a problem that taxed his episcopal judgment and ingenuity to the utmost. He deplored the loss of spirituality that must necessarily result from the quarrel. But it was his especial duty, as a bishop, to preserve the corporate integrity of organized religion, and to this end he felt that he must now bend all his efforts. Yet he approached his task with deep misgiving.
Seated, finally, at the head of the library table, he expressed his sorrow at the conflict which had arisen, and his desire to restore peace and harmony in the parish. It was his earnest wish, he said, that the case might be settled by the exercise of his godly judgment in accordance with the admonition of the canon, without the necessity of proceeding to a formal trial and decree. To that end he had called the vestry to meet with him in consultation; and, in order that there might be a full understanding of the case, he now invited those who had formulated the charges against the rector to give him the specific causes of their complaint.
Thereupon Westgate, who had been chosen to represent the complainants, arose to present their case.
He sketched briefly the history of the parish, and referred to its record for harmony and good works up to the time of the present incumbency. He then dwelt specifically on the deviations of the rector from the accustomed activities of a parish priest. He spoke of his attempt to force upon his parishioners the practice of an unwelcome, if not offensive, social equality, of his affiliation with elements in the community that were indifferent or inimical to religion, of his advocacy of an economic creed entirely at variance with the doctrines and discipline of the Church, of his utter disregard of the wishes and feelings of the bulk of his parishioners, and of his obstinate refusal to be influenced or guided in parish activities by his vestry, or by the wise judgment of those who were responsible for the maintenance and prosperity of Christ Church.
