Year: 1878

For woman's Temperance column in Register.


IL is little remarkable that the
Lords table should be one of the last
strongholds of alcoholic drinks among
Christian people. There are churches
that are almost unit on the right side
in the temperance reform, whose men,
bers warmly denounce the various wine
drinking usagcs, that nevertheless use
strong wine for communion purposes.


The arguments against this practice
are:


1st. 1t is inconsistent. Temperance
men claim that alcoholic wine is an evil
in itself. There is no language too
strong for them to employ to describe
its treacherous and dangerous nature.
IL this is so, it would seem that the
Lords table is the very last place to
which it should be admitted. If any
one will assert the propriety of doing as
Il religious rite anything that is in itself
wrong, it is just the argument that the
heathen use to defend the abominablc
practices of their idol worship.


2nd. 1t is TO some a great temptation.
COMMITMENTS in churches where alco-
holic wine is used have told the writer
that they were obliged always TO refuse
the cup; it would be at their peril to
taste single drop. When an inebriate
is trying to reform, and has taken ref
uge at Gods altar, and the very smell
of the wine arouses the slumbering de-
mon, as the smell of blood would III
ger; and a single drop, as reformed men
have repeatedly testified, would be like
a spark to powder: there must be very
powerful reasons that can Justify us in
tlln tor ,fot, Iof Il.
man, in circumstances when il is pecul-
iarly difficult for him to resist.


3rd. Such practice is unnecessary.
The unfcrmcntcd juice of the grape can
easily be procured. There are several
grapc-growers who make a specially of
preparing sweet wine for church use.
Dca. John Richardson, Medway, Mass,
is personally known to the writer as
thoroughly trustworthy manufacturer
of such wine. The church in New Ha-
ven uses very satisfactory article pre-
pared from raisins.


Now what are the arguments for the
use of alcoholic wine at the communion
table? know of but one, and that is
the assumption that it was such wine
that was used by our Saviour in institu-
ting the ordinance.


10 tllls reply.


LIST. That this is essentially the same
argument that winc-drinkers employ to
justify their Indulgence. They aliege
the authority of Christ's example. But
if, Notwithstanding our Saviour's use of
wine, we hold ourselves bound to ban
ish it from our own private tables, do
not the same reasons that lead us to this
conclusion, also require us to exclude il
from the communion table?


2nd. The stress of the argument for
the use of wine at the Lords Supper, is
not at all for the use of alcoholic wine.
but for the use of the fruit ofHe rine.
All the supposed requirements of the
"historic continuity of the rite" are
fully met by such preparations from the
fruit of the vine as are free from the OBJ
jcctions above named.


1t is singular that in the controversy
over sacramental wine, so much labor
has been expended to prove that oinos
inevitably means grape wine that has
undergone vinous fermentation. The
fact is the word oindS in the Greek, or
"wine" in the English, are not used at
all in any of the narratives of the insti-
tuition of the Eucharist. The terms used
in every instance are Soup" and "fruit
of the vine," lest we be required to be-
licve that the cup could contain moth
ing, and the fruit of the vine could be
nothing but alcoholic wine. SIX.


New Haven.