for a Puritan purpose, directly at the bidding and for the interest of Puritan innovators, is unquestionably the way to make men despair of her. And awful, indeed, must be the responsibility of any one who has any hand or takes any part in so doing! But Bishop Ellicott comes next to the scheme of which he himself approves, not indeed as free from all difficulty, but as the best mode which he can think of to relieve the “Aggrieved Parishioner;” and as one which he imagines to be free from the imputation of repealing any part of the Prayer Book. We must give the proposal in his own words. Having, as we have seen, rejected all the former plans mentioned, he says:—“We are thus flung back on the difficult question: Is there any other course or measure that may still be suggested, and that can with any degree of hope be followed, in the present emergency? In attempting to answer the serious question, we must obviously base our answer on the sober and considerate Report of the Royal Commission, and test it by its degree of accordance with the two clearly defined principles of that Report. The two principles are—_First_, that it is expedient to _restrain_ all variations in respect of vesture from what has _long_ been the established usage, on account of the grave offence so given to many; _Secondly_, that aggrieved _parishioners_ ought to be provided with an easy and effectual process of complaint and redress.” Then noticing that the Report makes “an inferential but important recognition of the fact that the innovators are of two classes—the one regarding the vestments as symbolical of _doctrine_, the other as furthering a desire to do _honour_ to the highest act of Christian worship” (which after all seems to be a false division, for those who desire to do this honour to the highest act of Christian worship consider it, I apprehend, to be the highest act of Christian worship, and are anxious to pay it this honour _on account_ of the doctrine), the Bishop proceeds,—“The two parties do not agree in the view they take of the meaning and design of Eucharistic vestments, but they do agree in the admission that they are not essential to the Sacrament. As, then, that which is admitted to be not essential is certainly an innovation on prevailing custom, and being so certainly does give grave offence, it surely must be pronounced right, fair, and reasonable, calmly and considerately, but still firmly, to restrain the innovation, at any rate until further order be taken by authority, even though the innovation may be able to plead to the letter of a law long ago left in abeyance, and practically abrogated by custom.”