The Mass versus The Lord's Supper
Sermon Delivered at the Moody Church, Chicago, Sunday Afternoon, June 27th, 1926
The Pastor learned late in the previous week of the
possibility of holding a great Protestant Rally in the Moody Church, with
Mr.H.A.Ironside as speaker, on the Sunday following the Eucharistic Congress
held in Chicago. The time was much too short for extensive advertising, but
through announcement in the Saturday papers, and the co-operation of a large
number of city ministers, many of whom were present at the Rally, the effort
became known to a great many. Pastor John O'Hair and Pastor James Gray, very
kindly mentioned the meeting to their radio audiences. The former presided at
the Rally. More than 3,500 people attended.
"It is possible, as I
speak to you today, that I may use the word "Catholic" as opposed to
"Protestant." If I do, it is simply a slip of the tongue, for I maintain that
every true Protestant is a real Catholic, that every believer in the Lord Jesus
Christ is a member of the one Holy Catholic Church, purchased by the precious
blood of the Son of God. But I distinguish between a Catholic and a Romanist.
When I was speaking, on one occasion, to a Roman Catholic priest whom I met in
a train in California, he asked me what my profession was and I said, "I am a
Catholic priest."
He looked at my collar and said, "You are surely
jesting with me."
I said, "No, I never was more serious in my life. I
am a priest in the Holy Catholic Church. I mean that I am a member of that holy
and royal priesthood composed of all believers in the Lord Jesus Christ and
together forming the Holy Catholic Church." So if I use the word "Catholic"
when I mean "Romanist" you will understand me.
I am not here to say
anything unkind against the Roman church. As my friend, Brother O'Hair, has
reminded you, our Government guarantees to every man the right to full liberty
of conscience in regard to religious privileges. As we wish to enjoy that
liberty ourselves, we are glad to accord it to others. But I simply desire to
examine some of the teachings of the Church of Rome and compare them with the
teaching of the Word of God, particularly on the great central doctrine of that
church, which is called the Sacrament of the Blessed Eucharist, or the
Sacrament of the Mass.
THE CRUX OF THE MATTER
Every Roman
Catholic priest will tell you that all the claims of the Church of Rome stand
or fall with the doctrine of the real presence of Christ in the Mass. If the
bread and wine used in the Sacrament of the Mass, when consecrated by the
priest, are changed in some mysterious way into the body, blood, soul and
divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ so that the communicant receiving the bread
actually takes into his mouth and eats and digests the body, blood, soul and
divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ - if this is true, then the Church of Rome is
the true church of Christ and every one of us should be members. But if false,
if it is absolutely opposed to the teaching of the Word of God, then that
Church is an apostate church and every faithful believer should come out of her
in order that he might not be held accountable for her sins.
It was
because the great reformers of the sixteenth century saw this clearly and were
assured in their own hearts that the doctrine of the Church of Rome in regard
to the Eucharist or the Mass was absolutely opposed to the Word of God and was
not only blasphemous but idolatrous, that they came out in protest against that
apostate system and they won for us at tremendous cost of Christian blood the
liberty that we now possess. And yet we, unworthy children of such worthy
sires, are frittering away our liberty and we are allowing our children to be
ensnared again by this evil system from which our fathers escaped with such
tremendous effort.
BASIC TRUTH
I want to call your attention
first of all to a passage in the 10th chapter of the Epistle to the Hebrews
which may not seem at first sight to have any reference to the subject in
question, but I think we shall see that it not only has reference to it but
presents the basic truth in regard to it. The 10th chapter of the Epistle to
the Hebrews, beginning with verse 11:
"And every priest (the Apostle is
referring to the Levitical priesthood) standeth daily ministering and offering
oftentimes the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins: but this man
(that is, the Lord Jesus Christ who as to the mystery of His person is both God
and man in one blessed, glorious person never to be divided), after He had
offered one sacrifice for sins for ever, sat down on the right hand of God:
from henceforth expecting till his enemies be made his footstool. For by one
offering He hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Whereof the Holy
Ghost also is a witness to us: for after that He had said before, This is the
covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will
put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them; and their
sins and iniquities will I remember no more."
