[man,] but we see Jesus, who [in human nature] was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor. This is really and prospectively fulfilled in Jesus; all things are or will soon be put under him.

Verses 8 and 9. Man had a much more complete dominion over the lower orders of animals in his primitive condition than now. The animal creation then spontaneously obeyed him. After the fall they obey only by compulsion.

Verse 10. It is fitting that the same ascription of praise should end this psalm with that which commenced it. God be praised for his goodness to his creature man!

sacramentum.

ART. VIII. THE LORD'S SUPPER.

THE term sacramentum originally signified, in ecclesiastical usage, any of the mysteries of religion. The Vulgate renders μvorýρtov by The word received its more definite signification during the controversy on the number of the sacraments; it is applied by the Protestant Church to the rites of baptism and the Lord's Supper only. Augustine's definition of a sacrament is, “Sacramentum est sacra rei signum." Luther defined a sacrament to be, Those observances, appointed by God, in which one makes use of a visible thing, which has the divine word of command and of promise." The Protestant idea of the sacraments is more definitely embodied in the Heidelburg Catechism, and the twentyfifth of the thirty-nine Articles of the Church of England. For obvious reasons, we need not quote from either of these

sources.

The term "Lord's Supper" was introduced by the apostle Paul, (1 Cor. xi, 20;) he also speaks of the "Lord's table," (1 Cor. x, 20;) in these terms he may include both the love-feast and the eucharist, which, in his day, were usually celebrated together. The "breaking of bread" (Acts ii 42) is commonly supposed to refer to this rite.

Though the Church received this holy sacrament from the hands of the apostles with a simple and childlike faith, yet speculations upon its character and effects were very early indulged. From simply believing that they thereby held communion with Christ, the early Christians soon proceeded to theorize on the manner of that com

munion. A distinction between the symbolical and the real in the elements of the supper was early recognized, though these ideas were at first intimately blended with each other. Their entire separation was the work of a later age.

In the first century Ignatius, writing to the Romans, desired "the bread of God, which is the flesh of Jesus Christ, and the drink of God, which is his blood." In his epistle to the Smyrnæans, he repudiates those who "deny the eucharist to be the flesh of our Lord Jesus Christ." Yet the venerable Bishop of Antioch was by no means a believer in transubstantiation.

In the second century Irenæus, who gave great prominence to the doctrine of the Logos, laid particular stress on the mysterious connection between the Word and the elements of the eucharist. Shortly after this we notice a superstitious reverence for the elements growing up; then follows the belief that they possessed miraculous power; then the eucharist is separated from the agape, and invested with great pomp and solemnity; finally, there is developed what has been called the mystical hypothesis.

This divergence from the simple to the supernatural and the superstitious was greatly furthered by Cyprian, who held many strange notions concerning the Lord's Supper. The offering of thanks was from the beginning connected with the celebration of the eucharist, and gifts, as expressions of thankfulness, were sometimes, in the earliest ages of the Church, brought to the Lord's table. Hence the eucharist came to be regarded as a thank offering, and not long after as a sacrifice. Cyprian assisted much in establishing this latter notion, by asserting that the priest imitated the sacrifice of Christ in the communion. Indeed, the general tenor of his writings lead to the adoption of this view. Clement, a cotemporary of Cyprian, held closely, though not purely, to the symbolical character of the eucharist. But his fondness for symbols and allegories led him astray. With him the flesh was a symbol, the blood was a symbol, the mixture of water and wine was a symbol, and each of these set forth a distinct and vital doctrine. Origen (A. D. 185253) fell back in some degree upon the simple view of the infant Church. He regarded the "consecrated meat" as profitable to him only who received it by faith. But his views on this sacrament were deemed too negative for general acceptation; that Christ's body and blood were in and with the elements was almost universally believed, though as yet the great teachers of the Church had determined neither upon consubstantiation nor transubstantiation.

As we approach the age of Augustine, (A. D. 354-430,) we discover in the liturgies and terminology of the Church an effort for

a more exact exhibition of the character of the eucharist. He attempted, though without any considerable success, a union of the symbolical and mystical theories, and repudiated the superstitious reverence for the elements which prevailed extensively in his time. But his efforts in this respect were without permanent effect, for the Church still kept up this superstitious reverence, until, finally, the adoration of the elements was formally and universally enjoined by Honarius III., 1217.

A century and a half after Augustine, Gregory the Great, following the hint of Cyprian, boldly taught the doctrine of a daily sacrifice in the celebration of the eucharist. Hugo of St. Victor, in the eleventh century, treated the sacraments with more precision, perhaps, than any of his predecessors; yet he counted a large number of them, which he divided into three classes. He sided with the mystics, though without committing himself to many of the errors of that school.

The doctrine of transubstantiation was formally and in council, under Innocent III., (1215,) adopted as the doctrine of the Roman Church. Ten years after this Thomas Aquinas, with profound learning, attempted a precise treatment of the sacraments; he boldly defended the doctrine of ex opere operato. Against both him and the Church wrote Dun Scotus (1308) and Wiclif, (1384,) with much learning and ability. Wiclif assailed with great force the doctrine of impanation, (the union of the bread with the body of Christ,*) which had been adopted by many who opposed the absurdities of transubstantiation.

