In our October issue Bro. King announced that I would expose the sophistry of an article written by Brother E. C. Fuqua and published in the Aug. issue of his paper. "The Vindicator," titled "Making Law For the Servants of Christ." Bro. Fuqua has some very bitter things to say about those who contend for a "Thus said the Lord" for every item of faith and practice. Among other things, he says:

"When in Matthew 26:27, 29 Christ himself interprets the ‘cup’ as the ‘fruit of the vine,’ he leaves no room for controversy on ‘the cup question,’ for all inspired writers use the term ‘cup’ precisely as Christ used it, having no reference whatever to the VESSEL containing the ‘fruit of the vine.

But Christ did not "interpret the ‘cup’ as ‘the fruit of the vine,’ Nor did he say anything that even suggests that he had "no reference to the vessel"; for he used the very word that means "drinking VESSEL." "He took a cup" (Matt. 26:27). What was "the cup"? Poteerion is the word used. What does it mean? "A cup, a drinking VESSEL" Thayer, p. 533). Is it here used literally? Yes, for Thayer says it is used "properly," that is, literally, as "this cup containing wine" (p. 15), "the vessel out of which one drinks" (p. 510). To the same effect Robinson, Robertson, Pfieffer, et al. The "cup" of v. 27 is clearly distinguished from "the fruit of the vine" of v. 29. That the cup contained a drink is assured by the command: "drink ye all of it." "Pino ek (drink out of), with a gentitive of the VESSEL out of which one drinks" (Thayer, p. 510). The mention of a cup in those days naturally suggested wine as its contents. Poteerion is sometimes defined and translated "wine-cup." "In the hand of Jehovah there is a cup, and the wine is red" (Psa. 75:8). The "wine" was in the "cup." So likewise "the fruit of the vine" of Matt. 26:29 was in the "cup" of verse 27. Jesus "took a cup"—he "took a (drinking) VESSEL,"—and in it was "the fruit of the vine." But hear Bro. Fuqua again:

"It is scientifically impossible to ‘drink the cup’ (the vessel) (1 Cor. 11:25, 26, 27), but we do this in drinking ‘the fruit of the vine’."

It is ‘‘scientifically impossible to drink’’ any kind of a solid, literally. But in "drink the cup" the language is figurative—the figure metonymy is used. "The literal meaning of a term should never be deduced from its figurative usage. The figurative force depends on the literal definition. This must be fixed first" (Knoch, "Course in Sacred Greek," p. 20). In "drink the cup of the Lord" the metonymy is of the subject: for in this kind of metonymy "The CONTAINER is put for the CONTENTS: and the PLACE for the THING PLACED IN IT" (Bullinger p. 573). "Basket" is put for its contents, in Deut. 28:5. "Wilderness" is put for its inhabitants, in Psa. 29:8, 9; Deut. 8:5. "Ships" are put for the people in them, in Isa. 23:1, 14. It is no marvel, then, that in "drink the cup," cup is put for the wine which it contains. In the question and answer, "How much milk did you drink? A cup," every one understands that the milk and not the vessel was drunk. Yet, he ‘drank a cup,’ figuratively! In the American Standard Version, which Bro. Fuqua says "is the most accurate version known," we read, "0 Jerusalem, which hast . . . drunken the bowl of the cup of trembling, and drained it" (Isa. 51:17). The cup mentioned was a goblet, having a base, a stem, and a bowl. The bowl held the contents, so it is not said that the inhabitants of Jerusalem drank the base nor the stem, but they "drank the bowl of the cup" (for that is what held the contents!) "and drained it" (the bowl). Immediately after saying we "drink the cup of the Lord" (1 Cor. 11:26, 27, to which Bro. Fuqua refers), Paul explains or interprets his figurative language by using plain and literal language, saying, "let him drink of (ek, out of) that cup" (v. 28). And that corresponds with the command of Christ in Matt. 27:27, where, after taking the cup, he says, "Drink ye all of (ek, out of) it"; or, literally, "You must all drink out of it." In both which we have "Pino ek (drink out of), with a genitive of the VESSEL out of which one drinks, ek tou poteeriou"—out of the cup (Thayer p. 510).