Now here is the crucial
text that I want you to get:
"Now where remission of these is, there is no
more offering for sin."
CHRISTS FINISHED WORK
In the
Epistle to the Hebrews the apostolic writer contrasts the ritual system of the
Old Testament dispensation with the glorious work achieved by Jesus Christ when
He offered Himself on Calvary's cross for our redemption. He draws our
attention to the fact that under the old economy the priest's work was never
done because the sin question was never settled. No sacrifice had been found
that was of sufficient value to atone for the sins of the world and so whenever
men sinned afresh they had to come with a new sacrifice. One offering followed
another constantly, therefore there was not even provision made for the priest
to sit down in the tabernacle or in the temple of the Lord. The priest's work
was never done for sin was never put away. But he goes on to say that in those
sacrifices there was an acknowledgment again made of sin from year to year.
That is, the worshiper under the Old Testament dispensation came to God in
faith, confessing his sin, and brought his animal sacrifice, whether a bullock
from the herd, a sheep from the flock, or two birds. He confessed his sin and
these sacrifices were offered for him. They did not cancel his guilt. They did
not cleanse his heart. They were rather in the nature of a note that a man
gives to his creditor for a debt. A man is owing a certain sum of money. He
makes out a note for that sum. He is unable to pay when it is due, so he makes
out another note, and in those notes there is an acknowledgment again made of
the debt from year to year. So in the sacrifices of old there was simply an
acknowledgment of sin made year after year. Sometimes when a man must give a
note for a debt he has a wealthy friend who is good enough to endorse that note
for him. By endorsing that note his friend says, "If you are not able to pay
when the note becomes due, I pledge myself to pay for you."
THE SIN
QUESTION SETTLED
When these people of old gave their notes to God by
bringing their sacrifices again and again, our Lord Jesus Christ, the Eternal
Son still ex-carnate, endorsed every note and He said,
"Lo, I come (in the
volume of the book it is written of Me) to do Thy will, O God."
In the
fulness of time He came, made of a woman, made under the law, and He went to
Calvary's cross and there, may I say, gathered up and settled for all those
notes of the past, and undertook the full responsibility for every believer to
the end of time and offered Himself a sacrifice for the sins of men. By that
one all-sufficient offering of Himself upon the cross, He has settled the sin
question to God's satisfaction so that now God can be just and the justifier of
him that believeth in Jesus.
The sacrifice of our Lord Jesus Christ
had both a backward and a forward aspect. It put away all the sins of the past
that had only been covered by the blood of the sacrifices and made ample
provision to put away all the sins of the future for every one who would
believe on Him. The means by which needy sinners avail themselves of an
interest in the finished work of Christ is very simple. The sinner has to take
his place before God as a lost. guilty man, owning his iniquity and putting his
trust in the Man who died on the cross; for
"By Him all that believe are
justified from all things, from which ye could not be justified by Moses' law."
In this New Testament economy Christ is the only sacrificing priest.
He is the one all-sufficient victim. Christ having made atonement for sins,
rose from the dead and God has manifested His righteous satisfaction in the
work of the cross by seating Him in heaven at His own right hand.
A
FEAST OF LOVE
Our Lord Jesus before He went away, foreseeing all this,
gave to His disciples that feast of love which we commonly call "The Lord's
Supper." In the Lord's Supper this mystery of redemption is wonderfully and
beautifully pictured. I want to read to you the various scriptures in the New
Testament that refer to it. I am going to read each passage that speaks of this
feast of love in order that you, hearing them, may compare them in your own
mind with the celebration -- the idolatrous celebration -- which you have
either seen or of which you have been reading during recent days, and I ask you
to put the questions to yourself: Is there anything here that is remotely
connected with this ceremony that myriads have been so occupied with during
this past week? Is there in this a sin offering? Is there a sacrificing priest?
Is there any provision here for incense, any provision for worshipping the
Virgin Mary, any provision for a great hierarchy with their brilliant garments?
