From all this, we see the important place the Sabbath question is to hold in this movement—the important place it even now holds in the minds of those who are urging it forward. Let the amendment called for be granted, "and all the results indicated in this note," says the writer, "will ultimately be secured;" that is, individuals and corporations will be restrained from violating the Sunday observance. The acknowledgment of God in the Constitution may do very well as a banner under which to sail; but the practical bearing of the movement relates to the compulsory observance of the first day of the week.
Even now the question is agitated why the Jew should be allowed to follow his business on the first day after having observed the seventh. The same question is equally pertinent to all seventh-day keepers. A writer signing himself "American," in the Boston Herald of Dec. 14, 1871, said:—
"The President in his late message in speaking of the Mormon question, says, 'They shall not be permitted to break the law under the cloak of religion.' This, undoubtedly, meets the approval of every American citizen, and I wish to cite a parallel case, and ask: Why should the Jews of this country be allowed to keep open their stores on the Sabbath under the cloak of their religion while I, or any other true American, will be arrested and suffer punishment if we do the same thing? If there is a provision made allowing a few to conduct business on the Sabbath, what justice and equality can there be in any such provision, and why should it not be stopped at once?"
And this question, we apprehend, will be very summarily decided, when once the Consitutional Amendment has been secured.
At a Ministerial Association of the M.E. church held in Healdsburg, Cal., April 26-28, 1870, Rev. Mr. Trefren, of Napa, speaking of S.D.A. ministers, said, "I predict for them a short race. What we want is law in the matter." Then, referring to the present movement for a law, he added, "And we will have it, too; and when we get the power into our hands, we will show these men what their end will be."
From a work recently published by the Presbyterian Board of Publication, entitled "The Sabbath," by Chas. Elliott, Professor of Biblical Literature and Exegesis in the Presbyterian Theological Seminary of the North West, Chicago, Ill., we take this paragraph:—
"But it may be asked, Would not the Jew be denied equality of rights by legislation protecting the Christian Sabbath and ignoring the Jewish? The answer is, We are not a Jewish but a Christian nation; therefore, our legislation must be conformed to the institutions and spirit of Christianity. This is absolutely necessary from the nature of the case."
There is no mistaking the import of this language: No matter if the Jew does not secure equal rights with others. We are not a Jewish nation, but a Christian; and all must be made to conform to what the majority decide to be Christian institutions. This affects all who observe the seventh day as much as the Jews. And we apprehend it will not be a difficult matter to lead the masses, whose prejudices incline them in this direction, to believe that it is "absolutely necessary" that all legislation must take such a form, and cause them to act accordingly.
Several years since, Dr. Durbin of the Christian Advocate and Journal; gave his views on this subject as follows:—
"I infer, therefore, that the civil magistrate may not be called upon to enforce the observance of the Sabbath [Sunday] as required in the spiritual kingdom of Christ; but when Christianity becomes the moral and spiritual life of the State, the State is bound through her magistrates to prevent the open violation of the holy Sabbath, as a measure of self-preservation. She cannot, without injuring her own vitality and incurring the divine displeasure, be recreant to her duty in this matter."