well be regarded as a part of the whole problem before us, and I therefore made careful mention of it last Monday night.  Secondly, and more important, I stated my desire that the church which I should serve tomorrow, might itself be undenominational, at last to the degree implied by my conception of what I have called the community church.  By this I meant that the church should proclaim [16] as its primary interest and aim identification with, and service of, the people of its community, to the subordination, and, if necessary, the ending of its connection with persons of various and scattered communities who have no other bond of union than that of a single denominational inheritance.  Was I wrong when I ventured the assertion at the meeting of our Society, that in this church we have already moved far in this direction?  Unconsciously, in the last dozen years, it seems to me, we have been moving out of the denomination, into the community.  Nearly every interest in this parish is a community and not a denominational interest.  Our natural affiliations as a church in this city have not been so much with churches of our own denomination, as with churches of various denominations distinguished like ourselves as predominantly civic, or community, institutions.  This congregation is an independent congregation.  If the Unitarian name adheres to it at all, it is to the embarrassment of those whose Unitarianism is their pride, and to the confusion of those who, not Unitarians either by birth or conviction, desire to join us in spirit and active work.  For years, like “the chambered nautilus,” we have been outgrowing our denominational shell, and seeking “more stately mansions.”  Is it not time, now, that we left this “outgrown shell,” and became at last the full and free community institution of which I speak?  Should we not at least clear ourselves of ancient entanglements to such degree that we may invite people openly and honestly to come into our portals not because they want to profess themselves Unitarians, but because they want to confess themselves lovers and servants of mankind?

Again, I stated at last Monday’s meeting my desire that the church which I shall serve tomorrow, may have a name which means something in the language and thought of our time.  The application of this principle to our church is obvious.  The name, Church of the Messiah, is precious to many of us, because it awakens memories and revives tender associations.  But a name [17] is important not from the standpoint of those who know what it means, or ought to mean, but of those who do not know.  The name of a church, like that of a business, is an advertisement.  It is a symbol, a slogan, a banner.  It should tell at once to everybody what is behind it, what it stands for; and this is exactly what our name does not do, except to the initiate.  Dr. Savage tried to save the situation by associating with the name, Lowell’s familiar line, “some great cause, God’s new Messiah.”  I have tried