I read the other day that $200,000.00 worth of priestly garments were ruined by
the rain during the celebration at Mundelein. You could put all the apostles,
and the 500 who saw the Lord after His resurrection, and all the Christians in
the early days, out in the rain and hail and they would not ruin $10.00 worth
of priestly vestments! Is there anything that compares with the ceremony that
has been enacted in this city and its environs in the last few days and which
is supposed to be the continuation of that of which our Lord speaks here?
In the 26th chapter of Matthew - our Lord had just eaten the Passover
with His disciples - we read, beginning at verse 26:
"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 testament, 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. And when they had sung
an hymn they went out into the mount of Olives."
How beautiful in its
simplicity is this first celebration of the Lord Supper! How different to this
mysterious ceremony which is the very center of the Roman Catholic system!
OTHER VERSIONS
Now turn to the Gospel of Mark and get his
account of the same Supper. See if there is anything which Matthew left out
which he has inserted which might give some ground, some basis, for the
doctrines that have gathered round the so-called Sacrament of the Mass. St.Mark
14:22:
"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 all drank of it. And
He said unto them, This is my blood of the new testament, 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. And when they had
sung an hymn, they went out into the mount of Olives."
"And as they
did eat." I would draw your attention to that. Every Roman Catholic is
instructed to take the Sacrament of the Mass fasting. Have you read that after
"they did eat, Jesus took bread." They were just concluding the Passover meal.
And "Jesus took bread." Mark you, not some special cake marked with the mystic
letters "I.H.S." which are supposed to mean "Iesus Hominum Salvator", but that
might just as well mean the Egyptian deities "Isis", "Horus", "Seb", as they
did ages ago in a similar ceremony.
Now I turn you to the account
given by our brother Luke, Doctor Luke, the beloved physician. Lukes
Gospel 22:19:
"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 testament in my blood, which is shed for you."
PAUL
SPEAKS
The Apostle John does not give us any account of the institution
of the Lords Supper, but after Christs ascension and after the
conversion of Saul of Tarsus when he became the Apostle Paul, a special
revelation was given to him, and in the 11th chapter of 1st Corinthians we get
the full account of it. Read from verse 20:
"When ye come together
therefore into one place, this is not to eat the Lords supper. For in
eating every one taketh before other his own supper: and one is hungry, and
another is drunken. What! have ye not houses to eat and drink in? or despise ye
the church of God, and shame them that have not? What shall I say to you? Shall
I praise you in this? I praise you not. For I have received of the Lord (the
risen, ascended, glorified Lord) that which also I delivered unto yen, That the
Lord Jesus the same night in which He was betrayed (the night in which He was
to know experimentally the untrustworthiness of the human heart) 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 He had supped, saying, This cup is the new
testament in My blood: this do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me.
For as often as ye eat this bread, and drink this cup, ye do show the Lord's
death till He come."
Observe how this feast links together the two
great facts of Christianity, the death of Christ and His second coming. The
Lord's Supper is taken in remembrance of One who died, but as we take it we
look forward and wait for His coming again.
TILL HE COME
A
friend of mine, giving some lectures at a church not long ago, spoke of the
second coming of the Lord and the pastor came up to him after the service and
said, "I am sorry that you touched that subject. We don't believe here in the
second coming of Christ."
"Oh, you don't?"
"No."
"What is that table
that you have down there in front of the pulpit?"
"That is the Lord's
Table."
"What do you do with it?"
"We use it when we take the Lord's
Supper."
"What do you take the Lord's Supper for?"
"Because the Word of
God tell us to."
"How long are you going to take it?"
"As long as we are
here, I suppose."
"What does the Bible say?"
"I don't know what you
mean."
" 'As often as ye eat this bread and drink this cup ye do show the
Lord's death till He come.' If you don't believe He is coming again you'd
better cut that out. It is a witness that the Christ who died is coming again.
He says, While you are waiting for Me, do this in remembrance of Me."
"Wherefore whosoever shall eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord,
unworthily, shah be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord."
