JB_161_166.xml

Title: [1818 Jan y 28 Not Paul III]

Description: 1818 Jan y 28

Not Paul

III Doctrine

Ch Mysticism

4

§ Lord’s Supper

Thus far the antecedent―setting aside the false intimation tacked to it, trivial the simple and innoxious statement of a simple and to all but the Apostles themselves who alone were concerned in it an / a comparatively at least / immaterial incident.

But now comes the consequent: consequent the product not of logic, but of Paul’s ever extravagant yet ever interested rhetoric. Every man who eating bread and drinking wine eats and drinks it in commemoration of the bread and wine eaten and drunk by and with Jesus at his last supper will if he eats it unworthily incur thereby a danger more or less considerable of death in this world and boundless misery in the / a / world to come. ‘For Bentham footnote at this point: ‘I. Cor. XI 29. 30’. he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord’s body. 30. For this cause many are weak and sickly among you, and many sleep.’ Bentham footnote at this point: ‘ By another interpretation Paul’s credit may be saved. Eating unworthily is doing so to excess: damnation, nothing more than condemnation.’

Note here how naturally, and how customarily, a supernatural cause is spun out of a natural effect. Among those who were present at these commemorative suppers were some and in no small number, in this very part the Epistle itself informs us, were in the habit of / apt to / drinking to excess / intoxication /. All men are doomed to death all men are liable to sickness: not more effectually would the name of Jesus than the name of Charles Fox or that / the name / of William Pitt divest the / any / intoxicating liquor of any part of its pernicious influence. Here then were indisputable occurrences and for / on / these occasions in the character of effects, the piety of Paul, followed by so much other piety of the same stamp found a convivial cause. It was not by the physical excess the temporal the physical the physiological the pathological excess―no it was by the unworthiness―the spiritual unworthiness that the effect had been produced.

JB_161_015.xml

Title: [II. Contents of the Work, intituled Not Paul]

Description: II. Contents of the Work, intituled Not Paul, but Jesus.

Part I. Paul’s claim to a commission from Jesus examined.  Contents not here

inserted.

Part II. Asceticism inculcated by Paul―in repugnancy to good morals.

Ch. 1. Cause―Occasion―Apologetica.

Ch. 2. Principle of Asceticism, what: asceticism by active

inflection, asceticism by forbearance:―asceticism by forbearance, the principle by

which condemnation is passed on pleasure, in whatever shape, on any ground other than

that of its being followed by pain more than equivalent.―Repugnancy of this principle

to the only genuine, consistent, and defensible foundation of good morals―the

principle of general utility, termed for shortness the principle of

utility: by which in the instance of every species of act, the approbation or

disapprobation proper to be bestowed upon it is considered as depending upon, and

measured by, its effects on the universal interest; i.e. on human happiness

considered in the aggregate and as composed of individual pleasures, and exemptions

from individual pains.

For this, reference to two works of Bentham: viz. 1. Introduction to the principles

of Morals and Legislation, 4 vo London 1789; 2. Traités de

Legislation Civile et Penale, 8 vo 3 Tomes, Paris 1802; edited by

Dumont. See also his Table of the Springs of Action

&c. 8 vo London 1817: including Pleasures and Pains.

Ch. 3. Subject of the present enquiry, the pleasures of sense. Pains and Pleasures,

Elements of their value:―These elements are the same for all: viz. I. in the case of

each pleasure or pain taken by itself, 1. intensity; 2. duration. (these two compose

magnitude:) 3. certainty. 4. propinquity: II.―in relation

to other pleasures and pains, considered as capable of resulting from it to the same

person; 5. purity, as to sensations of the opposite cast; 6. fecundity, as to d o of the same d o: III.―in relation to the number of the persons considered as participating in it; 7.

Extent, as measured by the number of such persons.―For all this, reference to

Bentham, as above.

