Aside from general dependence upon moral and religious forces to bring these things about, the specific means of so doing are suggested under the title, The Control of the Land—A Dream. By the public possession or control of the land and by taxing out of existence all inheritance above $500,000, the way is open for the dream of the endowment of every one at the age of majority with inalienable possession free from tax and rent, the assurance of employment and provision for old age. But all depends, at last as at first, upon our anchor to the “new” question, “Can you convert brains to go in the way of religion?” This is said to be the biggest problem of religion, as it is the newest, for “it is only lately that man has been able even to formulate the true significance of religion in terms at once rational for the intellect and practical for the conduct of the daily life.” “People will be happy as fast as they learn to face these questions and to say _yes_ to them. Only men of good will really know what they want in this world; can meet and make and control conditions in life; can handle successfully the new and tremendous powers of nature and science. Only they can establish thorough democracy. Only their ideas can preserve the nations from the worst of all poverty—starvation of the soul, from the worst of all tyranny—the fear of man.” * * * * * In his Kingdom of God and American Life Bishop Brewster seeks to adjust the Christian ideal and ethic with the earlier idealism and standards of American democracy. He identifies them at the very points at which both are at a crisis—liberty, justice, opportunity, loyalty, law, civic courage, the value of human life and the sanctity of the family. Differentiating between “the kingdom of God” which consists in part of such values, and the church whose witness to these ideals is needed alike by religion and democracy, he denies that Christianity is either individualistic or socialistic. “The social character it is impossible to overestimate, because there the social never gets away from the personal.” From this vantage he repudiates individualism since “Christianity while never individualistic is always personal”; and he disputes socialism since “in nature and purpose that scheme is economic” and “the church is spiritual and personal”, socialism “aims at the economic transformation of environment” and “the church’s aim is the spiritual transformation of the persons that make up society”, “socialism aims at reconstruction through revolution” and “the church at progressive reform through evolution.”