THE CHICAGO CONVENTION.
By C. W. S.
At the great “North West Convention” lately held at Chicago, the Constitutional-Amendment move received a hearty Godspeed from the lips of the eminent speakers who were present, and by the passing of resolutions by the convention. Johnathan Edwards, D. D., in his speech made on the first day, said, “The Constitution does not name God, or make any reference to the people’s having knowledge of him, or any reverence for his name.” He also made the following statements:— “We also wish to put in some sort of a statement that the people who framed the Constitution acknowledged God as the Author of civil government, and revealed religion as the will of God to man. These amendments will not operate materially upon the body of the Constitution. We have a profound respect for that instrument, and are not disposed to tinker it, or tamper with its general scope. A vague allusion to the first day of the week needs touching, also another allusion to the oath of office.” “There are several things for which the members of this Association labor: First, there must be a holy name, the holy name of God, the name that lifts men up above the things of earth, and gives them thoughts and aspirations after higher things than time and sense. Then there must be a holy day, the Sabbath, the day of rest, the day of worship; not that they wanted all men to go to church on that day, who had no desire to attend divine service, but rather that those who wanted to worship God might be allowed to do so, without disturbance, without the busy hum of trade breaking the solemn hours of worship, without the stir of commerce, without the rude disturbance of those who held the day in light repute, without the noise of machinery disturbing the house and service of God; this was the Sabbath they desired, and this was the Sabbath for which we labor.” Prof. C. A. Blanchard, of Wheaton College, in the course of his remarks, said, “There must be a law; and that law must be something more than the changing ideas of a changing people. It must have an eternal truth behind it and through it to keep it, to make it morally binding, to enforce it as the will of God; and the only law is from God, and the only law from God which man has, is to be found in the Bible. And therefore to the Bible we must look for an interpretation of these great principles which must underlie national life, and which must be taken if a nation is to be successful in attaining the highest and best good to all.” To the last sentence we respond, Amen. But let us look at the statements of these two men for a moment. The first says, “There must be a holy day, the Sabbath. We grant it. The second says we must look to the Bible for an interpretation of these great principles which must underlie national life. True again.” Now let us look into the Bible, into that law to which Prof. B. refers. In the bosom of that law we read, “The seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God. . . . The Lord blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.” Here we find just what Mr. Edwards wants,—“a holy day, the Sabbath,” God’s blessed, sanctified (Gen. 2:3), holy (Isa. 58:13) day, enforced by the “law from God,” which we find in the Bible. Now if Mr. Edwards wants a holy day, let him take this—it is the only one he will find; for God never placed his blessing on any other, never set apart any other day to holy use. You may search the Bible from Genesis to Revelation, and you will not find where God has ever revoked that blessing, or removed it to any other day. Which will you do, accept God’s holy day, or repudiate his righteous law?