these, and their reconcilement with the rubrick, I leave to the critical fagacity of experts, to the good fenfe 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 acceffories of divine service, the infractions hinted at above are breaches of that moft ftringent rule which profeffes to regulate the very body of devotion, the very words of that book by law to be taken and interpreted fo ftrictly, literally, and exactly as to admit of no addition, nor omiffion of any kind or in any degree, or by any person whatfoever.

Nor let this dictum feem too ftringent. In the margin of the judgment-Wefterton 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 fuch 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 advifing her Majefty, as the highest ecclefiaftical tribunal of appeal, to draw a diftinction 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 fubject

has been already laid down by the Judicial Committee in Wefterton v. Liddell, and their Lordships are disposed entirely to adhere to it. "In the performance of the fervices, rites, and ceremonies ordered by the Prayer-Book, the directions contained in it must be ftrictly observed, no omiffion and no addition can be permitted." Mackonochie (Browning, pp. 16, 17).

And this fufficiently ftrong declaration had a fingular and exprefs bearing on the very statute of uniformity, of which the ornaments rubrick is fo 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 confeffed and afferted 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 pofitively fays "yes," that it denies when it affirms, that it forbids when it moft emphatically commands. If this ruling of a rule be right, what is law, and where is truth, and who is fafe?

In concluding my plea for the observance of the ftatute 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 perfonal interest in the question; at the fame time, when men of Law and Gospel go out of their way to be difhoneft, I can well understand that others, ftraightforward, 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 inftinct, with them, heart and foul, in the matter, may find it their duty to withstand outrage to the uttermoft, and, defending to the last their ftronghold 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
That stirred the bile in him of Carioth,

Hail fellow! now,-Accomplice foon to be
Of Chief Prieft, Elder, Scribe, and Pharifee,

Ruler of Jew and Lawyer.

And that Fox, too,

Salaam'd by Sadducee and Court-flave—and now
A-cock with all his bravery of brush,

Wagg'd up to Ponce the fcurvy whipper-in,
And crying kith and kin with the Jewry pack-

Of wolves-not hounds-ran with the mongrel cry Moft like the hound he was."

CHISWICK PRESS:-C. WHITTINGHAM, TOOKS COURT,
CHANCERY LANE.