not be so bold as to try to convert the members of the Church to that religion. The same thing may be said of Bishop Gore,-he is simply trying to make the faith of the people of England correspond to the religious position which the Church of England has always officially maintained.

Prayer Book Revision

THE

HE Rev. Henry D. A. Major, who has attained considerable notoriety lately in England because some of his statements in regard to the resurrection of the body have been attacked as ⚫ heretical, has recently written a letter to the London Times in which he has made an interesting suggestion touching the subject of Prayer Book revision. He believes that the results of the efforts already made in England in this direction are altogether inadequate. This is because, in his opinion, they have proceeded on a wrong basis-they have adhered to the Tudor ideal of liturgical uniformity. He believes that we must abandon for some years to come the ideal of liturgical uniformity and aim instead at producing a single volume containing alternate sets of services. He would have one designed for Anglo-Catholics, one for Evangelicals and one for modern Churchmen. In each parish one or more of these uses could be adopted under episcopal authority and "with the consent of the representative laity."

We are not altogether averse to this proposal. We should indeed like to see it tried out in this country. We must confess, however, that in urging its adoption in the American Episcopal Church, we are speaking with our tongue in our cheek. For we should be willing to predict that it would ultimately work out to the great advantage of the Anglo-Catholics. In choosing the services which would be set forth for their use they would have the inestimable advantage of drawing on all the rich liturgical treasures of Catholic worship that have been used from the days of the primitive Church; whereas the other groups of Churchman would be compelled to hold aloof as far as possible from all Catholic tradition, and they could draw only upon the liturgical treasures in their own minds. It is notorious that this age has lost the liturgical sense. We can imagine the "snappy" modern services which our new liturgical composers might consider perfectly adapted to the needs of the modern mind.

We are afraid, however, that the modern mind would ultimately be disappointed. In liturgical theory, as in other matters, we cannot go back upon the wisdom of the ages without the most fatal consequences.

Idle Clerical Fancies

IN

N moments of weariness the priest is sometimes tempted to imagine himself a layman. He finds it most interesting to picture himself as a layman who is unfaithful to the Church and her ways. For then he would find himself in all sorts of interesting situations, such as the following:

1. Dinners would be given in his honor in an effort to reach him "through the stomach."

2. The rector would greet him as "man to man" lest he should suspect he were a priest.

3. He would be relieved of all financial responsibility, lest he should get the impression that they were after his money rather than his soul.

4. He would be asked to entertain the bishop on his annual visitation in order that the community might know that he leaned toward the "Episcopals."

5. He would not have to take any definite instruction lest he should think the Church "dogmatic."

6. The bishop would confirm him privately.

7. He would be asked to usher and collect the alms in order that he might "have something to do."

8. The organist would play a voluntary after the offertory that he might retreat gracefully from the mass.

9. Mass would be omitted three Sundays a month because it would be known that he liked the sung Te Deum in Morning Prayer.

10. Such expressions as mass, priest, father, confession, would be used very sparingly lest he should think Episcopalians were "just like the Catholics."

11. Finally he would be elected to the vestry as the supreme means of bringing him "nearer to the Church."

T

RT. REV. RICHARD HENRY NELSON, D.D.

HE kingdom of heaven is like unto the leaven, which a woman took and hid in three measures of meal, till the whole was leavened."

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.-And the Word was made flesh and dwelt among us."

In the Incarnation, the divine Leaven began that work which has for its object to make men the sons of God and heirs of eternal life. Humanity is thus represented as a coherent mass in which the life of God is working, and they whom we describe as "the masses" are the material which God is transforming into the body of His living Church.

The word "mass", as here used, may be defined as a collection of homogeneous particles or objects, but its origin is traceable to a Greek source, where it appears in the homely form of “dough", which, having been duly leavened and kneaded, becomes the bread of life.

From an entirely different root we obtain the word "Mass", the common name for the service which our Lord instituted for a perpetual memorial of His redemptive work, and in which our souls are fed with "the bread which cometh down from heaven."