Then in
the 10th chapter of the same Epistle we read in verse 16:
"The cup of
blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the blood of Christ? The
bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ?" Verse 21:
"Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be
partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils."
THE
TEACHING IS CLEAR
I have read all these passages because they give you
every verse in the New Testament that definitely refers to the Lord's Supper.
You can see just what they teach. Our blessed Lord was going out to die and
before He left His disciples He gave them this memorial feast. There is a
striking passage in the book of the prophet Jeremiah in which he is predicting
dire judgments coming upon Israel and he says that so many people will die that
there will be none left to break bread for them (that is the marginal reading),
nor to give them the cup of consolation. It evidently referred to an old custom
that when somebody died loving friends gathered together with those who were
left and they sat down and ate and drank in memory of the loved one, probably
talked of his virtues and tried to comfort his loved ones.
Now our
Lord Jesus Christ has come to the end of His thirty-three wonderful years here
upon earth. He is about to go out to die. He came for that purpose. He said,
"The Son of Man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give
his life a ransom for many." Now He has His little company of disciples
gathered about Him. They have kept the Pascal feast, the last Passover that God
ever recognized. Actually, they kept the Passover and Christ died on the same
day, because the Jewish day began in the evening and went on until the next
evening. So the Lord ate the Passover with His disciples on the first evening
and before the next evening - between the two evenings - He died on the cross,
Christ, our Passover, sacrificed for us.
A MEMORIAL FEAST
Our Lord, with all this before Him, takes a piece of bread - just common bread,
the bread they were using at the Passover - probably unleavened bread, although
there is no scripture that definitely indicates that it must be that. I don't
find that the Word of God has been careful to legislate whether the bread
should be leavened or unleavened, whether the wine should be fermented or
unfermented. I think we may see the wisdom of God in it, for there are
circumstances under which, if there were such a rule, many of God's children
could not partake. But He took bread and held that bread in His hand and said
to the disciples, "This is my body which is given for you," Observe: There He
sat at the table. He is not indicating that any change takes place in the
bread. He is there in His perfectly human body and He holds this bread in His
hand and He says, "This is my body." Surely any one must be blind who cannot
see what He is telling them is this: This bread, I want you to understand, is
to bring before you the truth that my body is to be sacrificed for sin. He had
not yet been sacrificed and yet He speaks as though it had already taken place.
"This do in remembrance of Me." And He passes the bread around to them. There
is no mysterious priesthood; there are no costly vestments; there are no
candles burning in a ceremonial manner; no smoking incense ascending. They have
partaken of one meal and then He gives them this beautiful memorial feast. He
does not even appoint a clergyman to preside there. He addresses them as
brethren and He saps, "This do in remembrance of Me."
SIMPLE AND
BEAUTIFUL
I think, my brethren, the simpler we can be in our thoughts
of the Lord's Supper the better. I read some time ago of a Hindu who was living
in a village when a missionary came for the first time and they said to him,
"Come. You must see So-and-So."
The missionary went to this man's
house. When he saw a white man coming with a Bible he rose to greet him and
bowed at his feet. The missionary said, "Stand up. I am just a man like
yourself."
"Oh," said the Hindu, "you have come with the Book. I have
waited for it for twenty years."
"How is that?"
"Well, twenty years
ago I took a long journey. I heard a man in the market place (he looked like
you) read from a book. He told the story of the Great God of Love who sent His
Son to die for sinners. I bought a book." He produced a copy of Matthew's
Gospel all worn so that hardly a leaf was whole. "I took it home. I have eaten
that book. I have read it over and over. I have read it to all the people in
the village. I have been praying that God would send somebody to tell me more."
He asked him to eat with him. Now the host was a little embarrassed.
He had a bowl of rice and he turned to the other man and said, "Before we eat,
I always do as Jesus said."
The missionary did not understand. But he
said, "Go ahead. Don't let me interfere."
