to breathe the breath of life into the corpse, by attaching it deliberately to our various activities—­as the Messiah Forum, the Messiah Social Service League, etc.  But all in vain!  Our name suggests a hope of ancient Judaism, a period of Unitarian history, a habit of Episcopalian nomenclature—­and that is all!  It should be changed, to give some adequate expression of our ideals.  The City Church, the People’s Church, the Community Church, the Church of the People, the Church of the New Democracy, the Fellowship, the Free Fellowship, the Fellowship of Social Idealism, the Fellowship of the Kingdom, the Fellowship of Spiritual Democracy, the Liberal Centre, the Community Centre,—­think of what we might call ourselves, if we but had the courage.  And after all, what courage would it take, save that long since displayed by our fathers in this church?  How many of you know that for fourteen years, this church was known simply as the Second Congregational Unitarian Society of New York.  Then in 1839, because the name Unitarian was open to serious misconstruction, this name, except in its strictly legal uses, was dropped, and the highly orthodox name we now bear, was substituted.  I stated at our meeting that if I should remain as your minister, I should hope that this church might similarly baptize itself afresh in the language of our own time, and in the spirit of our own life!

Again, at this meeting on Monday last, I stated that a modern church should have free pews.  This statement needs no definition or argument.  The system of pew [18] rentals is an abomination, already abolished in countless churches more orthodox than our own, and a scandal in any church claiming to be liberal or democratic.

Lastly, I stated my desire that my church should have a non-covenanted membership.  On the side of organization, this means of course that we make our church and society a single body, and thus abolish the present system of two unrelated groups, the one business and the other spiritual in character.  On the side of religion, it means that we abandon the idea of an inner group of members, who have reached some spiritual eminence not attained by others.  Of course, in our body, this sanctification aspect of church membership has disappeared from our apprehension.  But if this is the case, why should we retain the form?  What is essential is organization and fellowship on the basis of simple brotherhood.  Here we are, comrades together, worshipping and working to the great end of a better world.  We must be bound together in some way, for we must be an enlisted body, not a mob of unrelated individuals.  But let it be a Roll-Call to Service—­a joining of the church as of the Red Cross for the love of mankind.  In spirit, our membership is already this; but its form is not so much an embodiment of the new democracy of the saviors as an echo of the old aristocracy of the saved.