I do not forget that the Irish Office of Holy Communion, like our own, has no definite prayer of that kind.1

And, apart from that purpose, is it not strange that in our Communion Service there is from first to last not a single prayer for the help of God the Holy Spirit save in the opening Prayer for Purity'? And yet there is no service in which we look more definitely for spiritual blessings of every sort, which can only be ministered to us, according to our Lord's own promise, by the ministry of the Holy Ghost.

Four years ago the Archbishops appointed a Committee of both the Northern and Southern Houses of Convocation with the object of bridging over the main difficulties which hindered a united answer to the Royal Letters of Businessnamely, the structure and language of the Service of Holy Communion.

Eventually the proposals of a sub-Committee were accepted by both the Houses of the Convocation of Canterbury, though rejected by the Convocation of York. One feature in these proposals was the addition to the Prayer of Consecration of a definite Invocation of the Holy Ghost. (See below.)

The Committee on Revision appointed by the National Church Assembly accepted several of the proposals thus made in their Report on the Communion Office, but rejected the Epiclesis. Consequently the hope of thus enriching our Service has, for a time at least, been abandoned.

The reasons for thus rejecting what had been accepted in principle by a large majority of the Archbishops' Committee were probably twofold.

(1) There was a liturgical difficulty which seriously hampered the earlier sub-Committee to whom was entrusted the work of drafting the actual words. The obvious course would have been simply to enlarge the words in our Prayer of Consecration which, as we have seen, contain an implicit Invocation, in a similar manner to that adopted in the American Office. But this would have placed the Epiclesis

1 The same is true of the recently revised Prayer Book of the Church of Canada.

before the Words of Institution, which was felt to be impossible in view of the position which it has always held in the Liturgies of the East. True, it was so placed in the First Prayer Book of 1549 and in the Scottish Prayer Book of 1637, but this was altered in the subsequent Scottish and in the American Services.

Accordingly what was practically a prayer for similar blessings to those already prayed for-that is, a second Epiclesis-was added after the Words of Institution. This seemed to produce a redundancy of expression, and to alter the admirable balance of the present prayer. It is more than possible that on this rock the proposed Epiclesis was wrecked, in the subsequent stage of revision by the Committee of the National Church Assembly.

(2) There was undoubtedly a doctrinal difficulty which was felt by several prominent members of the Evangelical School. Had the descent of the Holy Spirit been invoked on the communicants only, and not upon the elements also (upon us and upon these holy gifts '), this difficulty would have vanished, but this limitation would have been unwelcome in other quarters.

The form then proposed contained an act of Remembrance and Thanksgiving, followed by an Epiclesis in this form:

'And we pray thee of thine almighty goodness to send upon us and upon these thy gifts thy holy and blessed Spirit, who is the Sanctifier and Giver of life, to whom with thee and thy Son Jesus Christ be ascribed by every creature under heaven all blessing, honour, glory, and power, now henceforth and for evermore.'1

It is not our purpose to discuss fully the doctrinal question. The words 'hallow' and 'sanctify' are applied both to persons and things in both Old and New Testaments, and in our Baptismal Service we pray: Sanctify this water to the mystical washing away of sin.' The sanctifica

1 Proposals for the Revision of the Book of Common Prayer as approved by the Convocation of Canterbury, No. 533, P. 45. The form is also found in N.A. 60, p. 61, note x.

tion of the gifts-what Archdeacon Waterland calls their ' relative holiness '-differs from that of persons, but are we justified in excluding from this change of relation the work of that Spirit of God which in the beginning moved upon the face of the waters' and was the divine agent in Creation ?

It may well be held that, had the Western Church retained this significant acknowledgement that the blessings sought for in Holy Communion are ministered to us by the direct agency of Him who is 'the sanctifier of all things,' it would have been saved from the material conception involved in Transubstantiation which the Eastern Church has never accepted.

The witness of Presbyterian formulae is worthy of notice in this respect. Bishop Dowden has collected several instances which shew that Presbyterian divines have not shrunk from using the fuller form of Epiclesis.

