Not only, then, are the propitiatory sacrifice offered by Christ
alone and our sacrifice of pure gratitude and obedience completely
distinct, but we cannot say that Crammer even left the way open for
some sort of Presence of the Savior's sacrifice in the Eucharist, so
that it might become the source of our obedient act of thanksgiving. 
For him, there is no Presence in the Eucharist of any sacrifice other
than this latter. "In this eating, drinking and using of the Lord'
Supper, we make not of Christ a new sacrifice propitiatory for
remission of sin.  But, the humble confession of all penitent hearts,
their 'knowledging' of Christ's benefits, their thanksgiving for the
same, their faith and consolation in Christ, their humble submission
and obedience to God's will and commandments, is a sacrifice of
laud and praise, accepted and allowed of God no less than the
sacrifice of the priest."  In other words, according to him, there is
no other sacrifice (and his Liturgy does not speak differently) than
the faithful's feelings of gratitude and their disposition to obey God
in all things.

     Evidently, the fact that no other alternative than either a
recommencement of the Cross or a purely subjective "sacrifice"
occurred to him and to so many other Protestants, shows the extent
that the notion of sacrificial memorial had decomposed in the
religious mentality of the end of the Middle Ages.   But in these
circumstances what happens to this "sacrifice" whose sole presence
they are still willing to acknowledge in the Eucharist?  Cut off in
this way from any actual relationship to Christ's sacrifice, on the
basis of a Sacramental Presence, this sacrifice of praise, our
gratitude and our obedience becomes, as Eric Maschall points out,
a completely Pelagian sacrifice: man does offer it after Christ and as
a response to His sacrifice, but it is no longer solely by virtue of His
own.

     Once we have understood this transposition of all the traditional
notions, we can admire the skill (which is much more refined than
that of Zwingli himself in this first Eucharist) with which Crammer
in his Liturgy succeeded in retaining even in its details the schema
of the ancient Roman Eucharist.  In adapting it not only to his ideas
but to the language and rhetoric of his age, he produced a work
which, literally, is not without analogy with the remolding of the
ancient Eucharists that we have seen come about in fourth century
Syria.  In this reworking, however, he was not as daring as men
were then.  He limited himself to regrouping into one series the
different intercessions and commemorations which seemed to be
scattered throughout the Roman Canon.  Instead of bringing them
together as a conclusion, he assembled them around the Te igitur,
the Mento of the living, and then the Communicantes and the Hanc
igitur.  But he allowed to remain in their original places what we
have called the pre-Epiclesis of the Te igitur, the consecratory
Epiclesis of the Quam oblationem, immediately preceding the
Institution Narrative, and the second Epiclesis, arising from the
Anamnesis in the Supra quae and the Supplices, and beseeching that
the Eucharist have its full effect in those who celebrate it.

     If we pay close attention to the interpretations given by
Crammer himself to the formulas he uses, all of these prayers and
the Anamnesis itself seem to be deprived of their original content. 
But, since they retain practically all of the ancient expressions, with
the minimum of retouching that was necessary in order to be able to
bend them to the devitalized sense in which he understood them, a
person who is without the key to his perpetually metaphorical
language, can be easily taken in.  One might think that one were
simply re-reading the old Canon in a more obviously coherent order
and in a casing of devout humanist rhetoric.  It is true that those
terms that were hardest to allegorize in this way, like oblation and
sacrifice, surreptitiously disappeared from those places where they
could only have one meaning which he no longer was willing to
give them. but they are found elsewhere, where they are used either
of the Cross of Christ alone or of the Christians' offering of
themselves, and one must be very alert to the observe that the
Eucharistic celebration is never expressly envisioned as an objective
connection between the two.  If one were vaguely suspicious about
the slight-of-hand that had taken place, the fact that all the
secondary details of the old prayers have remained in their original
places, from the initial call to God's fatherly clemency to the
references to the heavenly Altar and the Angel of the sacrifice,
concluding with the opposition between the inadequacy of our own
merits and the limitless generosity of Divine Grace, would be
enough to reassure us of the author's good intentions.  If a formula
that is too unequivocal happens to be paraphrased, that is always
done under the cover of a biblical allusion chosen with such
infallible dexterity, and the whole is expressed in such a melodious
and consistently unctuous literary setting that even after the very
pointed declaration of the defence, it is hard to be persuaded that so
much skill and so much devotion is in the long run merely the skill
of speaking piously in order to say nothing.

     It is more easily and readily forgotten that Crammer, when he is
not concerned with emptying the properly sacrificial or sacramental
formulas of their content, shows himself to be a liturgies or equal
stature with the greatest of antiquity.  The most  felicitous
characteristic of his skill is the delicacy with which from the
beginning to the end of the prayer he was able to keep the basic act
of thanksgiving constantly uppermost with a word or an expression. 
He does this so well that it is everywhere present and runs through
this lengthy prayer like a golden thread binding it together.  The
same must be said for the theme of the Church and her unity: from
one end to the Eucharist to the other, beginning with the first part
of the intercessions as their connecting link, it is constantly recalled
through a succession of impeccable strokes of the bow before it
finally merges in a magnificent crescendo.  The recall of the "grace
and heavenly benediction" of the Roman Canon is specified here in
the unforgettable final invocation, that we become one Body with
Christ and that He abide in us and we in Him.

