displayed. He regretted that his godly judgment, exercised individually, both with the rector and his people, had not availed to settle the unhappy differences that were distracting the parish. He was pained beyond measure at the untoward result of the evening conference at the Tracy house. But since it seemed to be impossible for the parties to the controversy either themselves to adjust their differences or to accept such impartial advice as he had privately given them, he should not assume, alone and unaided, to decide the question of the forcible dissolution of the pastoral relation. He should ask the advice of the Standing Committee, as was his right under the canon. He should also consult with the chancellor of the diocese. And, proceeding with their aid and counsel, he would, in due time, render judgment on the matters in controversy.
"In the meantime, brethren," read his closing admonition, "let the spirit which was in Christ be in you all. Let not His religion be brought into disrepute by this unseemly quarrel; and let the integrity and dignity of the Church be maintained at all hazards."
But the good bishop said, confidentially, to a brother prelate: "Oh, that I could be a second Pilate, and take water and wash my hands before this accusing multitude, and say, 'I am innocent of the blood of this just person, see ye to it.'"
It was true that the bishop had intended to ask the advice of the Standing Committee, and to consult the chancellor of the diocese. Not that he expected to receive much disinterested aid from either source. For the chancellor was a well-known corporation lawyer whose skill and experience had for years been at the service of capital and of the ruling class. What his judgment would be in this matter could be readily foreseen. Nor was the prospect of receiving helpful advice from the Standing Committee much more encouraging. The presbyters of this committee were mostly rectors of churches controlled by rich and aristocratic mem-