Ch. 4. Physical division of the subject { Object and use of this division, shewing

the absence of distinction in respect of noxiousness, between those modes of sensual

gratification, on which condemnation is generally passed by law and public opinion,

and those on which no such condemnation at all is passed, or none but what is much

less severe. The one is accordingly―to pave the way for the Moral division of the

subject: as to which, see Contents of the next Chapter.}

I. Division of the sorts of acts, whereby the senses are put to use or affected,

into such, in the instance of which the sense is but the inlet

to the pleasure, or the pain, or the chief part of it, and such, where the sense is

the seat as well as the inlet. To the

former class belong 1. the act of seeing; sense, the sight; 2. the act of hearing;

sense, the hearing. To the other class belong 3. the act of eating; sense, the taste;

4. the act of drinking; sense again the taste: 5. the act of smelling; sense, the

smell: 6. the sexual act, or act of sexuality; sense, the sexual, sometimes called

the sixth sense. To the class in which the sense is the seat of the pleasure will the appellation of sensual acts, or acts of sensuality be generally

understood to be confined.

II. Division of acts of sensuality, into acts, of which the most prominent effect is

the production of positive pleasure, and those of which the most prominent effect is

production of mere exemption from positive pain.―Necessary indistinctness of these

divisions. The latter class shares not in equal degree, if at all, in any

condemnation commonly applied to any of the acts belonging to the former class.―To

the former class may be referred―1. the act of eating after

the pain of hunger is removed, or considered as applied to articles of food, preferred in respect of their savour: 2.

the act of drinking, in like circumstances: 3. the act of smelling to substances agreably odorous: 4. the act of self-intoxication, considered in its various modes; whether, of

the intoxicating matter the form be

solid, liquid, or gaseous; vinous or non-vinous: 5. the act of sexuality.

To the other class may be referred, for example 1. Acts, whereby exclusion is put

upon such extremes of temperature, as are productive of pain

or uneasiness;―acts, whereby disagreable coolness or disagreable warmth are removed:

2. Acts, whereby substances, whether solid or liquid, productive of sensations

unpleasant to the surface of the body, are removed: viz. washing clean or wiping dry:

3. Acts, whereby relief is obtained under the species of inflammation commonly called

itching.  Per James 1 st, pleasure of

scratching where it itches, too great for a subject: per

eundem, as inferred from practice, pleasure of sexuality in the Attic mode not

too great for a King.

III. Division of acts of sensuality, into those where the pleasure reaped at the time is the effect principally or

exclusively important, and those where by the value of a comparatively remote result in which it terminates, the value of the pleasure

is exceeded. To the latter class belong―1. the acts, whereby nourishment is taken in: comparatively remote and more important, result,

preservation of the existence of the individual: 2. the act of

sexuality: comparatively remote and more important, though not in more cases than one

out of a number, consequent,―and not in any, more than

contingent,―result―contributing to the preservation of the existence of the species.

When the act of taking in the matter of nourishment, in circumstances, in which it

is not capable of affording additional security for the accomplishment of the

ulterior and more important result, is not condemned, why should the act of

sexuality?

In the instance of the act of sexuality, of the only case in which the comparatively

remote and more important effect is capable of being produced, the extent, compared with that of the remaining cases put together, is extremely

narrow. The description of it, as contradistinguished from those others, is―where,

the gratification being social in contradistinction to solitary, the parties are two and no more than two, both

belonging to the same species,―the two belonging to the correspondent and opposite

sexes,―the female neither short of, nor beyond the child-bearing age, nor in other

respects unsusceptible of impregnation, nor yet already impregnated: the parts of the

body, respectively employed, on both sides, those alone, which are capable of being

conducive to the production of the contingent, remote, but most important effect.

Ch. 5. Moral division of the subject, according to the principle of utility.

Division of the acts in question into innoxious and noxious: predominant noxiousness the sole proper ground for

punishment or disrepute. In this as in all other instances,―on him, by whom such

predominant noxiousness is imputed to a pleasure, rests the onus

probandi:―the obligation of proving the truth of the imputation.