     Particularly successful also is the "retractatio" of the Quam
oblationem through which Crammer introduces the combined
mention of the Spirit and the Word to "bless and sanctify" the
Eucharistic oblations.  Was his wish, through this addition, to
reconcile the tenor of this prayer which remains typically Roman
not only with the Syrian Epiclesis but with the old Alexandrian
Epiclesis like Serapion's?  It seems that he was not sufficiently
familiar with the Eastern liturgies to have such a synthesis in mind,
and therefore that it was merely the result of his instinctive good
taste.  Dom Gregory Dix is probably right in supposing that at this
point he was only inserting an explanation of the Eucharistic
consecration that had come from Paschasius Radbertus, but  which
the whole of the Middle Ages had reproduced attributing it to St.
Augustine.  This Eucharistic Liturgy of Crammer's is an
incontestable masterpiece.  The rhythmical perfection of his
language and style succeeded in making it so attractive that those
who made use of it in good faith as a fully Catholic Liturgy always
found their disillusionment with it most 
painful.  But, once one has become advised of the perpetual
ambiguities that allow it to clothe the most rigid denial of their
whole content in the most traditional expressions, we have to admit
that it is equivocal masterpiece.  It is only right to acknowledge that
Crammer had too uneasy a conscience about his work to want it to
be perpetuated.  Hardly three years had gone by before the progress
of Protestant ideas in England permitted him to speak openly, at
least in the upper classes.   Instead of his Eucharist of 1552, that of
the second Prayer Book, being merely an unhappy decomposition
of a first and still Catholic Liturgy, succumbing to the pressure of
the continental reformers (as conservative Anglicans have long tried
to persuade themselves), it is a fully thought-out-work in which he
was finally able to say openly what he had been merely able to
insinuate in the preceding book.  If he did take many elements from
his first text, this proves but one thing: the extent to which that text
had already been impregnated with ideas that had long been his.  It
sufficed to get rid of the artificially imposed framework of the
Roman Canon for the paraphrase that he had made of it to be
reorganized in accordance with his logic and to allow its real
meaning to become finally uncovered.

     In the 1552 Liturgy all the intercessions and also the mentions of
sacrifice that were still connected with the Anamensis were
removed from the Eucharistic Prayer which was quite natural since
any propitiatory character was denied it.  The intercessions simply
took the place of the old oratio fidelium after the sermon. 
Meanwhile, the mentions of the "sacrifice," returned to their proper
place, which reveals its true nature: they figure now only in the
prayer of "thanksgiving" (in the non- liturgical sense of the term),
that follows the Communion.  Crammer himself was so aware that
his "sacrifice of thanksgiving," in the sense that he understood the
term, had no necessary connection with the Communion, that he
retained these formulas only in an ad libilum prayer.  The Post-
Communion of 1549 (which made no mention of sacrifice) could be
substituted for it at will.  He further modified it also so that it no
longer read: "we give Thee thanks ... that Thou hast nourished us in
these Holy Mysteries with the Body and Blood of our Savior ..."
but only: "we give Thee thanks that Thou consentest to nourish us
in these Holy Mysteries, with the Body and Blood of our Savior ..." 
In other words, it is not longer in the Communion that we are
nourished with Christ's Body and Blood (in the very special sense in
which he understands this expression), but only in the remembrance
of His Passion, reawakened at the very most through the
celebration of the Supper.

     On the other hand, in this reworking, not only was everything
that remained of the ancient Epiclesis removed, but also the
Anamnesis as in the Lutheran Liturgies.  Consequently, with the
exception of an apology inserted after the Eucharistic Preface and
the Sanctus, all we have is the Institution Narrative.  Merely a few
connective words  were kept to introduce it.  But, detached as they
are from their former context, it is now clear that the purpose of
these words is not only to exclude any notion of the Sacramental
Presence of the sacrifice which the Lutherans were the first to
reject, but to exclude as well the idea of the Real Presence of the
Body and Blood of Christ that they still retained.

     After the various re-establishments of Anglicanism, first after the
Catholic interlude of Mary Tudor, under Elizabeth 1 and then under
Cormwell, no one dared to return to the 1549 Text.  It was only the
expurgated prayer of 1552 that was retained, but in 1662 it was
given the name "Prayer of Consecration."  For his part, Crammer
was careful not to give it this title, since he knew better than
anyone, that it was unsuitable if one understood it in its obvious
sense.  Did not he himself say that there could be no other
consecration of the bread and wine in the Eucharist than the
separation that set them aside at the Offertory for liturgical use, and
that this involved no other change?

              THE  FIRST  REDISCOVERY  OF  TRADITION  BY 
THE
                            ENGLISH  CALVINISTS      

Yet even under Elizabeth 1, and even more under the Stuarts,
Anglican theologians were generally unsatisfied with Crammer's
Eucharistic theology which was so contrary to the whole of
tradition.  The Thirty-Nine Articles reintroduced a doctrine of the
Real Presence which was neither completely Catholic nor properly
Lutheran, but which could be called, according to Jardine
Grisbrooke's formula a "dynamic virtualism." But this was less due
to Catholic influence than to the influence of the Puritans.  The
English and Scottish Puritans, we too often forget, emphasized to
the utmost Calvin's expressions concerning the Real Presence as an
effect of their Calvinism which was fired with a devotion to Christ
which was very medieval in its warmth and color.

     On the other hand, if the great Anglican theologians of the
seventeenth century, the Caroline divines, beginning with
Archbishop Laud, made the first steps in the direction of a
rediscovery of the sense of the Eucharistic sacrifice in the Fathers
and the ancient liturgies, they still remained attached to a symbolic
view of Christ's Presence in the Sacrament.  We cannot say that
they escaped completely from a rationalizing interpretation of the
Alexandrian and Augustinian symbolism, which the Calvinists for
their part had overcome.  When an attempt was made in 1637,
under Charles 1, to introduce a revised Prayer Book in Scotland, it
was not so much because  of that was Catholic in it that it was
rejected by the Scottish Calvinists, but rather because it was the
word of English prelates whom they abhorred.  But in if in 1661,
even in England, the Puritans still refused Crammer's Eucharist,
their explicit motive was they did not find in it as frank a assertion
of the Real Presence as in what they had themselves, under Scottish
influence, in their own Book of Common Order.  They maintained
that "the manner of consecrating the elements is not explicit or
distinct enough."

