1

S. Joel Garver
RLE 643 The Eucharist
14 May 2015
Fr. Frank Berna
The Epiclesis: Lost and Found

Due to movements of liturgical renewal from the late 19th century onward, almost every

western Christian tradition offers a Eucharistic anaphora that is Trinitarian in shape: addressed to

the Father, grounded in the person and work of the Son, and featuring an explicit epiclesis –

prayer calling upon the Holy Spirit. The placement of that invocation differs among prayers and

in what it asks the Spirit to do – to bless the elements or the congregation who receives or both,

with varying hoped-for effects. Likewise, virtually every anaphora within eastern Christian

liturgical traditions, even from the earliest centuries, grants a prominent place to the epiclesis.

Widespread use of an epiclesis, however, was not the norm for a millennium of western

liturgical practice. The seventh century Roman canon features only what might, at best, be

termed a “quasi-epiclesis”,1 which makes no explicit reference to the Spirit. While some other

early western rites did sometimes include a clear epiclesis – such as the Gallican, Mozarabic, and

Celtic rites – the Roman canon quickly and decisively displaced those other regional and local

rites and uses. And the patterns established by the Roman canon, its variations, and successors,

prevailed up through the Protestant Reformation and beyond, so that even most non-Roman

communions (Anglican, Lutheran, many Reformed), retained the Roman pattern – albeit in a

significantly revised form – until at least the middle of the 19th century.

1
The Quam oblationem prays, “Be pleased, O God, we pray, to bless, acknowledge, and approve this offering in
every respect; make it spiritual and acceptable, so that it may become for us the Body and Blood of your most
beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.” And the Supplices, “In humble prayer we ask you, almighty God, command
that these gifts be borne by the hands of your holy Angel to your altar on high in the sight of your divine majesty, so
that all of us, who through this participation at the altar receive the most holy Body and Blood of your Son, may be
filled with every grace and heavenly blessing.” While lacking any reference to the Spirit as such, the language of
these prayers appears to depend upon earlier sorts of epiclesis that did invoke the Spirit and have close linguistic
parallels within several Greek rites.
 2

The earliest western re-appearance of the epiclesis was in the Protestant Reformation, by

fits and starts on the Continent, but more decisively in Britain, particularly Scotland. From

Scotland, it made its way into the first American version of the Book of Common Prayer in 1789

and from there2 – and through later 19th century liturgical ressourcement and renewal – the

epiclesis became widespread again in the west, even making its way into Roman Catholic usage.3

In the following I begin by briefly describing the early medieval loss of the epiclesis in

the west and some possible reasons why that loss took hold so resolutely. I spend the bulk of my

time, however, narrating how the epiclesis was once again found in the west in the 16th century.

Several questions remain before us in unfolding that story: What sources did reformers draw

from in renewing the epiclesis? What was the theological climate that made such a recovery

possible? And why did the restored epiclesis gain hold in the way it did and where it did?

Epiclesis Lost

Others set out quite ably and in great detail the story of the Eucharistic epiclesis in the

early centuries of the Christian church, so I forego an overly detailed account here.4 But we can

2
This was a result of the decisive role of the Scottish Non-Juring Episcopal bishops in consecrating Samuel Seabury
in 1784 as the first bishop of the now independent American Episcopal church. The consecration occurred in
Aberdeen, Scotland and adopting a version of the Scottish communion rite was a condition on which they agreed to
Seabury’s consecration.
3
Many of the earliest movements of significant liturgical reform and ressourcement among Protestants began
among the churches of the Reformed tradition – the Church of Scotland, the German Reformed churches, the
Reformed Church in America, and so on – many of which already had exhibited a great deal of flexibility, diversity,
and historical retrieval beginning in the 16th century. The later 17th century through the mid-19th century was a period
of consolidation and standardization, but 19th century movements of historicism and romanticism gave impetus to
new reforms. See, for instance, Dorn (2007), Vischer (2003), Mitchell (1978).
As one example, consider the provisional liturgy book of the German Reformed Church in the US, which contained
this epiclesis: “Almighty God, our heavenly Father, send down we beseech Thee, the powerful benediction of Thy
Holy Spirit upon these elements of bread and wine, that being set apart now from a common to a sacred and
mystical use they may exhibit and represent to us with true effect the Body and Blood of Thy Son, Jesus Christ; so
that in the use of them we may be made, through the power of the Holy Ghost, to partake really and truly of His
blessed life, whereby only we can be saved from death, and raised to immortality at the last day” (1858: 197).
4
See in particular Atchley (1935), Dix (1945), and McKenna (2008), as well as texts included in Thompson (1961)
and Jasper and Cuming (1980).
 3

recount the basic sketch.

Beginning in the Gospels, when Jesus breaks bread with his disciples and followers, he

“give thanks” (eucharisteo) or “blesses it” (eulogeo) before distributing it to those gathered (at

the Last Supper, in several feeding stories, at Emmaus). Paul uses the same terminology as he

recalls the tradition of the Lord’s Supper he had passed to the Corinthians. He speaks there of

Jesus “giving thanks” over the bread (eucharisteo; 1 Co 11:23-26) and, in the previous chapter,

had already spoken of “the cup of blessing which we bless” (eulogeo; 1 Co 10:16).

