The Rev. Father Acosta says:

He then relates how the Mexicans and Peruvians, in certain ceremonies, ate the flesh of their god, and called certain morsels of paste, "the flesh and bones of Vitzilipuzlti."

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 pronounce 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:

The story of the passover 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 God;[313:2] and also in the story of Elijah and the widow of Zarephath, where by God'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 pass 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—

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 Irenæus 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 God. 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 Mass. 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 God 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 lustre, 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 institution 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:

CHAPTER XXXI.

BAPTISM.

Baptism, or purification from sin by water, is supposed by many to be an exclusive Christian ceremony. The idea is that circumcision was given up, but baptism took its place as a compulsory form indispensable to salvation, and was declared to have been instituted by Jesus himself or by his predecessor John.[316:1] That Jesus was baptized by John may be true, or it may not, but that he never directly enjoined his followers to call the heathen to a share in the privileges of the Golden Age is gospel doctrine;[316:2] and this saying:

must therefore be of comparatively late origin, dating from a period at which the mission to the heathen was not only fully recognized, but even declared to have originated with the followers of Jesus.[316:3] When the early Christians received members among them they were not initiated by baptism, but with prayer and laying on of hands. This, says Eusebius, was the "ancient custom," which was followed until the time of Stephen. During his bishopric controversies arose as to whether members should be received "after the ancient Christian custom" or by baptism,[316:4] after the heathen custom. Rev. J. P. Lundy, who has made ancient religions a special study, and who, being a thorough Christian writer, endeavors to get over the difficulty by saying that:

When we say that baptism is a heathen rite adopted by the Christians, we come near the truth. Mr. Lundy is a strong advocate of the type theory—of which we shall speak anon—therefore the above mode of reasoning is not to be wondered at.

The facts in the case are that baptism by immersion, or sprinkling in infancy, for the remission of sin, was a common rite, to be found in countries the most widely separated on the face of the earth, and the most unconnected in religious genealogy.[317:1]

If we turn to India we shall find that in the vast domain of the Buddhist faith the birth of children is regularly the occasion of a ceremony, at which the priest is present. In Mongolia and Thibet this ceremony assumes the special form of baptism. Candles burn and incense is offered on the domestic altar, the priest reads the prescribed prayers, dips the child three times in water, and imposes on it a name.[317:2]

Brahmanism, from the very earliest times, had its initiatory rites, similar to what we shall find among the ancient Persians, Egyptians, Greeks and Romans. Mr. Mackenzie, in his "Royal Masonic Cyclopædia," (sub voce "Mysteries of Hindustan,") gives a capital digest of these mysteries from the "Indische Alterthum-Skunde" of Lassen. After an invocation to the SUN, an oath was demanded of the aspirant, to the effect of implicit obedience to superiors, purity of body, and inviolable secrecy. Water was then sprinkled over him, suitable addresses were made to him, &c. This was supposed to constitute the regeneration of the candidate, and he was now invested with the white robe and the tiara. A peculiar cross was marked on his forehead, and the Tau cross on his breast. Finally, he was given the sacred word, A. U. M.[317:3]

The Brahmans had also a mode of baptism similar to the Christian sect of Baptists, the ceremony being performed in a river.

The officiating Brahman priest, who was called Gooroo, or Pastor,[318:1] rubbed mud on the candidate, and then plunged him three times into the water. During the process the priest said:

Rivers, as sources of fertility and purification, were at an early date invested with a sacred character. Every great river was supposed to be permeated with the divine essence, and its waters held to cleanse from all moral guilt and contamination. And as the Ganges was the most majestic, so it soon became the holiest and most revered of all rivers. No sin too heinous to be removed, no character too black to be washed clean by its waters. Hence the countless temples, with flights of steps, lining its banks; hence the array of priests, called "Sons of the Ganges," sitting on the edge of its streams, ready to aid the ablutions of conscience-stricken bathers, and stamp them as white-washed when they emerge from its waters. Hence also the constant traffic carried on in transporting Ganges water in small bottles to all parts of the country.[318:3]

The ceremony of baptism was a practice of the followers of Zoroaster, both for infants and adults.

M. Beausobre tells us that:

The learned Dr. Hyde also tells us that infants were brought to the temples and baptized by the priests, sometimes by sprinkling and sometimes by immersion, plunging the child into a large vase filled with water. This was to them a regeneration, or a purification of their souls. A name was at the same time imposed upon the child, as indicated by the parents.[318:5]

The rite of baptism was also administered to adults in the Mithraic mysteries during initiation. The foreheads of the initiated being marked at the same time with the "sacred sign," which was none other than the sign of the CROSS.[319:1] The Christian Father Tertullian, who believed it to be the work of the devil, says:

"He marks on the forehead," i. e., he marks the sign of the cross on their foreheads, just as priests of Christ Jesus do at the present day to those who are initiated into the Christian mysteries.

Again, he says:

He also says that:

And St. Augustin says:

The ancient Egyptians performed their rite of baptism, and those who were initiated into the mysteries of Isis were baptized.[319:6]

Apuleius of Madura, in Africa, who was initiated into these mysteries, shows that baptism was used; that the ceremony was performed by the attending priest, and that purification and forgiveness of sin was the result.[319:7]

The custom of baptism in Egypt is known by the hieroglyphic term of "water of purification." The water so used in immersion absolutely cleansed the soul, and the person was said to be regenerated.[320:1]

They also believed in baptism after death, for it was held that the dead were washed from their sins by Osiris, the beneficent saviour, in the land of shades, and the departed are often represented (on the sarcophagi) kneeling before Osiris, who pours over them water from a pitcher.[320:2]

The ancient Etruscans performed the rite of baptism. In Tab. clxxii. Gorius gives two pictures of ancient Etruscan baptism by water. In the first, the youth is held in the arms of one priest, and another is pouring water upon his head. In the second, the young person is going through the same ceremony, kneeling on a kind of altar. At the time of its baptism the child was named, blessed and marked on the forehead with the sign of the cross.[320:3]

Baptism, or the application of water, was a rite well known to the Jews before the time of Christ Jesus, and was practiced by them when they admitted proselytes to their religion from heathenism. When children were baptized they received the sign of the cross, were anointed, and fed with milk and honey.[320:4] "It was not customary, however, among them, to baptize those who were converted to the Jewish religion, until after the Babylonish captivity."[320:5] This clearly shows that they learned the rite from their heathen oppressors.

Baptism was practiced by the ascetics of Buddhist origin, known as the Essenes.[320:6] John the Baptist was, evidently, nothing more than a member of this order, with which the deserts of Syria and the Thebais of Egypt abounded.

The idea that man is restrained from perfect union with God by his imperfection, uncleanness and sin, was implicitly believed by the ancient Greeks and Romans. In Thessaly was yearly celebrated a great festival of cleansing. A work bearing the name of "Museus" was a complete ritual of purifications. The usual mode of purification was dipping in water (immersion), or it was performed by aspersion. These sacraments were held to have virtue independent of the dispositions of the candidates, an opinion which called forth the sneer of Diogenes, the Grecian historian, when he saw some one undergoing baptism by aspersion.

And the belief that water could wash out the stains of original sin, led the poet Ovid (43 B. C.) to say: