1
10
2
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/bc51ff105e44195fe1eaa1c5e1d3e12e.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=VqqajKnO4IOKazdS1sbbhD8oLPLNqIfUOJVNYrJnRQSwE%7E4rG1nXTt2FpS4dYYCv6oDP0b-bTlCEWF6wsbB9cQ6e4zvc1dcO-T2vOTqVHxdnERk9wAWNx0jcbzgli6Mt2eDW14g8T%7Ebj8ddKuMm1ctjbCTFboUi-WKhuzQOCktt%7EwjyQezG75%7EU4Tg8sWQj31pV-W7HPx4UL%7ExcO9WzBvqra%7Ea4-Sw3uueURAFpEq5UyDdWND8T-sChSarxwhK2pJMxYPA-OKh3XuHtGVTUlXTH43-UnltQL5QB9RFZYZWeJH37r-p5bpHrhcqJ9lVEzFTyLUt5lSOsRjj0tfkkQ0w__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
97b4a3e55216da9e971eebdb5227ae2b
PDF Text
Text
NATIONAL SECULAR SOCIETY
THE EUCHARIST.
“Ibant obscuri sola sub nocte per umbram,
Perque domos Ditis vacuas, et inania regna :
Quale per incertam lunam sub luce maligna
Est iter in silvis ; ubi ccelum condidit umbra
Jupiter, et rebus nox abstulit atra colorem.”
JEneid vi., 268-272.
LONDON:
FREETHOUGHT PUBLISHING COMPANY,
28 STONECUTTER STREET, E.C.
Price Sixpence.
��PREFACE.
Marriage, Baptism, Eating and Drinking at the
Encharist, Laying on of Hands, Prayers at Burial, are
Christian sacraments and ceremonies which are admini
stered or performed at the present day. The Eucharist
is considered by far the most important, and, therefore,
its origin and development have been most carefully
and extensively examined in this tract. All our
sacraments had their origin in the ignorance, miseries,
and fancies of the primitive savage condition of all the
human races, a condition which these sacraments to
some extent relieved. Their original significance has
long passed away from the knowledge of civilized races,
who, now labouring under total misconceptions regard
ing their significance, suffer poignant stings of con
science, which constitute the natural punishment
attending on “ sins of ignorance.” To free the reader’s
mind from those misconceptions is the object of this
tract.
Kilferest :
Feast of St Ntcodemus, 1880.
��THE EUCHARIST.
HEN a man prays his object is to induce the Deity
YV to do something which the suppliant supposes
would benefit himself. Prayer is an offer of a bribe.
Originally this bribe was flattery. Prayer has always
contained this element of flattery. Next there was
added the offer of a present. This consisted in an
article of food, or something else which the suppliant
considered valuable. Since the Deity neither devoured
the food nor took away the present, the offering was
subsequently consumed with fire, or otherwise de
stroyed, to render it useless to the suppliant. So, in
course of time, a “ burned offering ” came to be con
sidered the most efficacious bribe that could be offered
to the Deity; because the suppliant thereby suffered a
loss which he could not recover. The suppliant glori
fied the Deity by squandering to his honour something
which the suppliant considered valuable, and the
Deity was supposed to be bound to take that fact
into consideration. In this way, sacrifice was supposed
to have a magical or charming effect on the Deity, and
it became and has ever since continued an essential
element of religion. Sacrifice was, in fact, a miracle,
which word is a term convertible with the word ignor
ance. Its origin was fear of those forces in nature
which hurt mankind,—such as storms, deluges, earth
quakes, pestilence, and the like. Man was ignorant
concerning the true causes of these things and he
supposed them to be anthropomorphic deities : that is
�6
The Eucharist.
to say, unseen, reduplications of himself, but vastly
more powerful. So he endeavoured to bribe these
deities with offerings which were calculated to appease
the anger of his fellow men. Thus the suppliant
hoped that by means of prayer and sacrifice the laws
of nature would be suspended, for his benefit. He
was wholly ignorant of the fact that those laws are
invariable,—that the present condition of the universe
is the necessary result of every preceding state; that
the same men, acted on by the same motives, would
do as they have done; and that every thing that takes
place in the universe is the necessary result of un
varying forces. As the necessary result of this ignor
ance, the primitive worshippers supposed that prayer
and sacrifice operating through the Deity, should have
on man’s body and its environments as powerful an
effect as a sound constitution, an intelligent under
standing, a healthy atmosphere, a fine summer, a
fruitful autumn, and anything else which omniscience
and omnipotence could bestow. This supposition is
an essential element of Christianity, and it is embodied
in the Eucharist, or giving of thanks.
Although the celebration of the Eucharist is now
an innocent ceremony, yet it was not .so originally.
The account of its institution and nature, which is
most approved of by the Christian Church, is that
set forth by the writer of the first epistle to the
Corinthians, xi. 23-30, who says, “ I have received of
the Lord that which also I have delivered unto you,
That the Lord Jesus the same night in which he was
betrayed took bread : and when he had given thanks,
he brake it, and said, Take, eat: this is my body,
which is broken for you : this do in remembrance of
me. After the same manner also he took the cup,
when he had supped, saying, This cup is the new
testament in my blood : this do ye, as oft as ye drink
it, in remembrance of me. For as often as ye eat this
bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord’s
�The Eucharist.
7
death till he come. Wherefore whosoever shall eat
this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily,
shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord.
But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of
that bread, and drink of that cup. For he that eateth
and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damna
tion to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. For
this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and
many sleep.”
So, by the supernatural power of the Christian
Church the apparent elements of bread and wine are
metamorphosed into the body and blood of a human
being. By the same supernatural power, the celebra
tion of the Eucharist proved injurious to some of its
unworthy recipients. It proved even fatal to others ;
for the Greek verb rendered by our verb “ sleep ” in
the above quoted passage is applied, Acts vii. 60, to
the death of Stephen, and it has the same meaning,
namely that of “ death,” in several other passages of
our New Testament.
It is a remarkable fact that the above quoted pas
sage is not to be found in our four Gospels. It is
still more remarkable that our four Gospels are never
quoted in any of the other writings contained in our
New Testament. It, therefore, becomes a very impor
tant question, namely, whether the above quoted
passage is canonical ? A similar question arises regard
ing several other quotations. For instance, the writer
of the Epistle to Titus, i. 12, 13, says, “ One of
themselves, a prophet of their own, said, The Cretans
are alway liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. This witness
is true.” There are also in our New Testament several
other quotations from the Septuagint, from profane
sources, and from apocryphal gospels. Are these to be
regarded as canonical ?
This question has been answered by Sir Lancelot
C. L. Brenton, in the Preface to his translation of the
Septuagint. He says, “ What was uninspired before
�The Eucharist.
quotation becomes inspired after ; or rather quotation
by the Holy Ghost is the very stamp and seal of in
spiration affixed to the words at the moment he con
descends to use them. If God can employ human means,
including human words and phrases too, not the pure
tongue of Paradise, but language in itself (till purged
by Him) witnessing to the pollution of man’s sinful lips,
may not the Heavenly Dove light upon truth, which has
been ignorantly, perhaps foolishly, perversely uttered,
and yet truth, and therefore infinitely precious, because
of its capacity to minister to the spiritual wants of the
children of God? If any think this language too
strong let him refer to Tit. i. 12, 13, where we have
the testimony of inspiration itself to assure us that
God can take words of one nationally and as it were
constitutionally a liar and add this sanction, This
witness is true. Much confusion and difficulty may
indeed be avoided if we bear in mind that it is through
out a question not of originality but of inspiration,
save that whatever is good anywhere must of course
be original with the Father of lights, whatever the
channel through which it happens to flow. In reply
then to the question, how far does the apostolic quota
tion of a part of the Septuagint warrant the inspiration
of the whole ? we venture to state that it is no warrant
at all. What the Holy Ghost touches it hallows—
beyond this the translation, whatever its excellence,
comes into our hands as the work of fallible man,”
So quotation by an inspired writer renders the words
quoted from any writing a canonical portion of
holy Scripture, just as the celebration of the Eucharist
by a duly ordained priest changes bread and wine into
human flesh and blood. The quotation in the former
case operates as the blessing in the latter.
Can it be shown that the popes have promulgated
an absurdity for which an equivalent cannot be found
in publications of Protestant writers ? Or among the
precepts of practical wisdom and among the doctrines
�The Eucharist.
9
of theological nonsense which are contained in the
Bible, can there be found any which are not merely
echoes of similar wisdom and similar nonsense contained
in the Veda and the Bedagat ?
One of the strongest reasons for considering anthro
pophagy or cannibalism as having widely prevailed in
pre-historic ages, is the fact of its being deeply in
grained in savage and barbaric religions whose gods
are so often regarded as delighting in human flesh and
blood. This is admitted by scholars of such eminence
and of such different opinions as Paley and Gladstone.
Sometimes the flesh of sacrificed human victims serves
to provide cannibal feasts. The understood meaning
of those rites in some cases is that the bodies of the
victims are consumed by the worshippers vicariously,
and in other cases that the gods themselves feed on
the spirits of the victims while their bodies are eaten
by the priests and people. As might be expected the
same ideas and practices prevail at the present day
among utterly barbarous nations who now practise
that religious cannibalism which the ancestors of
civilized people formerly practised. Then Mr T.
Williams (“Fiji and the Fijians/’ Vol. i., p. 231)
says, “ Of the great offerings of food, native belief
apportions merely the soul thereof to the gods, who
are described as being enormous eaters ; the substance
is consumed by the worshippers. Cannibalism is
a part of the Fijian religion, and the gods are de
scribed as delighting in human flesh.” In Mexico
the anthropophagy which prevailed was distinctly
religious in its origin and professed purpose. See
Prescott’s “ Conquest of Mexico,” Bancroft’s “ Native
Races of Pacific States,” Vol. ii. That the primary
meaning of the human sacrifice was to present victims
to their deities is shown by the manner in which the
sacrificing Mexican priest tore out the heart,
offered it to the sun, and afterwards went through
ceremonies of feeding the idol with the heart and
�Io
The Eucharist.
blood. To obtain supplies of captives for sacrifices
caused the Mexicans to engage in frequent wars ; and
it was the limbs of these victims which were eaten in
the sacrificial feasts that formed part of the festivals.
See Thomas J. Hutchinson’s “ Ten Years among the
Ethiopians,” p. 62, &c., Lander’s “ Records,” Vol. ii.
p. 250, whereby it is shown evidently that in Africa,
cannibalism has in some cases a sacrificial character.
Sir John Lubbock (“Pro-historic Times,” Third Edi
tion, pp. 468-9) says, “ The cannibalism of a New
Zealander, though often a mere meal, was also some
times a ceremony; in these cases the object was
something very different from mere sensual gratifica
tion ; it must be regarded as a part of his religion, as
a sort of unholy sacrament. This is proved by the
fact that after a battle the bodies which they preferred
were not those of plump young men, or tender damsels,
but of the most celebrated chiefs however old
and dry they might be. In fact they believed that
it was not only the material substance which they
thus appropriated, but also the spirit, the ability and
the glory of him whom they devoured. The greater
the number of corpses they had eaten, the higher
they thought would be their position in the world to
come.................. Religious persecutions have scarcely
ceased in Europe even now, nor is it so very long since
the fire and the stake were regarded as necessary for
the preservation of Christianity itself.”