The exact content or character of these prayers is not specified, but we reasonably assume

they were versions of Jewish blessings (berakoth), certainly for Jesus and, in a revised form,

most likely for the earliest Christians as well.5 Against the backdrop of the early Christian

theology and experience of the Spirit’s ministry, these blessings in connection with breaking

bread and sharing the cup eventually evolved into the kind of Trinitarian anaphoras, complete

with an invocation of the Spirit, which emerge in the third century.6

The precise provenance of several of the earliest extant anaphoras is not clear, but they do

contain an epiclesis and this epiclesis quickly evolves into the two-fold petition that we find in

subsequent traditions.7 On one hand, there is a prayer for the Spirit to be sent, that the bread and

cup might be the body and blood of Christ. On the other hand, there is a request that those who

share the Eucharist might receive benefits: unity, blessing, strengthening in godliness, filling

with the Spirit, and the like. Sometimes this appears as a single two-fold prayer. Along with The

5
Acts 4:24-30 gives us an example of first century Christian prayer which, while clearly standing within traditions
of Jewish prayer, particularly in its opening, is nonetheless already thoroughly reworked in the light of Jesus Christ
and the gospel.
6
Exactly how that trajectory developed is obscure, is a matter for which we have insufficient evidence to draw any
firm conclusions, and is, at any rate, beyond the scope of this essay.
7
The Apostolic Tradition contains only an epiclesis upon the “offering” (and “holy mystery”) for the sake of those
who receive, that they might be filled with the Spirit. But an epiclesis upon the elements of bread and wine
themselves appears within the next century, most evidently from the fourth century in The Apostolic Constitutions.
 4

Apostolic Constitutions, a single two-fold epiclesis appears in both Antiochene and east Syrian

traditions. By contrast, the Alexandrian tradition gives two distinct prayers, one before the

institution narrative – invoking the Spirit primarily upon the elements – and one after – invoking

the Spirit primarily upon the recipients.8

These patterns, as already noted, were universal in the Christian east and have some

parallels in early western rites. The two distinct Alexandrian prayers of invocation find parallel

in the west in the Mozarabic rite and certain Gallican prayers, as well as, we presume, Celtic rites

which, with the Mozarabic, were of a piece with the Gallican.9 Gallican type rites specified a vast

variety of prayers throughout the year, so the presence of an epiclesis after the institution

narrative was not unusual, but also not regular, occurring in only around one out of every 20

prayers among over 200 such prayers.

An epiclesis calling upon the Spirit is, however, entirely and strangely absent from the

Roman canon of the seventh century. This is especially odd given all the distinctive turns of

phrase in the Latin texts that have almost exact Greek parallels in eastern liturgies.10 Since the

origin of the Roman canon is not fully known (though it is plausibly attributed, in large part, to

Pope Gregory I), it is difficult to pin down the reasons why there is no invocation of the Holy

Spirit, particularly when epiclesis texts were available to the Latin church.

Perhaps it is simply the case that, as the western rite was standardized and a push for

greater uniformity grew, the texts selected among those on hand were ones lacking reference to
8
The pattern of two distinct prayers has its vestige in the Quam oblationem and Supplices of the Roman canon,
appearing, as they do, before and after the institution narrative.
9
While the Mozarabic rite does contain an explicit invocation of the Spirit prior to the words of institution, other
Gallican-type rites do not, though they might once have done so and do provide language of invocation after the
Sanctus akin to the quasi-epiclesis of the Roman canon and to the first epiclesis of Alexandrian rites.
10
As just one example, the Syrian anaphora asks God to remember “those who have offered the offerings at your
holy altar and those for whom each has offered”, which is more or less exactly paralleled by the “pro quibus tibi
offerimus vel qui tibi offerunt” of the Roman canon. The linguistic parallels at times come down to exact turns of
phrase or choice and location of qualifying adjectives and adverbs (e.g., “imprimis”), suggesting some sort of
organic relationship among the anaphora texts coming down to us from the third through eighth centuries.
 5

the Spirit. Evidently such invocation was, at the very least, deemed unimportant. Differences in

emphasis between eastern and western Christianity already existed even in the seventh century

on matters such as the relation of Christ to the Spirit, the role of the Spirit in salvation, and the

focus of the Eucharistic celebration. These differences could account, in part, for why the

epiclesis seemed unnecessary in the Roman canon.

Several modern scholars point to differences between east and west on the matter of

Eucharistic consecration as a source of west’s inattention to the epiclesis.11 But that is far from

certain as an explanation, as other scholars point out.12 In the earliest centuries theologians and

teachers in both east and west recognize the Spirit’s role in the Eucharist and seem unconcerned

about identifying – let alone isolating – a particular “moment” of consecration. Instead, it is the

whole anaphora, together with the Eucharistic action of the celebrant and people, which

functions as “consecratory”, even if patristic authors highlight sometimes one set of words,

sometimes another in their descriptions. If anything, when scholastic theologians turn to the

question in later centuries, it is the lack of an explicit epiclesis in the west that contributes to

isolating the words of institution as somehow uniquely and exclusively consecratory.

