EXPLANATORY NOTE.

These papers are just what they profess to be, personal letters addressed to a parish priest of the Church of Rome.

While journeying on the railway some years ago, I made the acquaintance of the Rev. A. M. S.—. A day spent in friendly discussion drew my heart out to him, as I recognized his apparent sincerity of purpose and evident desire to glorify God. On his part, he was kind enough to say that he appreciated greatly the spirit manifested toward him, and had been deeply interested in the consideration of the subject before us. A courteous and cultured gentleman, with whom it was a real pleasure to converse, he also was, I trust, a genuine lover of our Lord Jesus Christ, and a man of true piety. When we parted, he accepted from me a little volume dealing with a portion of Holy Scripture, concerning which he afterwards wrote me a very appreciative letter.

This opened the way for a somewhat desultory correspondence, covering a period of several months, which was at last interrupted by a serious illness on my part, which, with much pressing work afterwards, for a long time hindered my again writing him. Two years or more, in fact, elapsed ere I again addressed him. Of the earlier epistles I have kept no copies, but the latter ones were written in duplicate, and are now published with the hope that they may prove helpful in establishing believers in the glorious doctrines recovered at the Reformation and since, and check, in ever so small a degree, the progress Romeward of seeking souls who have not yet found settled peace; and lead to rest and assurance of acceptance with God honest Roman Catholics whose hearts long for it, but which their Church and its teachings have failed to supply.

LETTER I. Rev. A. M. S.–.

Dear Sir :You may wonder, after the lapse of so many months, that I should again address you; but I have not forgotten our former correspondence, nor the courteous way in which you responded to my letters at that time. I still have on hand your two last lengthy epistles, which I had no thought of neglecting so long ; but, shortly after receiving the latter one, I was obliged to make a lengthy journey, and, while far from home, was taken ill with a sickness from which I did not fully recover for a number of months. Since that time I have been so occupied with other matters that I have hesitated about renewing the correspondence. Another thing :I wished to familiarize myself more fully with Roman Catholic teaching and history. To this end I have read largely, in the months that have passed, on both sides. New-man and Chiniquy, Gibbon and Littledale, the "Catholic Encyclopedia," and Protestant historians; the Fathers, Pre- and Post-Nicene; and mediaeval and modern theologians have alike been drawn upon, in order to take up with you the questions at issue, absolutely without prejudice, and, I trust, without misrepresentation. I think I have to-day a much more kindly feeling toward sincere Roman Catholics than ever before; while, you will pardon me if I say, that my researches have given me a more intense detestation of many Romish dogmas than I had previously possessed.

In the measure in which Rome confesses the doctrine of Christ, I rejoice. Her martyrs and confessors, mine as well as hers, I honor; but wherever she teaches for doctrine the commandments of men, I most surely dissent. I, too, am a member of the Catholic Church, the one body of which Christ alone is the Head, exalted at God's right hand to be a Prince and a Saviour. Every believer in Him upon the face of the earth is, through the Spirit's baptism, a member of that one body; hence, belonging to the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church in the fullest and truest sense. But I feel, more strongly than ever, that the Bishop of Rome, and the faction who acknowledge his authority, have largely perverted the gospel of Christ; preaching, instead, "another gospel, which is not another;" and you know the solemn anathema pronounced by St. Paul against all such. What a fearful thing if the Roman Pontiff, while calling himself the Vicar of Christ and the earthly head of the Church, were found himself beneath that fearful curse (Gal. i:6-9).

In your last letter to me you say, and rightly so, I believe that "the Real Presence in the Blessed Sacrament is the pivotal point on which all turns." " Is then Christ really present in the Blessed Sacrament, as we Catholics believe ? " you ask, " Or is it only a figure?" And here you confidently say:"I call all History and all Antiquity to testify against you."

Now, my dear sir, these are very strong words; and I must confess that I am greatly surprised at the temerity that could permit you to use them. Surely you are as familiar with the Fathers and history as I am. Nay, I cannot but believe you are far better acquainted with the writings of the former than I; therefore, you must know that the pre-Nicene Fathers nowhere teach the doctrine you allege. It is only years afterwards that anything approaching it is found. It is nothing to me that the Roman Church for more than a millennium has held this doctrine; nor yet that the Eastern Church holds the same; that Luther himself taught something similar; that certain Anglicans, from Henry the Eighth down, largely agree with Rome. These are all comparatively modern. Antiquity, in this case, decides absolutely against them. When I speak of Antiquity, it is not the writings of fallible men to which I refer, but to " that which was from the beginning"-the authoritative records of the inspired apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ. I purpose, then, putting before you every inspired account of the Lord's Supper found in the Holy Scriptures; and I ask you, as an honest man, to weigh them well, forgetting, so far as you can, every construction that has been put upon them by post-Nicene theologians, and ask yourself if the scriptures in question can possibly bear the interpretation Rome has given them.

In St. Matthew's Gospel, chap. 26, vers. 26-29, we read :"And as they were eating, Jesus took bread, and blessed it, and brake it, and gave it to the disciples, and said, Take, eat ; this is My body. And He took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Drink ye all of it; for this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins. But I say unto you, I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father's kingdom." St. Mark's account is very similar, but I quote it entire, as found in chap. 14, vers. 22-25:"And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, and blessed, and brake it, and gave to them, and said, Take, eat:this is My body. And He took the cup, and when He had given thanks, He gave it to them:and they drank all of it. And He said unto them, This is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many. Verily I say unto you, I will drink no more of the fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God."