It is to be observed, however, that the element of
murder is excluded from the celebration of the eucharist;
because, Hebrews x. 12, Jesus “ after he had offered
one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right
hand of God.” But the eating of actual human flesh
and the drinking of actual human blood are both ne
cessary for the salvation of a Christian; because, (John
vi. 53), “Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say
unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man,
and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.” All man
�The Eucharist.
11
kind, and especially untutored nations, attributed
supreme and most abiding importance and efficacy to
human sacrifices. This supremacy arose from two
causes, namely, firstly, imperfect observation of cause
and supposed effect which is common to all practices of
sacrifice, and, secondly, supposed value of human
sacrifices.
Regarding the first cause, Bacon says, (“ Novum Organum,” book i., aph., § 46), “When any proposition
has been once accepted, the human understanding
forces everything else to add fresh support and con
firmation; and although most cogent and abundant
instances may exist to the contrary, yet the human un
derstanding either does not observe or despise them,
or get rid of and reject them by some distinction, with
violent and injurious prejudice, rather than sacrifice the
authority of its first conclusions. It was well answered
by him [Diagoras], who was shewn in a temple the
votive tablets suspended by such as had escaped the
peril of shipwreck, and was pressed as to whether he
would then recognise the power of the gods by an in
quiry, But where are the portraits of those who have
perished in spite of their vows? All superstition is
much the same, whether it be that of astrology, dreams,
omens, retributive judgment, or the like, in all of which
the deluded believers observe events which are fulfilled,
but neglect and pass over their failure, though it be
much more common. But this evil insinuates itself
still more craftily in philosophy and the sciences, in
which a settled maxim vitiates and governs every other
circumstance, though the latter be much more worthy
of confidence. Besides, even in the absence of that
eagerness and want of thought, which we have men
tioned, it is a peculiar and perpetual error of the human
understanding to be more moved and excited by affirma
tives than by negatives, whereas it ought to be duly
and regularly impartial: nay, in establishing any true
axiom, the negative instance is the more powerful.”
�I2
The Eucharist.
Unfortunately the false reasoning pointed out by
Bacon can never be eradicated from the human con
stitution. For the human understanding is so en
vironed by human pain, want, waste, misery, fear, de
sire, and (worst of all) hope, that a really free exercise
of reason is almost out of the question. Moreover,
reason cannot directly influence a belief that did not
originate in reason. Hence this false reasoning clings
to men of talent, courage, experience, and education.
Xenophon successfully conducted the celebrated retreat
of the ten thousand Grecian soldiers from the neigh
bourhood of Babylon to that of Byzantium. He has
left us an account of that retreat in his “ Anabasis.”
There, when relating (book iv., ch. v. 3, 4) the last
passage of the Greeks across the Euphrates, he says,
“ The last day’s march was hard to bear, for a north
wind, blowing full in their faces, quite chilled and
stiffened the men. Upon this, one of the seers advised
to sacrifice to the wind; so they sacrificed, and the
severity of the wind perceptibly abated.”
Here we have sacrifice and false reasoning going to
gether hand in hand as they have always gone since
man was what he is. It is the old story. A man
wishes to gain the favour of the Deity, who is assumed
to be a Power encompassed with human feelings and
human infirmities: in fact, to all intents and for all
purposes an immensely powerful Man. Therefore, in
the first place, the man prays to his supposed Deity.
Secondly, the man makes a vow that he will give his
supposed Deity something. Thirdly, the man resolves
to glorify his supposed Deity, and this leads to the
fourth and last step, namely, since the man wishes to
give public proof of his attachment to his supposed
Deity, the man must impose upon himself PAIN, and
the pain must be such as not to present the remotest
prospect of any dependent or independent reward.
Mankind will measure the amount of devotion by the
amount and intensity of the pain which the worshipper
�'The Eucharist.
'3
gratuitously inflicts on himself. Hence have arisen
fasting, asceticism, filth, austerity, celibacy, torture,
poverty, seclusion.
It would be well if religious pranks ended here. But
since the worshipper imagines himself morally bound
to glorify his supposed Deity, it follows that the universal recognition of his Deity will be the chief object
of the worshipper, who is thus placed in a state of hos
tility to all those who (1) do not believe in the exist
ence of this supposed Deity, (2) who do not obey his
will, and (3) who imperfectly obey his will.
It has been demonstrated (“ Outlines of Cosmic
Philosophy,” by John Fiske) that “ No two indivi
duals are exactly alike.” It is a well-known truth
(John i. 18) that “ No man has seen God at any time.”
Hence it follows that all deities, supposed to be en
dowed with moral or immoral attributes, or with both,
are and always have been as numerous and as various
as the worshippers who pay those deities homage. In
this, and only in this respect, religion is “ the same
yesterday, and to-day, and for ever.” Hence arises not
only hostility, but an immense extension of that feel
ing. A number of artificial instances are created and
subjected to its control where before it had not any
application; and every fresh case of collision swells and
aggravates the hostility which sprang from the previous
sources. Keeping this fact constantly in view, it will
soon become self-evident that to put a limit to the
miseries arising from religious fear, religious ignorance,
religious selfishness, and religious cruelty, would be
simply impossible. Although the human race has
existed on earth during millions of years, yet we know
comparatively very little regarding the history of man.
Our knowledge of human progress does not extend back
during a longer period than about eight thousand years,
of which, at least one-half, we know only in outline.
But we know that we have strong grounds for believing
“ That existing savages are not the descendants of civi
�14
The Eucharist.
lized ancestors. That the primitive condition of man
was one of utter barbarism. And that from this con
dition several races have independently raised them
selves.” (Lubbock's “ Origin of Civilization,” Ed. 1870,
p. 323.) We also know that those races who have so
raised themselves have been in their progress retarded
more by the hostility of Religion to Science than by
any other impediment. So well as we know, the his
tory of every religion is a tale of woes, cruelties, and
revolting atrocities. None is so bad as the history of
Christianity. Judaism destroyed thousands of Canaan
ites. Mohammedanism slaughtered hundreds of thou
sands among the Arabs, Persians, and Hindoos. But
these are trifles when compared with “ the tender mer
cies ” of Christianity. According to an eminent writer,
“ Christianity indeed has equalled Judaism in the atro
cities, and exceeded it in the extent of its desolation.
Eleven millions of men, women, and children, have
been killed in battle, butchered in their sleep, burned
to death at public festivals of sacrifice, poisoned, tor
tured, assassinated, and pillaged in the spirit of the
Religion of Peace, and for the glory of the most merciful
God.” Here is a eucharist indeed. Here is a real and
genuine “ giving of thanks,” compared with which all
other eucharists dwindle into insignificance.
It is a most melancholy subject for reflection that
such eucharists—although upon a much smaller scale
—have been celebrated all over the earth. That in
one shape or other they are being celebrated even at
the present time. And that so long as religion is what
it is, such eucharists must be celebrated more or less
among mankind.
Eor, since sacrifices originated in the human desire
to appease angry gods by offerings held by the
worshippers as dearest and most precious, it cannot be
.surprising to find that—at all events for a considerable
time—human sacrifices were almost inseparable from
religion. “ Not content with presenting their choicest
�The Eucharist.
I5
property, whether animate or inanimate, untutored
nations slaughtered in honour of their deities human
beings, prized as the noblest work of creation, and in
many respects kindred with the gods themselves.”
ICalisch “ on Leviticus,” vol. i., p. 324.
Like all other offerings, human sacrifices were prized
in proportion to the self-denial which they involved.
Man cannot manifest his earnestness and religious
devotion more strikingly than by sacrificing his own
life to move the will of the gods. Hence the highest
and most glorious offering was supposed to be selfimmolation. This belief pervades the stories contained
in the works of the Greek Tragics, and the narratives
of ancient Roman legends. This belief was also
entertained by Jesus Christ, according to our New
Testament.
Lor we are told (Matthew, xvi. 21-23), “ From
that time forth Jesus began to shew unto his disciples
how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many
things of the elders, and chief priests, and scribes, and
be killed, and be raised again the third day. Then
Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying, Be
it far from thee, Lord : this shall not be unto thee.
But he turned and said unto Peter, Get thee behind
me, Satan; thou art an offence unto me ; for thou
savourest not the things that be of God, but those that
be of men.” This determination of Jesus to seek death
by self-immolation is repeated, over and over again, in
our New Testament. And when Jesus was on his trial
for life or death, he took care to goad his judges into
killing him. For we are told (Matthew xxvi. 62-66,)
that “the high priest arose, and said unto him,
Answerest thou nothing ? What is it which these
witness against thee ? But Jesus held his peace.
And the high priest answered and said unto him, I
adjure thee by the living God that thou tellest
whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God. Jesus
saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say
�16
The Eucharist.
unto you, Hereafter ye shall see the Son of Man sitting
on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds
of heaven. Then the high priest rent his own clothes,
saying, He hath spoken blasphemy ; what further need
have we of witnesses 1 Behold, now ye have heard
his blasphemy. What think ye ? They answered
and said, He is guilty of death.”
Commenting on the self-immolation of Jesus, an
eminent writer says :—“ All Christendom has always
believed that the death of Jesus was voluntarily
incurred; and unless no man ever became a wilful
martyr, I cannot conceive why we are to doubt the
fact concerning Jesus. When he resolved to go up to
Jerusalem, he was warned by his disciples of the
danger ; but so far was he from being blind to it, that
he distinctly announced to them that he knew he
should suffer in Jerusalem the shameful death of a
malefactor. On his arrival in the suburbs, his first
act was to ride ostentatiously into the city on an ass’s
colt, in the midst of the acclamations of the multitude,
in order to exhibit himself as having a just right to
the throne of David. Thus he gave a handle to
imputations of intended treason. He next entered the
temple courts, where doves and lambs were sold for
sacrifice, and committed a breach of the peace by
flogging with a whip those who trafficked in the area.
By such conduct he undoubtedly made himself liable
to legal punishment, and probably might have been
publicly scourged for it, had the rulers chosen to
moderate their vengeance. But he ‘meant to be
prosecuted for treason, not for felony,’ to use the words
of a modern offender. [John Mitchel, 1848.] He
therefore commenced the most exasperating attacks on
all the powerful, calling them hypocrites and whited
sepulchres and viper’s brood, and denouncing upon
them the ‘ condemnation of hell.’ He was successful.
He had both enraged the rulers up to the point of
thirsting for His life, and given colour to the charge of
�The Eucharist.
J7
political rebellion. He resolved to die ; and he died.
Had his enemies contemptuously let him live, he
would have been forced to act the part of Jewish
Messiah, or renounce Messiahship. If anyone holds
Jesus to be not amenable to the laws of human
morality, I am not now reasoning with such a one.
