This passage is indeed characteristic of the moral and intellectual faults which I have alluded to as marking the writings of the supporters of Mr. Newman’s system.  But what is become of the assertion, that this security of the apostolical commission was “expressly authorized” by our Lord, when it is admitted that it is only indirectly taught in Scripture?  And what becomes of the notion, that what our Lord did or instituted may be learned from another source than Scripture, when Mr. Newman has most truly stated, in the passage quoted in the preceding note, that our Lord’s history, the history of his words and works, “is in Scripture, and Scripture only:  tradition has no part in it?” I pass over the surprising state of mind which could imagine a distinction between things necessary to be believed, and necessary to be done; and could conceive such a distinction to be according to the meaning of our article.  It would appear that this shift has been since abandoned, and others, no way less extraordinary, have been attempted in its place; for an extraordinary process it must be which tries to reconcile Mr. Newman’s opinions with the declaration of the sixth article.  But now for Mr. Newman’s scriptural proof, that our Lord “committed to the priesthood the gift of consecrating the Eucharist.”  “When Christ said, ‘Do this,’ he spake to the apostles, who were priests, not to his disciples generally.”  This would prove too much, for it would prove that none but the clergy were ordered to receive the communion at all:  the words, “Do this,” referring, not to any consecration, of which there had been no word said, but to the eating the bread, and drinking of the cup.  Again, when St. Paul says, “the cup which we bless,’—­the bread which we break,” it is certain that the word “we,” does not refer to himself and Sosthenes, or to himself and Barnabas, but to himself and the whole Corinthian church; for he immediately goes on, “for we, the whole number of us,” ([Greek:  oi polloi] compare Romans xii. 5,) “are one body, for we all are partakers of the one bread.”  Thirdly, Tertullian expressly contrasts the original institution of our Lord with the church practice of his own day, in this very point.  “Eucharistiae sacramentum et in tempore victus, et omnibus mandatum a Domino, etiam antelucanis coetibus nee de aliorum manu quam praeridentium sumimus.” (De Corona Mililis, 3.) I know that Tertullian believes the alteration to have been founded upon an apostolical tradition; but he no less names it as a change from the original institution of our Lord; nor does he appear to consider it as more than a point of order.  Lastly, what shadow of probability is there, and is it not begging the whole question, to assume that our Lord spoke to his apostles as priests, and not as representatives of the whole Christian church?  His language makes no distinction between his disciples and those who were without; it repels it as dividing his disciples from each other.  His twelve disciples were the apostles of the church, but they were not priests.  In such matters our Lord’s words apply exactly, “One is your Master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren.”]