But the words in the sixth chapter of St. John do highly illustrate the institution and purpose of the communion, and especially the remarkable words which our Lord used in instituting it.  They show what infinite importance he attached to that truth which he expressed both in symbolical words and action under the same figure, of eating His body and drinking His blood.  But to suppose that that truth can only be realized by one particular ritual action, so that the one great work of a Christian is to receive the Lord’s supper,—­which it must be, if our Lord’s words in the sixth chapter of St. John refer to the communion,—­is so contrary to the whole character of our Lord’s teaching, and not least so in the very words so misinterpreted, that to maintain such a doctrine, leading, as it does, to such manifold superstitions, is actually to preach another Gospel than Christ’s—­to bring in a mystical religion instead of a spiritual one,—­to do worse than to Judaize.

* * * * *

NOTE K. P. 345.

"A set of persons, who wish to magnify the uncertainties of the Scripture in order to recommend more plausibly the guidance of some supposed authoritative interpreter of it."—­“The high church party,” we have been lately told, “take Holy Scripture for their guide, and, in the interpretation of it, defer to the authority of primitive antiquity:  the low church party contend for the sufficiency of private judgment.”  It is become of the greatest importance to see clearly, not what one party, or another, may contend for, but what is the real truth, and what, accordingly, is the duty of every Christian man to do in this matter.  The sermon to which this note refers, is an attempt to show that Scripture is not hopelessly obscure or ambiguous; but it may not be inexpedient here to consider a little, what are the objections to the principle of the high church party; to clear away certain difficulties which are supposed to beset the opposite principle; and to state, if possible, what the truth of the whole question is.

I. The objections to the principle of the high church party are these:  1st.  Its extreme vagueness.  What is primitive antiquity? and where is its authority to be found?  Does “primitive antiquity” mean the first three centuries? or the first two? or the first five? or the first seven?  Does it include any of the general councils? or one of them? or four? or six?  Are Irenaeus and Tertullian the latest writers of “primitive antiquity?” or does it end with Augustine? or does it comprehend the venerable Bede?  One writer has lately told us, that our Reformers wished the people to be taught, “that, for almost seven hundred years, the church was most pure.”  Are we, then, to hold that “primitive antiquity” embraces a period of nearly seven centuries?  Seven centuries are considerably more than a third part of the whole duration of the church, from its foundation to this hour:  can the third part of a nation’s history be called its primitive antiquity?  Is a tenet, or a practice taught when Christianity had been more than six hundred years in the world, to be called primitive?  We know not, then, in the first place, what length of time is signified by “primitive antiquity.”