Ch. 6. Aspect of the law of public opinion, as towards the pleasures of sense―its

errors and inconsistencies: Condemnation and allowance little governed by utility:

condemnation, in many instances most severe, upon those which

are least noxious, or altogether innoxious:―allowance, or comparative indulgence, shewn to those which are most

noxious. N.B. These errors and inconsistencies are separately brought to view and

exposed.

Follow, in the instance of the pleasures of the sexual sense,

I. Cases in which, though the production of the most important effect is impossible,

yet, so the sanction of wedlock be not wanting, no condemnation is, by the law of

opinion, passed upon the act.

1. Impregnation already performed.

2. Impregnation rendered impossible by advanced age or infirmity.

3. Impregnation impossible; the time being that of menstruation.

N.B. By the Law of Moses, (Leviticus, xx. 18.) in case of conjunction under that

circumstance, death was the punishment of the male: the same as for conjunction with

the same sex or a different species.

4. Impregnation rendered as yet impossible by immaturity of age.

II. Cases, in which condemnation appears to be passed on the act, by the law of

public opinion: the order, in which they are here ranged, having in view the strength

of the condemnation; and commencing with the cases in which the strength is

least:―but,―by reason of the difference, which, in respect of real noxiousness, has

place in some instances under the same denomination, and the indeterminateness of the

ground in all, and thence the want of agreement among the individuals, of whom, under

this law, in the character of Judges, the tribunal is composed,―the correctness of

the graduation is unavoidably far short of perfection. Among these distinguish

I. Cases, in which the more important result, viz. encrease given to the species,

stands on the same footing, in respect of probability, with the case in which the

sanction of wedlock is not wanting, nor, in regard to impregnation, is any cause of

impossibility present.

1. Parties, not united to one another in wedlock: neither of them so united with any

other person:―The case commonly called fornication. In the

male, in some opinions, not disreputable; in others, more or less so; in the female,

generally and highly so: chiefly by reason of, and in proportion to, the real evils:

for which See Ch. 13.

2. Parties not united to one another in wedlock: one of them so united to another

person.―Adultery―single Adultery.

JB_139_471.xml

Title: [1817 Oct 14 Not Paul Note continued]

Description: 1817 Oct 14

Not Paul

Note continued

History

Ch Period before Conversion

§. 8. Deacons chosen - Priests converted

On the present occasion /instance/ the Greek word rendered by the English word priest is - not πρεσβυτερος but ιερευς.

From this confusion on various occasions no small profit has been made. Ιερευς is the word which in all /the two / /those/ religions, Pagan for example and Jewish, in which a particular order of men were employed in sacrifice, that is in the roasting of meat for their own eating meat which the Gods or God was /were /supposed to eat or smell at is employed for the designation of the man belonging to that order. By such sacrifices /offerings/ the favour of the God or Gods to whom they were made was conciliated the God or Gods were rendered favourable to those by whom the offers were made, favourable and disposed to forgive any transgressions which it may /might/ have happened to them to committ.

Roast meat sacrifice being by the religion of Jesus put out of credit and out of date when priestcraft took possession of it something which without being roast meat should be a sacrifice and as far as concerned the interest of the priests money and power together should answer the same purpose was to be devised. Hence to the distorted […?] of Jesus’s last supper the name of sacrament and the quality of a sacrifice was to be added /[…?]/: hence by so simple an expedient /a contrivance/ /an operation/ as the eating of a piece of bread and the drinking of a few drops of wine the drinking to be performed according to some by proxy according to others in person, sins in any number that had been committed were caused never /not/ to have been committed, or what comes to the same thing the sinner put into the same plight as if this had been the case.

And thus it is that in this as in so many other instances priestcraft has contrived to turn to account (and to such account!) the very word that constitutes the denomination of the every where impressive[?] tribe. The πρεσβυτερος made himself ιερευς: taking for his fee, besides what other good things were to be had, instead of roast meat, wine.