this, a teaching so slightly distinguished from the
curbstone rhetoric of a modern agitator, can be an adequate
reproduction of the scope and power of the teaching of
Jesus?

The question answers itself: Of course not! For Jesus was a gentleman;
he is the head of a church attended by gentlemen, of universities
where gentlemen are educated. So the Professor of Christian Morals
proceeds to make a subtle analysis of Jesus' actions; demonstrating
therefrom that there are three proper uses to be made of great wealth:
first, for almsgiving--"The poor ye have always with you!"; second,
for beauty and culture--buying wine for wedding-feasts, and
ointment-boxes and other #objets de vertu#; and third, "stewardship,"
"trusteeship"--which in plain English is "Big Business."

I have used the illustration of soap and hot water; one can imagine he
is actually watching the scrubbing process, seeing the proletarian
Founder emerging all new and respectable under the brush of this
capitalist professor. The professor has a rule all his own for reading
the scriptures; he tells us that when there are two conflicting
sayings, the rule of interpretation is that "the more spiritual is to
be preferred." Thus, one gospel makes Jesus say: "Blessed are ye
poor." Another puts it: "Blessed are the poor in spirit." The first
one is crude and literal; obviously the second must be what Jesus
meant! In other words, the professor and his church have made for
their economic masters a treacherous imitation virtue to be taught to
wage-slaves, a quality of submissiveness, impotence and futility,
which they call by the name of "spirituality". This virtue they exalt
above all others, and in its name they cut from the record of Jesus
everything which has relation to the realities of life!