I imagine few of us will be disposed to question the justice of these remarks, or to quarrel with the dismissal of this first proposed mode of remedy. But next he mentions another course, in these terms:—“Still less wise should we be to adopt another but very dissimilar remedy that has been pressed upon us, and will probably be pressed upon us with continued earnestness. This remedy may be considered as summed up in the following formula:—‘Arm your bishops with more power, and then leave it to their Fatherly wisdom to allow or disallow these innovations according to the peculiarities of the case.’ In plainer words, let the bishop become, instead of the administrator of the law, the manipulator of the law; and let a want of reasonable uniformity, now dangerously great, be multiplied tenfold.” Observe here, before we proceed further, that this power of manipulation, over and above being open to the objection which the Bishop notices of multiplying diversities of practice, is in fact nothing else than setting the bishop above the law as it exists, and is, therefore, as we said all these remedies would be found to be, a repeal of the rubric which is the present law. But at any rate, here again, the Bishop rejects the proposed mode of action, though, he says, we should “pause” upon it. “On this remedy it is necessary to pause. Every clear-headed man among us must see, in the first place, that it is giving to bishops a power which they have never even attempted to exercise, except in the unsettled times which immediately followed the Reformation; secondly, that our dioceses would exhibit varieties of usage dependent on the general views and convictions of the bishop for the time being, and liable to be altered when a successor came into his place; thirdly, that men of advanced opinions would make every effort to get into the diocese of that bishop who might be supposed, rightly or wrongly, most to favour them—and, when there, would exercise a combined pressure which would be very difficult to resist; fourthly, and lastly, that, after all, this is but an ingenious expedient to postpone that settlement of the question which common sense and common foresight now perceive to be inevitable.” Without endorsing the concluding remark of the Bishop’s comment, we may say that with great justice he condemns the remedy, though not expressly upon the ground which I have mentioned as the strongest—viz., its setting the bishop above the law, and so altering the Prayer Book. He adds, however, something more as to a modification of the plan of giving more power to the bishops.