This brief outline brings us down to the period of the Reformation, when the sacrament controversy between the Catholic and Protestant Churches reached its height. The Protestant Churches failed to harmonize with each other on this subject, but divided into three great parties, represented by Luther, Zuinglius, and Calvin; and even these parties were afterward subdivided into smaller sections.

Luther taught that the body of Christ is really and substantially present in the elements, and is received, though not physically, by the communicant. This view, with various modifications, is received by a large portion of the Lutheran Church, though consubstantiation and transubstantiation are alike generally repudiated.

Zuinglius taught that the human nature of Christ was not present in the supper; that the eucharist was a symbolical and commemorative rite, attended with gracious and spiritual influences.

There was another phase of this, namely: That the divine nature of Christ entered into and occupied the bread as it entered into the human nature in the womb of the Virgin.

Calvin sought to avoid these extremes. He taught that Christ's glorified body is really, but spiritually present in the elements, not in substance but in power; and that of him the communicant partakes by faith.

It is remarkable that a large body of the Lutherans have adopted the theory of Calvin, or some similar view; for Melancthon's theory, which is held by some in the Lutheran Church, approaches very closely that of Calvin. It is still more remarkable that Calvinists, especially in this country, have receded to the views of Zuinglius. These several theories, with various intermediate shades of opinion, yet prevail in the Protestant Churches.

The history of this controversy teaches us to place but little reliance in ecclesiastical or traditional authority in forming theological opinions; it teaches us to appeal to the Scriptures as the sole rule of faith and practice. In Scripture we have four accounts of the institution of the Lord's Supper; those given by the synoptists, and that of Paul. Though these agree in general features, they show some slight variations. These differences may be grouped into two classes: The narratives of Matthew and Mark coinciding, and those of Luke and Paul.

We shall make the Pauline account (1 Cor. xi, 23-30) the basis of our observations. The apostle claims (ver. 23) to have received his account directly from the Lord-ало тоν KUрiov. We understand anо here to denote, not a mediate, as it generally does, but an immediate communication. It is true, the use of this preposition in such connections implies the receiving by means of some intervening person, yet it is not invariably so used. (See Winer's Grammatik, § 51, etc.) But the apostle's account is not drawn from any preexisting narrative of the holy supper; in such case аTTO TOV KVPLOV would be improper; and it is unnatural to suppose he received this revelation at second-hand, when there were direct and immediate revelations made to him. (Gal. i, 12, etc.)

Further, the apostle in the above passage seems to have emphasized the eye, which strongly confirms our view.

Following the example of Christ, the early Church partook of this sacrament after supper. This supper was an agape, or love-feast. It was the custom of the Greeks, at their sacrificial feasts, to allow each one to bring his own provision. (Xen. Mem., iii, 14. Mark here the expedient of Socrates to avoid the abuse to which this practice would naturally tend.) This custom was adopted by the Corinthian Church in the celebration of the agape. But it soon

led to invidious distinctions. The rich fared sumptuously, sometimes to drunkenness and gluttony; while the poor were often in

want. The common relation of rich and poor to God and Christ was forgotten, and the feeling of unity and brotherhood was destroyed. Disputings and divisions followed. (1 Cor. xi, 18.)

Further, it appears (1 Cor. viii, 10: x, 18, etc.) some of the Corinthian Christians had been present at heathen sacrificial feasts, and had partaken of the meat offered to idols, to the great scandal of the Church. It was with the knowledge of these abuses that the apostle addressed to the Corinthians his first epistle. After rebuking sharply these disorders, he presents the true doctrine of the eucharist, as he had received it from the Lord. "In the same night that he was betrayed"—that is, the evening closing the fourteenth of Nisan, the beginning of the fifteenth, (Matt. xxvi, 17, 20; Mark xiv, 12, 17; Luke xxii, 7, 14,*) "the Lord Jesus... took bread, and when he had given thanks"-this giving thanks is not mentioned by Matthew or Mark-" he brake it and said, Take, eat: this is my body which is broken for you." Thus far we have seen no attempt to change the character of the bread The mere giving of thanks over it, or the breaking of it, could not change its character. Yet of this bread he says, "This is my body." How shall we understand this?

Carlstadt, supposes the Saviour here pointed to his body; but this is an unsupported and improbable hypothesis. Zuinglius says EOT is to be taken in the sense of signifies, of which sense of the word there are many examples in the Scriptures. Ecolampadius thinks EOTI is to be taken literally, but that to owua pov is figurative. Storr thinks the passage should be rendered, "this confers my body." Luther professes to receive the words literally, and very broadly intimates that those who understand them differently are fools. But, strange to say, the literal sense of the words does not give the slightest support to his view of the sacrament. To say that Christ's body is in, with, or under the bread, as he does, is to reject the literal sense of the words. There is no alternative; the words, "this is my body," literally understood, shut us up to the one single conclusion, that the bread is really the body, and nothing more nor less than the body of Christ. If Luther's premise is right his conclusion is wrong, and there is no escape from the absurd dogma of transubstantiation.

The disciples themselves must have understood these words figuratively. The absurdity of eating a body which was at the same time living, and before them, would have arrested their attention, and, if

• For a thorough discussion of the question whether this was truly the paschal supper, and celebrated at the proper time, see Bibliotheca Sacra for August, 1845.