(Continued from page 82.)

LETTER II. My Dear Sir:

As intimated in my previous letter, I now desire to animadvert a little on Rome's denial of the cup to the laity. And here I can, without any fear, turn your own words back upon yourself, and call all history (up to very recent years) and all antiquity to witness against you. You know as well as I that the canon enjoining communion in one kind was only passed on June 15, 1415, and that at a time when the Roman Church was without a head. For the same council that enacted the decree, had deposed Pope John XXIII., on May 29th, 1415, and his successor was not elected until November nth, 1417. Yet Roman apologists declare that the Pope has authority to change the order of the Lord, who gave communion in two kinds (the bread typifying His body, the wine His blood), to communion in one kind only, on the part of the commonalty, priests alone being permitted to observe the original order. Now this decree of the council of Constance is a direct contradiction to Roman canon law of the centuries preceding. Pope Leo the Great, in inveighing against the Manicheans, says distinctly:"They receive Christ's body [which to him, of course, was the, communion loaf] with unworthy mouth, and entirely refuse to take the blood of our redemption [referring clearly to the cup, according to the Roman interpretation]; therefore we give notice to you, holy brethren, that men of this sort, whose sacrilegious deceit has been detected, are to be expelled by priestly authority from the fellowship of the saints " (quoted from his 41st Homily). But Pope Gelasius I. is stronger yet, for in a letter addressed to the Bishops, Majoricus and John, which has been embodied in the canon law of the Romish Church, he says:"We have ascertained that certain persons having received a portion of the sacred body alone, abstain from partaking of the chalice of the sacred blood. Let such persons, without any doubt, since they are stated to feel thus bound by some superstitious reason, either receive the sacrament in its entirety, or be repelled from the entire sacrament, because a division of one and the same mystery cannot take place without great sacrilege "(Corp. Jur. Can. Decr. 3. ii, 12). And with this agrees the decree of the council of Clermont, personally presided over by Pope Urban II. in 1095:"That no one shall communicate at the altar, without he receives the body and blood alike, unless by way of necessity, or caution." In the next century (A. D. 1118), Pope Paschal II. wrote to Pontious, Abbot of Cluny, referring to the teaching of St. Cyprian:"Therefore, according to the same Cyprian:in receiving the Lord's body and blood, let the Lord's tradition be observed, nor let any departure be made, through human institution, from what Christ the Master ordained and did. For we know that the bread was given separately, and the wine was given separately, by the Lord Himself, which custom we therefore teach and command to be always observed in Holy Church,* save in the case of infants and very infirm people, who cannot swallow bread." *Italics mine throughout.*

Now what title has the Church of Rome to declare itself unchanged, Catholic and Apostolic in its practices, as well as doctrines, when a council without a Pope can deliberately overthrow the teaching of four Popes on a matter of this kind ? The fact is Rome has completely annulled the words of our Lord Jesus Christ; and as to this, at least, teaches for doctrine the commandments of men.

And this to a Catholic is a most serious thing. For when our Lord in John 6 speaks of "eating His flesh and drinking His blood," Romanists implicitly believe Him to be referring to participation in the Eucharist; yet his church forbids him to drink of the cup, unless he be one who has taken priestly orders.