     The From of Prayers of John Knox, the great Scottish reformer,
which was published in 1556, already contained a Eucharistic
Prayer which has no equivalent in the French Calvinist Liturgies:

           O Fa ther o f mercy  and God all  consolat ion, since all crea
tu res do ackowledge   and      confe ss Thee,  as governor, and L o
rd, it becomes for us t h e workmanshi p of Thine own  hand s, at 
all times to reverenc  e and magnify Thy godly ma jesty , first for
that Thou hast created us to Thine own image and similitude: but
chiefly that Thou hast delivered us, from that everlasting death and
damnation into which Satan drew mankind by the means of sin:
from the bondage whereof (neither man nor Angel was able to
make us free) but Thou (O Lord) rich in mercy and infinite in
goodness, hast provided our redemption to stand in Thy only and
well beloved Son: whom of very love Thou didst give to be made
man, like us in all things, (sin except) that in His body He might
receive the punishments of our transgression, by His death make
satisfaction to Thy justice, and by His  resurrection to destroy him
that is the author of death, and so to reduce and bring again life to
the world, from which the whole offspring of Adam most justly was
exiled.  O Lord we acknowledge that no creature is able to
comprehend the length and breadth, the depth and height, of that
Thy most excellent love which moved Thee to show mercy, where
none was deserved: to promise and give life, where death had
gotten the victory: to recuse us into Thy grace, when we could do
nothing but rebel against Thy grace, when we could do nothing but
rebel against Thy justice.  O Lord the blind dullness of our corrupt
nature will not suffer us sufficiently to weigh Thy most ample
benefits: yet we present our selves to this Thy table (which he hath
left to be used in remembrance of His death until He comes again)
to declare and witness before the world, that by Him alone we have
received liberty, and life: that by Him Thou dost acknowledge us
Thy children and heirs: that by Him alone, we have entrance to the
throne of Thy grace: that by Him alone we are possessed in our
spiritual kingdom, to eat and drink at His table: with whom we have
our conversation presently in Heaven, and by whom, our bodies
shall rise up again from the dust, and shall be placed with Him in
that endless joy, which Thou (O Father of mercy) hast prepared for
Thine elect, before the foundation of the world was laid.  And these
most inestimable benefits, we acknowledge and confess to have r  
eceived of Thy mercy and grace, by Thy only beloved Son Jesus
Christ, for the which therefore we Thy congregation moved by Thy
Holy Spirit render Thee all thanks, praise and glory for ever and
ever.

     It should be noted that the Institution Narrative is not present in
this prayer.  Indeed, the Calvinist believed that it had to be
addressed to the believers themselves as with every evangelical
sentence. In addition, even in liturgies which like these reintroduced
a "Eucharist" that seems to be a direct echo of those of Christian
antiquity, the narrative is placed before the Eucharistic Prayer in an
exhortation to the faithful.

     Nevertheless, the so-called Savoy Liturgy, which Baxter in 1661
opposed to Crammer's Prayer Book, allows the replacing of this
narrative after the Eucharistic Prayer, and connects the two with a
real Epiclesis; its notion and content had already been strong
defended by the Scottish Calvinist theologians, like Row, in the first
half of the century.

     Here is Baxter's formulary:

        Alm   ighty God, Thou art the Creator and the Lord of all th
ings.  Thou art the Sovereign  Majesty whom we have offended. 
Thou art our most loving a nd merciful Father; who    hast given
Thy Son to reconcile us to Thyself: who hath rat ified the New
Testament and Covenant of grace with His most precious Blood;
and hath instituted this Holy Sacrament to be celebrated in
remembrance of Him till His coming. Sanctify these Thy creatures
of bread and wine, which, according to Thy institution and
command, we set apart to this holy use, that they may be
sacramentally the Body and Blood of the Son, Jesus Christ.  Amen.

Then (or immediately before this Prayer) let the Minister read the
words of institution, saying:

        Hear the Apostle Paul saith: (there follows the Institution
Narrative of the Eucharist      after the first Epistle to the
Corinthians).

Then let the Minister say:

        This bread and wine, being set apart, and consecrated to this
holy use by God's    appointment, are now no common bread and
wine, but sacramentally the Body and Blood      of Christ.

Then let him thus pray:

         Most merciful Savior, as Thou hast loved us to the death and
suffered f or our sins, the    just for the unjust, and hast instituted
this holy Sacrament to be used i n remembrance to      Thee till Thy
coming; we beseech Thee, by Thine inte rcession with the Father,
through the sacrifice of Thy Body and Blood, give us the pardon of
our sins, and Thy quickening Spirit, without which the flesh will
profit us nothing.  Reconcile us to the Father: nourish us as Thy
members to everlasting life.  Amen.



Then let the Minister take the Bread, and break it in the sight of the
people, saying:

         The Body of Christ was broken for us, and offered once for
all to sanctify us: behold      the sacrificed Lamb of God, that taketh
away the sins of the world.

In like manner let him take the Cup, and pour out the Wine in the
sight of the congregation,   saying:

         We were redeemed with the precious Blood of Christ, as of a
Lamb without blemish      and without spot.

After having addressed the Father and the Son in turn he concludes
his prayer by addressing himself to the Spirit:

         Mo   st Holy Spirit, proceeding from the  Father and the Son: 
by whom C hrist was     conceived; by whom the Prophets and
Apostles were inspired, and th e mini sters of  Christ  are qualified
and called: that dwellest and workest in all the memb  ers of Christ,
whom Thou sanctifiest to the image and for the service of their
Head, and comformest them that they may show forth His praise:
illuminate us, that by faith we may see Him that is here represented
to us.  Soften and quicken us, that we may relish the spiritual food,
and feed on it to our nourishment and growth in grace.  Shed
abroad the love of God upon our hearts, and draw them out in love
to Him.  Fill us with thankfulness and holy joy, and with love to one
another, Comfort us by witnessing that we are the children of God. 
Confirm us for new obedience.  Be the earnest of our inheritance.
and seal us up to everlasting life.   Amen.

     Then they proceed to the distribution of Communion.

     It is incontestable that these prayers of Knox and Baxter, even
though they lack Crammer's inimitable style, are from the point of
view of both their doctrine and their spirit much closer to the
ancient Eucharistic Prayers than any Protestant or Anglican text
that we have encountered up to now.

               THE  RESTORATION  OF  THE  ANGLICAN
EUCHARIST
                 IN  SCOTLAND  AND  WITH  THE  NON-JURORS

If the Prayer Book composed for Scotland in 1637 tended to be
closer to the tradition of the ancient Church on the basis of
Crammer's formulas, despite the storms that it was to cause among
the Scottish Calvinists, certainly did not suggest to them a formula
of the Eucharist that was more Catholic than their own.

