onal theologian rarely does even as much as this. He takes
himself very seriously; sniffs and sneers at any suggestion of
deviation from the accepted standards; mounts some denominational chair
or other and thunders forth his view of the urgent necessity for
rehabilitating truth in the grave-clothes of long-buried formulas. I
mean that the language he habitually uses implies some kind of belief
in formulas he no longer holds. He hardly dares to disinter the
formulas themselves,--that would not be convenient even for him,--but
he goes on flapping the shroud as energetically as ever, and the world
does not even take the trouble to laugh. Wherever and whenever
religious agencies succeed it is rarely because of the driving power of
what is preached, but because the preacher's gospel is glossed over or
put in the background. We have popular services by the million in
which devices are used to attract the public which ought not to be
necessary if their framers had any real message to declare. But they
have not. Popular pulpit addresses rarely or never deal with the
fundamental problems of life. The last thing one ever expects to hear
in such addresses is a real living representation of the beliefs the
preacher professes to hold. He makes passing allusions to them, of
course, such as appeals to come to the cross, and such like, but they
generally sound unreal, and the pill has to be sweetly sugared. The
ordinary way of preaching the gospel is to avoid saying much about what
the preacher believes the gospel to be.

To be sure there are many social activities in connection with
Christian churches. If it were not for these the churches would have
to be shut up. They are quite admirable in their way, and often
produce excellent results, but they imply another gospel than the one
supposed to be preached from the pulpits. They ignore dogmatic
beliefs, and assume the salvability of the whole race and the
possibility of realising the kingdom of God on earth. Wherever the
churches are alive to-day, and not merely struggling to keep their
heads above water, it is not their doctrine but their non-theological
human sympathy that is doing it.

This, then, is the situation. The main stream of modern life is
passing organised religion by. Where is the remedy to be found?

+We seek to save religion rather than the Churches.+--Let me say
plainly that I do not think our object should be to find a remedy which
will save the ch