Epiclesis Found

By the late middle ages, there is no evidence of an epiclesis found anywhere in the

western church. Rites where it once appeared either fell into disuse (in the case of the Celtic and

Gallican) or were brought into conformity with the Roman rite (in the case of the Mozarabic).

The 16th century, however, was a time of great change throughout European society, with

profound developments in theology, church structure, and liturgical practice as movements of

11
Most famously here is Dix (1945) who attempts to trace such disputes back to perhaps as early as the fourth
century.
12
See here McKenna (2008) and Atchley (1935: 179-189). Also Jungmann (1950) and (1959).
 6

ecclesiastical and spiritual reform led to Protestant churches, distinct from the Roman

communion. Among the various reforms introduced by the Protestants, none had a greater or

more immediately obvious effect on day-to-day spiritual and devotional life for adherents than

those involving liturgical practice and celebration of the Eucharist. And it was within these larger

Eucharistic reforms that the epiclesis eventually reappeared.

Theological Context

Several anxieties about 16th century Roman theologies and practices of the mass

motivated Protestant liturgical reforms of the Eucharist:

 loss of a sense of the Supper as a communal meal

 individualization of the celebration in private masses and personal devotions
 infrequent communion by the faithful and only in one kind
 lack of intelligent participation of the laity in the Latin rite
 worries about overly carnal or physical or spatial conceptions of Christ’s presence
 sacrificial understandings that endangered the unique sufficiency of Christ’s death
 experience of the mass as a spectacle more than an action
 forms of Eucharistic adoration that struck reformers as idolatrous and superstitious13

Each anxiety was countered and corrected by the revisions and innovations of the Reformers.

At the center of their practical reforms was celebrating the Eucharist as a communal

ritual, conducted in the common language, and in which all the faithful were expected to

participate fully and to receive in both kinds. The Reformers simultaneously eliminated private

masses, as well as Eucharistic reservation and adoration, along with processions and the
13
If the bread and wine remain bread and wine, then even if Christ is present in union with them, adoration focused
upon the material elements themselves would constitute idolatry. But it is not clear that this was so much the driving
concern of the Protestants as were other concomitant superstitions: white wine transforming into blood; floating,
glowing, speaking, bleeding, and indestructible hosts; etc. Worries about transubstantiation were as much about
potential abuses and diversion away from reception by the faithful as they were about metaphysics.
 7

elevation of the consecrated elements. On these matters of practice, there was uniformity, even if

there remained significant differences on other aspects of the celebration: postures of the

assembly, mode of distribution, and the specific shape of the liturgy itself and its prayers.

In terms of theological outlook, a diversity of Eucharistic understandings appeared

among Protestants, despite their common rejection of transubstantiation and of any notion of

“sacrifice” that could undermine the sufficiency of the cross.14 While Lutherans were relatively

agreed upon sacramental union between the Eucharistic species and the body and blood of

Christ,15 the Reformed tradition exhibited greater diversity, ranging from the almost merely

symbolic (for Zwingli and Bullinger) to views virtually indistinguishable from some Lutherans

(for Bucer and the mature Calvin).

Central to dominant Reformed theologies was a renewed emphasis upon the work of the

Holy Spirit in the ministry of Christ – in his life, death, and resurrection – and the ongoing work

of the Spirit in human salvation – uniting believers with the risen Christ and with one another as

one Body, to share in the benefits of Christ’s saving person and work. And this vital, mystical

union with the risen Christ by the Spirit, in turn, shaped the main contours of Eucharistic

theology among Reformed pastors and theologians.16

The theology of John Calvin, in particular, was especially formative for subsequent

Reformed theology. While the full breadth of Calvin’s doctrine of union with Christ is beyond

our present scope, we can consider his writings insofar as his soteriology shapes his Eucharistic

14
Again, Protestant rejection of these doctrines was not primarily a matter of abstract theological objection, but
rather was a reflection of their practical reforms of Eucharistic piety and of their anxieties about potential idolatry,
about spectacle displacing participation, and about forms of devotion that might draw ultimate trust away from the
finished work of Christ upon the cross.
15
There were, however, disagreements among Lutherans as to how best to describe the sacramental presence of
Christ effected by sacramental union and whether or not Christ’s risen flesh should be regarded as “ubiquitous” (see
the differences among, for instance, Brenz, Chemnitz, and Andreas).
The Eucharist-consummated notion of union with the resurrected flesh of Christ by the Spirit is so central to
16

Calvin’s outlook that Brian Gerrish can speak of “the Eucharistic shape” of Calvin’s entire theology (1993).
 8

theology. Calvin maintains, following patristic authors, that what is not assumed cannot be saved

– so it is necessary, not only that Christ be God in his life, death, and resurrection, but also that

he “performed all these things in his human nature.”17 Thus is it the “flesh of Christ [that] gives

life” by the power of the Spirit.