     The finishing touches on this book were due chiefly to a Scottish
Bishop, Wedderburn.  Like the majority of his colleagues, he
professed a Eucharistic theology that was closer to Laud's.  that is
to say that with a notion of the Presence that was both more
attached to the oblations themselves than the Calvinists' but less
realistic (what Jardine Grisbrooke calls "dynamic virtualism"), they
combined a notion of sacrifice that was appreciably more
traditional.   Laud expressed it by saying:

          For, at and in the Eucharist, we offer up God three sacrifices;
One by the  priest only;    that is the commemorative sacrifice of
Christ's death, represented in bread  broken and    wine poured out. 
Another by the priest and the people jo intly; and that is, the
sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving for all the benefits and graces
we receive by the precious death of Christ.  The third, by every
particular man for himself only; and that is the sacrifice of every
man's body and soul, to serve Him in both all the rest of his life, for
this blessing thus bestowed on him.

     The whole question obviously on the extent that this
"commemoration" and "representation" of the one sacrifice is
objective and not a purely figurative representation, giving rise to a
merely subjective commemoration.  It seems that the authors of this
1637 Liturgy, like Laud himself, would have tended to uphold the
first sense, although they remained subject to the fear of introducing
anything that would suppose a renewed actuality of the Cross. 
Their text, in any case, even through it retained unchanged the
greater part of Crammer's formulas could, at least as much as the
first version, lend itself to a fully traditional understanding.

     After the unchanged Preface and Sanctus of Crammer, the
prayer continues in these words:

          Almighty God, our heavenly Father, which of Thy te nder
mercy didst give T h y only      Son Jesus Christ to suffer death
upon the Cr oss for our redemption; who m ad e there (by    His
one oblation of Himself once offered) a full, perfect, an d suff icient
sacrifice, oblation, and satisfaction for the sins of the whole world,
and did institute, and in His holy Gospel command us to continue, a
perpetual memory of that His precious death and sacrifice, until His
coming again: Hear us, O merciful Father, we most humbly beseech
Thee, and of Thy Almighty goodness vouchsafe so to bless and
sanctify with Thy Word and Holy Spirit these Thy gifts and
creatures of bread and wine, that they may be unto us the Body and
Blood of Thy most dearly beloved Son; so that we, receiving them
according to Thy Son our Savior Jesus Christ's holy institution in
remembrance of His death and passion, may be partakers of the
same His most precious Body and Blood: Who, in the night, etc.
     What follows reproduces word for word the 1549 text, except
that the words: "and command these our prayers and supplications,
by the Ministry of Thy holy Angels, to be brought up into Thy Holy
Tabernacle before the sight of Thy divine Majesty" are omitted, and
the central sentence was mitigated by the substitution of the words:
"And we entirely desire" for Crammer's participle: "entirely
desiring."

     Apart from that, the first obvious difference is the abbreviation
wrought by the disjunction of the Eucharist and the prayers for the
Church (the whole of the intercessions taken from the Roman
Canon), which are now relegated to the Offertory.  On the other
hand, the first Epiclesis was modified: not only is the Word
mentioned before the Holy spirit (but of a concern for logic), but
the text was burdened by a very heavy prolepsis from the
Anamnesis, destined, it would seem, both to accentuate the realism
of the consecration and to specify that the Presence is requested
only in view of the Communion and for the effective
commemoration of the Savior.

     This reworked text is of great historical importance.  If the
English Prayer Book officially known even today only Crammer's
second formulary, it is this modified return in 1637 to his first
formulary which since then in Anglicanism has remained the basis of
all the attempts to return to a more traditional Eucharistic Prayer.

     The Non-Jurors, those heirs of the Caroline theologians who
after the fall of the Stuarts were excluded from the established
Church for having refused to swear allegiance to William of Orange
and Queen Mary, pushed the tendency to recuperate the ancient
tradition still further.  They produced or inspired a whole series of
liturgies that were emended in this direction.  They are all
characterized by the same effort to be inspired by forms of the West
Syrian Eucharist, either the Liturgy of the 8th Book of the
Apostolic Constitutions or that of  St. James.  The first is that of
1718.  According to the explanation given by its chief author,
Thomas Brett, it went back to Crammer's 1549 text for the
Anamnesis as well as the consecratory Epiclesis and the
intercessions (including the commemoration of the dead), but it
dislodged the two latter elements in order to place them after the
Anamnesis.  In their place, the first part of the Eucharist after the
Sanctus, completely abandoning Crammer and the Roman Canon,
reproduced the corresponding part of the text of  St. James.

     Moreover, in 1734, one of the most archaizing Non-Jurors,
Thomas Deacon, produced a Liturgy that was still more radical in
its return to what was considered to be an Apostolic model, since
for the Canon it followed the Liturgy of the 8th Book of the
Apostolic constitutions practically word for word.

     But a Scottish Bishop (of the small disestablished Episcopal
Church which had managed to survive beside the official
Presbyterian Church of Scotland), Thomas Ratterary, who was
himself very much influenced by the Non-Jurors, thought that he
had found the most ancient form of the Liturgy of Jerusalem,
through a comparison between the Liturgy of  St. James and that of
the Apostolic Constitutions.  It is this Liturgy of  St. James, which
had been pruned not without perspicacity, that he proposed as the
ideal Eucharist. Published in 1744 after his death, Ratterary's
Liturgy was to influence a new reworking of Crammer's Liturgy in
the Episcopal Church of Scotland.  It is this latter, published in
1764, that has furnished the starting point for most of the modern
revisions of the Anglican Eucharist, from that of the Protestant
Episcopal Church in the United States to the project of revision of
the English Prayer Book which the British Parliament twice rejected
in 1927 and 1928.

     In this Scottish text of 1764, the connecting link of the second
part of the Eucharistic Prayer was reinserted, following the ancient
usage.  But is attached not to the word Holy, but to the word
Glory, with which Crammer had translated the second Hosannah:

         All glory be to Thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for
that Thou  of Thy tender      mercy didst give Thy only Son Jesus
Christ to suffer death upon the Cross for our    redemption ...

     Immediately following there is another modification. Crammer,
in order to remove from the Eucharist any oblation of Christ's own
sacrifice, had written: "who made there by His one oblation once
offered ..."  the new text substituted own for one and leaves out
there.  We read then: "who by His own oblation of Himself once
offered ..."  With one stroke the narrowly Protestant character of
the formula was attenuated, and the idea so dear to the Non-Jurors
that the oblation that made the Cross a sacrifice too place at the
Supper was given expression.