The Hindu closed his eyes,
thanked God that Christ had died for him, and then he said, "I eat this rice
because the body of my Lord Jesus was nailed on the cross for me." Then he took
the common drink of the land and said, "I drink of this because my Lord Jesus
died for me," and he gave some to the missionary, as he had given the rice, and
they ate and drank together.
The missionary said, "How long have you been
doing this?"
"For twenty years."
"And how often!"
"Every time I eat
a meal."
He saw nothing in the Book that would tell him how often. So I
repeat, the simpler we can be the better. It is a memorial - that is
all.
WHAT DOES "EUCHARIST" MEAN?
You ask, Do you not
believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist? Some may not know the
meaning of the term Eucharist. It is "thanksgiving." Oh yes, dear friends,
every instructed Christian believes in the real presence in the Eucharist, but
He does not believe that the bread ceases to be anything but bread and he does
not believe that the wine ceases to be anything but wine. He does not believe
in a strange, mysterious transformation of cereal bread and of wine into the
body, blood, soul and divinity of Jesus Christ. But he believes this: "Where
two or three are gathered together in My name (as Jesus said) there am I in the
midst." Some of the sweetest moments of my life have been spent at the Table of
the Lord, communing with the Blessed One who of old said, "Do this in
remembrance of Me," and faith's eye could discern Him there standing in the
midst, showing His wounds and spreading His hands.
A Roman Catholic
layman in St.Louis who does much to put Protestants to shame because of his
zeal in advertising his religion, recently put out an advertisement like this:
"Catholics believe in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist; Protestants
believe in the real absence." But that is false. Protestants do not believe
that the bread and wine undergo any mystic change, but they do believe that as
you eat and drink in remembrance of Christ, Christ is present in His sweet and
wonderful way, manifesting Himself to the hearts of His beloved people so that
by faith they are enabled to feed upon Him. We feed upon Him in remembrance. We
look back and think of the sorrows He bore. We contemplate His cross and bitter
passion, and as we do, we eat of His flesh and drink of His blood, and as we
feast on Christ we find our love for those things for which Christ died upon
the cross becoming less, and our love for those blessed things into which He
would lead us through the new and living way, through the veil into the
holiest, becoming greater, for we become like that upon which we feed.
NO DISTINCTION BETWEEN CHRISTIANS
In this feast Christ gives the
bread and then He gives the wine. He did not separate believers into a clergy
and a laity and say to the clergy, "The wine is for you: the bread is simply
for the laity." There is no such distinction made in the Bible. For two
centuries and a half after Christ's gospel began to be preached in this world
you will search reputable church history in vain to find such a distinction.
There were officials in the church; there were elders and there were deacons;
elders who had a special oversight, but no such distinction as the dividing of
Christians into the laity and the clergy, the clergy having special access to
God and special authority in dispensing divine mysteries. This was unknown in
the early days of Christianity, and in those early days the Lord's Supper was
observed in simplicity. We have distinct records of it.
If you care to
look it up you will find that the Younger Pliny, when Governor of Bythinia,
wrote to the Emperor Trajan asking what offence the Christians had committed
for which they should be exterminated. He said in substance, "I have been
trying to get all the information I could regarding them. I have even hired
spies to profess to be Christians and become baptized in order that they might
get into the Christian services without suspicion. Contrary to what I had
supposed, I find that the Christians meet at dead of night or at early morn,
that they sing a hymn to Christ as God, that they read from their own sacred
writings and partake of a very simple meal consisting of bread and wine and
water (the water added to the wine to dilute it in order that there might be
enough for all). This is all that I can find out, except that they exhort each
other to be subject to the Government, and pray for all men."
Pliny
could not understand why they should be persecuted. He knew nothing of a
gorgeous altar, of a sacrificing priest, nothing of a special cake upon the
altar which the faithful were to fall down and worship as the Incarnate God,
but his spies found Christians partaking together of a very simple meal of
bread and wine and water.
