And now we come to the proposal itself—this remedy to meet so great an evil. “Lastly, then, if there is to be this restraint, what will seem to be the safest and most effectual mode of applying it? Certainly not, as I have already said, by merely arming bishops with a little more power, and then leaving the whole question in its present unsettled state to be adjusted by individual authority and individual bias; nor yet again, as I have already said, by the omission or authoritative repeal of a rubric that has held its place in our Prayer Book from the date of the last settlement; but _by a simple and positive enactment declaring what shall be_, _and be considered to be_, _the ministerial dress_—until further order be taken. This, of course, must be by direct legislation. We may shrink from it, but in my judgment it is now inevitable. The very appointment of the Commission seems to involve it, and the general temper of the country will demand it. There are many melancholy signs that we are fast drifting towards open violations of the public peace, and that some prompt interposition of law will not only be desirable but imperative.” Observe here the course proposed, and the marvellous declaration concerning it, that it is “not a repeal of the rubric which has held its place in our Prayer Book from the date of the last settlement.” Yet the remedy is “a simple and positive enactment (by direct legislation) declaring what shall be, and shall be considered to be, the ministerial dress—until further order be taken.” This is the remedy; and after details as to what it would prohibit, or at least allow to be prohibited (which would include all now distinctly contended for under the rubric on ornaments), the Bishop says, “_the rubric would not be repealed_, _but placed in abeyance_.” This is the special point to which I desire to draw your attention! Such a plan to be adopted, such restraint to be put in force and imposed; and the rubric not to be repealed! the Prayer Book not to be altered! Imagine anyone after this “simple and positive enactment” acting upon the rubric, using the things “prescribed,” or “in use by the authority of Parliament in the second year of King Edward VI.,” and then being proceeded against under the new Act. Would he not soon learn whether the rubric were not repealed? What will lawyers say? What does common-sense say on the matter? What would those who believed the Bishop (ill-starred mortals), that the rubric was not repealed, find and feel to their cost, when his assurance had led them to believe the law of the Church remains as it is?