purpose in the universe, a long way from the positive assertions in the
Creeds?" she asked. "I remember, when I went through what you would
probably call disintegration, and which seemed to me enlightenment, that
the Creeds were my first stumbling-blocks. It seemed wrong to repeat
them."

"I am glad you spoke of this," he replied gravely. "I have arrived at
many answers to that difficulty--which did not give me the trouble I had
anticipated. In the first place, I am convinced that it was much more of
a difficulty ten, twenty, thirty years ago than it is to-day. That which
I formerly thought was a radical tendency towards atrophy, the drift of
the liberal party in my own Church and others, as well as that which I
looked upon with some abhorrence as the free-thinking speculation of many
modern writers, I have now come to see is reconstruction. The results of
this teaching of religion in modern terms are already becoming apparent,
and some persons are already beginning to see that the Creeds express
certain elemental truths in frankly archaic language. All this should be
explained in the churches and the Sunday schools,--is, in fact, being
explained in some, and also in books for popular reading by clergymen of
my own Church, both here and in England. We have got past the critical
age."

She followed him closely, but did not interrupt.

"I do not mean to say that the Creeds are not the sources of much
misunderstanding, but in my opinion they do not constitute a sufficient
excuse for any clergyman to abandon his Church on account of them.
Indeed there are many who interpret them by modern thought--which is
closer to the teachings of Christ than ancient thought--whose honesty
cannot be questioned. Personally, I think that the Creeds either ought