The Caucasian. (Clinton, N.C.) 188?-1913, 1892-04-28
THE COMMUNION CUP.
In the Present srethed OF Passing 10
P~riIosss to HEALTH


The question Of circulating disease By
germs has Ireen 81 - ieiy discussed in
! this Eincteet . cyl4s ly hash physi-
ciaaa and sa-.s s.E....Is. sa41sl Ike theory so
generally accepted. t31.t i ge.xss strange
that the danger from Infection arising
from the custom # administering the
sacrament Of communion by one gem
era1 cup has not e. Lssu co..-2dered by
the profession IT large. Willie feeling
the greatest reverence for a custom
made sacred by time aud usage, is it
not the duty Of each of Us to do orr
part toward diminishing the prevalence
Of disease:
One church in tine United States has,
after much careful thought and deliber-
alton, rejected the practice of serving
communion wine from one general
drinking vessel, ami substituted individ-
ual cups for this service. This was in a
Methodist church in Cleveland, where .
few Sundays ago the innovation was
made.
Did the present custom of dispensing
wine 10 persons from one general cup
prevail anywhere but in q church, sani-
tarians would have condemned the prac-
tee as dangerous long ago, but the fear
Of being thought sacriligious hiss kept
them from expressing their opinion.
Under no other circumstances could
ANYBODY be induced to make use Of a
drinking utensil that had been touched
by dozen, a score, a hundred, perhaps,
other lips. The drinking cups of public
places are in reality more clearly than
the communion goblet, for each new
conner at least rinses out the vessel be-
fore touching it to his mouth.
No one, diseased or not, is denied par
ticipation in the sacrament of COM
munion. The cup that is held SO rever-
emily has perhaps but a moment before
been contaminated by fellow communi-
cant just recovering from malignant
sore throat or some incipient disease fan
more infectious. And in the carved
decorations which usually ornament the
edge of the communion cup, no better
breeding place for bacteria can be found.
Are we the less Christians because we
desire to obey the ordinary laws of
hygiene?
Is any Of the sacredness of the sacra-
ment taken from it by the introduction
of as many cups as there are comIauni
cants?
Drink We all of this" Where doee
the theologian find his authority for the
manner of administering? Not IN. any
words of the Scriptures. There is nc
reference to one cup from which all
should partake. Whatever teaches clean
illness, whatever tends to purify the
body, advances the cause of Christianity.
1t is surely 'the spirit that giveth life
and not the form.
Not many months ago Judge Arnold,
of Philadelphia, decided that the kissing
of dirty and therefore germ breeding
Bible was not necessary to the taking of
an oath. He claimed that it savored of
the days Of idolatry, and that we, as a
people wise in our generation, should
abolish a custom SO fraught with dan.
ger; that the laying on of ones hand was
just as binding as touching the book with
ones lips and far more conducive to the
public health.
Surely the sanction of administering
the wine of communion, as it now pre-
walls, comes from ignorance and super
stition rather than from willful blind
ness to its evident dangers, and it is to
be hoped in the next few Years that
priest and congregation, sacrificing the
wish of few to the good of many, and
recognizing the necessity Of scrupulous
care and cleanliness in preventing dis
ease, will substitute Individual cups fol-
the administration of communion wine
and do away with the present plan of
using one utensil without cleansing it
as it passes from lips to ips.-New
/ York Advertiser.