A bundle of Bro. E. C. Fuqua’s "Vindicators" have reached me, and on page 8 of the June issue I find an article entitled "Schismatics In the Modern Church," which deserves a little attention. In this article Brother Fuqua places all the blame for the division over the cup question upon those who use exactly what the Bible says—that is, "a cup" (Mt. 26:27, etc.)—, while those who "go beyond the things which are written" (1 Cor. 4:6) by using cups (either "two or more" or "individual cups") go unrebuked by him. Bro. Fuqua says:

"A paper (meaning the 0. P. A.—J.D.P.) comes to this office monthly, whose sole purpose is to teach its readers to not allow Christ and Paul to mislead them on the ‘cup question.’ To make this effort effectual, a writer, who thinks he knows Greek, is employed to ‘give the Greek meaning’ of ‘cup’ and related terms." He continues, saying,

"All hobbyists and factionists should know enough to let Greek alone. By professing to use it, they only proclaim their Ignorance of it, as is done in giving only ONE definition to the TWO-meaning term ‘poteerion.’

When Bro. Fuqua says "All hobbyists and factionists should know enough to let Greek alone," does he mean to condemn himself? For he "goes to the Greek" on practically every subject. (See his Tracts). When he speaks of poteerion as being "a TWO-meaning term" he proclaims his own ignorance of the meaning of the word. In the nine Greek-English lexicons which I have (Thayer, Robinson, Feyerabend, Green, Knoch, Bullinger, Pickering, Sophocles, Liddell and Scott) there is not so much as a hint that poteerion is a "TWO-meaning word." Not one! It’s one and only meaning is "a cup, a drinking vessel," as Thayer, the standard lexicographer, points out. It is sometimes used figuratively (the figurative force depending upon the literal definition) — that is, metonymically and metaphorically; but the meaning (i. e., the definition) of the word is not changed by its figurative usage. When it is used by metonymy "of the container for the (thing) contamed" (Thayer), the definition is "a cup, a drinking vessel" (Thayer, p. 533), used literally (Ibid) as "this cup containing wine" (Ibid, p. 15) or "the vessel out of which one drinks" (Ibid, p. 510). In metonymy, the vessel or cup (container) is named in order to suggest to the mind its contents—that is, "the fruit of the vine" (1 Cor. 10:21; 11:27). But "the fruit of the vine is not, in any sense, the definition or meaning of poteerion or cup. The same is true of the metaphorical usage of cup (poteerion).

Since, in metonymy, the cup is put for its contents, the meaning is "the cup with its customary contents"—"the fruit of the vine" (when used of the communion-cup). When any one speaks of "the TWO-meaning term ‘poteerion’" he speaks nonsense and betrays his own ignorance of Greek—the very thing he is trying to convict the other fellow of!

Bro. Fuqua says, "JESUS CHRIST :—By ‘a cup’ I mean ‘this fruit of the vine’." It is enough for us to know that Jesus says no such thing! See Matt. 26:27-29 and learn what Jesus really said. He "took a cup"—"poteerion, a cup, a drinking vessel," a "cup containing wine," a "vessel out of which one drinks" (Thayer, pp. 510, 533, 15). He said, "Drink ye all of it"—"pino ek (drink out of"—J.D.P) with a genitive of the vessel out of which one drinks" (Thayer, p. 510). "For this is my blood"—"this fruit of the vine" (v. 29) in the cup. It had to be in a vessel, for it could not have been transported (except by miracle) without being contained in a vessel of some kind. The "vessel" was "poteerion, a drinking vessel." Bro. Fuqua virtually admits our contention (possibly he "didn’t aim to") when he speaks of "the ‘fruit of the vine’—the contents of the vessel." The "vessel" (cup) was there, according to Bro. Fuqua’s own words! And the "vessel" was "a cup"!

In all the articles I have seen from Bro. Fuqua on the cup question he has never given a single quotation from us! Why does he not quote what we say and then give us his reply? Is he afraid for his readers to see what we say? So it seems!