St. Luke confines his account to the space of two verses, chap. 22 :19, 20-verses 17 and 18 clearly referring to the passover cup preceding the institution of the Lord's Supper:"And He took bread, and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying, This is My body which is given for you:this do in remembrance of Me. Likewise also the cup after supper, saying, This cup is the new covenant in My blood, which is shed for you."

St. John, as you will recollect, furnishes no account of the institution of the Christian feast at all. His sixth chapter we will consider in a later letter.

St. Paul, in i Cor. n :23-29, gives us the only remaining account :" For I have received of the Lord that which also I 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 they had supped, saying, This cup is the new covenant in My blood:this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me. For as oft as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's 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 the bread, and drink of the cup. For he that eateth and drinketh, eateth and drinketh a judgment to himself, if he discern not the Lord's body."* *The Scripture quotations are from the 1911 Oxford Version, the only edition of the Bible I had on hand when writing, but neither the Douay nor the A. V. differ materially.*

I know of no other direct reference to the Lord's supper, save i Cor. to:15-21, which I will refer to later, and those passages in the Acts which speak of the "breaking of bread," but give us no particulars as to mode or doctrine connected with it. i Cor. 5:7, 8 might be cited as a case in point, but even supposing the feast therein mentioned is what you call the " Eucharist," it proves nothing, one way or the other, as to the real Presence. Neither does Phil. 4:6, which some read:" Be careful for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication with Eucharist, let your requests be made known unto God."

Now I ask your attention to the Lord's words in regard to the cup, in the passage quoted. In St. Matthew He says:' Drink ye all of it; for this is My blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of sins." Was He speaking literally or figuratively ? It seems to me the simplest way to answer this question is just by asking another:Had His blood been shed at that time or not ? His words are very plain, "This is My blood which is shed." It is an offence to our God-given intelligence, to insist that the words, "This is My blood," must be taken literally ; while, when He added, "which is shed," it must be acknowledged that He was speaking anticipatively. Furthermore, in the following verse He calls the liquid in the cup, " the fruit of the vine," which is absolutely absurd if it had been changed by the divine Presence into His actual blood. Both these propositions, I believe, apply with equal force to the quotations from St. Mark's Gospel. And St. Luke makes our position even stronger. He tells us that our Lord said, "This cup is the new covenant in My blood." Would you say He meant us to understand literally that the cup contained the new covenant, and that when you drink it you are drinking the new covenant, or is the expression clearly figurative ?

With Luke's account Paul agrees, and we shall examine his words in a moment. But if it be clear, and I see not how it can be denied, that our Lord speaks figuratively of the cup, by what rule of logic can we suppose He speaks literally of the bread when He says, "This is My body, which is given for you?" Some manuscripts read, "broken for you; "but in either case, the meaning clearly is, " Put to death." Had His body already been broken, given, or sacrificed for us, when He instituted the Supper? If not, He certainly speaks in a figurative way. So St. Paul takes it; and in i Cor. 10:16 he writes, "The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ ? The loaf which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ ?" And he immediately adds, " For we are all partakers of that one loaf." So that the one loaf not only sets forth figuratively Christ's literal body, but it also is a figure of His mystical body-the Church.

And so it was held by all the apostolic churches; nor was any other meaning attached to it until the predicted apostasy had begun. The Romish dogma of the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ being present under one species, and the consequent denial of the cup to the laity, is in itself a complete and perfect annulment of the dogma of the Real Presence; for in the Lord's Supper, as instituted by Christ, it was of the loaf alone that He said, "This is My body," and it set forth His body as given in death; hence the cup set forth His blood as separated from His body, though that separation had not yet actually taken place. Now if you tell me that in partaking of the loaf alone I still receive the blood of Christ, as though I had partaken of the cup, you completely vitiate the Roman theory itself. For manifestly, if a violent death has taken place, I cannot receive both body and blood in one kind. To tell me I can, is to deny the fact of the separation of the blood from the body at death, or else to deny the Romish dogma of the Real Presence, and to acknowledge that I receive both in a figurative sense.

It is true St. Paul tells us, "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 the bread and drink of the cup." It is still the bread, and still the cup. No change has taken place in the elements; faith alone can see in the loaf and the cup a symbol of the crucified Saviour.

And now I ask you, dear sir, in all seriousness, can you see anything in the Roman service of the Mass that answers in any sense to the beauty and simplicity of the Lord's Supper, as set forth in the scriptures we have read ? There you have no pompous hierarchy separated from the laity, as though of a superior class, but a company of Christian brethren gathered to partake together of a simple memorial feast, each one eating of the loaf, each one drinking of the cup, in reverent and hallowed remembrance of the Lord and His death. As to the denial of the cup to by far the greater majority of communicants, I must write on that later, time and space forbidding now.

In closing, let me say that there is a deep and precious sense in which I acknowledge the Real Presence of our Lord Jesus Christ in the midst of His redeemed people, not only when gathered together to remember Him in the breaking of bread, but when gathered to His name for prayer or praise. For He Himself has said:"Where two or three are gathered together unto My name, there am I in the midst." But this, of course, involves no transubstantiation of elements in the Lord's Supper. Sincerely yours,

H. A. Ironside