It is sometimes contended that if the vessel is any part of "the cup of the Lord" that, in order to drink it, we would have to grind the vessel to powder and mix it with the fruit of the vine and drink it all together. This is nonsense. According to that logic (?), if a man eats a pecan, a hickory nut, a walnut, or a peanut he must eat the shell or hull! (or you cannot grow a nut without the shell). The seed is part of a peach, but we eat the peach without eating the seed. The rind is part of a watermelon, but in eating the melon we do not necessarily eat the rind. But hear Bro. Fuqua again:

"When Jesus commanded, "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature" (Mark 16:15), he gave a generic commission to TEACH all men, without qualifying that command or limiting it to any certain method of teaching; and barring the prohibition against women as public teachers, there is nowhere in all the New Testament the slightest intimation that the teaching is to be done by any certain method to the exclusion of any other method of teaching. Christ was not a fool to attempt the teaching of the whole creation by one exclusive method. Hence he had Stephen to teach those who would allow him to reason with them (Acts 6:8-11); he had Philip preach to the Samaritans (Acts 8:12); to the eunuch (Acts 8:29-36); he had Paul and Silas preach to the women on the riverside at Philippi (Acts 16:13); to the jailer in the same city (Acts 16:30-35); he had Peter preach to Cornelius (Acts 10:34-44); he had Paul preach to the Corinthians (Acts 18; 5-9); and in all other ways he had the gospel preached. There is not anywhere an intimation of the use of any exclusive method of teaching the word of God; and whoever today contends for any exclusive method of teaching, MAKES LAW WHERE GOD HAS MADE NONE, and in so doing, makes himself EQUAL TO GOD. Such a man is no better than the Pope of Rome, although he style himself and those taught by him "The Loyal Brethren." They are indeed "loyal" to Satan in his effort to divide the body of Christ and array brother against brother. They love their hobby above Christ, and will gladly rend his body and put him to open shame, that their hobby may be received by others. A divided, suffering, bleeding Cause gives them no concern; but they are horrified if two vessels are used in distributing the "fruit of the vine;" or if the Bible is taught to a class of students !"

I see no reason why Bro. Fuqua should have cited these examples of teaching, for he was trying to prove that we may have "classes" in teaching; and there is no intimation of "classes" in any of the Scriptures cited by him. Paul gives the rule that "Ye (men) may all prophesy one by one that all (including the teachers) may learn" (1 Cor. 14:31). The women were to "learn in silence with all subjection" (1 Tim. 2:11, 12), thus "keeping silence in the churches," as is the rule in "all the churches of the saints" (1 Cor. 14:33-35). No N. T. passage intimates any practice to the contrary.

We do not "contend for any exclusive method of teaching," but use every Scriptural method. Beyond the Scriptural precept and examples we do not go. We oppose the man-made Sunday School. All Sunday Schools are man-made. They, with their "classes," "women teachers," "lesson quarterlies, based on the public school system," etc., are no part of "the church of the Living God, the pillar and support of the truth" (1 Tim. 3:15) and, therefore, have no place in "the faith once for all delivered to the saints" (Jude 3). Calling the thing "Bible classes" does not make the practice Scriptural. Not by a long way. There is no Scriptural example of dividing an assembly into groups or classes for the purpose of teaching them. We do well to stay well within "that which is written" (1 Cor. 4:6)

When Bro. F. W. Emmons criticised Bro. Alexander Campbell’s bitter opposition to the S. S. and other societies, Bro. Campbell replied that they (the S. S., etc.) were "things not so much as once mentioned in the Bible." He classed it among "the hobbies of modern times."

Yet, because we will not let other brethren legislate for us, but contend for and practice only what can be read word-for-word in the Bible, and insist upon others doing this, Bro. Fuqua accuses us of "trying to legislate for the brethren," "making law where God has made none," etc.; and says we are "no better than the Pope of Rome" and "deserve the same fate." We find no Sunday School law in the Bible. Therefore, we conclude that any law requiring one is a man-made law. We find no law in the N. T. for the use of cups in the communion. Therefore, we follow the examples and use "a cup" (Mt. 26:27. etc.) We do not allow any brother to legislate for us on these matters. Bro. Fuqua will not deny our practice on either issue as being Scriptural. I doubt his having the courage to affirm his practice. But he need not expect us to accept his "classes" and "cups" law, for Christ did not make them, but man did. And we do not follow men, for Christ says, "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me" (John 10:27). In view of all this, Bro. Fuqua should be slow in speaking of others as having "no concern" for "a divided, bleeding, suffering cause." "Thou art the man," Brother Fuqua!