But to the observance of the Rubric, we are unquestionably pledged. And it is preferred by the _Messrs. Hull_, “as a charge against the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of London, that at their ordination they pledged themselves to observe the Rubric, and so to confirm in a given way. But they do not confirm in that way, and do confirm in another,” _ergo valet consequentia_. But, after mentioning in the strongest terms our obligations to a strict observance of the Rubric, _Archdeacon Sharpe_ says, “this indeed we must always take along with us, that our obligations to observe the Rubric, how indispensable soever, are subject to this _proviso_—namely, that the thing prescribed _be a thing practicable_.” And as the _Messrs. Hull_ admit that “the Bishops from the multitudes of candidates, _could not_ confirm according to the Rubric,” we will leave the Bishops to settle this matter with their own consciences, believing that their characters are not so far compromised by the deviation, as to render it imperative upon them, to plunge at all hazards into a revision. Our Articles were agreed upon, as you observe, “for avoiding diversities of opinions, and for the stablishing consent touching true religion.” In accomplishing this, you seem to think that they have signally failed. In those cases, however, where the Article has advisedly been drawn up for the purpose of admitting men holding certain differences of opinion on the general doctrine contained in it, the contemplated result can scarcely be looked upon as indicative of any failure of the object. But I cannot see that the existence of one evil in a system, if the extent to which this latitude goes _be_ one, which I do not admit, is a sound argument for the bringing in of many more. “If,” says _Dr. Randolph_, “the best method we can think of to avoid diversities of opinion and establish consent touching true religion, has through the perverseness and corruption of mankind a contrary effect, surely not we, but these hypocrites, are to blame. But we cannot think it a good reason for throwing down all the fences of our vineyard, because some wild boars will sometimes break through them.” {42} It appears, however, that _you_ would only leave a few gaps in the fence, the thirty-nine Articles you would abolish at one fell swoop, and from the passing of your proposed BILL for the consolidating the laws of religious tests, or Subscriptions, &c. “you would have it enacted, that nothing be required but assent to the doctrines set forth in the three Creeds, as agreeable to scripture; assent to the truth of the scriptures themselves; and that they contain all things necessary to salvation.”