     Crammer's Epiclesis, with its mention of the word and the Spirit
is retained as it was, except that the word is mention first, as in
1637, although this Epiclesis is transferred to after the Anamnesis. 
The great prayer for the State of the Church is returned to the
Canon, but it is now placed after what corresponded there to the
second Epiclesis, developing the idea of  the sacrifice of praise and
the offering of ourselves to God, which is also preserved (except
for two adverbs) as it was in 1637.  It is obvious that all these
displacements have no other purpose than to reproduce the West
Syrian order, popularized by the Non-Jurors's liturgies and
especially by Ratterary's.

     It may be said that the revisions of the Anglican liturgies down
to our own day were all dominated by this Scottish Liturgy of
1764.

     Americans took over the text practically as it was except for
once again returning the Prayer for the Church to the Offertory.

     In 1927, Walter Frere and the other revisers of the English
Prayer Book put one back in the place of own, replaced Testament
with Covenant in the Institution Narrative, modified the word order
here and there, particularly in the Anamnesis, and returned the
intercessions to the Offertory as well.  Apart from that, they
refrained from eliminating the Word from the Epiclesis, in order to
make it what they judged (wrongly) to be a purer original Epiclesis.

     When one has read Frere's sarcasm in regard to the Roman
Canon, which according to him has been carved up and disfigured,
to the point that the ancient Roman Eucharistic Prayer (he is
referring, of course to Hippolytus!) has become unrecognizable, we
must admit we have difficulty restraining our own sarcasm in the
face of the product of his efforts. Wishing to provide the Anglican
Church with an ideal Eucharist, he found nothing better than to
propose to it a neo-pseudo-Syrian Eucharist, constructed with
previously selected elements and then put together again in quite a
different order, taken from the Roman Canon as passed through
Cammer's Zwinglian rolling-press ... Any commentary would be
needless cruelty.

     As unsatisfactory as these Carmmeresque mosaics may be -
notions from which the Anglicans have still to free themselves - and
as illusory as the idea may be that the West Syrian Eucharist
represents the type of the original Eucharist or in any case the only
ideal type, we must acknowledge that the evolution of their liturgies
has reached the point, through these tortuous paths, of rejoining
and reconstituting for better or worse a Eucharist which is certainly
intentionally traditional.  Such texts, when we overlook their
genealogy, are certainly capable of expressing the Eucharistic
Mystery for those who have rediscovered what it means.  But we
must certainly applaud the courageous efforts of those
contemporary Anglican liturgists, faithful to the best of the
Non-Jurors' inspiration, to break once and for all with Crammer's
yoke and compose directly a Eucharistic Prayer taken from the best
sources.  It is quite true that it is not easy to escape from the charm
of the hallowed prose of this great humanist who was a
disappointing theologian and too able a politician.  But we may
hope that they may succeed, perhaps by retaining many felicitous
phrases that have come from his pen and hallowed by a long use
which has restored to them what he had wished to eliminate, in
producing an Anglicized Eucharist which will be really Catholic
without thereby being any less evangelical.










                                CONCLUSION

     What we have presented in these pages was what was known by
the bishops attending the Holy Synod at St. Petersberg, Russia in
1870.  The St. Petersburg Library rivals that of the Vatican Library,
and is better indexed.  A large collection of the Jewish ritual
manuscripts has recently been photocopied by a team of scholars
from the Ancient Manuscripts Library at Claremont University.  All
but what was said on the last few pages about the British and
American Anglican Church's Book of  Common Prayer was well
known as well as the Scottish Prayer Book to the Bishops in
attendance at the session held between 1870 and 1872.  The
decision to re-instate the Liturgy of  St. Gregory the Great, papal
agent (apocrisiarius) at Constantinople 579 - 585, elected Pope in
590 died 604, the Western Rite Liturgy within Orthodoxy and
allowing it to be celebrated in English came at the request
Anglo-Catholics from Great Britain as the result of many years of
discussion and petition.  The choice of a Syrian priest to be
consecrated  Archbishop to preside over an American  Jurisdiction
should come as no surprise.  St. John Chrysostom was a seminarian 
at Antioch, Syria before becoming a Patriarch at Constantinople
(398).  Another Syrian became the Patriarch of the Western
Catholic Church, Pope Sergius 1 (687-701).  It was Pope Sergius 1
who introduced the Agnus Dei into the Liturgy of the Mass before
the distribution of Communion.  His successor Pope Vitalian
consecrated a monk who was learned in both sacred and secular
literature, fluent in both Greek and Latin, and of proved integrity;
Theodore a native of Tarsus in Cilicia, then Syria, present day
Turkey, bishop 26 March 668 and sent him to Great Britain.  He
became the first Archbishop whom the entire English Church
obeyed.
_____________

     What we have said concerning the theology and spirituality of
Eucharistic Prayer ought to fall into place itself.  Yet in concluding,
it may be worthwhile to collect and sum up our thoughts.  In these
pages we have striven to limit ourselves to a succinct retracing of
the theological development of the Eucharistic Prayer itself, and to
suggest a few consequences of this development.

     A primary conclusion which imposes itself before any other is
that the schema of the paramount liturgical service, The Liturgy of
the Mass as well it in the West (with its two separate parts in the
beginning were quiet distinct: the service of readings and the
Eucharistic meal), is in no way merely a fortuitous conjunction of
two barely related elements.  Quite the contrary.  The Eucharist can
be understood only as a follow up to and a consequence of the
hearing the Word of God.  Properly, it is the response in word and
deed, elicited in man through a divine word which is creative and
salvific.

     
     The Word uncovers for us a divine Design: to make from fallen
mankind a people after God's heart.  At the same time it reveals the
Divine Nature to us.  For this design is to imprint this Name on
man's whole being enabling him to partake in the Divine Nature.  In
the New Testament, the sacred Name is ultimately revealed as the
Name of the Father, and the definitive People of God will be a filial
people.

     The Word, moreover, as it speaks, makes a reality of what it
says.  For God Himself comes to us in it; in it He descends into our
history and fills that history with His Presence. The Gospel is the
definitive proclamation of the creative and salvific Word, in the
coming of the Word made flesh, who is the proper and
Only-Begotten son of God.  In this way we are made sons and
daughters in the Son.

