rite. The liturgy of the Apostles does not contain the words of institution. This is naturally a grave scandal to the friends of this Church. The Anglican editors of their liturgy have fitted in here the narrative of the Last Supper containing the words. It interrupts the prayer most awkwardly.[1] It is often said that the Nestorians always recited the words of institution, but did not write them in their books, through excessive reverence. This does not seem likely. Their prayers from the Sanctus to the Epiklesis form a consecutive whole; there is no sign of anything left out, and no room for an insertion. It should, however, be noted that Narse, in the 5th century, mentions the words of institution.[2] The liturgies of Nestorius and Theodore have the words of institution. It would seem, then, that, no doubt because of a great insistence on the Epiklesis as the "form" of consecration, they thought it a matter of indifference whether the words of institution were said or not. The Anglicans teach their pupils to say them scrupulously; but they admit that, "unfortunately, it is not uncommon now for the more ignorant priests altogether to omit this essential part of the Sacrament."[3] The Epiklesis of the liturgy of the Apostles is vague: "And may there come, O my Lord, thine Holy Spirit and rest upon this offering of thy servants and bless it and hallow it, that it be to us, O my Lord, for the pardon of offences and the remission of sins, and for the great hope of resurrection from the dead, and for new life in the kingdom of heaven, with all those who have been well-pleasing in thy sight." Certainly, if we look for a categorical "form" of
- ↑ Anglican edition of the liturgies, p. 16; Brightman: Eastern Liturgies, p. 285. They take the form of 1 Cor. xi. 23–25.
- ↑ Connolly: Liturgical Homilies of Narsai (Cambridge, 1909), p. 17; cf. pp. 83–84.
- ↑ Maclean and Browne: op. cit. p. 257. The question of validity without the words of institution is a dogmatic one into which I need hardly enter here. Most Catholic and most Orthodox theologians would undoubtedly deny it. On the other hand, if one accepts the idea of consecration by the whole baraḥah (see The Mass, p. 405), valid consecration without the words of institution explicitly might perhaps be defended. One point about the Anglican mission may be noted here. They have (quite rightly) "tampered" with the historic rite in this point, which they think essential, as they have also by leaving out heretical names and clauses. They can hardly, then, blame Rome for having done the same in the Uniate rites, in cases which we consider essential.
