made on the minds of the saints as to their future dignity and glory, the Lord Jesus himself declares: To him that overcometh I will give to sit with me in my throne, even as I have overcome and am set down with my Father in his throne. Rev. iii, 21. Thus we hold, according to the Scriptures, the eighth Psalm teaches no absurdity when it represents man in his primitive and glorified state as second only to the Lord of all. It now only remains for us to present a translation of this psalm, with some brief explanatory notes. TRANSLATION. 1. To the Chief Musician upon Gittith. 2. O Jehovah our God, A Psalm of David. How excellent is thy name in all the earth; Which glory of thine place thou above (or upon) the heavens. 3. Out of the mouth of babes and sucklings thou hast ordained strength because of thy enemies; To still the enemy and the avenger. 4. When I behold thy heavens the work of thy fingers; The moon and the stars which thou hast made. 5. What is man that thou art mindful of him, 6. Thou hast made him to want a little of God; 7. Thou hast made him ruler over the works of thy hands; 8. Sheep and oxen all of them, And also the beast of the field. 9. The fowl of heaven and the fish of the sea, How excellent is thy name in all the earth. NOTES. Verse 1., upon the harp of Gath, or in the Gathic style, in the sense of Gathic, of Gath, the city of the Philistines, occurs frequently. Compare Joshua xiii, 3; 2 Sam. vi, 10, 11; xv, 18. "It is worthy of remark," says Hengstenberg, "that all the three psalms distinguished by this name (besides this, lxxxi and lxxxiv) are of a joyful, thanksgiving character, from which it may be inferred that the gittith was an instrument of cheerful sound or lively air." Verse 2., name. How excellent is thy name, not thy mere name, but the being expressed by the name. The name is the So mere sign; the thing signified is in the mind of the psalmist. the Lord's Prayer, Hallowed be thy name, that is, the Lord. This is Hebraistic usage. , give or place thou, imperative of, Hengstenberg will have this an infinitive construct used as a noun. Final, he says, is the feminine termination, but he fails to give us any other instances. We ought not for any subjective reasons to give up a well-known imperative form which occurs in other passages in more than a score of instances. See, for example, Gen. xxx, 26; xlii, 37; Numbers xi, 13; xxvii, 4; Josh. xiv, 12; xv, 19; 1 Sam. ii, 15; viii, 6; ix, 23; xxi, 4; xxv, 8. It is useless to quote further. See Concordance. We therefore translate with Gesenius, which glory of thine set thou [also] above the heavens, that is, let thy glory thus manifested here on earth be also acknowledged and celebrated throughout the whole universe. Verse 3. 3, children in general; p, infant children, children at the breast. Hence we render out of the mouths of children and infants [even children yet at the breast] thou hast ordained strength because of thy enemies; that is, even little children by their unconscious praise of his glory, as seen in the beautiful landscape, the shining sun, the glowing moon and stars, which even the infant mind observes and is pleased with, put to shame the miserable hardihood of infidelity and atheism. Our Lord, as related in Matt. xxi, 16, rebuked the Pharisees who could not contain themselves because children were crying to him Hosanna, by bringing to their remembrance the third verse of this psalm: "Have ye never read, Out of the mouths of babes and sucklings thou hast perfected praise?" Verses 4 and 5. What is man from, to be weak, frail, referring especially to his bodily nature, used intentionally instead of or . The knot to be untied here is this: Does David refer to man in his fallen or in his primitive condition? Weakness and frailty would be more naturally attributed to him in his fallen condition, and this is the view which we prefer. Observe that man and Son of man, by the parallelism, refer to the same person. Verse 6. For remarks on this verse see § 3 of the introduction. With honor and glory thou crownest him. The common designation of royal honor and majesty. Compare Psa. xxi, 5; xlv, 3; Jer. xxii, 18; 1 Chron. xxix, 25. Verse 7. Thou hast placed all things under his feet. This can be fulfilled by man, as the apostle argues, only in the person of our Lord Jesus Christ. We see not yet all things put under him, [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! ART. VIII.-THE LORD'S SUPPER. THE term sacramentum originally signified, in ecclesiastical usage, any of the mysteries of religion. The Vulgate renders μvornotov by μυστήριον sacramentum. 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 He at a more exact exhibition of the character of the eucharist. tempted, 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. |