But if any one claims for him a human perfection, then
I say that his conduct on this occasion was neither
laudable nor justifiable: far otherwise. There are
cases in which life may be thrown away for a great
cause, as when a leader in battle rushes upon certain
death, in order to animate his own men ; but the case
before us has no similarity to that. If our accounts
are not wholly false, Jesus knowingly and purposely
exasperated the rulers into a great crime—the crime of
taking his life from personal resentment............... At
his public trial the vast majority judge him to deserve
punishment, and prefer to ask free forgiveness for
Barabbas, a bandit who was in prison for murder. We
moderns, nursed in an arbitrary belief concerning these
events, drink in with our first milk the assumption
that Jesus alone was guiltless, and all the other actors
in this sad affair inexcusably guilty. Let no one
imagine that I defend for a moment the cruel punish
ment which raw resentment inflicted on him. But
though the rulers felt the rage of vengeance, the people,
who had suffered no personal wrong, were moved only
by ill-measured indignation. The multitude love to
hear the powerful exposed and reproached up to a
certain limit, but if reproach go clearly beyond all that
they feel to be deserved, a violent sentiment reacts on
the head of the reviler, and though popular indignation
(even when free from the element of selfishness) ill
fixes the due measure of punishment, I have a strong
belief that it is righteous, when it pronounces the
verdict Guilty. Does my friend deny that the death of
Jesus was wilfully incurred ? The ‘ orthodox ’ not
merely admit, but maintain it. Their creed justifies it
B
�i8
The Eucharist.
by the doctrine that his death was a (sacrifice ’ so
pleasing to God as to expiate the sins of the world.
This honestly meets the objections to self-destruction,
for how better could life be used than by laying it down
for such a prize ? But besides all other difficulties in
the very idea of atonement, the orthodox creed startles
us by the incredible conception that a voluntary sacri
fice of life should be unacceptable to God, unless offered
by ferocious and impious hands. If Jesus had ‘autho
rity from the Father to lay down his life,’ was he
unable to stab himself in the desert, or on the sacred
altar of the temple, without involving guilt to any
human being ? Did he, who is at once ‘ high priest ’
and victim, when ‘ offering up himself ’ and ‘ present
ing his own blood unto God,’ need any justification
for using the sacrificial knife ? .... In entire con
sistency with his previous determination to die, Jesus,
when arraigned, refused to rebut accusation, and
behaved as one pleading guilty............... After he had
confirmed by his silence the belief that he had used a
dishonest evasion indicative of consciousness that he
was no real Messiah, he suddenly burst out with a full
reply to the high priest’s question, and avowed that he
was the Messiah, the Son of God, and that they should
hereafter see him sitting on the right hand of power,
and coming in the clouds of heaven—of course, to enter
into judgment on them all. I am the less surprised
that this precipitated his condemnation, since he
himself seems to have designed precisely that result.”
Such was the eucharist offered by Jesus Christ!
Of course, we Secularists know that, as an objective
reality, it cannot be proved that Jesus Christ ever had
a really historical existence. And the object of quot
ing the foregoing passage is merely to prove not only
the pre-eminent importance attached to suicide in
ancient times, but also the palmary importance attached
to it—at all events in the case of the mythical Jesus.
Christ—even in our own time.
�The Eucharist.
l9
When, b.o. 1225, the seven Argive heroes, under
Adrastus, King of Argos, invaded the Theban territory,
the Cadmeians, assisted by their allies the Phocians
and the Phlegyae, marched forth and fought a battle
in which they were defeated, and forced to retire
within the walls of Thebes. The prophet Tiresias in
formed them that if Menceceus, son of Creon, King
of Thebes, would offer himself as a victim to Mars,
victory would be secured to the Thebans. The heroic
youth slew himself before the city. Six of the Argive
heroes perished in the subsequent battle, and the in
vading army was almost annihilated.
Again, (2 Kings iii. 9, 24, 26, 27),—when, B.c. 895,
“the King of Israel went, and the King of Judah,
and the King of Edom . . . and they . . . smote the
Moabites so that they fled before them . . . and when
the King of Moab saw that the battle was too sore for
him, he took with him seven hundred men that drew
swords, to break through even unto the king of Edom :
but they could not. Then he took his eldest son, that
should have reigned in his stead, and offered him for
a burnt offering upon the wall. And there was great
indignation against Israel: and they departed from
him and returned to their own land.” It is needless
to multiply instances.
Next to self-immolation, the most valued sacrifice
was that of the dearest relation. Hence arose the wellknown eucharist of burning to death children as offer
ings to certain gods. In course of time aged parents
were sacrificed by their children to those gods. So,
both infanticide and parricide were eucharists.
Next to these, priests and pious people were regarded
as highly acceptable eucharists. At Meroe, near the
confluence of the Blue and the White Nile, when the
priests pretended that some oracle had directed the
king to be sacrificed in order to avert some great
calamity, it was customary to kill his majesty as an
offering to the gods. It is hardly conceivable that this
custom could have lasted very long. At all events,
�20
The Eucharist.
about b.c. 300, we are informed (Diodorus Siculus,
iii. 6) that the ^Ethiopian king, Ergamenes, havingbeen summoned for a similar sacrifice, collected his
forces together, defeated and slew the priests, and
abolished the custom.
After the happy conclusion of a military expedition,
victorious nations sacrificed captives taken during the
war. This gradually led to killing strangers rather
than natives in honour of the gods. But we know
from Plutarch (“ Concerning Superstition,” 13) that
even this first step was not achieved without a severe
struggle. It was denounced by priests and fanatics,
who censured it as a means for evading, in a cowardly
manner, the most sacred of religious duties.
Nevertheless it was impossible that matters could
stop here. Thanks be to Energy, who has always
caused religion to be subdued by time ! Bacon says,
“ He that will not apply new remedies must expect
new evils; for Time is the greatest innovator.” In
fact, we know that the tendency of all natural forces
is to bring all organizations more and more into har
mony with each other, and to disintegrate the inhar
monious elements altogether. So, the very continuance
of this adjustment is itself Progress.
“ Fear not the tyrants shall rule for ever,
Or the priests of the bloody faith ;
They stand on the brink of that mighty river,
Whose waves they have tainted with death.
It is fed from the depths of a thousand dells,
Around them it foams, and rages and swells,
And their swords and their sceptres I floating see
Like wrecks, in the surge of eternity.”
So another advance was soon made towards mitigat
ing the horrible crime of sacrificing innocent men and
children. This advance was made by slaughtering
men, especially condemned criminals, who, by the laws
of the land, had forfeited their lives. And so long as
there are murderers on earth, it is to be hoped that
�The Eucharist.
2I
this slaughter—but not as a sacrifice—shall never be
abolished. No doubt all men act from what is, for the
time, the strongest motive, and they cannot act other
wise. Consequently, to prove that the punishment in
a future existence for what was inevitable in this life
could be an act of justice, is simply impossible. But
a man who commits murder is not to be trusted. And
entertaining the most profound esteem and admiration
for Mr Bright’s genius, talents, eloquence, and amiable
disposition, still, murderers here must be destroyed if
the human race is to advance. But such destruction
is to be inflicted for the same reasons that any other
immediate obstacles to human advancement are to be
removed. This is the justification of human punish
ment. We do not accuse the venomous serpent of
moral guilt. But we cannot trust the venomous ser
pent ; neither can we trust the murderer. But punish
ment does not justify protracted torture here or here
after.
Another, and a very decided step towards a less
revolting form of sacrifice was made by merely bleed
ing a man in honour of the gods. This ceremony was
performed at Sparta, in the time of Pausanias, (III.,
xvi. 6), and at Rome, B.c. 85, when the obsequies of
Marius were being celebrated.
./Egypt possesses the oldest history of any country
with which we are acquainted. There it is that we
find the earliest trace of worshippers, when sacrificing,
substituting symbolical figures instead of men. During
the long, (b.c. 570-526), and prosperous reign of the
/Egyptian King, Amasis, that enlightened prince (Por
phyry, “ on Abstinence,” II. 55) offered, at Heliopolis,
a sacrifice of wax images, instead of human beings
formerly sacrificed. Here, at length, we come to the
institution of harmless sacrifices, including, amongst
other things, a crumb of bread and a drop of wine !
Bread and wine were the primary food of man when he
was rising out of barbarism, and were by him offered to
�22
The Eucharist.
the powers of Earth and Energy, Demeter, an old form
of
^rrip, “ Mother Earth,” and Dionysus, a name of
uncertain etymology, hut probably connected with the
same root as the word Dyaus,
Aio$, Deus, etc.,
and regarded as the god of joy and animated emotion.
Hence bread and wine are symbols of elemental wor
ship, which still lingers in the dove which symbolizes
the Holy Ghost, while it also was the bird sacred to
Venus, and points to an ecclesiastical institution, the
explanation of which is purposely omitted from this
tract.
Thus, then, cannibalism, the bloody eucharist, and
the slaughter of men to secure the favour of the gods,
originated in ignorance, fear, irrational selfishness, and
cruelty, which constitute that religious sentiment,
which, it is to be feared, is common to all nations, and
seems to be inherent in the human mind. This
slaughter was resorted to on occasions of exceptional
solemnity, when the sacrifice of animals seemed
inadequate to express the full irrational selfishness of
religious emotion; and it was for a long time regarded
as a form of worship so praiseworthy and exalted that
its neglect was deplored as a sign of cowardice and of
declining piety. Unfortunately, the practice of human
sacrifice proved compatible with a very considerable
degree of civilisation and mental culture, which proves
that the immoralities of religion ought to be entirely
excluded from all early education of human beings;
because since religion accustomed men to feel supreme
satisfaction in seeing their fellow beings and even
their own children and parents massacred, pierced by
the sword, burned to death, hurled from rocks, build
ings, or lofty terraces, drowned in cess-pools, seas, or
rivers, exposed to starvation, or otherwise cruelly
exterminated, history thereby abundantly and awfully
proves that the practice of religion invariably leads to
the most degrading, the most cruel, and the most
revolting enormities—especially it did so during those
�The Eucharist.
23
“ dark ages,” when Christianity was uncontrolled by
civil law or moral science, and forced its votaries into
religious wars, the persecution of sects, the murder of
Infidels, the burning of witches, the pillage of Jews,
and the horrors of the inquisition !
But, after all, perhaps it may be asserted that the
Christian church does not recognise the existence of
cannibalism in the celebration of the eucharist. Here,
then, is the admirable advantage of definition. In the
Catechism of the Christian Church, edited by the
most reverend Dr James Butler, the eucharist is defined
by question and answer in the following words :—
“ Question. What is the blessed Eucharist ?
Answer. The body and blood, soul and divinity of
Jesus Christ, under the appearances of bread and wine.
Q. What means the word Eucharist ?
A. A special grace or gift of God, and it means
also a solemn act of thanksgiving to God for all his
mercies.
Q. What do you mean by the appearances of bread
and wine ?
A. The taste, colour, and form of bread and wine,
which still remain after the bread and wine are
changed into the body and blood of Christ.
Q>. Are both the body and blood of Christ under
the appearance of bread and under the appearance of
wine?
A. Yes: Christ is whole and entire, true God and
true Man, under the appearance of each.
Q. Are we to believe that the God of all glory is
under the appearances of our corporal food ?
