placed at the review in 1552; being half laid aside, and the rest of it thrown into an improper place: as being enjoined to be said in that part of the Office which is to be used after the people have communicated." He adds, approvingly certainly rather than otherwise, the example of Bishop Overall, whose practice was to use the first prayer in the post-communion Office between the consecration and the administering, "even when it was otherwise ordered by the public liturgy.

13

Certainly we cannot but agree with Wheatley, that in our present office this prayer of oblation has been displaced. But no one who requires an express prayer of oblation, can wish the terms of it to be in plainer words, than in those which are to be there found: and all who follow Wheatley's view, may be well satisfied, using it with all thankfulness, so to offer up to the Almighty Father, the appointed sacrifice. Thus then it stands:14 "O Lord and heavenly Father, we thy humble servants entirely desire thy fatherly goodness, mercifully to accept this our sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; most humbly beseeching thee to grant, &c." again; "Although we be unworthy, through our manifold sins, to offer unto thee any sacrifice; yet we beseech thee to accept this our bounden duty and service; not weighing our merits, but pardoning our offences, through Jesus Christ our Lord." 15

And

It cannot but be observed that the observations which I have just made, are grounded upon the supposition that only in this prayer the offering is made; but in the prayer of consecration also the same essential rite is to be found, as very learned writers have argued. Upon this point I shall extract a passage from Johnson's Clergyman's Vade-mecum, and leave it to the judgment of the reader. The author takes notice "how some with vehemency have insisted that the first collect in the post-communion should be inserted between the consecration and the administration, or some prayer of oblation added in that place. But," he continues, "I can see no necessity for any such alteration. The consecration prayer, and the words used by the priest at the administration, seem sufficient, if rightly applied. In the consecration prayer, Christ is said, by one Oblation of Himself upon the Cross, to have made a full and perfect sacrifice and in our Saviour's words of institution, inserted in this prayer, the Bread is called His Body given, i. e. sacrificed for us; the Wine His Blood shed, as a libation for us, i. e. for the remission of our sins, as follows presently after. Nothing then can be more clear, than that the eucharist is hereby declared to be a sacrifice; and in the words of administration, the merits of it are applied to every receiver, The Body of Christ, which was given for thee (and is now exhibited to God in thy behalf) preserve thy body and soul to everlasting life. No wise man is for alterations, but in case of apparent necessity, which I cannot perceive in the matter now before us."

Sacrifice to God the Father, and commaunded the same to be done of the Priestes of his Church that occupye hys offyce, in memorye of hym, and so taughte the newe oblation of the newe Testament,

whyche Oblation the Church recyving of the Apostles, dothe offer to God throughoute the holle worlde." Holsome and Catholyke doctrine, p. 68, edit. 1558.

And, once more; it cannot be necessary that the oblation should be in more express terms, and in plainer language than the invocation of the Holy Spirit, to which we shall next direct our attention. It is quite enough if the whole action supposes and carries on an oblation which is so undeniable a circumstance of the liturgy of the church of England, that all may remain fully satisfied with it, who object to our present prayer being placed after the communion, or think that the argument drawn from the words of institution and administration is of scarcely sufficient weight.

Lastly, as to the invocation of the Holy Spirit: that He may descend upon, and make the representative elements the Body and the Blood of Christ. It is true that anciently this was prayed for in plain and direct words. As in the Clementine; "Send down thy Holy Spirit, the witness of the sufferings of the Lord Jesus, that He may make (on) this bread the Body of Thy Christ, and this cup the Blood of Thy Christ.” Again, in the liturgy of S. James; "Send down, O Lord, Thy most Holy Spirit upon us, and upon these gifts which are here set before Thee, that by His descent upon them, He may make this bread the holy Body of Thy Christ, and this cup the precious Blood of Thy Christ." And once more in the Alexandrian ; "Send down Thy Holy Spirit upon us, and upon these loaves and these cups, that the Almighty God may sanctify and thoroughly consecrate them, (ίνα αυτα αγιαση και TEXELON) making the bread the Body, and the cup the Blood of the New Testament of our Lord Himself, our God, our Saviour, and supreme King Jesus Christ." It does not appear necessary, however, that this invocation should be so express. The western Church for a thousand years has not used such a prayer, and we may conclude with Palmer and Waterland, that it is not essential to mention before God the means by which He is to accomplish the end we pray for. "However true

it be, that God effects this consecration by means of the Holy Ghost, it is unnecessary to pray expressly for the Holy Ghost to consecrate the elements of bread and Wine, because God knows perfectly all the means and methods of consecration, and because any prayer for consecration, is, in fact, a prayer that it may be accomplished by all the means which are known to Infinite Wisdom." " 16 The invocation, therefore, in the English liturgy is as follows; "Hear us, O merciful Father, we most humbly beseech thee; and grant that we receiving these thy creatures of bread and wine, according to thy Son our Saviour Jesus Christ's holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be partakers of His most blessed Body and Blood." 17

Although, as I have just said, the western Church for many centuries has not used an express prayer for the descent of the Holy Spirit, yet the true doctrine was anciently acknowledged by every part of it: viz. that by His influence the consecration was fully completed, which was not otherwise, as the fact of its being used after the repetition of the "words of consecration," clearly testified. And upon this point the passage in Gelasius, against Eutyches and Nestorius, is sufficient: where speaking of the sacred elements he says: "in hanc, scilicet in Divinam, transeunt, Sancto Spiritu perficiente, substantiam, permanentia tamen in suæ proprietate naturæ." 18 But long after this time, plain prayers were to be found to this effect in the Gallican liturgy: as for example: "Post secreta. Descendat, precamur omnipotens Deus, super hæc, quæ tibi offerimus, Verbum tuum sanctum; descendat inestimabilis gloriæ tuæ Spiritus." 19

And so late even as the xith century, Micrologus still speaks of the invocation, as to be said in every Service. "Composita oblatione in altari, dicit sacerdos hanc orationem juxta Gallicanum ordinem: Veni Sanctificator omnipotens, æterne Deus, benedic hoc sacrificium, tuo nomini præparatum. Per Christum Dominum nostrum.' So, once more, there are many such instances in the Mozarabic liturgy, such as, on the first sunday in Lent: "Emitte Spiritum tuum de sanctis cœlis tuis, quo sanctificentur oblata:" or, on the third sunday after Easter: "His sacrificiis propitius illabere, hisque benedicturus descende."

20

It is true that later writers of the Roman communion try to explain away these testimonies, though as may be supposed by a most unnatural and forced interpretation, because they furnish an incontestable argument against the effect which they attribute to the sole repetition of the "verba consecrationis." But I cannot agree with Johnson, who has suggested that therefore the express. invocation was omitted from the Roman Canon.21 Because it is not certain it ever was more plain and direct than in the modern Use of that Church, or in our own liturgy and, moreover, the doctrine itself was acknowledged until the novel introduction in after-years of the error of transubstantiation.

We may assert then, that our liturgy contains the necessary essentials to a valid consecration of the Holy Eucharist. That these are disjointed, misplaced, obscured, is matter for serious exertions to be employed upon, that they may be restored to a due order, and a more evident existence. We are not, however, driven to seek in other Forms, the certainty which we cannot discover in our own: and there can be no surer mark of the ever-abiding presence of our Blessed Lord hitherto,