     From the Old Testament times, consequently, the Word has
elicited a response, which acknowledges it in faith and which
therefore welcomes its coming in surrendering unreservedly to it. 
This response was formulated in the berakah.  The berakah is the
contemplative praise of the mirabilia Dei.  In the berakah, Israel
opens itself to the accomplishment in itself of God's Design and is
consecrated by the imposition of the Name of God in its whole life.

     The synagogal berakoth of the service of reading, before the
recitation of the Shemah, glorifies the Creator of light, visible an
invisible, which has given us the knowledge of His Law whereby
we are marked with His personal seal.

     The Eighteen Blessings of the Tefillah, after this, petition for the
perfect accomplishment in Israel of this Design, for the purpose of
the perfect glorification of the fully revealed Divine Name.

     All the berakoth which accompany this pious Israelite in every
moment of his existence extend this consecration to his whole life in
the world, and by that fact to the world itself.  Israel is thus set up
as the priest of all creation.  By the Divine Word and the prayer
which welcomes it all things with man are restored, to their original
purity and  transparency, and the universe becomes a choir of divine
glorification through the life of consecrated man.

     The meal berakoth, particularly, glorified God as the Creator of
life, the one who unceasingly nourishes and sustains it and in the
fruits of the Promised Land turns it into a  Paradise where all things
in their renewal tell of the glory of God.  The supplication which
develops calls for the final gathering in of the elect, in the
eschatological banquet where all the redeemed will celebrate for
ever this eternally triumphant glory.

     Therefore, the community meal in the Messianic expectation
definitively expresses the meaning of all the sacrifices of Israel.  It
tends itself to become the pre-eminent sacrifice, i.e., the offering of
the whole of human life and of the entire world with it to the
acknowledged will of God.

     As the comparative history of religion shows, is not ever
sacrifice originally a scared banquet in which man acknowledges
that his life comes forth from God and reaches its fulfillment only in
an unceasingly renewed exchange with Him?  This was the primary
meaning of the Passover, as a banquet consecrating the first fruits
of the harvest.  But the Jewish Passover took on a  renewed
meaning when it became the memorial of the deliverance whereby
God had snatched His People from the slavery of ignorance and
death in order to bring them to the Promised Land in which they
would known Him as they have been known by Him, and live in His
Presence.

     The memorial that this meal constituted  attested to the
permanent reality of the divine wonder works for Israel as a pledge
given by God of His saving and ever faithful Presence.  In
representing it to Him in their berakah, the Jews who were also
faithful to His precepts were confidently able to remind Him of His
promises and to ask  efficaciously for their fulfillment: that there
would come the Messiah who would perfect the divine work and
establish the Divine Rule in the reconstructed Jerusalem where God
would be praised unendingly by the People of God who have
achieved perfection.

     This is what was fulfilled on the night of the Last Super when
Jesus, who was to hand Himself over to the Cross as the supreme
fulfillment of Passover, pronounced the berakoth over the bread
and the cup as a consecration of His body broken and His blood
shed, in order to reconcile in His own body the "dispersed children
of God", and to renew them in the Eternal Covenant of His love.

     At the same time He made of this meal from then on the
memorial of the Mystery of the Cross.  In giving thanks with Him
and through Him for His Body broken and His Blood shed which
are given to us as the substance of the Kingdom, we represent to
God this Mystery which has now been accomplished in our Savior's
redemptive death so that it may have its ultimate accomplishment in
His Whole Body.  That is to say that we give our consent to the
completion in our flesh of the sufferings of Jesus for His Body
which is the Church, in the steadfast hope of His Parousia in which
we shall all participate together in His resurrection.  Thus we
inaugurate the eternal glorification of God the Creator and Savior
who on the Last Day will make the Church the panegyria, the festal
assembly, in which all of mankind will join the heavenly worship
and be brought before the Throne - those who are followers of the
Lamb which was slain, but which now lives and reigns forever.

     The whole substance of the Christian sacrifice is in the one
saving act of the Cross, which was done once and for all at the peak
of human history by the Son of God made man.  But the Cross took
on meaning only through the voluntary offering of Himself to which
Christ consented at the Last Supper and which He proclaimed by
making the berakah over the bread and wine, the "Eucharist" of His
Body broken and His Blood shed "for the forgiveness of sins".  And
the Cross is effectively redemptive for mankind only insofar as men
associate themselves with it through the Eucharistic eating of His
flesh and His blood.  The life-Giving Spirit will become their own
spirit only insofar as the will adhered to by Faith in the Word Who
proposes that His flesh and blood to them, i.e., insofar as they make
the very "Eucharist" of the Son of God their own.

     Indeed, in the Supper and the Cross, the Word of God which
efficaciously signifies His love for us is realized in fullness, and, at
the same time, the perfect berakah, the perfect "Eucharist" of Christ
gives it the response it sought and elicited.  All we can do is receive
in turn this unique Word of salvation by making this unique
response our own.

     But this is possible for us only through the Messiah's Almighty
will to give us the Eucharist which we repeat after Him, according
to the pattern He has set for us, the memorial of His Mystery.   The
reality of this memorial is perpetually attested to by the bread we
break as the communion of His Body and the Cup of Blessing we
bless as the communion in His Blood.

     In the Eucharistic celebration of this memorial, the bread and the
wine of our community meal, of the agape banquet, becomes
sacrificial to the extent that they become for our faith what they
represent, through the power of the Divine Word and Spirit.  And
insofar as we ourselves, in this Faith, are thus associated with the
unique salvific oblation, we come one sole offering with Christ. 
Thus we can offer our own bodies with His and in His, as a living
and true sacrifice, giving to the Father, through the grace of the
Son and in communication of His Spirit, the "reasonable" worship
which He expects from us.

     All this is but the fulfillment in us of the Word of Salvation Who
was made flesh for us in Christ and who spoke the last word, as it
were, of the paternal heart at the Last Supper, sealed in fact upon
the Cross; we never cease to proclaim Him as often as we celebrate
the Eucharist until the Parousia.   And this Word is accomplished in
our association by Faith with the Savior's priestly prayer on His way
to the Cross, a prayer  in which following Him we glorify the Father
as our Creator and Savior, in this same Son through whom we were
created and in whom we were redeemed.