The Holy Spirit, for Calvin, is not merely the agent of salvation, but is himself the

content of our salvation – the Spirit unites us with Christ’s humanity that we would have the

Spirit as Christ himself has the Spirit. Calvin states that we must be united with the humanity of

the risen Jesus

not only because we once obtained salvation by it, but because now, while made one with
Christ by a sacred union, the same flesh breathes life into us…because ingrafted into the
body of Christ by the secret agency of the Spirit, we have life in common with him.18

As Calvin says elsewhere, the “Spirit of God rested” upon Jesus Christ, not for his own “private

use,” but “for the profit of his Body, that is to say, the whole church.”19 And so, Christ “received

the gifts of the Spirit, that he might bestow them upon us.”20

It is unsurprising, therefore, that Calvin also frames Eucharistic partaking of Christ’s

flesh and blood as the Spirit’s agency and self-gift. In whatever way we might conceive the

“location” or “distance” of the risen body of Christ (which, remaining true flesh, is “not here”,

but seated at the Father’s right hand), Calvin contends that the Spirit unites us with him truly, in

a way that “surpasses all our conceptions” in its “immensity.”21 For Calvin, the Spirit’s work in

17
Institutes 3.11.9 (emphasis mine).
18
“Defense of the Doctrine of the Sacraments” in Corpus Reformatorum 9.30-31. The phrase “breathes life into us”
(vitam in nos spirat), no doubt, alludes to the Spirit’s work.
19
Sermon on Acts 2:1-4.
20
Commentary on Isaiah 11:2.
21
Institutes 4.17.10.
 9

drawing us near to Christ, chiefly in the Eucharist, is summed up in the church’s “Sursum corda”

– it is in our being lifted up to heaven by the Spirit that Christ descends to us in the Eucharist.22

For Calvin, grace – sacramental or otherwise – is not “a quality infused into the hearts of

men” but is the presence of God himself in Christ through the Spirit.23 So, Calvin says, “God

does not hand over the grace of his Spirit to the sacraments, for their efficacy and usefulness are

placed in the Spirit alone,” though the Spirit uses the sacraments themselves as instruments.24

In the Eucharist, Calvin holds that we truly feed upon the whole Christ – the “substance

of Christ’s flesh and blood” which is our “spiritual life,”25 but also “his divinity” which is

“communicated to us by his humanity” in the Spirit.26 Thus, it is “the Spirit of Christ who unites

us to him and is a kind of channel by which everything Christ has and is, is conveyed to us.”27 As

he writes elsewhere, “A life-giving virtue from Christ’s flesh is poured into us by the Spirit.”28

Therefore, Calvin’s repeated talk of “spiritual life”, “spiritual eating”, “spiritual participation”,

and the like should always be taken with reference to the Holy Spirit and not as any sort of

diminution of the reality, truth, and substance of what is received.

22
He writes, “a true and real communion consists in our ascent to heaven” (“Defense” in Corpus Reformatorum
9:73). Or as he says in the Institutes, we “gain his presence when he raises up to himself” (4.17.31) and, again, the
Christ’s descent to us is “a mode of descent by which he lifts us up to himself” (4.17.16).
23
Commentary on Romans 5:15. Calvin goes on to say, “grace, properly speaking, is in God…and that grace is by
‘one man’, because the Father has made him the fountain of whose fullness all men must draw…not even the least
drop [of grace] can be found outside of Christ – there is no other remedy for our poverty and want, than what he
conveys to us out of his own abundance.”
24
Commentary on Deuteronomy 30:6. Calvin often uses the terminology of “instrumentum” or “organum”, referring
to the sacraments as, for instance, “spiritus organa” – organs or implements of the Spirit – in his Commentary on
Leviticus 16:16.
25
Latin: “carnis et sanguinis Christi substantia spiritualis nobis vita est” from a letter to Frederic the Elector of the
Palatinate in Corpus Reformatorum 20:73. Calvin uses the language of “substance”, “true body”, and “whole Christ”
repeatedly throughout his writings on the Eucharist.
26
Commentary on Romans 1:3.
27
Institutes 4.17.12.
28
Commentary on 1 Corinthians 11:24. Not that the “virtue” of Christ’s flesh is distinct from Christ himself.
 10

I outlined Calvin’s views at some length because his emphasis on the centrality of the

Spirit uniting us with Christ, particularly in the Eucharist, carried over into the common teaching

of various Reformed churches. The 1559 Gallican Confession states that in the Eucharist, by “the

secret and incomprehensible energy of his Spirit” Christ “nourishes and vivifies us with the

substance of his body and blood.”29 The 1560 Scots Confession states,

this union and conjunction which we have with the body and blood of Christ Jesus, in the
right use of the sacraments, is wrought by operation of the Holy Ghost, who…carries us
above all things that are visible, carnal, and earthly, and makes us to feed upon the body
and blood of Christ Jesus…30

The 1563 Heidelberg Catechism assures us that “we, through the Holy Spirit’s work, share in

[Christ’s] true body and blood as surely as our mouths receive these holy signs in his

remembrance” (Q. 79) for it is “through the Holy Spirit, who lives both in Christ and in us” that

“we are united more and more to Christ’s blessed body” (Q. 76).31 We find similar assertions in

the 1561 Belgic Confession, the 1562 Second Helvetic Confession, and numerous other later

confessions and catechisms.32

Given the weight these Reformed documents place upon the indispensable and central

work of the Holy Spirit – in uniting us to Christ and in giving us Christ in the Eucharist – it

should not be surprising that the Eucharistic epiclesis would make its way back into western

liturgy primarily through the prayers of the Reformed churches.

