For a test specimen of theological writers, I turn to a volume of sermons by the Rev. James Martineau. I have counted the relatives in three sermons, “The Bread of Life,” “The Unknown Paths,” and “The Finite and the Infinite in Human Nature.” The relatives occur more frequently than in the non-theological writers. My count shows an average of one relative in each ninety-three words. The use of _that_ is abundant. Out of one hundred and seven relative words, thirty-one are _thats_. These sermons were probably composed forty years ago, and represent an archaic type of sermonic style, a style largely affected by that of the Bible of 1611. I have noted without counting, that the sermons of Mr. Spurgeon contain a higher proportion of relatives, and that this great preacher employs _that_ with as much frequency as Mr. Martineau. Turning to American preachers, I have taken up a recent sermon of Dr. John Hall, of New York, and I find one relative in each sixty-five words, and of these relatives more than one third are _thats_. Dr. Hall used in 1884 more _thats_ than James Martineau used forty years earlier. But Dr. Hall is a preacher of a very biblical type, and his choice of relatives is often dictated by partial quotation of texts. Passing over to non-theological writers of our time and country, let us take the general result of countings in essays and books. The average number of relatives is about ten per cent. greater than in contemporary English writers, and _that_ is relatively employed about one fifth of the time. The importance of the reduction of the use of relatives can not be properly appreciated without remembering two or three conditions of their use. One fact is that there is seldom any discernible rule which is followed in the choice of _that_ in place of _which_. The example given from Mr. Froude’s practice—whether it is his or his printer’s—illustrates the absence of any guidance by a rule.