IN a note in last issue attention was called to the extraordinary Pastoral Letter on the above subject which was to be read to the congregations within the bounds of the Established Church Presbytery of Glasgow. This is one of the largest Presbyteries, if not the largest Presbytery, in that Church. The draft of the Pastoral Letter, which was read at a meeting of the Presbytery held at Glasgow on Wednesday, 15th December, calls attention to the fact that the injunction to keep the Sabbath holy was embodied in the fourth commandment; then there follows this sentence:—”The weekly holy day of the Christian Church, on the other hand, rests upon the fact that on the first day of the week our Lord Jesus Christ rose from the dead, and in thankful recognition of this event by which life and immortality were brought to light, the Christian Church has from the very earliest times marked this day by assemblies for worship.” So far so good, but why this ill-concealed attempt to get away from the perpetual obligation of the fourth commandment as far as the Christian Sabbath is concerned. We have always been taught that the obligation to keep the Sabbath holy rested on the Divine commandment, while the change from the seventh to the first day of the week was based on the fact mentioned in the Pastoral Letter. The position taken up by the Presbytery is the same, if we read the letter aright, as that set forth by Dr Norman Macleod in 1865, and which called forth much opposition at the time. The Letter then goes on to say that as a day of rest the Sabbath is primarily for Christian worship and services. Reference is then made to the condition of things now prevailing. “The conditions of life in modern times,” continues the Letter, “and especially in large towns, have increased the demand and the necessity for recreation, and to many the Lord’s Day offers opportunity for this. The Presbytery believes that it is not out of keeping with the true spirit of its observance that such opportunity should be taken advantage of, so long as the nature and obligations of the day receive due recognition. They have no desire to interfere unduly with individual liberty in this matter.” This probably was intended to show the broad-mindedness of the Presbytery, and to make known to their people that they had surely and effectively broken away from the traditions of a Sabbath-loving and honouring people. In the eyes of right-thinking men it will be regarded as a betrayal of the cause whose interest they profess to promote and a selling of the pass to the enemy. The authors of the Letter, evidently feeling that they had opened a floodgate that would let loose a deluge of waters which might be uncontrollable, go on to point out the obligations which rest upon the members of the Church. The obligation of worship “is to be fulfilled by regular attendances at Divine worship—where circumstances do not make it impossible at morning service.” It is right also that the day “should be marked by abstinence from week-day occupations so far as is possible; and that the rest or recreation enjoyed should be compatible with the religious character of the day, that it should not involve others in unnecessary labour, and that however innocent it should not cause offence to any.” After all this the Letter says that the principles which have been set forth in it “make for a reasonable and reverent observance” of the Lord’s Day, “neither lax nor burdensome.” Certainly they are not burdensome, and the world will certainly look upon them as well adapted for its children. But there are others who will have no hesitation in saying that the laxity shown in the principles stated in this Letter is a betrayal of the good cause and a triumph of the enemy. We have been at pains to quote the Pastoral Letter very fully, first of all to give our readers a real idea of its contents, and, secondly, to do full justice to its framers and to the Presbytery. It is a discouraging sign of the times that it met with very little opposition in the Presbytery, and the correspondence columns of the Glasgow press contained very few letters, as far as is known to us, criticising the Letter. We readily recognise that there are hundreds, we hope thousands, in Glasgow who believe in the perpetual obligation of the fourth commandment and who believe in keeping the Lord’s Day holy, and who, no doubt, were pained when they read the Pastoral Letter in the press, but who refrained from writing to the press on the matter. Still, the situation reveals an extraordinary difference between the present day and 1865, when Dr Norman Macleod, of the Barony, made his attack on the perpetual obligation of the fourth commandment. His attack called forth a voluminous correspondence in the press; Church Courts took up the matter, and pamphlets and books were printed criticising Dr Norman’s views. Scotland has drifted far from its time-honoured and scriptural respect for the Sabbath since then. In concluding, we commend to the framers and supporters of this Pastoral Letter the words in the January issue of “Life and Work,” the organ of their own Church:—”The Day is meeting the fate of its Lord. It is being betrayed into the hands of its enemies by those who are supposed to be, and ought to be, its friends.” Whether the writer had the Glasgow Presbytery in view or not, his words are very applicable to its members who supported the Letter.