Continuing with the correspondence in New Directions regarding The Young Tractarians , a second aspect of the criticism of being "wedded to sixteenth-century liturgy" is the suggestion that 1662 "lack[s] a coherent Eucharistic Prayer".There is a touch of Apostolicae Curae about this remark, a sense that the 1662 Holy Communion is an inadequate rite:Indeed, Saepius Officio responded to this allegation with its defence of "the Liturgy which we use in celebrating the Holy Eucharist", and the coherence of the rite:This was also the understanding evident in Sparrow's A Rationale upon the Book of Common Prayer , when he says of the post-Communion Prayer of Oblation, "the Priest offers up the Sacrifice of the holy Eucharist, or the Sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving for the whole Church".In other words, the fact that the Sacrament is received following the words of Institution does not result in a rite lacking a coherent Eucharistic prayer, any more than the repeatedin the Roman Canon results in such a lack. As for the reception of the Sacrament occurring immediately following the Narrative of the Institution, this can hardly be regarded as undermining coherence as the entire rite is oriented towards this action: the Eucharistic Prayer was made for receiving the Sacrament, not the Sacrament for the Eucharistic Prayer.Another way to illustrate the coherence of the 1662 rite is to consider it in light of Thomas Aquinas's consideration of the Roman rite. What is apparent is that the key aspects of what Thomas describes as "the consecration" are present in the 1662 rite. (Unless otherwise indicated, all quotes from Summa Theologiae III.83.4 .)Thomas begins with theand preface, as in 1662:What of the fact that this is followed by the Prayer of Humble Access? This reflects what Thomas sees in petitions made by the priest in the Canon:The first paragraph of the Prayer of Consecration, with its setting forth of the Lord's sacrifice upon the Cross, echoes Thomas's description of the relationship between Sacrament and Sacrifice: Summa Theologiae III.83.1 ).The second paragraph, "Hear us, O merciful Father", with its petition for fruitful reception' similarly echoes what Thomas sees in the Canon:On the Narrative of the Institution, the Prayer of Consecration reflects Thomas's insistence:This flows from Augustine's words, quoted by Thomas: Summa Theologiae III.78.5 ).This Augustinian understanding has a two-fold significance. The first is that explains the absence of anin the Roman Canon and the 1662 rite, because the Lord's words consecrate the Sacrament. The second is that Augustine's words are also quoted by both Luther and Calvin in their sacramental teaching, indicating a shared Augustinian understanding.Both post-Communion prayers in the 1662 rite also reflect Thomas's commentary on the Canon:The echoes here in the 1662 post-Communion prayersare significant.Thomas's account of the Roman Canon points to the coherence of the 1662 rite. For all of its obvious Reformed emphasises, the 1662 rite also reflects key aspects of Thomas's account. Above all, the Prayer of Consecration and the centrality of the Words of Institution embody the Augustinian and Thomist understanding. Coherence hangs on. Indeed, as Thomas notes, "the other words must be added to dispose the people for receiving it". The "other words" are, then, aids to devotion, not necessary elements to consecrate the Sacrament. This is the purpose of the "other words" in the BCP.The suggestion that 1662 "lack[s] a coherent Eucharistic Prayer" rests on a rather ahistorical, idealized notion of what a Eucharistic Prayer should be, rather than on the sacramental teaching and prayer of the Western Church over centuries with its Augustinian character, and - to use the only good words to be found in- "the native character or spirit" of the Anglican tradition. It is these which give a rich coherence to 1662 Holy Communion, including those elements which can described as the "Eucharistic Prayer".