order that it might be administered for the economic betterment of all, was either politically wise or ethically correct.
Certainly he was not ready to participate in a sudden and violent overturning of the existing social order for the purpose of hastening the coming of the social commonwealth.
But he was absorbed in the idea of, and immersed in the plans for alleviating the hardships of the poor. He looked to and labored for such a rearrangement of the social order, that all men who toiled, either with hand or brain, should share alike in the largess of the fruitful earth, and in the material bounty of God.
It was his aim so to instil the religion of Christ into the hearts of the classes that ultimately there would be no classes, no swollen fortunes, no dire poverty, no social distinctions, but that all men would dwell together in Christian fellowship as did the brethren of the early Church.
And it was his desire and ambition that this plan of Christian living should have its foremost modern exemplification in the parish of Christ Church.
In his night interview with the bishop he had stated his position with such cogent reasoning, with such eloquent appeal, that that dignitary of the Church was not prepared to confound his argument or to suppress his enthusiasm either by episcopal wisdom or by fatherly remonstrance. Moreover he taught nothing in contravention of the doctrines of the Church. He preached no gospel that had not been preached by the Carpenter of Nazareth among the hills of Galilee, on the shores of Gennesareth, or in the shadow of the temple at Jerusalem. No wonder the bishop could not decide which horn of the dilemma to take concerning the matter in controversy. No wonder the protesting parishioners became impatient at his delay. Many of them, indeed, grew discouraged and then indifferent. Some of them severed their connection with the parish