A. Yes : as we must also believe that the same God
of all glory suffered death, under the appearance of a
criminal on the cross.
Q. How can the bread and wine become the body
and blood of Christ ?
A. By the goodness and power of God, with whom
no words shall be impossible,—Luke i. 37.
�24
The Eucharist.
Q. Are we assured that Christ changed bread and
wine into his body and blood ?
A. Yes: by the very words which Christ himself
said when he instituted the blessed eucharist at his
last supper.
U Which are the words Christ said when he
instituted the blessed Eucharist ?
A. This is my body, this is my blood—Matt,
xxvi. 26.
Q. Did Christ give power to the priests of his
church to change bread and wine into his body and
blood 1
A. Yes: when he said to his apostles at his last
supper : Do this for a commemoration of me—
Luke xxii. 19.
Q. Why did Christ give to the priests of his church
so great a power ?
A. That his children, throughout all ages and
nations, might have a most acceptable sacrifice to offer
to their heavenly Father, and the most precious food to
nourish their souls.
Q. What is a sacrifice ?
A. That first and most necessary act of religion,
whereby we acknowledge God’s supreme dominion
over us, and our total dependence on him.
Q. What is the sacrifice of the New Law?
A. The Mass.
Q. What is the Mass?
A. The sacrifice of the body and blood of Christ,
which are really present under the appearances of
bread and wine, and are offered to God by the priest
for the living and the dead.
Q. Is the Mass a different sacrifice from that of the
cross ?
A. No; because the same Christ who once offered
himself a bleeding victim to his heavenly Father on
the cross, continues to offer himself in an unbloody
manner by the hands of his priests on our altars.
�The Eucharist.
25
Q. Was Mass offered in the Old Law?
A. No : so great a sacrifice was reserved for the New
Law, which was to fulfil the figures of the Old Law,
and to give religion its full perfection.
Q. At what part of the Mass are the bread and wine
changed into the body and blood of Christ ?
A. At the consecration.
Q. By whom are the bread and wine changed into
the body and blood of Christ ?
A. By the priest; but in virtue of the words of
Christ, whose person the priest represents at the awful
moment of consecration.
Q. What are the ends for which Mass is said ?
A. To give God honour and glory, to thank Him
for His benefits, to obtain remission of our sins, and
all other graces and blessings, through Jesus Christ.
Q. For what other end is Mass offered ?
A. To continue and represent the sacrifice of Christ
on the cross. ‘ This do,’ says Christ, ‘ in remembrance
of me.’ 1 Cor. xi.
Q. How should we assist at Mass ?
A. With great interior recollection and piety, and
with every mark of outward respect and devotion.
Q. Which is the best manner of hearing Mass ?
A. To offer it to God with the priest for the same
purpose for which it is said, to meditate on Christ’s
sufferings, and to go to communion.”
So the Christian church still offers a real human
sacrifice at the celebration of the Eucharist by trans
forming the bread and wine used at that feast into “ the
body and blood of Christ, which are really present under
the appearances of bread and wine, and are offered to
God by the priest for the living and the dead.” And,
therefore, whenever members of the Christian Church
celebrate “ the blessed Eucharist ” they also celebrate
a real cannibal feast.
�q.6
The Eucharist.
SCHOLIUM.
Although about three hundred millions of Christians
continue to celebrate the Eucharist, unconscious while
they are doing so that they are celebrating a cannibal
feast, yet their unconscious celebration of other Pagan
and even savage ceremonies connected with religion is
a more remarkable incident in the history of human
thought. So powerfully does the force of inactivity, or
the conservative element, act on the brain of man,
that sometimes ceremonies are practised long after
those ceremonies have ceased to manifest the circum
stances that gave them their original significance. To
indicate the circumstances which, we have reason to
believe, originated some ceremonies still observed and
celebrated by Christians may excite a reader’s curi
osity, and even his active inquiry.
PHALLIC WORSHIP.
It is a well ascertained fact that when Christians
worship the Trinity, they worship in the abstract that
which was originally a concrete symbol of the Sun.
The primitive human thinker observed that the sun’s
rays produced an influence on vegetable life analogous
to male generation in animal life. So they represented
the sun’s rays under the symbol of the cross, which
symbol was intended to be a spiritual representation of
generation in the abstract. And it is a well ascertained
historical fact that from China westwards to Spain, and
from Mexico to Chili, the cross has been an emblem of
the Trinity and of Sun worship from times that are re
motely prehistoric down to our own times. On this
subject, and on other matters connected with worship
of the Sun, volumes have been written. Here let it
be sufficient to state that the names Helios, Phoebus,
Jupiter, Pasiphte, Jehovah, Ulysses, Jesus Christ,
�The Eucharist.
27
Sinbad the Sailor, and a multitude of other names
have been more or less clearly identified with matters
relating to worship of the Sun. In fact, any name in
mythology that can be identified with a name of the
Sun may be regarded safely as connected with solar
myth.
MARRIAGE.
Among all purely savage tribes there is not any such
relation between any two members of the tribe as that
which we understand by the expression “husband and
wife.” The females are the common property of all
the men: and consequently when a man wished to
have a wife of his own, he had to capture a woman
from some other tribe. Then she became his wife in
the same way as a horse, a cow, a sheep, or any other
thing captured from some other tribe was a man’s
property. This led such of the men as were strong
and brave to separate from the tribe and rear families
of their own after the manner of a lion and his lioness.
Eor this purpose the patriarch constructed for himself
a fort, afterwards a castle; and when his family was
sufficiently large, the strong castle became the centre
of a village which, in course of time, grew into a
fortified town. Hence the meaning of the Psalm,
cxxvii. 4, 5 : “As arrows are in the hand of a mighty
man; so are children of the youth. Happy is the
man who hath his quiver full of them: they shall not
be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in
the gate.” In course of time a strong town rendered
weak towns tributary, and in this manner the Assyrian
kingdom, with its headquarters at Nineveh, and after
wards Babylon, Athens, and Rome, grew into national
powers.
�28
The Eucharist.
To return to the patriarch. He had absolute power
to slay or sell his children, slaves, servants, cattle, wife,
&c. The sale of daughters is admirably illustrated in
the case of Laban and Jacob (Genesis xxxi.), although,
in that case, the astute son-in-law generally obtained
the advantage over his more opulent father-in-law.
This selling of children has left its traces in the
Christian Church. In the solemnization of matrimony
by the Church of Rome, when the man and woman
have signified their agreement to become husband and
wife, the Roman Catholic Missal directs : “ Deinde
detur foemina a patre suo vel ab amicis suis; qme, si
puella sit, discoopertam habeat manum, si vidua,
tectam : et vir earn recipiat in Dei fide et sua servandam, et tenet earn per manum dexteram in manu sua
dextera; et ad hunc modum, docente sacerdote, dat ei
fidem per verbum de prsesenti, dicens.”
“ Then let the woman be given by her father or by
her friends ; if she be a maiden let her keep her hand
uncovered, if a widow, covered, and let the man receive
her to be preserved in the faith of God and her own
faith; and he holds her with her right hand in his
right hand, and, according to the following form, the
priest dictating the words, he plights his troth to her
by word of mouth, saying.”
And in the Church of England the book of Common
Prayer directs : “ Then shall tlie minister say, ‘ Who
giveth this woman to be married to this man? ’ Then
shall they give their troth to each other in this manner
—the minister, receiving the woman at her father or
friend’s hands, shall cause the man with his right hand
to take the woman by her right hand, and to say after
him as followeth.”
In these formulas “ giving ” is merely a euphemism
for “ selling.” Among civilized nations the pecuniary
arrangements are always agreed on and made before
the marriage ceremony is performed.
�The Eucharist.
29
BAPTISM.
While infanticide prevails among the members of any
tribe or nation, a child doomed to destruction would be
killed without being cleansed, or having any other sort
of labour bestowed on it. On the other hand, a child
intended to be preserved would be cleansed. For
cleaning the human body, washing in water is the
method in use even among the most barbarous of the
savage tribes at present known. Hence washing a
child would be associated with the idea of its preserva
tion. Superstition spiritualizes physical acts whenever
an opportunity offers. From this association of ideas
there would naturally arise in the mind of a savage the
doctrine of baptismal regeneration.
DRINKING.
When it was necessary for the preservation of the hu
man race that all men should fight, it so happened
that some men were not able to fight in proportion to
their physical strength. This inability was caused by
want of courage. In process of time it was discovered
that there were certain victuals and drinks which to
some extent would supply this want of courage.
Among these may be enumerated opium, wine, hemp,
tobacco, and coca. When the use of these stimulants
and narcotics was discovered, they were resorted to for
the purpose of allaying fear. At all events, so well as
we know, the allaying of fear was the first use to which
extracts from hemp were applied. See the Spectator
for 5th July 1879.
In the east it is the main cause
for their continued use. And the wine used at the
eucharist is supposed to prepare Christian communi
cants for warfare on behalf of “ the church militant.”
�The Eucharist.
For in the catechism of the English Church we have
the following question and answer :—
“ Question. What are the benefits whereof we are
partakers thereby ?
Answer. The strengthening and refreshing of our
souls by the body and blood of Christ as our bodies
are by the bread and wine.”
Among the Greeks the import of some practices in
which they indulged during the celebration of the
Dionysia, has been well explained by Muller in his
“ History of the Literature of Ancient Greece,” i. 289.
The intense desire felt by every worshipper of Dionysus
to fight, to conquer, to suffer in common with him,
made them regard the subordinate beings (such as the
satyrs, panes, and nymphs by whom the god himself was
surrounded, and through whom life seemed to pass from
him into vegetation, and branch off into a variety of gro
tesque or beautiful forms, and who were ever present
to the fancy of the Greeks), as convenient means by
which they could approach more nearly to the presence
of their deity. Just as the writer of the Epistle to the
Ephesians (ii. 13, 14, 17) tells them, “ Now, in Christ
Jesus, ye who sometimes were far off are made nigh by
the blood of Christ. For he is our peace who hath
made both one ; and came and preached peace to you
which were afar off, and to them that were nigh.” The
customs so prevalent at the festivals of Dionysus,
whereby the worshippers took the disguise of satyrs,
originated in this feeling, and not in the mere desire of
concealing excesses under the disguise of a mask;
otherwise so serious and pathetic a spectacle as tragedy
could never have originated in the choruses of those
satyrs. Drunkenness and the boisterous music of
cymbals, drums and flutes, the colouring of the body,
wearing skins of goats and. deer, and covering the
face with masks and leaves, manifested a desire to
escape from self into something new and strange, and to
live in an imaginary world.
�The Eucharist.
3l
LAYING ON OF HANDS.
It is observed by the writer of Ecclesiastes, (xi. 5),
that “ thou, knowest not how the bones do grow in the
womb of her that is with child; ” and it may be
sufficient to state generally that because the touch of
natural generation has power to reproduce animal life
and existence, therefore it was supposed almost uni
versally that the touch of any very great man had
power to infuse a portion of his strength, wisdom,
prosperity, good luck, or holiness into any person
whom he touched with the intention of benefiting that
person. This appears to have been the original idea
contained in the ceremony of blessing and ordaining to
office by laying on of hands. In an analogous manner
when kings had reigned for some time, a sovereign, by
virtue of his high office, was supposed to be able to
cure certain diseases by the touch of his royal hand.