But does the much contested passage in John 6 have any reference to the Lord's Supper, or is it intended to set forth a great spiritual truth ? In deciding for the latter, you will accuse me of using private judgment. This I confess; but on your part, when you decide to accept the teaching of the Roman Church as to the same passage, you too are using private judgment; though you may decry it. Your private judgment leads you to accept the Church's teaching. My private judgment leads me to repudiate it, as against both my God-given reason and holy Scripture's teaching, which is to me far more reliable authority than any interpretation that the Church may put upon it. Our Lord, in John 6, was addressing Jewish disciples, before the Christian Church had been established or the Lord's Supper instituted. He told them at that time to "labor not for the meat which perisheth, but for that meat which endureth unto everlasting life, which the Son of Man shall give unto you:for Him hath God the Father sealed" (ver. 27). They answered Him:"What shall we do that we might work the works of God?" He replied:"This is the work of God that ye believe on Him whom He hath sent." To believe on Him, is evidently synonymous with receiving the meat that endures unto everlasting life. Cavilers among them directed His attention to the account of the manna eaten by their fathers in the desert, desiring Him again as on yesterday to provide them with literal bread in the wilderness. He answered, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Moses gave you not that bread from heaven, but My Father giveth you the true bread from heaven . . . that giveth life unto the world." In response to their cry, "Lord, evermore give us this bread," He answers:"I am the Bread of Life:he that cometh to Me shall never hunger; and he that believeth on Me shall never thirst." Again, beginning with verse 47, He says:"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on Me hath everlasting life. I am that Bread of Life. Your fathers did eat manna in the wilderness, and are dead. This is the, Bread that cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die. I am the living Bread that came down from heaven:if any man eat of this Bread, he shall live forever:and the Bread that I will give is my flesh, that I will give for the life of the world." Unbelieving . Jews strove among themselves at this, saying :. " How can this man give us His flesh to eat? " Then Jesus said unto them, "Verily, verily, I say unto you, Except ye eat of 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. For my flesh is meat indeed and my blood is drink indeed. He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in Me, and I in Him. As the living Father hath sent Me, and I live by the Father; so he that eateth Me, even he shall live by Me. This is that Bread that came down from heaven:not as your fathers did eat manna and are dead:he that eateth of this Bread shall live forever" (vers. 53-58).

Now this is the teaching of our Lord as to eating His flesh and drinking His blood, and suggests that He was referring to something that man might do at that time, namely:live by eating His flesh and drinking His blood. His blood had not been poured out upon the cross, nor His flesh wounded in death, but those who came to Him, trusting Him as their Saviour, were already recipients of the new life which He came to give. That the eating and drinking were spiritual and not literal is clear from verse 57, where He speaks of living by the Father, in the very same way that they who were eating Him, lived by Him. And how did He live by the Father ? Clearly as a Man of faith. " I will put My trust in Him" expressed the continuous habit of His life, and as we who believe in Him thus live by faith in Himself, we eat His flesh and drink His blood. He says in verse 63:" It is the Spirit that giveth life; the flesh profiteth nothing:the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit and they are life."

What further proof have we need of ? I think it plain that the Lord Jesus was referring, not to a sacrament yet to be instituted, but to a spiritual reality, known even then to those who believed upon Him. And all the councils of Rome cannot annul His words as to this.

His disciples at that time, who were such in very deed, not merely by profession, were already living by Him, yet had never partaken of the sacrament of the Lord's Supper. And we may rest assured that wherever, and whenever a repentant soul turns now to Christ and trusts Him as the Saviour who has given His life for the world, he both eats His flesh and drinks His blood, and thus has life eternal – something the Romish sacrifice of the Mass, so-called, does not even pretend to give. For what intelligent Romanist really believes he has eternal life-a life in Christ that can never be forfeited-through participation in the Mass ? Is it not a fact that this, as all other Romish sacraments, leaves the participant uncertain and anxious still as to the final outcome ? But it is otherwise with him who rests implicitly on the words of the Son of God:"Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on Me hath everlasting life."

May I, without giving offence, or without appearing to be unduly forward, or impertinent, press some questions home upon you, my dear sir ? Have you this great gift, promised by our Lord Jesus to all who believe in Him ? Are you certain that you have everlasting life ? After all your years of devoted service in the Church of Rome, your careful, conscientious obedience to her decrees, are you now at rest in your soul as to the question of your sins ? Do you know them all forgiven and put away, through the offering of Jesus Christ once for all upon the cross ? Have you been justified freely by His grace, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus ? Are you a happy possessor of a life in Him that can never be forfeited, because eternal, and dependent not upon your faithfulness, but upon His ? Oh, my dear sir, if you cannot answer simple questions like these in the affirmative, is it not time to stop and ask yourself how it is that the system to which you cling has not given you that certainty and peace, which clearly were, and are, the portion of all found in the enjoyment of Apostolic Christianity ? Is it not possible that you have missed your way ? Yea, that the whole church to which you belong has in some manner, perhaps to you unaccountable, fallen from the simplicity of apostolic days into grievous apostasy ?

In my next letter I purpose to consider the sacrificial character of the Mass in your Communion. I remain, dear sir, Yours respectfully,

H. A. Ironside