     Just as this prayer on Christ's lips became an act in the effective
acceptance of the Cross, so it becomes an act in our communion in
the broken body and shed blood.  In this way the Spirit of the Son
wells up in us. The Father pours Him out into our hearts that from
now on we might live and die in His love, the love that the Son has
revealed perfectly to us in inviting us to walk in His footsteps.  To
repeat this Eucharistic Prayer without communicating in the
sacrifice it expresses and consecrates would make no more sense
than communicating without making our own, by means of this
same prayer, the sentiment that were in Christ when He handed
Himself over to the Cross.  Indeed, they are voiced in His supreme
act of thanksgiving and His supreme supplication to the Father for
the coming of His Kingdom.

     An act of thanksgiving for the mirabilia Dei reaching their total
fulfillment, a supplication for the full flowering of the Church which
will be their result at the time of the Parousia, the memorial of the
Cross, a communion with the sacrifice in the communion with the
Host which is but one with the priest: through all these aspects the
unity of the Eucharist is evidently infrangible.  In this view, the
unsolved problems which we have mentioned in the first pages of
this book find their only acceptable solution.

     East and West have long been on opposite sides of the question
as to whether the Eucharist was consecrated by the recitation of the
Words of Institution over the bread and the cup of wine or by the
invocation, the Epiclesis, the calling down upon these oblations,
and the descent of the Holy Spirit.  Surely the answer must be that
the whole reality of the Eucharist proceeds from the one divine
Word, uttered in the Son, Who gives us His flesh to eat and His
blood to drink.  But this reality is given to the Church as the reality
promised to her "Eucharist", in the prayer whereby she adheres in
Faith to the salvific Word.  and the final object of this prayer is
surely that the Spirit of Christ being alive is Christ's Word in us.

     In other words, the consecrator of all these Eucharists is always
Christ alone, the Word made flesh, insofar as He is ever the
dispenser of the Spirit because He handed Himself over to death
and then rose from the dead by the power of this same Spirit.  But
in the indivisible totality of the Eucharist, this Word, evoked by the
Church, and her own prayer calling for the fulfillment of the Word
through the power of the Spirit came together for the mysterious
fulfillment of the divine promises.

     Protestantism, then, set itself apart from traditional Orthodox
Catholicism at a moment when Catholicism gave only a stammering
expression of the Eucharistic Tradition; the Protestants maintained
that the Cross was not to be begun again and that only its memorial
was to be celebrated among us.  This is true.  But this memorial
itself, in the fullness of its biblical sense, implies both a continued
Mysterious Presence of the unique sacrifice that was offered once, 
and our sacramental association with it.  The result is that we
become offerers with and in the one priest, and offerings with and
in the one victim.  Thus, only the Savior's Cross can become the
source of this "reasonable" worship in which we offer our own
bodies, our whole being, as a living and true sacrifice, to the
Father's will, acknowledged, accepted and glorified.

     Finally and above all, the Eucharistic Presence of Christ is the
oblations and of His sacrifice in the repeated celebrations both
become intelligible.

     The Eucharistic Mystery is inseparable form the Mystery of the
Presence of the Redeemer Himself and of His redemptive act.  But
the explanation for this must be sought not in a forced and
disappointing analogy with the pagan mysteries, but in the quite
biblical and Jewish notion of the memorial.

     The memorial is a symbolic pledge, given by the Divine Word
who accomplishes the mirabilia Dei in history, a pledge of their
continued Presence, which is always active in us and for us.  It is
through faith that we grasp it.  In the Old Covenant, the Passover
was present in everyone of its repeated liturgical celebrations,
because God's coming down upon it and His intervention in it,
through His freeing the People from ignorance and death, were
perpetuated there for the purpose of the People's fulfillment.

     At the Last Supper the cross was decided upon and received its
slavific meaning through the free and sovereign act with which
Christ accepted it, foreseeing and proclaiming the paternal Design
and its fulfillment.  Form this point on, the whole People of God, all
of redeemed mankind who were to be part of it, is "recapitulated"
according the word used in the Epistle to the Ephesians, in the
Body of Christ, that is, in that reality of His humanity fully achieved
in this supreme offering to the will of the Father.  From now on,
redeemed mankind, the definitive People of God, has substance
only in this humanity of Christ, whose voluntary death delivered to
the Spirit's power of resurrection.  The bread and the cup, the
objects of the Eucharist, become therefore the memorial,
inseparable both of the Savior and of the Act of Salvation.

     This to say that when we, in keeping with His command and by
the power of His Word accepted by the Faith of the Church, when
we redo His Eucharist over the bread and wine, we thereby
acknowledge by faith the efficacious pledges of His Body and
Blood.  Handed over for us to the Cross, they are given to us
effectively here and now.  In the Eucharist, we therefore become
one Body with Him through the power of His Spirit.  At the same
time, the salvific act, immortalized in the glorified Body, together
with the perfect human response which is in separable from it,
becomes our own.  It becomes, through the Spirit, the principle of
our renewed life as a life of sons and daughters in the Son.  This is
present, objectively, in the Eucharistic celebration, which merely
actualizes in us the unique elements, the Body and Blood that are
objectively presented to us so that we will from now on be but one
with the One.  But this is present in this way only that it might
become ours through faith, a faith in which all our being surrenders
to the Father's will revealed in His Word, just as in the Word made
flesh this will become a reality in our world.

     The Protestants, following Calvin in particular, were not wrong
in seeing in the Eucharist only a dialogue between the Divine Word
and the faith of the new man in Christ.  But his dialogue has the
whole reality of the creative and saving Word which upon the Cross
became the dominant fact of history.  Therefore, if for the senses
the bread and the wine remain merely bread and wine, faith, which
recognizes their significance attested to by the Word, grasps there
the realities that this Word, in the Spirit, communicated to it.  And
in this way faith surrenders our own selves, with the same reality of
the Spirit taking possession of us, to conform our being to the being
of Christ and our life to His Cross.  We receive the Body of Christ
and we are made this Body.  We proclaim Christ's saving death and
we bear that death within us, crucified with Him in order that we
might rise again with Him.

     This comes down to saying that the objective realities of the
Sacramental Mystery are given to us in such a real way only in
order to be the object of a no less adhesion in faith.  This is why
they are given to us in the sacramental oblations in conjunction with
the Eucharistic Prayer: The prayer which in exulting praise
acknowledges the saving and recreative act; it surrenders to it in the
invocation of its accomplishment in us.  And His invocation is
assured of being heard, since it is founded upon the pledge, the
objective memorial, which God in Christ has given to us only that
we might represent it to Him with this assurance of faith.

