Delaware gazette and state journal. (Wilmington, Del.) 1883-1902, 1894-06-07

the first question, indicated that he IS
to the innovation of separate
communion cups.
THE REV. ADAM sTENGLE.
The Rev. Adam Stongle, pastor of
Smyrna NJ. E. Church az have thought
much about the matter for long time,
though have not reached any Conclu-
clusion perfectly satisfactory to my
self. In some churches the administrator
uses a white napkin with which the
brlnl of the cup is wiped after each
COMMUNICATE. This may relieve the
situation somewhat, but it is obviously
not altogether free from Objectionable
features. The use of separate cups is
certainly the most desirable and the
freest from objections viewed from a
hygienic standpoint, and / can see no
valid reason for thinking less seriously
of the sacrament because of such sepa-
rate cups. | have used separate
cups in a limited degree under some
peculiar circumstances-by which L
mean that the cup from which GER
tain person drank was not presented
to others.
"As the subject presents itself TO me,
there is only one objection that could
be urged against the use of separate
cups, and that is that it might tend TO
rob the service of the idea of COM
munion with each other and Of our
equality before God. But l do not even
see much ground for that objection"
THE REV. j. S. wIcKLINE.
The Rev. ]. S. Wickline, pastor of
Bridgeville NJ. Il. Church: 81 am OPP
posed to any change, because it would
be an impracticable thing. 1t would
create spirit of division and separation.
Communion is a single fellowship and
brings all Christians together. The cup
is always given in the singular, one cup
being given to all the disciples.
alt would be an innovation and des-
troy the spirit Of communion, and must
consequently remove the serious import
of most sacred and solemn religious
right set forth by Christ himself; given
to His apostles at the proper time and
through them to his followers for all
ages to come.
II have consulted in theology Clark,
Butler, Wheedon and Wesley and such
thing as moro than one cup is not in
timated."
THE REV. DIR. MARTINDALE.
Rev. II. L. Martindale, d. D., of Mil
ford NJ. L. Church; II think it is very
desirable to avoid the possible evils and
unpleasant results of the use of the
same cup by SO many commitments.
But think the proper substitute hasn't
yet been suggested. A separate cup
for each would involve in my judgment
so many difficulties that the attempt
would largely sink the delicate solemnity
of the ordinance Blunders would be
almost sure to occur, and 80 far as our
Methodist usages are concerned think
| they would have to be entirely altered.
~ deprecate attempts to make radical
changes in SO venerable and sacred a
service, for fear the result may be to
| take away from it that peculiar charm
which it has always had. / shall be glad
to welcome any solution which will re-
lieye us of the evils and yet not disturb
the hallowed grace of this great sacra-
ment of our church."
PRESIDING ELDER BARRETT.
The Rev. L. e. Barrett, presiding
elder Wilmington M. L. district: Il am
in favor of llthings being done decently
and in order. have for some time been
in favor of some hygienic reform in this
matter.
~ hardly think separate cups would
meet the case exactly. Would it not be
better if the minister could have in one
hand pure white cloth which he could
use in frequently wiping the rim of the
cup?
"Separate cups for each commitment
would be rather unhandy when there is
large number of communicates, as is
in our large city churches. The plar
which l suggest would, l believe, give
more satisfaction"
THE REV. A. N. KEIGwIN.
The Rev. A. N. Keigwin of Yves
Presbyterian Church, Wilmington: 81
would welcome the change to individual
cups, not only for hygienic reasons, but
also in the interest. of cleanliness.
fully sympathizs with young lady
member of my church who has not com
muned for years because she become!
nauseated at the thought of touching
her lips to the cup after seeing the mus
taches of men dangling in the wine anc
it dripping from them after they have
commuhed.
"Yes, 1 would heartily favor change
in the interest of hygiene and purity"
THE REV. n. II, BROWNE.
The Rev. N. NJ. Browne, pasto
Middletown NJ. L. Church, says: "Fhert
is no scIiptual grounds for such radica
innovation upon custom observed by
the church since this sacrament wa
instituted.
"Christ knew that the church il
obedience to His command would cele
bIate this event down to the end O
time. If it would imperil health anC
life would He not at least given SOM
warning. AS Methodist minister / an
expected to observe the prescribed form
laid down in our discipline. The'us,
of many cups would necessltate chang,
in our ritual, and this could not be don,
only after the most exhaustive discus
sion in the law making body of ouI
church. The proposed change woulC
be, if adopted, the forerunner, no doubt
of more radical changes.
Scientists have declared after careful
microscopic investigation, that there il
, danger in the use of one cup. Suppos,
, in the study of biology in the depart
ment that pertains to bacteria, it should
be discovered that in the assembly of {
, large number Of persons there is DANCE
/ of infection from lnhaling germ which
spread disease. Would not this pro
nouncement from the men who had in
vestigated the subject demand reform
movementp
81 think the impressiveness of the ser
vice would be lost and it would hav,
, the character of s. social feast. Tn
minds of the communicates would b
turned aside from the intent and pur
pose of this sacrament. Nothing coul,
lie moro helpflil in promotinp this spiri