modations I had spent $21.00. I had constantly to remind myself that I was on vacation.

The next Sunday I discovered myself in a hot bed of ritualism. Picture my dismay. Services had been announced,Low Masses, 7, 8 and 10:30 a. m. with the Rev. Mr. Blank in charge. There was a little more brightness in the priests' corner here than in the two afore-mentioned places, a much overdressed sacristy, with several crucifixes and odors of incense hanging about. A lady tiptoed in to see that I got all the vestments to rights. I have discovered that in these "mass” parishes the ladies are greatly devoted to the millinery. One of them told me that she 'loved it so, and thought such things just too perfect.' The boys were very careful in their genuflections and wanted to confess to me before the service. Feeling that they would understand the better I told them that 'we would pass that up this Sunday.' And we did.

Reaching the chancel I discovered on the Communion Table a 'mass' book, evidently one that was in constant use. Gently but firmly I tucked it away in one corner and used in the conduct of the services the Standard Book of Common Prayer that I had fortunately brought with me. The good rector, with rectorial foresight, had left a full list of announcements. Engaged as I was for the week and 'being Locum Tenens I was compelled to give out the notices. Here they are, - 'Mass will be said every day at 7:30 a. m., but on Friday there will be two Masses, one at 6:30 a. m. and the other at 7:30 a. m., this latter one will be the usual Requiem. Mass held every Friday.'"

My friend went through the week and on Friday conducted two services but he said that there was no requiem mass because he could find no such service in his Book of Common Prayer. In the conduct of worship at this Church he

used only the Book of Common Prayer, much to the consternation of the small congregation. After morning service several ladies came into the sacristy and with some indignation asked him, "How long have you been in our Church?" He replied, "I was born in it." "Well," remarked the spokeswoman of the group, doing a little heel-turning, "You don't seem to be up on the services."

One more experience fell to his lot. The next Church he served, the incumbent was taking a much needed rest after strenuous labors, showed many deposits of dust that betoken the drift towards inocuous desuetude. Not sensing this he repaired to the church on Sunday in plenty of time before the first morning service. "A lady was there fifteen minutes before the appointed hour to 'tip' me off concerning the sort of service that I should conduct. She said, 'Make the early service a little high, but not too much. In case Mrs. Free-giver is there don't do it. It will offend her. I will give you the 'tip' if she comes in by walking up to the chancel." Just fancy, Mr. Editor, being "tipped" off in this subtle fashion concerning the varieties of service a clergyman should present to a helpless congregation!

"As I persisted in conducting services throughout these peregrinations in accordance with our Prayer Book and the best reasonable traditions I cast away utterly my chances for future supply work in the afore-mentioned quiet and quaint spots. With a sigh of relief I reached home. From now on I shall carry forward the 'milk and meat' diet of evangelical teaching and tradition. I shall more firmly conform to the rubrics of our Book of Common Prayer. I shall adhere and honor my solemn vows to maintain truly and honestly the standards of the Protestant Episcopal Church."

The Life and Liberty Movement has made a stir and it remains to be seen whither it will lead. The advocates of self-government in the Church are determined to obtain the restoration, as they say, of the right of the Church to govern its own affairs independent of the State. They forget that the Church of England, before and after the reformation, had never the independence they now claim, and that the existing conditions have grown up silently and have become a part of our normal life working on the whole well, but like everything else in life capable of amendment. There is a natural desire that the Church should have more selfgovernment, but it is strange to find as leader of the movement the Rev. William Temple, whose father died Archbishop of Canterbury-appointed by the State when in the opinion of all in spite of his many excellencies he never would have been made Bishop by a self-governing Church such as some of the Life and Liberty group advocate. The existing conditions are galling theoretically to idealists and practically they involve difficulties that cannot be surmounted unless the Bishops make up their minds to take a strong line and by so doing repress irregularities. They can do so, if they wish, even without appealing to the law. If the aims of Life and Liberty can be attained without dis-establishment then many would be ready to support them to a limited extent, but the grave danger of precipitating an agitation that can only end in

the dis-establishment and dis-endowment of the Church is so manifest that many prefer to bear the ills we have than to face an unknown future. The Church of England has a magnificent field for work even under existing disabilities. It has full freedom in the

Mission field and can act independently in the home dioceses without any interference from the State. Two schools exist in Life and Liberty-one wishes to preserve the establishment and the other holds that the only pathway to reform lies in the direction of disestablishment.

