Bible Myths and their Parallels in other Religions Part 87

"The _Eleusinian_ Mysteries, or, Sacrament of the Lord's Supper, was the most august of all the Pagan ceremonies celebrated, more especially by the Athenians, every fifth year,[309:4] in honor of _Ceres_, the G.o.ddess of corn, who, in allegorical language, _had given us her flesh to eat_; as _Bacchus_, the G.o.d of wine, in like sense, _had given us his blood to drink_. . . .

"From these ceremonies is derived the very name attached to our _Christian_ sacrament of the Lord's Supper,--'_those holy Mysteries_;'--and not one or two, but absolutely all and every one of the observances used in our Christian solemnity. Very many of our forms of expression in that solemnity are precisely the same as those that appertained to the Pagan rite."[309:5]

Prodicus (a Greek sophist of the 5th century B. C.) says that, the ancients worshiped _bread_ as Demeter (_Ceres_) and _wine_ as Dionysos (_Bacchus_);[309:6] therefore, when they ate the bread, and drank the wine, after it had been consecrated, they were doing as the Romanists claim to do at the present day, _i. e._, _eating the flesh and drinking the blood of their G.o.d_.[309:7]

Mosheim, the celebrated ecclesiastical historian, acknowledges that:

"The profound respect that was paid to the Greek and Roman _Mysteries_, and the extraordinary sanct.i.ty that was attributed to them, induced the Christians of the second century, to give _their_ religion a _mystic_ air, in order to put it upon an equal footing in point of dignity, with that of the Pagans. For this purpose they gave the name of _Mysteries_ to the inst.i.tutions of the Gospels, and decorated particularly the 'Holy Sacrament' with that t.i.tle; they used the very terms employed in the _Heathen Mysteries_, and adopted some of the rites and ceremonies of which those renowned mysteries consisted. This imitation began in the eastern provinces; but, after the time of Adrian, who first introduced the mysteries among the Latins, it was followed by the Christians who dwelt in the western part of the empire. A great part, therefore, of the service of the Church in this--the second--century, had a certain air of the Heathen Mysteries, and resembled them considerably in many particulars."[310:1]

_Eleusinian Mysteries_ and _Christian Sacraments Compared_.

1. "But as the benefit of Initiation was great, such as were convicted of witchcraft, murder, even though unintentional, or any other heinous crimes, were debarred from those mysteries."[310:2]

1. "For as the benefit is great, if, with a true penitent heart and lively faith, we receive that holy sacrament, &c., if any be an open and notorious evil-liver, or hath done wrong to his neighbor, &c., that he presume not to come to the Lord's table."[310:3]

2. "At their entrance, purifying themselves, by washing their hands in _holy water_, they were at the same time admonished to present themselves with pure minds, without which the external cleanness of the body would by no means be accepted."[310:4]

2. See the fonts of _holy water_ at the entrance of every Catholic chapel in Christendom for the same purpose.

"Let us draw near with a true heart in full a.s.surance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience, and our bodies washed with pure water."[310:5]

3. "The priests who officiated in these sacred solemnities, were called Hierophants, or '_revealers of holy things_.'"[310:6]

3. The priests who officiate at these Christian solemnities are supposed to be 'revealers of holy things.'

4. The Pagan Priest dismissed their congregation with these words:

"_The Lord be with you._"[310:7]

4. The Christian priests dismiss their congregation with these words:

"_The Lord be with you._"

These Eleusinian Mysteries were accompanied with various rites, expressive of the purity and self-denial of the worshiper, and were therefore considered to be an expiation of past sins, and to place the initiated under the special protection of the awful and potent G.o.ddess who presided over them.[310:8]

These _mysteries_ were, as we have said, also celebrated in honor of _Bacchus_ as well as _Ceres_. A consecrated cup of wine was handed around after supper, called the "Cup of the Agathodaemon"--the Good Divinity.[311:1] Throughout the whole ceremony, the name of the _Lord_ was many times repeated, and his brightness or glory not only exhibited to the eye by the rays which surrounded his name (or his monogram, I. H.

S.), but was made the peculiar theme or subject of their triumphant exultation.[311:2]

The mystical wine and bread were used during the Mysteries of _Adonis_, the Lord and Saviour.[311:3] In fact, the communion of bread and wine was used in the worship of nearly every important deity.[311:4]

The rites of _Bacchus_ were celebrated in the British Islands in heathen times,[311:5] and so were those of _Mithra_, which were spread over Gaul and Great Britain.[311:6] We therefore find that the ancient _Druids_ offered the sacrament of bread and wine, during which ceremony they were dressed in white robes,[311:7] just as the Egyptian priests of Isis were in the habit of dressing, and as the priests of many Christian sects dress at the present day.

