinaries, who are themselves to be ordered by the book. Of this only would I remind them each and all, that while the lawful obedience here claimed is for the legal accessories of divine service, the infractions hinted at above are breaches of that most stringent rule which professes to regulate the very body of devotion, the very words of that book by law to be taken and interpreted so strictly, literally, and exactly as to admit of no addition, nor omission of any kind or in any degree, or by any person whatsoever.
Nor let this dictum seem too stringent. In the margin of the judgment-Westerton and Liddell (Bayford, p. 110)—this particular rubrick, the ornaments rubrick, is called “Rubrick which applies,” that is-is to the point, is of force. As such it is to be strictly interpreted, because 'Their Lordships are of opinion that it is not open to a minister of the Church, or even to their Lordships in advising her Majesty, as the highest ecclefiaftical tribunal of appeal, to draw a distinction in acts which are a departure from or a violation of the rubrick between those which are important and those which appear to be trivial.
· The rule upon this subject
has been already laid down by the Judicial Committee in Westerton v. Liddell, and their Lordships are disposed entirely to adhere to it. “In the performance of the services, rites, and ceremonies ordered by the Prayer-Book, the directions contained in it must be strictly observed, no omission and no addition can be per
Mackonochie (Browning, pp. 16, 17).
And this sufficiently strong declaration had a fingular and express bearing on the very statute of uniformity, of which the ornaments rubrick is so prominent a portion ; for the judgment, after mentioning it by name, recites its preamble to enforce the judges' view of its object.
And yet neither the acknowledged importance of the rubrick, nor its prominence, nor its plainness, nor its propriety, nor its paramount, and, when convenient, its confessed and asserted authority and legality, as being an integral part of a one great statute, on which all the matter turns, can prevent its being so twisted to serve a purpose, as to completely ftultify and contradict itself, made, in fact, to pretend that it means “no” when it positively says "yes,” that it denies when it affirms, that it forbids when it most emphatically commands. If this ruling of a rule be right, what is law, and where is truth, and who is safe?
In concluding my plea for the observance of the statute I may be permitted to add, that, beyond being an old member of the establishment, and, I hope, a lover of truth, I have no special, that is, no personal interest in the question; at the same time, when men of Law and Gospel go out of their way to be dishonest, I can well understand that others, straightforward, grave, and honourable men, knowing themselves to be act and pact, art and part in this great cause, and seeing that their brethren in large bodies, clergy and congregations alike, are, by natural instinct, with them, heart and soul, in the matter, may find it their duty to withstand outrage to the uttermoft, and, defending to the last their stronghold of right, to die if needs be on the breach, fore-doomed, and, therefore, not difhonoured; crushed, but more than conquerors.
“A broken box and marred gave forth the fragrance
And that Fox, too,
Of wolves—not hounds-ran with the mongrel cry Most like the hound he was.
The SACK OF SALEM.
The Wolf Mudded the stream, and PREDETERMINED all.”
CHISWICK PRESS :-C. WHITTINGHAM, TOOKS COURT,