more

One curious step has been put forward as necessary for the well-being of the Church. The deans must go. Their incomes are a drag on church funds and their leisured dignity is supposed to be in opposition to apostolic ideals. In the first place they are among the most hard-worked of all our clergy and have very little ease. Then they have charge of the Cathedrals and our Cathedrals are one of the glories of the Church. It seems that they are, to a certain extent, independent of the diocesan bishops than the bishops wish, and this may lend some strength to the strong words recently spoken by a diocesan on the subject. Unfortunately, his statistics were as wrong as his advocacy was intemperate. Our deans are among the most influential of our leaders. To mention at random, Wace, Inge, Rashdall, Hensley Henson, Ryle, Armitage, Robinson and Strong is to name men who are as distinguished for scholarship and vigorous devotion to duty as any of the bishops. They have probably done more to advance learning and to give. guidance than their Episcopal chiefs, and their reputation is independent of their posts as deans. It is unwise to begin a campaign by attacks on a body of men who have proved their value and efficiency by the hold they have on all who know the difference between first and second class work. This is, however, a detail, and the main issue at stake is whether or not under Twentieth Century conditions the Church of Eng

land will do better work for God under revolutionary changes than it does at present. Even some of the leaders of Life and Liberty cannot hide from themselves the fear that a self-governing Church might very easily assert its life by choking liberty. That is something more than an illusory danger and the name Temple is associated with more than one clerical protest, that represented the average opinion of the Church clergy of the time.

I do not know how it is in the United States but here we have all run the risk of mistaking organization for life. We are being organized and committeed until we find men so burdened with responsibilities of a consultative and executive character that they have time for nothing else. Committees are enquiring into everything and are meeting to discuss findings that will very quickly be forgotten. We have drifted into the belief that if you set a number of men working on what they think the best solution to a problem, they will be sure to discover some machinery to reach a solution. It seems to many that the Church is beginning at the wrong end. The National Mission was overburdened with machinery and led to very little. Its innumerable committees took the place of the end of the mission and obscured the real objects. The Church is not a manufacturing concern that must arrange for the production and distribution of its wares. It is not even an army drilled and organized for a fighting campaign with a definite objective that must be reached within a short time with the least expenditure of men and means. It is a Divine Institution under a Heavenly Leader engaged in the secular conflict with sin and in the holy work of the sanctification of the redeemed people. While we talk men are perishing-the existing machinery is not being employed and our eyes are fired on things earthly instead of looking to the Vision of God. The real remedy for our evils, and they are

many, is increased consecration in our parishes the working to their utmost capacity of the organizations we have, and if the new wine of the Spirit of God bursts the bottles then we must get new bottles. Today no one can say that the Church is everywhere making the most of its privileges and it is beginning at the wrong end to say we must have new machinery to help our life, instead of making up our minds to utilize to the fullest extent the opportunities that lie at hand to advance the kingdom of God and the salvation of men.

No one can say that from a spiritual standpoint matters are what they ought to be. Our Churches are not as well attended as they were our manhood and womanhood are to a very great extent untouched by the appeal of the Churches. We are all - Episcopal and non-Episcopal Churches alike in a backwater and are not tackling the work God has given us to do with the enthusiasm and hopefulness we should have. The Free Churches are in as unsatisfactory a condition as "the Statefettered" Church. The fundamental reason is the same. We have lost the simple Evangelical message and are too much absorbed in the bypaths of theology and ecclesiasticism. Chaplains at the front complain of the lack of definite religious beliefs on the part of our men, but "definite" has a chameleon-like meaning in the mouths of men. Some consider that "definiteness" means a type of Anglo-Romanism that is distasteful to our people. Others look upon it is an emotional Evangelicalism that is not Scriptural. The real root of trouble is that personal communion with God has been abandoned by those whose fathers knew what it was to wrestle with God in prayer and to find in Him the source of their highest life. The personal hold of the Saviour is not known and this is the saddest part of the whole outlook. Many of our prominent men are realizing this and there is a return on their part to the personal as dis

tinct from the collective view of Christianity. We are being forced into consideration of realities and I shall be surprised if before many months have passed there is not a strong spiritual movement in many directions. No one who mixes with thoughtful men is aware of the dissatisfaction that exists, and when men are not pleased with themselves they are ready for progress. The vicarious repentance for sins not committed by themselves is becoming. repentance for their own shortcomings.

