in relation to the adoption of such an amendment by Congress or by the Legislatures of three-quarters of the States.  Men who make politics a trade would hesitate to record their names against the proposed Constitutional Amendment, advocated by the leaders of the great religious denominations of the land, and indorsed by such men as Bishop Simpson, Bishop McIlvaine, Bishop Eastburn, President Finney, Prof.  Lewis, Prof.  Seelye, Bishop Huntington, Bishop Kerfoot, Dr. Patterson, Dr. Cuyler, and many other divines who are the representative men of their respective denominations.”

Not only the representative men of the churches are pledged to this movement, but governors, judges, and many of the most eminent men of the land are working for it.  Who doubts the power of the “representative men of the denominations” to rally the strength of their denominations to sustain this work at their call?  We utter no prophecy of the future; it is not needed.  Events transpire in these days faster than our minds are prepared to grasp them.  Let us heed the admonition to “watch!” and, with reliance upon God, prepare for “those things which are coming on the earth.”

But it may be asked how the Sunday question is to be affected by the proposed Constitutional Amendment.  Answer:  The object, or, to say the least, one object of this amendment is to put the Sunday institution on a legal basis, and compel its observance by the arm of the law.  At the National Convention held in Philadelphia, Jan. 18 and 19, 1871, the following resolution was among the first offered by the Business Committee:—­

“Resolved, That, in view of the controlling power of the Constitution in shaping State, as well as national, policy, it is of immediate importance to public morals, and to social order, to secure such an amendment as will indicate that this is a Christian nation, and place all Christian laws, institutions, and usages in our government on an undeniable legal basis in the fundamental law of the nation, specially those which secure a proper oath, and which protect society against blasphemy, Sabbath-breaking, and polygamy.”

By Sabbath-breaking is meant nothing else but Sunday-breaking.  In a convention of the friends of Sunday, assembled Nov. 29, 1870, in New Concord, Ohio, the Rev. James White is reported to have said:  “The question [of Sunday observance] is closely connected with the National Reform Movement; for until the government comes to know God and honor his law, we need not expect to restrain Sabbath-breaking corporations.”  Here again the idea of the legal enforcement of Sunday observance stands uppermost.

Once more:  The Philadelphia Press of Dec. 5, 1870, stated that some Congressmen, including Vice-president Colfax, arrived in Washington by Sunday trains, Dec. 4, on which the Christian Statesman commented as follows (we give italics as we find them):—­

     “1. Not one of those men ivho thus violated the Sabbath is fit to
     hold any official position in a Christian nation. * *