Communions.—Oban and Kames, 1st Sabbath of month; John Knox’s, Christian Institute, Bothwell Street, Glasgow, 2nd; Glendale, Skye, 3rd. Bonarbridge, Creich, 1st Sabbath of June.
Acknowledgments—The Treasurer of the Dingwall Congregation begs to acknowledge, with thanks, the following donations for the Manse Building Fund:—A Friend, Resolis (second subscription), 2/6; Mr. Duncan Mackintosh, Smithton, Gairloch, 10/; per Rev. D. M’Farlane, from a few Friends, £3; per Rev. D. M’Farlane, through the Rev. Mr. M’Tntyre, from the Glendale Congregation, £3.
Rev. Neil Cameron acknowledges, with thanks, the following sums in aid of St. Jude’s Building Fund:—A Friend, £1; A Friend, New York, £1 10/; A Friend, Oban, £1; Job xvii. 9, 2/, and S. Fund, 2/. For Bibles, Catechisms, &c., to Rev. J. B. Radasi:—A Friend, New York, £1 10/; A Friend, Oban, 10/; Bracadale, Skye, 7/6; Job xvii. 9, 2/.
A Decreasing Drink Bill.—From the statistics supplied by Dr. Dawson Burns to the Times, it would appear that the consumption of intoxicating liquors in this country is decreasing, and that in a marked way. The decrease in six years is £21,759.286. During these years the population has increased about six and a half per cent., and if the expenditure had proportionately increased, it would have amounted in 1905 to £198,012.495. But it not only failed to rise to that amount, but fell to £164,167.941, thus giving an actual and proportionate decrease of £33,344.551. The consumption, however, is still £3 15s. 11 $\frac{1}{2}$ d. per head. Considering the children and the millions who drink no alcoholic liquor, this is still a large figure. Some of Dr. Burns’ detailed figures are startling. Thus it appears that Birmingham spends on drink almost as much as Glasgow, though Glasgow has a much larger population.
Ritualism in the Established Church.—At a recent meeting of the Forres Presbytery, the Presbytery condemned the dedicatory services of Forres Parish Church, and expressed profound regret that the Moderator had taken part. This is as it should be. It is almost incredible that such a glaring aping of High Churchism should be allowed to pass uncondemned. The Rev. James Bain of Duthil, also brought the matter before his own Presbytery, as one of its members, the Rev. Wm. L. Levack, Grantown, had taken part in the dedicatory services. Mr. Bain moved that Mr. Levack be dealt with, but he failed to find a seconder, which says very little for the Presbytery of Abernethy.
The Plague of Church Social Meetings.—The Church Social Meeting of modern times is one of the most successful, or perhaps we should say unsuccessful, attempts to get the world and the Church to go hand-in-hand. Even in the Free Church matters in this direction have reached a point that has evidently awakened the deepest concern in the mind of the Editor of the Free Church Record. “For such things,” he says in the April issue, “the Free Church went out into exile for four weary years, and to be rid of them many would gladly return to exile.” Perhaps Free Presbyterians may now be pardoned for having had this opinion all along and putting it into practical shape by remaining in exile. It may be cruel to remind Mr. MacNeilage of another deliverance of his at the Special Meeting of Commission, held in December, when he said that the making the existence of a tea meeting in a congregation, or the existence of a sale of work, a reason for perpetuating denominational difference in Scotland, was surely straining at a gnat. A sentiment which evoked laughter and applause. We have no desire to be excessively hypercritical, but anyone who is in the habit of getting a number of local papers must have been surprised to observe the wide divergence between the reports of Free Church Social Meetings as they appear in the local press and as they appear in the Free Church Record. In the latter the worldly element, such as songs, etc., is usually conspicuous by its absence.
The Chalmers’ Lectures for 1905.—Dr. MacCrie of Ayr, in his concluding lecture, under the MacFie of Aird Trust, gave expression to the opinion that in his judgment there is a clear call for a new and simpler creed, and Dr. MacCrie looks to a twentieth century Assembly of a National United Church of Scotland to formulate such a creed. Creed-making is a serious undertaking, and if the testimony of such men as the late Dr. Mitchell of St. Andrews, and Dr. Warfield of Princeton counts for anything, we have not the men to put together formularies of the Church’s faith. The day of the great systematic theologians and students deeply versed in the ecclesiastical controversies is gone—at least so far as Scotland is at present concerned—and one cannot help wondering what would be the opinion of the great Dr. MacCrie of this “devout imagination” of his descendant.
Lord Shand’s Judgment.—Paragraphs have appeared in the press announcing the probability of Lord Shand’s judgment in the famous Church Case being published. Mr. Gulland, M.P., has taken active steps with a view to have his Lordship’s opinion made public. It is generally supposed that the judgment was favourable to the U.F. Church, and that had Lord Shand lived the judgment of the Court of Session would have been upheld. But even at this late date the U.F.’s., in their unctuous rectitude, are under the impression that if Lord Shand’s judgment is favourable to them that it would be a great moral victory. One is amused to read these outpourings of still unchaste hearts on the great might-have-beens of ecclesiastical history.
A Modern Fad—The Individual Communion Cup.—We have been recently reminded of this modern fad by receiving a price list from a London firm. Here is a sentence from one of these advertisements:—“Why use the insanitary common cup at the Lord’s Table, which common courtesy would forbid at your own?” Perhaps it would be waste of words to tell these business gentlemen that the Lord’s Table is not on the same level as the table used in our homes. The individual cup is a small glass filled with a sip of wine, and instead of the time-honoured and we believe the Scriptural practice of the cup being passed round, each communicant receives one of these small glasses. We are pleased to observe that the Rev. Thos. Burns, in his recently published “Benefice Lecturers,” strongly condemns the practice. Here is his advice to the young ministers of the Church of Scotland:—“And let me also warn you regarding another and shocking innovation which should be strenuously opposed, viz., the introduction of the individual communion cup. The Holy Communion, as our Lord instituted it and as His Church for near 2,000 years has observed it, strongly inculcates the sense of unity, fellowship, brotherhood; the individual cup, on the other hand, suggests and intensifies, at the very moment of communion, some objections to such fellowship.—‘Stand back; for I, if not holier, am cleaner or healthier than thou.’”