That is to say, he was supposed to drive away the
disease in question by infusing a portion of his royal
virtue into the sufferer. Thus (Mark v. 30, Luke
viii. 46) when a woman, suffering from a bodily ail
ment, touched Jesus Christ, even without his being
aware of her intention, he perceived that virtue
went out of him and cured her. Also (Luke vi. 19),
when a whole multitude of disordered persons came to
be cured by Jesus Christ, “ there went virtue out of
him, and healed them all.” Again when Jesus was
newly risen from the dead (John xx. 17) he said to
Mary, “ touch me not for I am not yet ascended to my
Father: ” that is to say he was too weak to permit
virtue to go out of him, as he required to go to
heaven and receive from Jehovah a new infusion of
supernatural power.
This laying on of hands was sometimes performed by
touching the recipient with the fore and middle fingers
of the great man’s right hand. These fingers were
�32
The Eucharist.
used symbolically. Hence a touch of them was in
tended to signify impregnation. So when giving a
blessing—infusing the Holy Ghost into a person—
giving a person “ the gift of tongues ’’—appointing a
person to any high office (Numbers xxvii. 18), as in
the case of Joshua—consecrating a person to any
ecclesiastical office such as deacon, elder, priest, bishop
—the person already holding high ecclesiastical office
touches with his right hand the person intended to be
consecrated. In the Bible, the earliest account of an
instance where the laying on of hands was used,
is in connection (Genesis xlviii. 14, 15), with the
blessing given by the patriarch Jacob to the sons of
Joseph. It was prescribed (Numbers viii. 10) to
Moses as the form for consecrating the Levites.
From these times it was represented as having been
used on such occasions as blessing and appointing to
office, generally among the Jews. In like manner it
was used by the early Christians. See Mark x. 16,
xvi. 18 ; Acts vi. 6, viii. 17, 18, xiii. 3, xix. 16,
xxviii. 8 ; 1 Timothy iv. 14.
At Ephesus, a.d. 56, St Paul (Acts xix. 1-6), found
certain disciples who had been baptized unto John’s
baptism. Paul asked them whether they had received
the Holy Ghost since they believed. They an
swered, ‘‘ We have not so much as heard whether
there be any Holy Ghost.” . Then Paul asked them
unto what were they baptized ? They said unto
John’s baptism. Then Paul said, John baptized with
the baptism of repentance, “ saying unto the people
that they should believe on him who should come
after John, that is on Jesus Christ. When they heard
this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord
Jesus,” with a facility of persuasion which renders the
whole story apocryphal! “ And when Paul had laid
his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them ;
and they spake with tongues and prophesied; ” that is
to say (‘‘Supernatural Religion,” iii. pp. 353-366,
�The Eucharist.
33
Acts iv. 36), they spoke in unintelligible sounds, and
they delivered exhortation.
Connected with these ideas regarding the efficacy
supposed to exist in some cases in the laying on of
hands, there is in Greek poetry a remarkable story re
garding the wanderings of Io, daughter of Inachus, king
of Argos. Io was beloved by Jupiter, and therefore
Juno persecuted Io. In Greek the word epaphe means
“a touch.” Io was said to have given birth to Epaphus,
a mythical king of Egypt, of whom she became pregnant
by the mere touch of Jupiter. On this subject JEschylus (“Suppliants,” 312), says, “Jupiter, who touched
her, begot a son by his hand.” Commenting on this
passage, Mr Paley says, “ Throughout there is a play on
the name J/E7rapoj, as derived from Jpa^rscrSaz, ‘ to
touch.’ It was a supernatural birth—an incarnation
of the deity without procreation : an ancient ^Egyptian
doctrine of great moment and interest, especially as
connected with svivvoia [‘inspiration’].” So then
the efficacy of a divine touch was believed in by the
ancient ^Egyptians.
In like manner we have stories regarding the magic
wand of the wizard, the sorcerer, the witch, the thaumaturgus, the enchanter, and so forth. Almost every
reader is familiar with the story (Odyssey x. 238), re
garding the companions of Ulysses, who were turned
into swine by a touch from the magic wand, pa[38o$, of
Circe, “ a she-kite.” Also (John xx. 22), that a touch
from the breath of Jesus Christ infused the Holy
Ghost into his apostles. And a similar idea regarding
impregnation by touching is contained in some of the
ceremonies connected with the Latin lupercalia, which
were festivals in honour of Lupercus, “ the warder off
against wolves,” and the God of fertility. At those
festivals the men ran about naked, and touching or
striking with a leather thong persons whom they met.
Their touching of women was supposed to render the
touched females prolific.
c
�34
The Eucharist.
Among the ancient Romans, when a master wished
to set free his slave by means of the liberating rod,
vindicta, the ceremony was performed thusThe
master. brought his slave to the magistrate who had
authority for that purpose, and the master stated the
grounds, causa, for the intended manumission. The
lictor of the magistrate laid a ro^festuca, on the head
of the slave, accompanied with certain formal words, in
which the lictor declared that the slave was a free
man, ex jure Quiritium, that is, the lictor placed the
slave in a free condition, vindicavit in libertatem. In
the meantime the master held the slave, and after the
master had pronounced the words hunc hominem
liberum volo, “ I wish this man to be free,” the master
turned the slave round, and emitit e manu, or misit
manu, “he let him go from his hand,” from which
word, “ hand,” the name given to the act of mannmission has been derived. So, in this case, a slave was
made actually free by the hand of his master.
FASTING.
Among the ancient Greeks the iatros, or surgeon,
worked by means of an epode or incantation, carmen.
The hiereus, or sacrificer, acted as a mantis, or prophet,
and he performed this function partly by fasting (see
Lubbock’s “ Origin of Civilization,” p. 153, et seq.),
and afterwards by inspecting the entrails of the victim,
By fasting, the Hesychasts were favoured with a super
natural revelation. See an account of them in Mos
heim’s “ Institutes,” century xiv., ch. v. § 1, 2. When
(Acts x. 10-35) Peter had been fasting, and his nervous
system being thereby disordered, he fell into a trance,
and learned that “ God is no respecter of persons; but
in every nation, he that feareth him, and worketh
righteousness, is accepted with him.”
�The Eucharist.
35
In our own day the clergyman goes through a pre
paration commonly called “ education.” After learning
how to lay his hand on certain symbols and persons—
bend his knees—read prayers—talk solemn nonsense—
makethe sign of the cross—andturnacrumb of bread and
a drop of port wine into flesh and blood, he becomes a
minister, “ minor,” and afterwards a priest or “ elder,”
and if the first lord commissioner of Her Majesty’s
treasury be favourably disposed towards the priest, he
will become a bishop or “overseer.” If the priest be
a man who has not any friend possessed of political in
fluence, the priest must fast if he desire to be promoted.
Among all clergymen, savage and civilized, the efficacy
of fasting is supposed to be very great. The object of
fasting is to bring on at will certain abnormal nervous
conditions, which cause the brain to be conscious of
certain subjective feelings which have not any objec
tive reality. When in this state, the fasting priest
thinks he sees visions which give him direct access to
the fancied inhabitants of the supposed spiritual world.
See Matt. iv. 2, xvii. 21 ; Mark ix. 29; Luke ii. 37;
Acts x. 30y xiv. 23; xix. 6 ; 1 Cor. vii. 5 ; 2 Cor. vi.
5. We are told (Matt. xvii. 21; Mark ix. 29) that
Jesus Christ thought that fasting would cure epilepsy.
“ Vanity of vanities !”
UNIFORMITY.
Ann the human faculties are developed by man’s de
sire to regulate his actions to advantage. Man has
not the least desire to trace causes, except for the pur
pose of his being able to predict what effects will
follow when certain causes shall have occurred. Cer
tain causes force themselves on man’s observation by
their frequent occurrence, and by the invariable nature
�36
The Eucharist.
of the effects that follow; for instance, the rising and
setting of the sun followed respectively by daylight
and by darkness. But when the phenomena are com
plicated, man must expend time and such skilled
training as he possesses to determine the nature of the
physical causes which combine to produce the compli
cated effects. Tn such cases, primitive man must form
some theory which appears most probable to his very
limited knowledge, for the purpose of arriving at some
determination regarding his course of action. Under
such circumstances, it always happens that one of the
causes which appears to him to be most constant in its
occurrence, and most variable in its effects, is the
human will. By observation on himself and his
friends, primitive man infers that the operations of
the human will are governed by passion or caprice
more than by the laws which regulate the material
world. Therefore, by analogy with what is familiar to
him, when he sees phenomena, the cause of which he
does not know, for instance, rain, wind, frost, and
pestilence, he infers that they are caused by some
capricious will.
When families collect into tribes for the purpose of
self-preservation, it is important that all the members
should act with unanimity. Therefore all those mem
bers should hold, or should act as if they held, the
same opinions regarding the unknown causes of pheno
mena, such, for instance, as luck. Their belief in the
ascertained causes of simple phenomena does not need
to be enforced by public opinion, or law, or even by
custom, as, for instance, if a man doubted whether
drinking the juice of hemlock would kill a man, or the
like, the dissentient can be proved to be wrong by an
easily performed experiment. It is only when the
knowledge possessed by the members of a tribe regard
ing a cause is uncertain, and when the cause can be
only guessed at by analogy, that the authority of public
opinion is required to enforce that uniformity of action
�The Eucharist.
37
which is necessary to insure to most advantage the com
bined action of the whole tribe. At an early period in
the world’s history, the importance of this uniformity
was recognised by the various tribes, and caused their
chiefs or kings (who at first were also their priests) to
claim a special knowledge regarding the will of those
unknown beings who were supposed to be the unseen
causes of rain, wind, frost, pestilence, and other obscure
phenomena, and this also led those chiefs to claim that
they were endowed with knowledge regarding the
means whereby those unseen beings might be pro
pitiated, and also knowledge regarding such human
actions as would bring down the vengeance of those
beings on the tribe. To secure uniformity of action, it
was necessary to enforce uniformity of opinion, or at
least uniformity of assent to the claims made by those
chiefs. It never could serve a good purpose to permit
the knowledge or the authority of the chief to be called
in question when the safety of the tribe required united
and immediate action. Moreover, if a sceptical minority
in a tribe were allowed to do anything which, according
to the chief, would cause bad luck, the doing so by that
minority would discourage the majority, and thereby
weaken their fighting power. Homer perceived this
when (Iliad ii. 204, 205) he said “ the rule of the
many is not good : let there be one ruler, one king to
whom the son of wily Kronos has given rule.”
For these reasons, therefore, intolerance to some
extent was and is necessary; especially when the
independence of a nation or a state is in danger. But
intolerance is useless so far as regards matters of private
agreement or disagreement, such as a game at chess,
the price of a donkey, justification by faith, and the
like. Regarding such matters as these the exercise of
intolerance is cruel and even pernicious.
�The Eucharist.
BURIAL SERVICE.
