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