'The most ancient, and the most scriptural': the titles given to the Sacrament in the 1662 rite

Beginning his discussion of  'The Order for the Administration of the Lord's Supper, or Holy Communion' in A Critical and Practical Elucidation of the Book of Common Prayer, Volume II (1801), John Shepherd addresses the title given to this office in BCP 1662:

Of the form directed by Parliament to be drawn up in 1547, the title was, "The Order of the Communion." In Edward's first book, 1549, this office is styled, "The Supper of the Lord, and the Holy Communion, commonly called the Mass." At the review of this book in 1552, the words "commonly called the Mass" were expunged, and the title thrown into the form in which it still remains; "The Order for the Administration of the Lord's Supper, or Holy Communion."

Of the various names given by ecclesiastical writers to this Sacrament, the Supper of the Lord, and the Holy Communion, are two of the most ancient, and the most scriptural; and it is for this reason, I presume, that they, in preference to any other, were adopted by our Church. They are the very terms employed to denote this institution by St. Paul himself. Expressing his disapprobation of some irregularities in the assemblies held by the Corinthian converts to commemorate the death of Christ, he says, "This is not to eat THE LORD'S SUPPER." In the same Epistle, he asks, "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not THE COMMUNION of the Blood of Christ?"

There are those, of course, who lament the 1552 change to the title of the rite, removing the term 'Mass'. This change, however, is to be welcomed on the grounds identified by Shepherd: it restored "the most ancient, and the most scriptural" titles to the celebration of this Sacrament. Even for those of us who have no doctrinal objection to 'Mass', because it is a term retained by Lutheran churches, it does not communicate the meaning and significance of the Sacrament. Likewise, 'Eucharist', despite being the title preferred by contemporary Anglican statements, also fails to do so. By contrast, 'Lord's Supper' and 'Holy Communion' both rightly emphasise that the heart of the Sacrament is our partaking of the consecrated Bread and Wine, the sacramental signs of the Lord's Body and Blood. 

Contrary to some suggestions, 'Lord's Supper' was also a patristic usage. Chrysostom, in a homily on I Corinthians 11 clearly refers to the Holy Mysteries as the 'Lord's Supper':

For as Christ in regard to the bread and the cup said, Do this in remembrance of Me, revealing to us the cause of the giving of the Mystery, and besides what else He said, declaring this to be a sufficient cause to ground our religious fear upon: - (for when you consider what your Master has suffered for you, you will the better deny yourself:) - so also Paul says here: as often as you eat ye do proclaim His death. And this is that Supper ... raise your mind to that Table, to the Supper of the Lord.

Likewise, Augustine in Letter 54:

For the Lord might give the name of supper to what they had received, in already partaking of His body, so that it was after this that they partook of the cup: as the apostle says in another place, When ye come together into one place, this is not to eat the Lord's Supper, giving to the receiving of the Eucharist to that extent (i.e. the eating of the bread) the name of the Lord's Supper.

In the same Letter, Augustine goes on to urge fasting before reception of the Sacrament and again uses the title 'Lord's Supper':

For the fact that the Lord instituted the sacrament after other food had been partaken of, does not prove that brethren should come together to partake of that sacrament after having dined or supped, or imitate those whom the apostle reproved and corrected for not distinguishing between the Lord's Supper and an ordinary meal.

Similarly, in Homily 228b, Augustine also provides a beautiful account of the Sacrament that is captured by the title 'Holy Communion':

And therefore receive and eat the body of Christ, yes, you that have become members of Christ in the body of Christ; receive and drink the blood of Christ. In order not to be scattered and separated, eat what binds you together; in order not to seem cheap in your own estimation, drink the price that was paid for you.

In Summa Theologiae, Aquinas invokes Damascene to illustrate why the Sacrament is rightly called 'Communion':

For Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv) that "it is called Communion because we communicate with Christ through it, both because we partake of His flesh and Godhead, and because we communicate with and are united to one another through it."

Both titles used by the 1662 rite set before us the apostolic and patristic meanings of the holy Sacrament. What is more, they do so in a meaningful manner that is not true of the titles 'Mass' and 'Eucharist'. Shepherd's confidence in the 1662 titles - "the most ancient, and the most scriptural" - should be an encouragement to contemporary Anglicans to recover such confidence in the use of these titles, as we celebrate the Lord's Supper, or Holy Communion.