To the untutored human mind there were not any
powers of evil so much feared as deceased heroes.
The energy which animated them while alive was
supposed to dwell in and about their graves. That
energy was fancied to be something different from
matter and its properties. It was imagined to be
spirit, more ethereal than gas or breath, and yet it
was supposed to be both able and willing to inflict on
living man corporal injury. Hence these fancied
spirits of departed heroes were worshipped and pro
pitiated by the slaughter of living victims, whose
blood those spirits were supposed to consume with
a most exquisite relish. These blood-gluttings were
offered annually at the graves of the heroes, and were
supposed to have a strengthening and propitiating
effect on their spirits. The blood gave the soul both
strength and intelligence. Thus (Odyssey, xi. 152-4)
when Ulysses had offered sacrifices at the en
trance to Hades and evoked the shades, the
soul of his mother did not know Ulysses until she
had partaken of the blood : he says, ££ I remained
there firmly, until my mother came and drank of the
blood : then immediately she knew me, and, lamenting,
addressed to me winged words.” These heroic spirits
or souls were called by the Greeks daimones, a term
of rather obscure origin, but meaning a divine power,.
They were regarded as performing a double part both
infernal and celestial. See Aristotle’s “ Ethics,”
bk. v., ch. 7, and see “ Chthonian Worship ”in “The
Journal of Philology,” Vol. i.,p. 1-14 ; by Mr Frederick
A. Paley. In his “ Suppliants,” 25, 2Eschylus repre
sents the chorus invoking Earth, Jupiter, the gods
supreme, and also, ££ vindictive spirits of heroes laid
in tombs.” So lately as b.c. 422, sacrifices were
�The Eucharist.
39
offered to the departed spirit of the Spartan general
Brasidas as to a hero. In short, burial service is
grounded on the rites whereby primitive man endea
voured to propitiate the malignant spirits of deceased
heroes, who were supposed to live again in a future
life. For heroes of great strength and courage were
supposed to have been directly or mediately the
offspring of the gods, while ordinary mortals were
supposed to have sprung from the earth. The de
scendants of both the heroes and the mortals were
imagined to have degenerated; as Homer says re
garding a large stone hurled by one of the Grecian
worthies,
“Not two strong men the enormous weight could raise ;
Such men as live in these degenerate days.”
This theory of man’s degeneracy was accepted by
the Christians whose supposed Founder is represented
as being wholly destitute of originality and inventive
genius. The primitive Christians fancied that they
had sufficiently accounted for human degeneracy by
the hypothesis of “ original sin ; ” a doctrine concerning
which volumes have been written vilifying human
nature to such an extent that a full grown, rational
man, hearing an orthodox exposition of this doctrine
for the first time, might very reasonably wonder why
among orthodox Christians suicide was not regarded as
one of “ the cardinal virtues.” But concerning original
sin, Darwin’s “ Descent of Man ” has caused a strange
revolution among the orthodox apologists of Chris
tianity.
That all the human races were originally in a state
of utter barbarism,—that man is descended from an
animal considerably inferior to a monkey—that the
main-spring of all human actions is pain—and that
there is not any such thing as positive human pleasure,
are newly discovered but well-ascertained doctrines.
�40
The Eucharist.
Homer (Iliad xiv. 409-418) says that when Ajax
struck down Hector with a blow from a stone that hit
him on the breast, above the orb of his shield, near the
neck, Ajax “ made Hector to spin like a top and he ran
quite round,” and Hector fell in the dust. So, in like
manner, the present apologists of Christianity have
been “ made to spin like a top and run quite round ”
by those new doctrines above referred to. In their
desperate attempt to make out a case for the immor
tality of human existence those apologists have been
obliged to have recourse to a doctrine suggested by Dr
Joseph Butler, more than a hundred years ago, without
attracting more than almost the very slightest atten
tion, namely, the doctrine that an immortal existence
awaits even members of the brute creation. Those
apologists, however, have not yet grappled with the
fact that all animals are more or less in a state of pain
to the utter exclusion of positive pleasure. This fact
is consistent with the suggestion that in a future
life (if there be one) there may exist a place or state
of eternal pain and torment, but not of pleasure.
From a present state of pain a hell of eternal pain is
a logical deduction, but a deduction thence to
a heaven of pleasure is an absurdity. From pain a con
tinuance of pain may be logically inferred, but it is con
trary to all rational deduction to infer that pleasure will
arise from pain. A future life, therefore, can be carried
on only in hell. So, according to the apologists of
Christianity, on this plan of argument, the government
of the world is an immoral government that is posi
tively diabolical. To get out of this difficulty, another
school of apologists takes a very different line of defence
from that adopted by the old apologists. Instead
of vilifying human nature (as all orthodox Christians
did during the last fifteen or sixteen centuries) this
other school advocates the inherent worth of human
nature. The members of this new school with the
Reverend Frederick W. Farrar at its head, assert,
�The Eucharist.
41
now, that human nature is a blessing and so valuable
that the miseries of human life are well worth enduring !
So, from what has been here said, it is, at least,
most probable that all ceremonies, at present connected
with the celebration of the Christian religion and
worship, are grounded on savage ceremonies and super
stitions. This important inference cannot cause much
wonder in the mind of an intelligent and painstaking
Thinker; because he must know that human ignor
ance, error, fancy, prejudice, and indolence, have in
fluenced man’s religious belief to an extent that is
almost incalculable. Moreover, it is to be remembered
that when religious belief regarding anything, no
matter what, has during a considerable time been un
disturbed, prejudice and indolence will cause the
believer to resent the publication of anything that
disturbs his erroneous opinions. So, it comes to pass
that religious belief increases the darkness which is
cast on the human mind by ignorance and error.
Even the most profound and original Thinkers cannot
liberate themselves entirely from the mistakes, fancies,
illusions, and shadows of superstition. In fact, reli
gious belief is the most powerful and efficient assistant
of error. To drive away human error it is necessary
to drive away religious belief. As Virgil says, “ Happy
is he who has been able to trace the causes of things,
and who has cast beneath his feet all fears and inexor
able destiny, and the noise of greedy Acheron.” And
Lucretius says, “ There must be driven away utterly
from our minds that fear of Acheron, which disturbs
human life from its very foundation, suffusing all
things with the blackness of death.” Even in the
present day the most fearless, conscientious, and intelli
gent Thinkers are under the necessity of making their
investigations, prosecuting their researches, and arriv
ing at their conclusions beneath the darkness and ob
�42
The Eucharist,
scuring influence of religious belief, the ghost-haunted
day-dreams of superstition, and the hostility of the
numerous partisans who are ready to shed their blood
to maintain in power erroneous authority. Such
Thinkers are in a condition analogous to that of JEneas
and the Sibyl while travelling through Hades, as de
scribed by the operose Latin imitator of our spurious
Odyssey ” :—
They, wrapped in gloom, their journey made
Through the dim night’s lonely shade,
Where solitary Pluto reigns
O’er ghost-inhabited domains :
So travellers in a forest move,
While gleams the fitful moon above
With weird and scanty light;
When Jove has hid the sky from view,
And objects are deprived of hue
By the obscuring night.
TURNBULL ANI) SPEARS, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The Eucharist
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: London
Collation: 42 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Published anonymously. Printed by Turnbull & Spears, Edinburgh. Part of the NSS pamphlet collection.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Freethought Publishing Company
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1880]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
N209
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
[Unknown]
Subject
The topic of the resource
Christianity
Religious practice
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The Eucharist), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Eucharist
NSS
-
https://d1y502jg6fpugt.cloudfront.net/25778/archive/files/1fb1b1f454636f79af7dd1db633d69a9.pdf?Expires=1712793600&Signature=kDzaLnTC3FQi9P41GkM2CUO7dvplzOXas7ZctyE-7F-4lM6k9H5TWfPLEi8m3uCvNKcL6j31U-Qj9fXBpgQM5ZeXVOYLO1iIKaBZDiQVifqGVyyK8vnEWLhMzgjQRHDV43Q%7Eo85qEdjLqPLkD-JcB82P1mHU4y7FPYIl23-5IzeWmWKjRErNTzivAc4x4Or%7E6-1uoLAslWfrHCjXMgzWl8Xr8qbqKUxGfmvXkz%7E7DgMKc0RJgdzri6XEqr-KXobZigyWz-m2BHQqLg5AXt4k0Lr4jeSh9ede7cSxMbQWLZkVynRz9u0L8-9R2ZIzAHHHhMF5dBGoW5F%7Er29%7E-T7zPA__&Key-Pair-Id=K6UGZS9ZTDSZM
b3552901809400a685bbbab35bd3c022
PDF Text
Text
THOMAS LUMISDEN STRANGE,
LATE A JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS,
.
AND AUTHOR OF “ THE BIBLE ; IS IT THE WORD OF GOD ?" ETC.
PUBLISHED BY THOMAS SCOTT,
MOUNT PLEASANT, RAMSGATE.
Price Threepence.
.
��THE BENNETT JUDGMENT.
HE condition to which the Established Church is
gradually tending, necessarily awakens deep
anxieties in those who are interested in upholding it.
The safeguards provided to maintain its integrity, as
successively proved, are found absolutely wanting in
cohesion and strength. The great desideratum for
mankind is to bring the soul into conscious contact
with its maker, to realise the sense of his presence and
action on the mind and spirit, for the governing our
selves in the paths of rectitude and holiness. The
Church recognises a change to be wrought in man from
nature to grace, which is ecclesiastically termed regene
ration. The question of how this was to be effected
was in a manner tried in the Gorham case, and the
issue was that it is quite uncertain whether the regene
ration can be produced by applying water, in baptism,
to an infant, or has to be wrought out otherwise by influ
encing the conscience at some later period. Then,
being brought to God, it had to be judged what guid
ance he might have provided to give man an insight
into his mind and will, whereby man might direct his
ways in conformity to the divine purposes. The Bible
was offered as the all-sufficient medium. But upon in
vestigation, in the instance of the Essayists and Re
viewers, the judgment was, that it should be left to
each to decide for himself how much of the book came
from God and was indubitably true, and how much
came from man and was questionable. Furthermore
T
�4
The Bennett Judgment.
Christ being apprehended to be the medium between
God and man, it had to be ascertained in what manner
the communion between Christ and man is to be kept up.
A special service is appointed for that end, the true import
of which had to be declared. In some sense Christ
was held to be fed upon by the believer when partak
ing of the bread and wine in the Eucharistic rite. The
point raised was, whether he is only presented to him
on the occasion spiritually, or, as Mr Bennett holds, is
actually incorporated in the elements taken into his sys
tem by the recipient. The judicial result arrived at, not
so much in words as in fact, is, that however much Mr
Bennett’s doctrine is to be discountenanced, in point of
actuality, he, or any likeminded to him, is at liberty to
promulgate it in terms such as lie has employed in ex
plaining himself.
At every turn, then, of the inquiry what the views
of the Church of England really may be on any mate
rial subject, so far as depends upon judicial guidance,
the end to which we are brought is confusion. And
the reason of this is self-evident. In corning out of
Home, she carried with her so much that belonged to
Rome, that those whose sympathies are in this direction
have little difficulty in fastening the doctrines of Rome
upon her.