29
This language is unsurprising given that the Gallican Confession was likely written by Calvin, with assistance
from De Chandieu, Beza, and Viret. It was adopted by the Reformed churches of Paris in 1559 and was endorsed by
all the French Reformed churches in 1571.
30
The Scots Confession was composed by John Knox, with five other Reformed kirk leaders, at the behest of the
Scottish Parliament.
The Heidelberg Catechism was commissioned by Frederick III, the Prince-Elector of the Palatinate, and probably
31

written in large part by the Heidelberg reformer, Zacharius Ursinus.

32
By way of contrast, neither the 39 Articles of Religion of the Church of England nor the Lutheran articles,
catechisms, and confessions give prominence to the Spirit’s work in the ways that virtually all the Reformed do.
 11

Liturgical Reform on the Continent

We begin tracing the rediscovery of the epiclesis by examining Reformed liturgies on the

Continent, starting with 1533 La Maniere et fasson of Guillaume Farel, later Calvin’s mentor in

Geneva.33 While lacking a proper epiclesis, communion was distributed with a blessing asking

that Jesus would “dwell in your hearts through his Holy Spirit, that you might be wholly alive in

him, living through faith and perfect love.” The post-communion similarly asked that “he fill us

with his Holy Spirit, that all of us may be truly united in one body.”

The 1539 Strasbourg rite of Martin Bucer, was known by Calvin from his time there in

1538-1541.34 Of the several possible prayers Bucer gives, the first reads, “send upon this

congregation, now assembled in your name, your Holy Spirit,” leading into a series of petitions:

to take away our blindness and see the truth, to hunger and thirst after God’s goodness and grace.

A separate petition follows, echoing the quasi-epiclesis of the Roman canon, that we might, in

the Supper, “truly receive and enjoy the true communion of his body and blood” and enjoy the

benefits thereof.

Calvin’s own liturgical prayers – the 1542 Genevan and 1545 Strasbourg Form of

Church Prayers – are remarkable for the utter absence of anything approaching an epiclesis,

despite Calvin’s own robust theology of the Spirit’s ministry in the Eucharist. While the Holy

Spirit is invoked in prayers of absolution and illumination, his prayers at the Eucharist do not

move beyond the quasi-epiclesis of the Roman canon. Nonetheless, it was the theology of the

Supper espoused by Calvin and the wider Reformed tradition – more than specific liturgical

customs – which exerted influence upon rites developing elsewhere.

33
This liturgy probably originates in Basel in the mid-1520s, but is only known in its published form dating from
1533 in Neuchatel. It was instituted in Geneva in 1537 and was known to Calvin and shaped his own practices.
34
One wonders whether Bucer’s liturgical practice shaped Calvin’s theology as much as conversation with Bucer.
 12

In Cologne, for instance, Archbishop-Elector Hermann von Wied – a onetime opponent

of the Reformation – came to embrace the movement, calling Martin Bucer as court preacher in

1542. Hermann’s own proposed revision of the liturgy (published in Latin in 1545, and actually

composed by Bucer and Melanchthon) built upon the larger context of liturgical reform and upon

emerging scholarship on the practices of the early church. The communion preface includes

words of praise that Christ, “through his Holy Spirit, which he sent to us from you, has returned

us to your grace and fulfilled our adoption, has communicated his body and blood as the food of

new and eternal life…” And the post-communion thanksgiving petitions:

We pray humbly that you would work in us by your Spirit, so that, just as we have
received this divine sacrament with our mouths, so also may we receive by true faith your
grace, the remission of sins, communion with Christ your Son, and eternal life, all of
which this sacrament offers to us.

While neither of these prayers constitutes an epiclesis in the strict sense, they do move in that

direction and did influence Thomas Cranmer (see below).

One final liturgy to note on the Continent is the 1563 Palatinate liturgy of Frederick III,

probably, in large part, the work of Ursinus (perhaps with assistance from Caspar Olevianus).35

In the liturgy’s preparatory exhortation, the celebrant states that, as surely as the communicant

“receives from the hand of the minister and eats and drinks with his mouth” so also does Jesus

Christ “with His crucified body and shed blood, by the operation of the Holy Ghost, feed and

nourish his hungry and contrite heart and weak soul unto eternal life.” The prayer before the

institution narrative is even more explicit:

Merciful God and Father, we pray to you, that in this holy Supper, by which we celebrate
a glorious memorial of the bitter death of your dear Son Jesus Christ, so work in our
hearts by your Holy Spirit, that we, in true assurance, may surrender ourselves more and
more to your Son Jesus Christ, that our weary and contrite hearts may be nourished and
quickened by his true body and blood – by he himself, true God and man, the only

35
See Harbaugh (1863).
 13

heavenly bread – through the power of the Holy Spirit, that we would no longer live in
our sins, but he in us and we in him.

Here we have a text that most closely approaches a full epiclesis among Continental Reformed

liturgies prior to the 19th century.