In the Directory for the Public Worship of God, drawn up at the Westminster Assembly of Divines, there is a prayer for the sanctifying the elements both of bread and wine, as in our own Office for Holy Baptism, though there is no express Invocation of the Holy Spirit. But in The Order of the Administration of the Lord's Supper,' as amended by the Westminster Divines, the Invocation is explicit, and followed by words expressing the ultimate purpose of the prayer. Vouchsafe to bless and sanctify, with thy Word and Holy Spirit, these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that we receiving them . . .'

It cannot but be hoped that, sooner or later, the above difficulties may be overcome, and that, whatever may be the form ultimately chosen, our present Service may have its fitness and beauty enriched by a definite prayer for the descent of that Blessed Spirit, through whose agency alone we can hope' spiritually to eat the flesh of Christ and drink His blood,' and so become one with Christ and Christ with us.' 1

T. W. DRURY.

1 Third Exhortation in our Communion Service.

ART. II. THE REVISION OF THE PRAYER BOOK.

1. National Assembly of the Church of England. Revised Prayer Book (Permissive Use) Measure, 1923. N.A. 84. (Church House, Westminster, and S.P.C.K.)

2. Church Assembly, House of Clergy and House of Laity. Minutes of Proceedings, Summer Session, 1923.

3. English Church Union. Report of the Committee on Prayer Book Revision. (London: 31 Russell Square, W.C. 1.)

4. A New Prayer Book, with a Foreword by the Bishop of Manchester. (Oxford: At the University Press. 1923.) Grey Book Pamphlets Nos. 1 and 2 : ' Principles of Prayer Book Revision.'

5. The Doctrine of Holy Communion and its Expression in Ritual. Report of a Conference held at Fulham Palace in October 1900. Edited by H. WACE, D.D., Chairman of the Conference. (London: Longmans, Green and Co.

1900.)

THE National Assembly of the Church of England has commenced the momentous task of revising the Book of Common Prayer, and next month it will enter upon the most anxious part of that grave duty. At the Summer Session of the Assembly, last July, it began the detailed consideration of The Revised Prayer Book (Permissive Use) Measure, 1923.' The measure had already received, in the previous Session, the 'General approval' of the three Houses of the Assembly-Bishops, Clergy, and Laity-which practically corresponds to the Second Reading of a Measure in Parliament; and it passed into the next stage-parallel to the Committee stage in Parliament -of consideration in detail by the Houses of Clergy and Laity. The two Houses sat separately from July 2 to 6,

and commenced the consideration of the Measure, clause by clause and word by word. Those three days, however, were not sufficient for more than the lighter portion of so heavy a task. Both Houses commenced with the consideration of Morning Prayer; but they got little further than the close of the Morning and Evening Prayers; and, in accordance with a general feeling, the consideration of the Service of Holy Communion was postponed to the Autumn Session, in November. The House of Laity got further, dealing with several of the special services, such as Baptism, Confirmation, Matrimony, and the Burial of the Dead. But they, too, by an agreement which found informal expression in their debates, refrained from entering upon the revision of the Service of Holy Communion. There was an instinctive feeling that issues of the gravest character would be raised in the consideration of that Service; and both Houses were evidently glad to postpone its discussion, and to gain time for more mature reflection on the solemn questions involved.

This result of these first debates has certainly been advantageous. The questions presented by the Morning and Evening Services afforded little occasion for doctrinal controversy; and questions of practical expediency afforded welcome opportunity for a spirit of conciliation and mutual comprehension. None of the resolutions arrived at are final, but they are not likely to give occasion for much controversy in the ultimate discussion. The various schools and parties in the two Houses will meet next month in a spirit of friendly understanding, and the inevitable controversy will be approached in a very favourable atmosphere. The considerations we would offer in this Review will be prompted by a similar spirit. They will be directed to pointing out the nature of the questions at issue, and will be simply an endeavour to assist in their due estimate.

But it will be wise to realize the gravity of the matters which will be discussed, and of the controversies which underlie them. Even before these doctrinal controversies are reached, some momentous issues will have to be considered. The enacting clauses of the Measure itself have