I am not concerned at this moment with controversies about the use of the word "Mass" as the ordinary name of the Holy Eucharist or the Lord's Supper, and I do not propose to discuss theories as to the meaning and purpose of the Holy Mysteries. It is a simple matter of fact that this Holy Service has commonly been called "The Mass," and, for the purpose which I have in mind, it may be useful to consider two suggested derivations of the word.

The generally accepted derivation is from "missa" or dismissal, the "Missa Catechumenorum" being that part of the service at which learners might be present, while the "Missa Fidelium" signifies the central and solemn rite in which faithful communicants participate. With due respect to this tradition, and allowing for its probability, I venture nevertheless to submit an alternative explanation of the word which presents some

points of interest, even though it may fail to carry conviction. The Anglo-Saxon word "Maesse" became the Old-English "Masse" or "Messe", and the latter form is found in the French as well as in other European languages. We have also the word "mess," used to describe a portion of food or a group of persons who eat at the same table, and this, curiously enough, is derived from the Latin "missus", because the food was passed or sent around the table. Some years ago the English Church Times published the description of an ancient tapestry containing a picture of the Last Supper with these words embroidered in the fabric: "The Lord's Messe." It is unsafe to build upon uncertain foundations, but it is at least possible that "Mass" may mean "Supper", and such an explication is simpler than that which is commonly accepted, while it possesses the advantage of fixing attention upon the Bread of life rather than upon the dismissal of the catechumens or communicants.

I do not feel that this excursion into the history of words should be regarded as fanciful or academic. It brings us face to face with a cardinal statement of our Lord on which the whole covenant idea swings from the Mosaic to the Christian point of view. "Our fathers did eat manna in the desert; as it is written, He gave them bread from heaven to eat." "What sign showest Thou then, that we may see and believe Thee?" To this the Son of God made answer, "I am that bread of life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness and are dead. This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof and not die."

The Bread of life is that which God designs to be the food of humanity, that His new Leaven may quicken the masses, and that all men may become the living children of the Father.

It is in this broad sense that I have submitted the phrase "The Mass for the Masses." As our Lord Jesus Christ offered Himself upon the Cross, "a full, perfect and sufficient sacrifice for the sins of the whole world," so would we offer our unbloody Sacrifice in such a way that all men might share in the One Offering. As He who called Himself the Bread of life "saw a great multitude come unto Him, and said unto His disciples, Give ye them to eat," so would we persuade the masses that the

spiritual food of His Body and Blood is designed to satisfy the hunger of their souls.

In the early days of Christianity this ideal was realized in the common practice of daily participation in the Holy Mysteries. The Mass was for the masses, and the Saerament of the Lord's Body and Blood was the daily Bread which strengthened them to meet the demands of a perilous faith.

The liturgy of the Ante-Nicene Church did not differ materially from our own, but it was so simple that all could understand and follow it. The evolution of Christian worship has added to the beauty and dignity of the primitive rite, but, unfortunately, there has not been a corresponding growth in the spiritual life of the masses, and the standard of devotion has so far declined that comparatively few Christians of the present time regard the feast instituted by our Blessed Lord as having any necessary connection with the petition "Give us this day our daily bread." The decline of devotion has been accompanied by a lack of understanding concerning the symbolic meaning of the Divine Service as rendered in various parts of the Catholic Church, and it may not be an exaggeration to say that only a small number of the clergy or laity are able to follow the liturgical action with intelligent appreciation of its dramatic character.

Having an earnest desire to remedy this defect, and to restore the Lord's service to its normal place in the life of all believers, we may take courage from the notable progress which has been made in this direction, but it is true that the Church as a whole has come far short of the ideal, and that there is need of both patience and instruction in order to guide the masses back into those ways which were generally followed at the beginning of Christian history.

Having worked toward this desired end for many years, and wishing to understand the obstacles which must be removed, I have found it useful to study the changes which have occurred in our American population, and I have been led to question whether we are not aiming wide of the mark in our present efforts toward Prayer Book revision.

Let us first consider the masses, the people who make up the bulk of our citizenship. Speaking for my own diocese, I find that the majority of its parishes were founded by people of