Liturgical Reform in Britain

While an explicit epiclesis was slow to emerge on the Continent, this was not the case in

Britain. In Thomas Cranmer’s first Book of Common Prayer (1549), the Eucharistic service gives

a prayer (after the institution, prior to communion) that includes these words:

And we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us; and, of thy almighty
goodness, vouchsafe to bless and sanctify, with thy Word and Holy Spirit, these thy gifts
and creatures of bread and wine; that we, receiving them 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.

The opening phrases and second half of this prayer are virtually a translation of the Supplices of

the Roman canon – but with a full epiclesis woven in, echoing the language of several eastern

Christian anaphoras.

It is not clear what sources Cranmer had on hand. Among various English rites to which

he had access (Sarum, York, Hereford, etc.), none included an epiclesis. And while Cranmer did

have the Latin text of Hermann’s revision on hand, made copious notes in it, and does, at points,

clearly echo its language, there is no precedent in the proposed Cologne reform for the precise

language of Cranmer’s text. Nor does a catalogue of Cranmer’s personal library (numbering

around 400 volumes at the time) provide much insight.36

Whatever the source of Cranmer’s epiclesis – and even though this prayer dropped from

subsequent editions of the Book of Common Prayer as used in England – it was nonetheless

36
See Burbidge (1885) and, more recently, Selwyn (1996).
 14

influential and was received, in various forms, into other parts of English-speaking Reformed

Christianity.37 As noted above, a revised version of Cranmer’s prayer makes its way into the

1637 Scottish Book of Common Prayer (prepared by the Scottish bishops with the authorization

of William Laud), and, from there, eventually to the Episcopal Church, newly organized in

America. In the Scottish version it appears just prior to the institution narrative:

Heare us, O mercifull Father, we most humbly beseech thee, and of thy almighty
goodnesse vouchsafe so to blesse and sanctifie with thy word and holy Spirit these thy
gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that they may bee unto us the body and bloud of
thy most dearly beloved Son; so that wee receiving them according to thy Sonne our
Saviour Jesus Christs holy institution, in remembrance of his death and passion, may be
partakers of the same his most precious body and bloud…

The Scots, however, resented any imposition of Anglicanism upon Scotland by King Charles I,

resisting the prayer book with such force that it was never implemented in the Scottish church.38

Against this backdrop, it is all the more interesting and unexpected that Scotland and the

English Puritans preserved the renewed epiclesis. When reformation first came to Scotland, John

Knox’s 1556 Form of Prayers – the liturgy of the English congregation in Geneva – became the

norm throughout much of Scotland. Inasmuch as it was based upon Calvin’s Genevan liturgy and

the English prayer book of 1552, it lacks any explicit epiclesis.39

We cannot take this to mean, however, that an epiclesis was not, in fact, part of the

Scottish liturgy. While Knox’s liturgy lacks any even quasi-epiclesis, there are several lines of

indirect evidence that Scots typically celebrated the Eucharist throughout the latter half of the

16th century with a prayer invoking the “Lord [to] bless the elements and action.”40 Later, in

37
It’s worth noting that even after the epiclesis disappeared from subsequent editions of the English prayer book, a
number of English divines endorsed and used an epiclesis. See Atchley (1935) 192-95.
38
Indeed, the outrage of the Scots was so vociferous, that it played an important role as the Puritans came to power
in England, leading to the eventual trial and beheading of the king.
39
Until 1562, the 1552 Book of Common Prayer was generally used by the Reformed churches in Scotland, even
during the half decade while it was banned in England under Queen Mary.
40
Row (1842: 331).
 15

1629, a quasi-epiclesis appears in a proposed revision to the Scots liturgy.41 Against this

backdrop, it is reasonable to assume that the full epiclesis of the proposed 1637 Book of

Common Prayer for Scotland was devised by the Scottish bishops, in part, to cater to the existing

preferences and practices of the Scottish church.42

Widespread Scottish use of the epiclesis, in turn, would explain why, in 1644, when the

Westminster Assembly proposed a Directory of Public Worship based upon Knox’s Form of

Prayers, their final product did include an epiclesis as part of its Eucharistic rite. It instructs that

“the minister is to begin the action with sanctifying and blessing the elements of bread and wine

set before him” prior to the words of institution, using a prayer in which the celebrant is to

Earnestly to pray to God, the Father of all mercies, and God of all consolation, to
vouchsafe his gracious presence, and the effectual working of his Spirit in us; and so to
sanctify these elements both of bread and wine, and to bless his own ordinance, that we
may receive by faith the body and blood of Jesus Christ, crucified for us, and so to feed
upon him, that he may be one with us, and we one with him; that he may live in us, and
we in him, and to him who hath loved us, and given himself for us.

Both the specific language here and the placement of the prayer within the order of the liturgy

suggests that the proposed prayer book of 1637 was likely following already existing Scottish

practice. This is all the more likely given the important role of the Scottish commissioners to the

Westminster Assembly in shaping its proposed rite.