The Evangelical body, with folded hands and half
closed eyes, endeavour complacently to flatter them
selves that there is no such unsoundness at the core of
their beloved institution. The Record, an organ of
this party, has teemed with editorial notices and cleri
cal correspondence on the matter of the Bennett Judg
ment, but in no one instance has the essential link be
tween Rome and the Church, in the constitution of the
Eucharistic service, been touched upon. Mr Bennett’s
views are loudly denounced and repudiated, but with
out an attempt to dislocate them from those foundations
with which the Church herselfhas obviously provided him.
I hazarded a letter on this subject to the Record, in
the hope that possibly it might find admission, and
�The Bennett Judgment.
5
bring before its readers the difficulties with which the
administration of the Eucharist, as appointed in the
Church of England, is assuredly environed.. This I
now give as describing the features of the service which
X desire to bring under consideration.
To the Editor of the Record.
“ Sir,—The Bennett judgment has naturally attracted
much attention from yourself and your clerical correspond
ents. Mr Bennett had committed himself in his discourses,
to the full measure of the Popish doctrine of the divine
presence in the sacramental elements, from the moment of
their consecration. The object of his prosecution was to
disconnect the Church of England from such doctrine. The
issue, however, leaves Mr Bennett at liberty to continue
enunciating it. You and your correspondents are dissatis
fied with such a result, and consider it perilous to the
interests of the Church. Mr Ryle’s letter, in your issue
of the 28th instant, is particularly candid on this head. I
do not however see,in the efforts made through your columns
to free the Church of England of the imputed obnoxious
doctrine, that the question of what the Church’s design in
the sacramental service really may be, is fairly approached.
Permit me, therefore, to put a few propositions in your
paper, in order to elicit such explanation of this abstruse
matter as it may be considered susceptible of.
“ Some presence in the elements, beyond what belongs to
them naturally, is apparently expressed. The Catechism
declares that the partaking thereof, at ‘ the supper of the
Lord,’ is ‘ generally necessary to salvation,’ which amounts
to saying, that, in some way or other, the act ministers to
the ‘ salvation ’ of the recipient; and the explanation pro
vided is, that it affords a ‘ means whereby’ ‘an inward and
spiritual grace ’ is ‘ given,’ ‘ the body and blood of Christ ’
being, it is said, ‘ verily and indeed taken and received by
the faithful ’ through this channel. Mr Horace Noel, in
your said issue of the 28th, insists that as the body and
blood are received ‘ by a bare act of faith,’ which is ‘ an
act, not of the body, but the soul,’ there can be no question
of any such divine presence as Mr Bennett alleges in the
bodily nourishing materials. But in disallowing the possible
effect of faith as altering the conditions of matter, is Mr
Noel true to the scriptural account of the power of faith ?
�6
The Bennett Judgment.
We hear that 1 the prayer of faith shall save the sick,’ that
Elias, by earnest prayer, stayed the rain, ‘ so that it rained
not on the earth by the space of three years and six months,’
and that if there be ‘ faith as a grain of mustard seed,’ one
may ‘ remove ’ a ‘ mountain ’ ‘ hence to yonder place.’ In all
these instances faith acts upon matter, affecting the physical
circumstances of the sick man, arresting the rain clouds, and
transposing the mountain. And why may it not take effect
upon the bread and wine, as when bread was multiplied out
of nothing, and water changed to wine ?
“ The services of the Church of England seem to lead up to
such an idea. The ‘ Priest ’ has ‘ to lay his hand upon all
the bread,’ and, ‘ upon every vessel, (be it chalice or flagon,)
in which there is any wine to be consecrated ;’ ‘if the con
secrated Bread or Wine be all spent before all have com
municated, the Priest is to consecrate more; ’ ‘ when all
have communicated,’ he has to ‘reverently place upon the
Lord’s table what remaineth of the consecrated elements,
covering the same with a fair linen cloth ; ’ and, ‘ if any of
the Bread and Wine remain unconsecrated, the curate shall
have it in his own use ; but if any remain of that which was
consecrated, it shall not be carried out of the church, but
the Priest and such other of the communicants as he shall
then call unto him, shall, immediately after the blessing,
reverently eat and drink the same.’ There is evidently here
some work seen to have been wrought upon the elements,
making them to differ from what is unconsecrated. The
question is in what the difference consists, if not in the
association of the body and blood of Christ therewith.
“ It is at what is called an ‘ altar,’ or ‘ the Lord’s table,’
that the bread and wine are to be taken, and not elsewhere;
they must be dispensed by the ‘ priest ’ or ‘ minister ’ alone;
and his hand must first have carefully been passed over
them ; and when received, it must be in the posture of ‘ all
meekly kneeling.’ There is a disclaimer at the close of the
service introduced by you in your issue under notice,
in which it is disavowed that this kneeling involves an
adoration of the elements. But why the appointed altar,
the intervention of the priest, and the meek kneeling are all
enjoined, together with the ‘reverent’ replacing of the re
sidue, and the ‘reverent’ consumption thereof, on the spot,
by the communicants only, after the service is over, has in
some way to be explained, if there is no special significance
of a change wrought divinely at the time in these elements.
�The Bennett Judgment.
7
‘ ‘ I have noticed the efficacy attaching to the reception of
the bread and wine in the Catechism. The same appears in
the Communion Service itself. It is therein declared that
the communicants ‘ then spiritually eat the flesh of Christ
and drink his blood;’ that ‘then' they ‘dwell in Christ,
and Christ in them ; ’ and, contrary to Mr Noel’s theory, it
is expressly asked that their ‘sinful bodies may-be made
clean by his body,’ and their ‘souls washed through his
most precious blood.’ It is evident that the ’•then’ attaches
to the act some participation at the time of Christ, secured
to the recipient, such as does not belong to the Christian
ordinarily, and at all times ; and that his ‘ body,’ through
the material ingredient introduced into it, as well as his
soul, undergoes some actual beneficial operation. How are
the elements thus effectual if not by an incorporation of
Christ therein ; and if the Eucharistic act is simply one of
commemoration, why is the process, more than once, de
scribed as involving a ‘holy mystery’?—-I am, Sir, yours
obediently,
T. L. Strange.
Great Malvern, June 1872.”
The Editor has not lent himself to the sifting of the
question by himself or readers, which it has been
my object to promote. A feeling for truth in the
abstract can scarcely consist with the sense of truth
apprehended only in some cherished system. My
investigation must therefore be conducted independ
ently from my own point of view.
The account of the last supper in the synoptic
gospels certainly does not place the eating of the bread
and the drinking of the wine in any higher light than
that of a commemorative act. Neither was the distri
bution associated with any ceremonial. The injunction
to the disciples to use these elements in memory of
their master’s death was given in the course of conver
sation relating to various disconnected matters which
both preceded and followed it. The bread which stood
for the body given for them, and the wine which stood
for the blood shed for them, could have so stood in the
way of representation merely, and not of actuality, at
a time when, as yet, the body had not been given, and
�8
The Bennett "Judgment.
the blood had not been shed. The bread appears to
have been given to the disciples collectively, and not
to each separately and formally, as obtaining at the
dispensation of the Eucharist. That the wine was
given thus informally is evident from Luke’s phrase—
“Take this and divide it among yourselves.” There
was no exhibition of a priest dealing severally with
each participant, as if there was virtue in the reception
of the elements direct from his hand. The reprobate
Judas was present on the occasion, and there is no
note that he was excepted at this distribution. If,
after the action was over, he could dip his hand in
the dish with Jesus, as is plainly said to have been
the case, his part in the then passing sociabilities had,
it is clear, not been disturbed. There was then no
mysterious dispensation enacted from which the trans
gressors were to be carefully excluded. It is evident
that the type of the ceremonial in use in the Church of
England is not to be found in the representations of
the synoptics. It is equally evident that the model
followed is that supplied by Home. In adopting this
model, has the church avoided the significancy attach
ing to the forms as employed by Pome ? Has she
adjusted them to a mere commemorative observance ?
If so, she has been guilty of empty mummeries for
which no other object can be conceived than a delu
sive one.
Eome is not without warrant for the meaning she
has attached to the observance. The teaching of John
affords her ample support in the declaration that
Christ had to be fed upon for the sustenance of the
life of his people. “I am the bread of life,” he makes
him declare. ‘‘ Except ye eat the flesh of the son of
man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you.
Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath
eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood,
dwelleth in me, and I in him.” And Paul completes
the instruction. According to him, it was an essential
�The Bennett Judgment.
9
constituent that “ the Lord’s body ” should be 11 dis
cerned” on the occasion, failing which the “unworthy”
recipient became “ guilty of the body and blood of the
Lord;” here calling up, as does Rome, the association
of a continually-recurring sacrifice in the rite ; and,
as a consequence, the guilty one became liable at once
to sickness, and even death. Putting these matters
together, we have the awe-striking dispensation in all
the purport and power attributed to it by Rome, whose
meaning ritual is unmeaningly followed by the Angli
can community.
The warranty of Rome becomes significantly strength
ened when wrn trace back the idea upon which she
works to its true parent germ. The Christian faith,
professing to be exercised on “ things not seen,” is
truly, in all its essentials, materialistic. There is the
necessity that “God” should have been made “manifest
in the flesh;” that the genius of evil should have an out
ward form, which atone time is to be bound in chains and
at another cast into the flames of hell; and that physical
blood should be provided to wash out spiritual sin. Then
the eating and drinking the flesh and the blood of
Jesus readily present themselves as absolute realities.
The feature here associated with the sacrifice of
Jesus has ever belonged to the practice of sacrifices.
In those of the Jews a portion was burnt on the altar
and went up as “ a sweet savour unto the Lord,” and
the residue was consumed by the priests, who repre
sented the people. God and man partook of the same
material feast. “The Hindu gods,” says Professor
Monier Williams, “are represented as living on the
sacrifices offered to them by human beings, and at
every sacrificial ceremonial assemble in troops eager
for their shares. In fact, sacrifice with the Hindus is
not merely expiatory or placatory; it is necessary for
the actual support of the gods” (Indian Epic Poetry,
52, note). At the Bacchanalian rites, in old times,
Mr Baring-Gould informs us, they killed a man and
partook of his flesh. This was put an end to by the
�io
The Bennett Judgment.
Senate in b.c. 186. In sacrifice, he adds, the victim
is held to be united with God. Hence sacramental
eating almost invariably accompanies the act (Origin
and Development of Religious Belief, I. 407, 411).
Positive virtue is considered to be inherent in what is
thus received into the system, as when in India tiger’s
flesh is eaten to obtain the courage of the tiger, and in
New Zealand the body of an adversary, in the belief
that all his martial valour may be thus secured to him
who eats him. John’s idea of participation in Christ
by eating his flesh and drinking his blood carries out
this superstition most completely.
The tree of life, in the garden of Eden, capable of
imparting life, represents the same sentiment that
spiritual advantages can be materialistically conveyed.
The belief is traceable to the Egyptians, who pourtray
the goddess Neith in the branches of this tree, pouring
out the water of life into the mouths of departed souls
(Sharpe’s Egypt. Myth. 66 ; Barlow on Symbols, 59).
