"We want a Sunday law to protect Christians in their worship on that day," is one of the utterances often heard from National Reformers. It is done to catch the popular favor; for all know that Christians are thus protected now. What State is there in all this commonwealth that does not have laws for the protection of its subjects in their religious worship? Where are Sunday congregations broken up by the lawless without laying themselves liable to heavy penalties? There is quite a difference between protecting the individual who observes an institution and protecting the institution which he observes. All have a right to the first protection. It is the Government's duty to grant it. It is a mere question of equal rights. But if it is the duty of the Government to protect one religious institution of its subjects, it is its duty to protect all; and thus would follow inextricable confusion; for the number of the institutions is legion, and their name, Babel. We would have transubstantiation, consubstantiation, real presence, and the symbolic view of the eucharist all legalized by the Government. Immersion and sprinkling and pouring would all be baptism by law. The first day and seventh day would both be legal Sabbaths. But no, this would never do; for the overwhelming majority of the Christians of "the land" "demand the legal protection of but one day, and that the first day of the week."— Rev. C. M. Westlake, of N. Y. That is just what the clamor for protection to religious institutions means,—the protection of "me and mine," the equal rights of—a "majority of Christians." Rome believed in the equal rights of Romanists. The Puritans believed in the equal rights of Puritans. And the religious rights and liberty promised those who may dissent from the authorized code of the future, is of the same merciful character which Rome extended to heretics, and Puritans to Quakers.