Among some negro tribes in Africa there is a belief that "on eating and drinking consecrated food they eat and drink the G.o.d himself."[311:8]

The ancient _Mexicans_ celebrated the mysterious sacrament of the Eucharist, called the "most holy supper," during which they ate the flesh of their G.o.d. The bread used at their Eucharist was made of _corn_ meal, which they mixed with _blood_, instead of wine. This was _consecrated_ by the priest, and given to the people, who ate it with humility and penitence, _as the flesh of their G.o.d_.[311:9]

Lord Kingsborough, in his "_Mexican Antiquities_," speaks of the ancient Mexicans as performing this sacrament; when they made a cake, which they called _Tzoalia_. The high priest blessed it in his manner, after which he broke it into pieces, and put it into certain very clean vessels. He then took a thorn of _maguery_, which resembles a thick needle, with which he took up with the utmost reverence single morsels, _which he put into the mouth of each individual, after the manner of a communion_.[311:10]

The writer of the "Explanation of Plates of the _Codex Vatica.n.u.s_,"--which are copies of Mexican _hieroglyphics_--says:

"I am disposed to believe that these poor people have had the knowledge of our mode of communion, or of the annunciation of the gospel; or perhaps the _devil_, most envious of the honor of G.o.d, may have led them into this superst.i.tion, in order that by this ceremony he might be adored and served as Christ our Lord."[312:1]

The Rev. Father Acosta says:

"That which is most admirable in the hatred and presumption of Satan is, that he hath not only counterfeited in idolatry and sacrifice, but also in certain ceremonies, _our Sacraments_, which Jesus Christ our Lord hath inst.i.tuted and the holy Church doth use, having especially pretended to imitate in some sort the _Sacrament of the Communion_, which is the most high and divine of all others."

He then relates how the _Mexicans_ and _Peruvians_, in certain ceremonies, ate the flesh of their G.o.d, and called certain morsels of paste, "the flesh and bones of _Vitzilipuzlti_."

"After putting themselves in order about these morsels and pieces of paste, they used certain ceremonies with singing, by means whereof they (the pieces of paste) were blessed and consecrated for the flesh and bones of this idol."[312:2]

These facts show that the _Eucharist_ is another piece of Paganism adopted by the Christians. The story of Jesus and his disciples being at supper, where the Master did break bread, may be true, but the statement that he said, "Do this in remembrance of me,"--"this is my body," and "this is my blood," was undoubtedly invented to give authority to the _mystic_ ceremony, which had been borrowed from Paganism.

Why should they do this in remembrance of Jesus? Provided he took this supper with his disciples--which the _John_ narrator denies[312:3]--he did not do anything on that occasion new or unusual among Jews. To p.r.o.nounce the benediction, break the bread, and distribute pieces thereof to the persons at table, was, and is now, a common usage of the Hebrews. Jesus could not have commanded born Jews to do in remembrance of him what they already practiced, and what every religious Jew does to this day. The whole story is evidently a myth, as a perusal of it with the eye of a critic clearly demonstrates.

The _Mark_ narrator informs us that Jesus sent two of his disciples to the city, and told them this:

"Go ye into the city, and there shall meet you a man bearing a pitcher of water; follow him. And wheresoever he shall go in, say ye to the _goodman_ of the house, The Master saith, Where is the guest-chamber, where I shall eat the pa.s.sover with my disciples? And he will show you a large upper room _furnished and prepared_: there make ready for us. And his disciples went forth, and came into the city, and found as he had said unto them: and they made ready the pa.s.sover."[313:1]

The story of the pa.s.sover or the last supper, seems to be introduced in this unusual manner to make it manifest that a divine power is interested in, and conducting the whole affair, parallels of which we find in the story of Elieser and Rebecca, where Rebecca is to identify herself in a manner pre-arranged by Elieser with G.o.d;[313:2] and also in the story of Elijah and the widow of Zarephath, where by G.o.d's directions a journey is made, and the widow is found.[313:3]