     We are led thereby from meditation upon the Eucharistic
Mystery to its concrete realization in the Eucharistic celebration.

     This Mystery is the "Mystery of Faith".  It can only be
celebrated in faith.  Its celebration is properly the paramount act of
faith of the whole Church.  Presented with the total and unique
object of her faith, the "Mystery", the Church in the Liturgy of the
Mass grasps it or rather surrenders to it.

     The food of faith is the Word of God.  It was therefore quite a
natural process of evolution that led the Church to celebrate the
Eucharistic meal at the conclusion of the service of biblical
readings, from the moment, or very nearly that Christians no longer
attended the synagogue.  It would not only be an uncalled for
archaism but an absurd step backward to wish to separate the two
again.  The meaning of the homily, at the end of the service of
readings which culminates in the Gospel, ought to make the
transition from the Word proclaimed to the Word becoming
fulfilled in us through the Sacrament of the Sacrifice.  According to
St. John, Jesus Himself celebrated His Eucharist, which was to
generate all other Eucharists, only by accompanying it with His
supreme teachings, at the precise moment when all that He had
foretold about Himself was to be consummated in the unique act of
the Cross.

     But again, in order that the Eucharistic Mystery be celebrated at
the "Mystery of Faith", it is necessary that this be done in as
effective as possible an act of faith by the Church in all her
members.  Hence the importance of a Eucharistic Prayer in which
this living faith which receives the Mystery is expressed fully,
directly and comprehensibly.  We have seen how Jewish tradition
progressively shaped the mould in which this prayer was to be cast,
just as the Word of the Old Testament prepared the way for the
Word of the Gospel.  We have also seen the evolution of the great
formulas of the Eucharist of the Church which have now become
classic.  We can say that they express the Eucharist perfectly in all
its comfort, only when taken all together, just as the four Gospels
express the "Gospel".

     The idea which is sometimes suggested of returning to archaic
forms, like that of the Eucharist of Hippolytus or of Addai and Mari
in its original form, without the Sanctus or the intercessions and
commemorations, is one more untenable retrogressive archaism.
These first forms of the Eucharist, however, venerable they may be,
take on their full meaning, like the meal berakoth from which they
came, only when they are added to the other great berakoth which
immediately followed the reading from Holy Scripture.  When the
primitive Church still was only using this rudimentary Eucharist, as
we saw, its celebration as a matter of fact, always presupposed the
prior recitation of these other berakoth with the Sanctus,
intercessions and commemorations in the then distinct service of
readings.

     From the instant that the two services were brought together, a
synthetic and total Eucharist came into being through the joining of
these different elementary "Eucharists".  And, we must add, as the
Jews already understood. the liturgical berakoth in their totality
take on their full sense only if they extend into the whole life of the
pious Jew or the faithful Christian through a constantly renewed
attitude of Eucharistic Prayer and sacrifice.  Indeed, it is our whole
life and all things with us that are to be consecrated through the
Eucharist to the glory of God, in Christ, by the power of the Spirit.

     The ideal Eucharist does not have one form in tradition, but
rather complementary forms which illuminate one another.  The
Syrian model is more systematic than the Roman and Alexandrian
ones.  It illustrates the profound unity of the Eucharistic Prayer.  
But it somewhat blurs the primary elements which its superposes
and fuses at the risk of destroying the original profile.  On the other
hand, at Rome and Alexandria, this relief remains intact.

     The complete Eucharist is always a confession of God as
Creator and Redeemer, through Christ, and more especially a
glorification of God enlightening us with His knowledge, vivifying
us with His own life, in the supreme gift of His own Spirit.  At the
same time, and inseparably, this Eucharist is a supplication that the
Mystery being celebrated having its complete fulfillment in us, in
the perfect Church and all her members.  It concludes with the
representation to God of the memorial of this Sacred Mystery,
together with the invocation that He consecrate our union with the
sacrifice of His Son and bring it to its eschatolgoical perfection
through the power of the Spirit.   Thus in concert, as one in the
One, we shall eternally glorify the Father together with the Angelic
powers.  This supreme invocation gathers all of our supplications
for the growth of  the Church as the Body of  Christ for the
salvation of the world, and crown the supplication that summed
them all up: that the Father, in the memorial of His Son, accept all
the prayers and all the sacrifices that His People present to Him, by
making them one prayer and one sacrifice, Christ's own Eucharist
and His own Cross.

     This prayer is a typically sacerdotal prayer, i.e., one that can be
made only in the Name of the Head of the Church by one who
represents Him among us, either a bishop or a priest.  But it is made
for all and is to bring all the members of the Church, following Her
Head into the immediate Presence of the Father, in the heavenly
Sanctuary.  This normally supposes that the faithful associate
themselves with it as perfectly as possible.  And it is therefore most
desirable that the prayer be pronounced by the celebrant in a
manner that can be heard by all, like their common participation,
expressed by the initial responses, the singing or reciting of the
Sanctus and Benedictus and, at the very least, the final Amen.

     To detach the prayers for the Church form this Eucharist under
the pretext of returning them to the Offertory - as we have
explained - would be to mutilate it.  If the act of thanksgiving for
the Mystery is its basic theme, the supplication for its full
accomplishment in the Church is no less essential.  Once again,
does not St. John show us Jesus as the Last Supper addressing to
His Father His priestly prayer that all His followers might be one in
Him?

     In this way, refreshed for the faithful  through an explanation
nourished on the tradition that produced it, the Gregorian Canon,
upon which the Tridentine Latin of the Roman Church is based,
despite the fantastic theories whose worthiness we think we have
shown, remains one of the richest and purest formulations of this
prayer.

     The only point where the Mass of the Liturgy of St. Gregory the
Great needed to be filled out was the Preface, and particularly the
Common Preface, where the basic themes of the thanksgiving were
not explicated.  It was certainly fitting to reintroduce into a recall of
the creation by the Son and the redemption accomplished in His
Incarnation and His Cross, of the Divine Knowledge and the Divine
Life, communicated by the Spirit.  Any other project which would
tend to modify the economy and the composition of the Gregorian
Canon would give rise to aberrations that are as contrary to critical
history as they are to traditional theology.