In the Diocese of Birmingham a Round Table Conference has been held by men of different ecclesiastical opinions to discuss the teaching of the Church on Eucharist. It arrived at no definite conclusions on the chief points of discussion and when agreement was reached it was plain that words were used in different senses. Nearly half the Conference put forward the statement, "Participation is one of the essential elements in the Holy Communion. That there is any particular blessing attached to the presence of the individual worshipper at the time of consecration is denied by the history and construction of the service in the Prayer Book. This statement does not imply that to be present at the Holy Communion without reception under special circumstances is wrong, but that there is no sacramental benefit arising from it." The other half of the Conference criticized these sentences. The main difficulty of a practical kind was evidently experienced in the discussion of Fasting Communion, and it was agreed that "any branch of the Church has the right to regulate such customs as fasting reception." Everything depends on the way in which the Church regulates this custom. If it be made essential then it may very fairly be considered "an unlawful term of communion" that must be rejected. The Conference evidently saw the difficulty for it ended with an appeal for an authoritative statement on the subject, adding that while to many

fasting reception is a matter of obligation, "it should not be insisted upon so as to exclude or put on a lower plane those who, in their preparation, do not regard fasting before reception as necessary." The Conference brought out clearly the line of division on the teaching of the Holy Communion that separates Churchmen,

The Reservation controversy remains practically where it was when I last wrote. Some of the Bishops have granted permission for the Reservation of the consecrated elements in Church. Some clergymen still continue to administer the Reserved Sacrament in one kind and some maintain their determination to reserve the elements for the purpose of adoration. The Bishop of Exeter entreats his clergy to observe discipline and by so doing to avoid the fate that has overtaken Russia. There can be no doubt as to the determination of the Bishops as a whole to prohibit Reservation for any purpose other than that of communicating the sick, but this is illegal and the men who wish to reserve for purposes of adoration reply "your action in giving this sanction is as technically illegal as our action in permitting and affording facilities for adoration and therefore we, having the Catholic tradition on our side, are as justified as you are, in doing what we believe to be right." It has been pointed out that Bishop Gore, when claiming the decision of the Bishops to be the "lawful authority" that can over-ride the express terms of the Prayer Book, is historically wrong, as the plain reference is to the Royal authority. The situation is far from settled and I have never wavered in my belief that owing to the line the Bishops take their wishes will not be followed by the men who now oppose them. The nation has now more definite views than it ever had on the force of the pledged word and is not inclined to view lightly breaches of promises made by any class of officiating ministers of the Church. Herein lies a very grave danger.

We have had a discussion on Reunion by the Wesleyan Conference that may have historic results. Wesleyanism is non-conforming, not dissenting. The Bishop of London has had conferences with a number of Wesleyan ministers who are keen on reunion. He, in company with another Bishop, visited the Conference in London and spoke kindly words, asserting that the doctrine of Wesleyanism was practically identical with that of the Church. His companion Bishop said that he and the Bishop of London were the two best Methodists in London. After discussion it was decided that the Wesleyan Church was ready to co-operate with the Church of England and all other Evangelical Churches for the progress of the Kingdom of God. At the Ministerial Session the subject was again debated and it was plain that recent doctrinal and ritualistic developments have driven a wedge between Wesleyans and the Church, and that the Apostolical Succession view of Episcopacy held by advanced Churchmen placed a barrier in the path of reunion. It was shown conclusively that the doctrine of Wesleyanism is very different from that of the sacerdotal section of the Church and the whole matter was dropped, as the Conference refused to enter into conference on the matter. This is a pity, as the accession of Wesleyanism to the Church would give great strength and make us more united, but the attempt to force the subject prematurely under a haze of words was doomed to disappointment. Wesleyan ministers will

not consent to re-ordination that would cast a doubt on their administration of the Holy Communion, and the sacerdotalists would never consent to admit them to administer the Holy Communion. without episcopal ordination. Therein lies the crux of the whole matter.

The Lower House of Convocation (Canterbury) has approved the omission of Psalm 58 and the deletion of verses of nine other Psalms from the Psalter to be used in public worship. It has also changed the question put to deacons into "Do you unfeignedly believe all the Canonical scriptures of the Old and New Testaments as conveying to us in many parts and in divers manners the revelation of God which is fulfilled in our Lord Jesus Christ?" Strange to say the public has fixed its. mind on the omission of the Psalms and strong expressions of influential clerical and lay opinion have been published. As time passes it will be found that the deacons' question is a much more serious matter as it reduces Holy Scripture to the level of any orthodox or even heretical theological volume that contains an account of the orthodox doctrine of the Divinity of our Lord. The absence of reference to any objective inspiration of the Bible is its weakness and those who do not like the old form feel strongly antagonistic to the proposed new question. The Autumn will witness a strong protest against the change and probably Convocation will have to yield before the storm that will be raised.

I see that in your June issue your Canadian correspondent makes some observations on the Irish situation, in the course of which he remarks that there are two Irelands, that the fundamental question is not political but religious,

and that on these grounds the argument against Home Rule is valid. That, of course, is what may be called the "orthodox" Irish Protestant attitude; but I think if your correspondent were resident in Ireland he would be much