Justin Martyr, who wrote about the same
time, gives us a very clear account of the way in which the Lord's Supper was
observed. He knew of no priesthood, no altar, no mystic change. He certainly
knew of no prayers to the Virgin Mary. He knew nothing of ascending incense or
anything of the kind, but he describes just such an observance of the Lord's
Supper as you would find in any evangelical company of Christians to-day. He
speaks of one of the elders presiding, of the people singing together, of
giving thanks for the bread and wine, of distributing these elements among the
faithful and sending portions to any who were not present because of
illness-beautiful in its simplicity, as is the account given in the
gospel.
WHEN THE CHANCE OCCURRED
But you go down through the
Christian era a few centuries and you find everything is changed. You enter a
Christian church. The Lord's table is conspicuous by its absence. Instead of a
table you have an altar. An altar in a Christian church! The altar belonged to
Judaism. But the altar is typical of Christ Himself whose glorious person
sanctifies the offering He gives, and second, it typifies the cross upon which
He was uplifted. The Christian's altar is the cross of Christ, but in these
churches of the centuries after Constantine we find an altar again and, serving
there, is a priest with special vestments, not such as were used by the Jewish
priesthood, but vestments which were identical with those worn by the priests
of Babylon centuries before. What had brought about the change? Simply this: As
long as Christianity was persecuted, as long as the Christian company was under
the ban of the Roman Government, simplicity and reality prevailed. But the day
came when the state become the patron of Christianity and an effort was made to
unite the ancient heathen religion and the Roman Empire with the new
Christianity. The result was that little by little pagan forms and ceremonies
were brought in and displaced the early Christian forms which were so simple,
so beautiful and so scriptural. The altar was not even taken from Judaism, for
no such altar as the altars of Judaism was ever found in so-called Christian
churches.
HEATHENISM
A few years ago I had a company of
Indian youths in Oakland, California, that I was educating. I was teaching
these young men church history, and one day, to give them a practical lesson, I
took them to San Francisco through three Chinese temples and then I took them
through two Roman Catholic churches. After our visits I said to these youths,
"Now tell me what you saw in each place," And they wrote it all out. They said,
"In each building we found holy water at the door. Each building had an altar.
Each building had priests in costly vestments bowing below the altar. Each
building had candles and incense. In each building a bell rang when the
worshippers were to kneel down." The Romanist and pagan temples were
practically alike.
Any one who familiarizes himself with the history
of the ancient heathen cults can see where all these forms and ceremonies came
in that are now linked up with what is called the Sacrament of the Eucharist.
The identical customs were practised by Babylonish priests over 500 years
before Christ. There was in the Babylon temples and on the altars an image of a
woman with a child in her arms. This woman was said to be the Queen of Heaven.
Her child was called the Seed, which was evidently Satan's imitation of the
truth involved in the words, "The seed of the woman shall bruise the serpent's
head." To this woman was sacrificed a bloodless offering consisting of round
moon-shaped cakes, and these being presented to her were put upon the altar and
the faithful bowed down in reverence before them.
In the 44th chapter
of Jeremiah the people had read of the same cult transferred to Palestine and
observed afterwards among the dispersed Jews in Egypt:
"Seest thou not what
they do in the cities of Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem? The children
gather wood, and the fathers kindle the fire, and the women knead their dough,
to make cakes to the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto
other gods, that they may provoke Me to anger."
In the 44th chapter of
Jeremiah the people had turned from their idolatry, but they declare that they
are going back to it. In verse 15 we read:
"Then all the men which knew
that their wives had burnt incense unto other gods, and all the women that
stood by, a great multitude, even all the people that dwelt in the land of
Egypt, in Pathros, answered Jeremiah, saying, As for the word that thou hast
spoken unto us in the name of the Lord, we will not hearken unto thee: but we
will certainly do whatsoever thing goeth forth out of our own mouth, to burn
incense unto the queen of heaven, and to pour out drink offerings unto her, as
we have done, we, and our fathers, our kings, and our princes, in the cities of
Judah, and in the streets of Jerusalem: for then had we plenty of victuals, and
were well, and saw no evil."
COMPROMISE
This ancient
custom of offering these round cakes was taken up by the apostate church.
Continued - somewhere. (Rest yet to be tracked down)