The N. Y. Independent of Feb. 3, 1876, has the following article on Sunday and the Allegheny Presbytery:— “The true theory of the Sabbath as an ordinance, and as to its observance, has received discussion enough to have settled it long ago, if it could have been thus settled. But little more than this seems to have been yet agreed upon by Christian people—and we have now no concern with others—that a seventh day of rest should be observed, in which religious services should have a prominent part. Most of us go further, and hold to a Lord’s day made sacred by Christian tradition, and which is the heir of the Sabbath of the fourth commandment. But the strictness of the Puritan observance now finds few to defend it, and fewer to practice it. “Pittsburgh, Pa., is now the center of a considerable excitement on this subject. Professor Hopkins, of Auburn Seminary, who is famous for saying things that stir up strife, lately astonished the good people of Pittsburgh by denying the divine authority of our Sabbath. The Allegheny Presbytery has taken the matter in hand and sent a message of complaint to the Presbytery of Cayuga. Doubtless the valiant and independent Professor will make a vigorous defense.” “Another offense has called for sharper treatment. One of the proprietors of the Pittsburgh Sunday Leader is a member of Sewickley Presbyterian church, a church belonging to Allegheny Presbytery. This fact having been mentioned at a meeting of Presbytery, that body, by resolution, in June last, instructed the session of Sewickley church ‘to take such action as they may judge best suited to remove from themselves and the Presbyterian church the reproach connected with the publication of the Sunday Leader by a member of that church, and to report their action to Presbytery at its fall meeting.’ The session considered the matter, and replied that they considered it unwise and inexpedient to make this a case of discipline. Presbytery in September last responded that the action taken did not meet their views, and sent the case back to session for further consideration, with instructions to report. The session in December, ‘having reconsidered the subject,’ sent up another refusal to press the matter to an act of discipline, alleging, “1. That the member complained of ‘does not hold or own a majority or controlling interest in the Sunday Leader.’ “2. That he is not its acting or responsible editor. “3. That there are other members of our own church, and multitudes more in the Presbyterian church at large, who own and hold stock in our railroad companies, steamships, publishing companies, manufacturing companies, etc., etc., who stand in the same or similar relations to the church, the Sabbath question, and the fourth commandment; and we cannot consistently or conscientiously proceed against one member and not proceed against all, while the church at large fails in discharging the same obligations the Presbytery requires of us. “4. Finally, we decline proceeding further in this case, as in our judgment it is not for the peace and best interest of the church for us to do so until the entire subject of Sabbath observance and the requirements of the fourth commandment are clearly defined and settled by the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church in regard to all such members as are referred to in our third point.” “Presbytery voted the answer not satisfactory, and also that the session ‘be required and directed to take up and issue the case in question,’ and report as before. Thus the matter rests at present, so far as relates to the mere publication of a Sunday paper. But at the December meeting of Presbytery, another count was added to the indictment as follows:— “2. That the persistent efforts of the Pittsburgh Sunday Leader to break down the faith of the people in the divine obligation of the Christian Sabbath are most pernicious in their influence, and render any responsibility for such teachings a proper matter of discipline in any one who is a member of the church.” “The answer of the session will be due at the April meeting of Presbytery. “We do not care to discuss the merely ecclesiastical questions raised here, such as whether a presbytery has authority to interfere with a case of local discipline after the church session have twice considered it and acted on it, and no member of the church appeals or complains; whether it is regular for a presbytery to institute proceedings against a member of a church by resolution, without formal charges, without an accuser, and without proofs; whether a church session has any and how much discretion in matters of local discipline. They belong rather to denominational organs. We only wish to express a hope that the Presbytery, in its zeal to defend this vital institution of religion, will base its action on tenable grounds. We do not see how any man can be retained in church fellowship who is guilty of unrepented crime or who uses his money to destroy the Christian religion; but it is a strange phenomenon that a presbytery should demand that a man be disciplined for owning stock in a paper which teaches precisely the same doctrine as is defended by an accredited theological professor in the same church. Perhaps the General Assembly will set this all right at its next meeting.”