to free themselves from the yoke of the Roman oppressor and the hard ecclesiasticism of the Jewish priesthood. He never sought to rob the Christ of any of the spiritual adornment or any of the divine attributes with which the Church from time immemorial has clothed Him. But he loved to dwell on His passion for the poor.
The rector's gospel of social equality was rejected and resented, or accepted and cherished, according to the personal view-point of those to whom it was presented. The parish was sharply divided. There were few lukewarm adherents to either side in the controversy. Those who were not with him were against him, and against him unequivocally. Some of them went so far as to request that their names be stricken from the parish roll. Others, less impulsive and more worldly-wise, contented themselves with voluntary absence from the services of the church. Still others, and these constituted the greater part of those opposed to the new régime, unwilling to forego the privileges and customs of many years, went, with apprehensive minds, to listen to unwelcome sermons, and came away troubled and depressed.
But the congregations grew in size. Pews given up by former parishioners did not remain vacant for want of occupants. Pewholders in sympathy with the rector's views doubled up with each other or threw their sittings open freely to the public. In one way and another room was found for all the common people who came and who heard gladly the new gospel that was being preached to them.
It is true that the roll of regular supporting parishioners was not greatly lengthened; but the prospects were bright for many additions, and there was abundance of hope for large results in the future.
It is true also that while the cost of caring for the newcomers in all the activities of church life materially increased the amount of necessary expenditure, the