It suggests itself to our mind that this style of connecting a supernatural interest with human affairs was not entirely original with the Mark narrator. In this connection it is interesting to note that a man in Jerusalem should have had an unoccupied and _properly_ furnished room just at _that_ time, when two millions of pilgrims sojourned in and around the city. The man, it appears, was not distinguished either for wealth or piety, for his _name_ is not mentioned; he was not present at the supper, and no further reference is made to him. It appears rather that the Mark narrator imagined an ordinary man who had a furnished room to let for such purposes, and would imply that Jesus knew it _prophetically_. He had only to pa.s.s in his mind from Elijah to his disciple Elisha, for whom the great woman of Shunem had so richly furnished an upper chamber, to find a like instance.[313:4] _Why should not somebody have furnished also an upper chamber for the Messiah?_

The Matthew narrator's account is free from these embellishments, and simply runs thus: Jesus said to some of his disciples--the number is not given--

"Go into the city to such a man, and say unto him, The Master saith, My time is at hand; I will keep the pa.s.sover at thy house with my disciples. And the disciples did as Jesus had appointed them; and _they_ made ready the pa.s.sover."[313:5]

In this account, no pitcher, no water, no prophecy is mentioned.[313:6]

It was many centuries before the genuine heathen doctrine of _Transubstantiation_--a change of the elements of the Eucharist into the _real_ body and blood of Christ Jesus--became a tenet of the Christian faith. This greatest of mysteries was developed gradually. As early as the second century, however, the seeds were planted, when we find Ignatius, Justin Martyr, and Irenaeus advancing the opinion, that the mere bread and wine became, in the Eucharist, _something higher_--the earthly, something heavenly--without, however, ceasing to be bread and wine. Though these views were opposed by some eminent individual Christian teachers, yet both among the people and in the ritual of the Church, the miraculous or supernatural view of the Lord's Supper gained ground. After the third century the office of presenting the bread and wine came to be confined to the _ministers_ or _priests_.

This practice arose from, and in turn strengthened, the notion which was gaining ground, that in this act of presentation by the priest, a sacrifice, similar to that once offered up in the death of Christ Jesus, though bloodless, was ever anew presented to G.o.d. This still deepened the feeling of _mysterious_ significance and importance with which the rite of the Lord's Supper was viewed, and led to that gradually increasing splendor of celebration which took the form of the _Ma.s.s_. As in Christ Jesus two distinct natures, the divine and the human, were wonderfully combined, so in the Eucharist there was a corresponding union of the earthly and the heavenly.

For a long time there was no formal declaration of the mind of the Church on the _real presence_ of Christ Jesus in the Eucharist. At length a _discussion_ on the point was raised, and the most distinguished men of the time took part in it. One party maintained that "the bread and wine are, in the act of consecration, transformed by the omnipotence of G.o.d into the _very body_ of Christ which was once born of Mary, nailed to the cross, and raised from the dead." According to this conception, nothing remains of the bread and wine but the outward form, the taste and the smell; while the other party would only allow that there is _some change_ in the bread and wine themselves, but granted that an actual transformation of their power and efficacy takes place.

The greater accordance of the first view with the credulity of the age, its love for the wonderful and magical, the interest of the priesthood to add l.u.s.tre, in accordance with the heathens, to a rite which enhanced their own office, resulted in the doctrine of Transubstantiation being declared an article of faith of the Christian Church.

Transubstantiation, the invisible change of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, is a tenet that may defy the powers of argument and pleasantry; but instead of consulting the evidence of their senses, of their sight, their feeling, and their taste, the first Protestants were entangled in their own scruples, and awed by the reputed words of Jesus in the inst.i.tution of the sacrament. Luther maintained a _corporeal_, and Calvin a _real_ presence of Christ in the Eucharist; and the opinion of Zuinglius, that it is no more than a spiritual communion, a simple memorial, has slowly prevailed in the reformed churches.[315:1]

Under Edward VI. the reformation was more bold and perfect, but in the fundamental articles of the Church of England, a strong and explicit declaration against the real presence was _obliterated_ in the original copy, to please the people, or the Lutherans, or Queen Elizabeth. At the present day, the Greek and Roman Catholics alone hold to the original doctrine of the _real presence_.

Of all the religious observances among heathens, Jews, or Turks, none has been the cause of more hatred, persecution, outrage, and bloodshed, than the Eucharist. Christians persecuted one another like relentless foes, and thousands of Jews were slaughtered on account of the Eucharist and the Host.

FOOTNOTES:

[305:1] Matt. xxvi. 26. See also, Mark, xiv. 22.

[305:2] At the heading of the chapters named in the above note may be seen the words: "Jesus keepeth the Pa.s.sover (and) _inst.i.tuteth_ the Lord's Supper."