LORD'S SUPPER, THE (ityptatcOv Scirvov.
Cor. xi. zo). By the phrase the Lord's Supper, most Protcstant commentators agree that St. Paul designated the religious service by which the apos tolic churches commemorated the death of the Lord Jesus. Whatever may be the correct inter pretation of the whole verse, When ye come together to the same place, it is not to eat the Lord's Supper,'—whether it be that the Corin thians did not intend to eat the Lord's Supper,' or that it was not right for them to eat the Lord's Supper' in their disorderly meetings, or that their perversion of the sacred service ought not to be called the eating of the Lord's Supper ;'—the scope and connection of the passage sliew that the apostle could have referred to nothing else than the sacramental commemoration of the death of Jesus. Were there any doubt respecting his meaning, the account of the institution of the service (ver. 23-26), evidently given as a directory for its continued observance, would be sufficient to satisfy any unprejudiced reader.
Catholic commentators, however, deny that the apostle so designates the Eucharistic service. The Lord's Supper' is so inappropriate a name for thc offering of the body and blood of Christ, a propi tiatory sacrifice for the sins of the living and the dead,' that we do not wonder Catholics refuse to acknowledge it. The person for whose sins the sacrifice is offered on the altar of the church need not partake of it. He may be absent ; he may be dead ; he may have been in purgatory for ages, like the founders of many charities and chantries, for whose souls the mass has been said at regular intervals for centuries. To the absent or dead it cannot bc a supper.' Even if the person for whom the sacrifice is offered be living and present, the consecrated bread is put in his mouth, as a sign that the sacrifice is offei ed for him. Nor, unless he be a priest, can he communicate in both parts of the Eucharist.
Catholics, therefore, say that the apostle, in speaking of the Lord's Supper, intended to desig nate the charity feast of the primitive churches, and that the subsequent reference to the institution of the Eucharist may be explained by the ancient custom of observing the charity feast OD the occa sion of meeting to celebrate the Eucharist. In the Rheims venion of the N. T., it is said (note to r Cor. xi. 2o), The Lord's supper. So the apostle calls the charity feasts observed by the primitive Christians, and reprehends the abuses of the Corinthians on these occasions, which were the more criminal because these feasts were accom panied with the celebration of the Eucharistic sacrifice and sacrament.' [AGAPE, vol. i. p. 79.]
As we have distinct accounts of the institution of the Lord's Supper in the first three gospels, and also in the First Epistle to the Corinthians, we may take them for our guide in considering the nature of the service, and the several controversies to which it has given rise. UESUS CHRIST, p. 572.1 In Matthew xxvi. 26-28 we read, And as they were eating, Jesus having taken the bread and blessed, brake, and gave to his disciples, and said, Take, eat, this is my body. And having taken the cup and given thanks, he gave to them, saying-, Drink ye all of it, for this is my blood, that of the new covenant, which is shed for many, for the remis sion of sins.' In Mark xiv. 22-24, the words are, And as they were eating, Jesus having taken bread, and blessed, brake, and gave to them, and said, Take, this is my body. And having taker the cup and given thanks, lie gave to them, and they all drank of it. And Ile said to them, This is my blood, that of the new covenant, which is shed for many.' In Luke xxii. 19, 20, we read, And having taken bread and given thanks, he brake, and gave to them, saying, This is my body, which is given for you, do this for the remem brance of me. In like manner the cup, after the supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood : this do, as often as ye drink it, for the remembrance of me.' The words of Paul, which, as may be expectcd from his intimate connection with Luke, correspond more nearly with those of that evangelist than with those of either of the other two, are (I Cor. xi. 23-25), For I received from the Lord that which I delivered to you, that the Lord Jesus, in the night in which he was be trayed, took bread, and having given thanks, he brake, and said, This is my body which is' [broken, uncertain reading] 'for you. This do for the remembrance of me. In like manner also the cup, after the supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in my blood : this do, as often as ye drink it, for the remembrance of me.' We have given a bald and literal translation of these several accounts, that the reader unaccus tomed to consult the original text may easily observe wherein they agree, and how far they differ.