In a final irony, when King Charles II assembled leading Anglican bishops and English

Presbyterian divines, it was the non-Anglicans who offered their Savoy Liturgy as a model for

prayer book reform – with prayers that invoke the Spirit no less than four times to be sent upon

the congregation and upon the gifts, to bless and to sanctify, and to fill the faithful to love God

41
Calderwood (1708: 777-78) and (1842). Also Baird (1855).
42
See here, in general, Maxwell (1965:124-125) and (1955) and MacGregor (1958:182-185).
 16

and one another.43 The bishops, however, did not respond to the Presbyterian proposal and the

revised English 1662 Book of Common Prayer, as a result, lacked an epiclesis entirely.

Conclusions

Clearly, the theology of Calvin and of the Reformed churches concerning the Spirit’s role

in the Eucharist provided space and a rationale for the reappearance of an express invocation of

the Holy Spirit in the anaphora. But that does not explain why the Continental Reformed

churches were slow to incorporate an epiclesis, even as the epiclesis became quickly widespread

among the English-speaking Reformed.

Some have suggested that the English churches – and particularly the Scottish – may

have retained some historical memory of the old Celtic rites with their versions of an epiclesis.44

While this Celtic heritage story goes as far back as the 16th century Scottish historian, George

Buchanan, there is little evidence that it is true.45 The appeal of such a supposition is more a

matter of polemics and romanticism, an attempt shore up the purity, antiquity, and catholicity of

the Scottish reformation.46

The explanation, it seems to me, lies elsewhere and involves three main factors. First, the

16th and early 17th centuries were an era of humanistic scholarship that recovered, examined, and

disseminated a vast number of texts from the ancient church, aided in this effort by new printing

43
Included in Thompson (1961) and Jasper and Cuming (1980). See also Segger (2014) for additional context.
44
MacGregor (1896), Maxwell (1965:125), and Byars (2005:36).
45
See now Forrester (2006).
46
On the other hand, the Scottish kirk stands out among those of the early Reformed tradition for experiencing what
we would now call “charismatic gifts” – words of knowledge, prophecy, and miraculous healings. See Smith (2001)
for the history. Perhaps some sort of Celtic spirituality was particularly attuned to a more robust theology of the
Holy Spirit, with implications for sacramental renewal.
 17

technologies and the growing affordability of books.47 Cranmer’s private library, for instance,

while modest by contemporary standards, was enormous by medieval standards and consisted

primarily in printed volumes.48 The liturgical reforms of the Protestant churches, while not

slavishly following ancient examples, were nonetheless informed and shaped by the new and

growing patristic scholarship of their era.

Second, these ancient texts were useful as leverage against what the Reformed perceived

as Roman Catholic errors and abuses. Roman claims to antiquity and pure preservation of

tradition were undermined by the new scholarship, leading, in the early 17th century to extended

disputes between Protestant and Catholic scholars over the significance and interpretation of the

early centuries of Christianity.49

The epiclesis itself was a matter of anti-Roman polemics, with Reformed theologians

positioning the Eucharistic blessing and invocation over against the Catholic focus upon the

consecratory function of the “hoc est enim corpus meum.” After all, Jesus himself, they argued,

gave thanks and blessed the elements before pronouncing them to be his body, a pronouncement

Jesus attached not merely to the elements themselves, but only to those elements as they are

taken and eaten.50 Historical evidence of a seemingly consecratory epiclesis outside of the

institution narrative – whether before, after, or both – meshed nicely with new Reformed

theologies of the Spirit’s ultimate agency in making Christ present to communicants within the

Eucharistic action as a whole.

47
While the Liturgy of St John Chrysostom would have been widely known, manuscript evidence of other ancient
eastern rites was only just coming to light in the 16th century. The Liturgy of St James was, for instance, printed in
Rome in 1526; the Liturgy of St Mark in Paris 1583.
48
Selwyn (1996).
Lancelot Andrewes’ 1610 response to Bellarmine stands out here, as one among many such disputes. Many Scots
49

were educated on the Continent and were at home in patristic scholarship. The 1645 volume, Instructiones
Historico-Theologicae de Doctrina Christiana, by John Forbes of Corse culminates much of that scholarship.
50
For an example, see Bruce (1958). Also MacGregor (1958).
 18

Third, while the previous two points are partly explanatory, they do not explain why it

was especially in Scotland that the renewed Eucharistic epiclesis gained greatest traction. And

here we can only speculate. It is clear from historical accounts that, even with infrequent

reception, the Scots had retained a deep Eucharistic piety and devotion, perhaps even as some

dimension of a uniquely Celtic spirituality.51 When the Scottish reformation took hold in the mid-

1550s, Knox, unlike his Continental colleagues, did not delay the celebration of the Eucharist

until the churches had been reorganized.52 Rather, he began his reform in the celebration of the

Eucharist, with full participation by the faithful.