The real source of the idea is the Soma of the Hindus,
becoming the Haoma of the Persians. This was the
juice of a plant producing, when drank, an exhilarating
effect. The gods drank this beverage. It was “ the
water of life, giving health and immortality, and pre
paring the way to heaven.” The Persians say that the
“ Haoma is the first of trees, planted by Ahura Mazda
in the fountain of life. He who drinks of its juice
never dies!” It “imparts life at the resurrection”
(Muir’s Sanskrit Texts II., 471, citing Dr Windischmann). The plant haoma is “ the symbol of the Deity
in the Zoroastrian creed.” “ It is spoken of in the
Zend-Avesta as the Word of Life, the Tree of Life, and
the source of the living water of life.” “ When con
secrated, it is regarded as the mythical body of God;
and when partaken of as a sacrament, is received as the
veritable food of eternal life. . . . The Hom (liaomd),
when consecrated to God, was regarded as God himself,
and was supposed to give life, being the person of God
eaten by man ” (Barlow on Symbols, 115-117.) The
�The Bennett ’ udgment.
J
11
Haoma-drink was the sacrament of the Zoroastrian reli
gion ; nay, more, it was the medium through which
the Deity manifested itself. It gave health and im
parted life in the resurrection. Men received the white
sap and became immortal (Dollinger’s Jew and Gentile,
I, 401, 411). The intoxicating Soma juice is an early
Aryan divinity. It was the- beverage of the gods, and
made men like them immortal (Muir’s Sansk. Texts, V.
258, 262). Soma is addressed as the god giving future
felicity. “Place me, 0 purified god, in that everlasting
and imperishable world where there is eternal light and
glory. . . . make me immortal in the world where king
Vaivasvata(Yama, the king of death, the son of Vivasvat)
lives, when in the innermost sphere of the sky” (Muir
in Journal of As. Soc. Pew Ser. I. 138). Soma, says
Dr Muir, was the Indian Bacchus (Idem, I. 135). Its
worship may be identified with that of the Greek god
Dionysus (Bacchus), who discovered and introduced to
mankind the juice of the grape for the alleviation of
their sorrows (Muir’s Sansk. Texts, V. 259, 260).
In the remarkable incident of Melchizedek meeting
Abraham and bringing him bread and wine, we have
the sacramental elements associated together. This has
the appearance of legendary matter, derived probably
from a Phoenician source, and it is introduced with no
very apparent purpose. The personage in question
comes from we know not where, and reappears no more.
He is seemingly the Sydyk of Sanchoniatho. The name
signifies “ the just man,” the adjunct Melik meaning
king. Accordingly in Hebrews ,Melchizedek is declared
to be, “ by interpretation,” the “ king of righteousness.”
Noah, it is said, “ was a just man,” whence Baber iden
tifies him with Sydyk (Mysteries of the Cabiri, 55).
Noah’s planting a vineyard, and drinking of the wine
thereof, has possibly a mythological purport. Wine
figures at the outset of the ministerial career of Jesus,
his miracle in producing it being, according to John,
the manner in which he first “ manifested his glory
and it is emblematical of his final glory. “ I will not
�12
The Bennett Judgment.
drink henceforth,” he said at his last supper, “ of this
fruit of the vine, until that day when 1 drink it new
with you in my Father’s kingdom.” The hlood is the
life of the animal. The wine, therefore, would appro
priately represent his hlood, and it is an animating or
life giving substance. The follower of Christ, as we
have seen, has “ no life in him” unless he drink it. We
appear to have in all these figures and practices the
re-embodiment of Soma, and by consequence of Bacchus.
It is singular, moreover, that the monogram of Bacchus,
which is THS or IHS, should have been adopted for
Christ (Higgin’s Celtic Druids, 128).
The other element, the bread, also bears its part in the
older mythologies. Cakes are among the offerings made
to theHindu gods from the earliest Vedic times (Taiboy’s
Wheeler’s Hist, of India from the Earliest Times, I. 11).
Rice cakes are also used at the sraddhas, or funeral
ceremonies, of the Hindus (Monier Williams’ Epic
Poetry, 38, note). The mourners offer it to the dead
and eat thereof themselves. “ Offering cakes and water,”
says the legislator of the Hindus, is “ the sacrament of
the Manes” (Institutes of Manu, iii. 70). The partak
ing of the bread and wine were connected with the
death of Jesus, which was thus to be shown forth till
he comes. In this there is some approximation to the
sraddhas. The Brahman has to present cakes of bread
to the progenitors of mankind (Manu i. 94). After
making his offerings to the household gods, the offerer
may eat what remains untouched (Manu iii. 117).
Just so the Christian priest and the communicants are
to consume the residue of the consecrated eucharistic
elements. The efficacy of the heavenly bread in gener
ating life, or creating immortal souls, is instanced in
the Ramayna, one of the great Indian epic poems.
Raja Dasaratha performed a sacrifice to obtain a son.
On this the pdya-^a, or food of the gods, was divinely
conferred upon his three wives, who, on partaking
thereof, conceived and bore four god-born sons, one of
whom was the illustrious incarnation Rama (Taiboy’s
�The Bennett Judgment.
13
Wheeler II. 20, 21; Monier Williams, 64). The early
Greeks, from so far back as the times of Cecrops, had.
consecrated loaves and cakes which were sold at the
entrance of the temples and offered to the gods (Bryant’s
Ancient Mythology, I. 371-373). Jeremiah (vii. 18;
xliv. 19), tells of cakes and drink offerings presented to
the queen of heaven. The Homeric gods had their food
as well as their liquor—their ambrosia and their nectar.
So the Israelites in the wilderness were fed with “ the
.corn of heaven,” constituting “ angels’ food” (Ps. lxxviii.
24, 25).
The doctrine of Home, maintained in the eucharistic
service, belongs thus to an ancient and very wide-spread
mythology. It has the authority of India, Persia,
Egypt, Phoenicia, and Greece. It is based upon mate
rialism—the sense that spirit can be built up with that
which nourishes the body. It is founded also upon
belief in the visible manifestation of the Deity. If
clothed upon with flesh, why not also with bread and
wine ? The Evangelicals, such as the Record represents,
clirg to the one form of the manifestation, and revolt
at the other. They ape the ceremonials of the eucharist, while disallowing what the ceremonials can alone
signify. In the conflict between truth and error they
belong to neither side. They bear a testimony against
the error, and yet foster it. With very remarkable pre
science, and much descriptive power, Dr Newman,
thirty-three years ago, has pointed to the forces between
whom the great issue has to be decided, whether reason
is to govern the human race, or superstition ; in which
struggle the Evangelicals, unfortunately, are nowhere.
“ Of Evangelical religion,” he said,—
“ we have no dread at all. ... It does not stand on en
trenched ground, or make any pretence to a position; it does
but occupy the space between contending powers, Catholic
f ruth and' Rationalism. Then, indeed, will be the stern en
counter, when two real and living principles, simple, entire,
and consistent, one in the Church, the other out of it, at
length rush upon each other, contending not for names and
�14
The Bennett Judgment.
words or half views, but for elementary notions and dis
tinctive moral characters. ... In the present day mistiness
is the mother of wisdom. A man who can set down half-adozen propositions, v’hich escape from destroying one
another only by being diluted into truisms, who can hold
the balance between opposites so skilfully as to do without
fulcrum or beam, who never enunciates a truth without
guarding himself against being supposed to exclude the con
tradictory,—who holds that Scripture is the only authority,
yet that the Church is to be deferred to, that faith only
justifies, yet that it does not justify without works, that
grace does not depend on sacraments, yet is not given with
out them,that bishops are a divine ordinance, yet those who
have them not are in the same religious condition as those
who have,—this is your safe man, and the hope of the
Church; this is what the Church is said to want, not party
men, but sensible, temperate, sober, well-judging persons to
guide it through the channel of no-meaning, between the
Scylla and Charybdis of Aye and No (The Manchester Friend,
33, 34).”
From the day that this was written to the present
time, the progress of the two opposed bodies has been
very manifest. On the one side Romanism has become
rampant, introduced into the Church of England through
the many channels which her hollow’ unguarded system
allows of. On the other, the advocates of free thought
have been advancing rapidly in knowledge, in courage,
and in numbers. Their tread is now firmly on the
ground, never to be disturbed; and in the process of
time, vre may hope and believe, the human race will be
released from the bondage of error in which dark days,
rooted in Paganism, have involved them, to recognise
in simplicity, in fulness, and in truth, the Being who
has made them, as revealed to them daily in all his un
disputed works and ways.
Great Malvern,
July, 1872.
TURNBULL AND SPEARS, PRINTERS, EDINBURGH.
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Victorian Blogging
Description
An account of the resource
A collection of digitised nineteenth-century pamphlets from Conway Hall Library & Archives. This includes the Conway Tracts, Moncure Conway's personal pamphlet library; the Morris Tracts, donated to the library by Miss Morris in 1904; the National Secular Society's pamphlet library and others. The Conway Tracts were bound with additional ephemera, such as lecture programmes and handwritten notes.<br /><br />Please note that these digitised pamphlets have been edited to maximise the accuracy of the OCR, ensuring they are text searchable. If you would like to view un-edited, full-colour versions of any of our pamphlets, please email librarian@conwayhall.org.uk.<br /><br /><span><img src="http://www.heritagefund.org.uk/sites/default/files/media/attachments/TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" width="238" height="91" alt="TNLHLF_Colour_Logo_English_RGB_0_0.jpg" /></span>
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Conway Hall Library & Archives
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
2018
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Conway Hall Ethical Society
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Pamphlet
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
The Bennett judgement
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Strange, Thomas Lumisden
Description
An account of the resource
Place of publication: Ramsgate
Collation: 14 p. ; 18 cm.
Notes: Printed by Turnbull and Spears, Edinburgh. From the library of Dr Moncure Conway. Date of publication from KVK. Reprinted from the 'Literary Churchman' and 'The Edinburgh Review', Vol. 136, No. 277. William James Early Bennett was an Anglican priest. Bennett is celebrated for having provoked the decision that the doctrine of the Real Presence is a dogma not inconsistent with the creed of the Church of England. This followed the publication of his pamphlet 'A Plea for Toleration' in the Church of England (1867) in the form of a letter to Edward Bouverie Pusey.
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Thomas Scott
Date
A point or period of time associated with an event in the lifecycle of the resource
[1872]
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
G5538
Subject
The topic of the resource
Church of England
Rights
Information about rights held in and over the resource
<a href="http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/"><img src="http://i.creativecommons.org/p/mark/1.0/88x31.png" alt="Public Domain Mark" /></a><span> </span><br /><span>This work (The Bennett judgement), identified by </span><a href="https://conwayhallcollections.omeka.net/items/show/www.conwayhall.org.uk"><span>Humanist Library and Archives</span></a><span>, is free of known copyright restrictions.</span>
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
application/pdf
Type
The nature or genre of the resource
Text
Language
A language of the resource
English
Church of England-Doctrines
Conway Tracts
Eucharist