And when Robert Bruce, the successor of John Knox, took up the pulpit of St Giles

Cathedral in Edinburgh, he soon launched into a series of five sermons on “the mystery of the

Lord’s Supper,” outlining at great length the work of the Holy Spirit in the holy meal.53 Bruce

explains that the elements of the Eucharist “are made holy” only “with the invocation of his

name,” for it is in “prayer and thanksgiving conjoined with the elements that make them holy”

and it is these elements “which we sanctify and prepare by blessing.”54 Thus, we partake of

Christ in the Eucharist only by

praying in the Holy Spirit that he may nourish your souls inwardly with the Body and
Blood of Christ, that he may increase faith in your hearts and minds, and make it grow up
daily more and more, until you come to the full fruition of that blessed immortality.55

Ultimately, then, for Bruce, “no one can deliver Christ except God himself by his own Spirit.”56

We have every reason to think that Bruce is typical of Scottish piety of his era. If that is

so, then the once-lost and again-found epiclesis made its greatest strides in Scotland (and from
51
This is not to say that the Scottish church had actually retained any remnant of a non-Roman Celtic rite.
52
See Greaves (1980:105) and indeed all of Chapter 5.
53
Robert Bruce
54
Bruce (1958: 119-121).
55
Bruce (1958: 97).
56
Bruce (1958: 37).
 19

there back into England and over to America) because it discovered a welcome home in the

hearts and devotion of the Scottish people.

Works Cited

Atchley, Edward Godfrey Cuthbert Frederic. On the Epiclesis of the Eucharistic Liturgy and in
the Consecration of the Font. London: OUP, 1935.

Baird, Charles Washington. Eutaxia or The Presbyterian Liturgies: Historical Sketches. New
 20

York: M.W. Dodd, 1855.

Bruce, Robert. The Mystery of the Lord’s Supper. Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 1958.

Burbidge, Edward. Liturgies and Offices of the Church for the Use of English Readers. London:
George Bell and Sons, 1885.

Byars, Ronald P. Lift Your Hearts on High: Eucharistic Prayer in the Reformed Tradition.
Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 2005.

Calderwood, David. Altare Damascene. Lugduni Batavorum, 1708.

-----. History of the Church of Scotland. Edinburgh: Woodrow Society, 1842.

Calvin, John. Commentaries. 22 volumes. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1974.

-----. Joannis Calvini opera quae supersunt omnia in Corpus Reformatorum. 59 volumes.
Brunsvigae: C.A. Schwetschke, 1863

-----. Institutes of the Christian Religion. 1559.

-----. Sermons on Acts of the Apostles. Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 2008.

Dix, Dom Gregory. The Shape of the Liturgy. Glasgow: Dacre Westminster, 1945

Dorn, Christopher. The Lord’s Supper in the Reformed Church in America: Tradition in
Transformation. New York: Peter Lang, 2007.

Forrester, Duncan B. “The Reformed Tradition in Scotland” in G. Wainwright, ed. The Oxford
History of Christian Worship. London: OUP, 2006.

German Reformed Church. A Liturgy or Order of Christian Worship. Philadelphia: Lindsay and
Blakiston, 1858.

Gerrish, B.A. Grace and Graditude: The Eucharistic Theology of John Calvin. Minneapolis,
MN: Fortress Press, 1993.

Harbaugh, H. “Creed and Cultus: With Special Reference to the Relation of the Heidelberg
Catechism to the Palatinate Liturgy” in In Commemoration of the Three Hundredth
Anniversary of the Heidelberg Catechism. Chambersburg, PA: M. Keiffer, 1863.

Hermann, Archbishop of Cologne. Simplex Ac Pia Deliberatio. Bonn: Laurence Myles, 1545.

Jasper, R.C.D. and G.J. Cuming, ed. Prayers of the Eucharist: Early and Reformed. New York:
OUP, 1980.
 21

Jungmann, Joseph. The Early Liturgy to the Time of Gregory the Great. Notre Dame, IN: U of
Notre Dame, 1959.

------. The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origin and Development. New York: Benzinger, 1950.

MacGregor, Duncan. Early Scottish Worship: Its General Principles and Leading Details.
Edinburgh: William Blackwood and Sons, 1896.

MacGregor, Geddes. Corpus Christi: the Nature of the Church according to the Reformed
Tradition. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1958.

Maxwell, William D. A History of Worship in the Church of Scotland. London: OUP, 1955.

------. An Outline of Christian Worship: Its Developments and Forms. London: OUP 1965.

McKenna, John. The Eucharistic Epiclesis: A Detailed History from the Patristic to the Modern
Era. Chicago: Liturgy Training Publications, 2008.

Mitchell, Nathan. Church, Eucharist, and Liturgical Reform at Mercersburg, 1843-1857. Ph.D
Dissertation: U of Notre Dame, 1978.

Old, Hughes Oliphint. Worship: Reformed according to the Scriptures. Louisville, KY:
Westminster John Knox, 2002.

Segger, Glen J. Richard Baxter’s Reformed Liturgy. Surrey, UK: Ashgate, 2014.

Selwyn, David Gordon. The Library of Thomas Cranmer. Oxford: Oxford Bibliographical
Society, 1996.

Smith, Dean R. “The Scottish Presbyterians and Covenanters: A Continuationist Experience in

Cessationist Theology.” Westminster Theological Journal 63 (2001): 39-63.

Sprott, George W. The Worship and Offices of the Church of Scotland. Edinburgh: Blackwood
1882.

Thompson, Bard. Liturgies of the Western Church. Cleveland, OH: World Publishing, 1961.

Vischer, Lukas, ed. Christian Worship in Reformed Churches Past and Present. Grand Rapids,
MI: Eerdmans, 2003.