National Reformism at Winona Lake, Ind.
By C. M. S.
THE feature of this National Reform convention which drew the largest audience was the speech by Hon. William J. Bryan, who spoke under the auspices of the National Reform Association in the main auditorium on August 12. The audience was estimated at eight thousand. The theme of the address was “The Price of a Soul,” and the text, “What shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?” The address dwelt almost wholly upon material exchange between man and man, the principles involved in such transactions, and the immense importance of the practise of justice and equity in building true character and fitting for the higher life. Many good things were said.4 One declaration of the speaker is worthy of consideration for three reasons: First, because it is generally believed; second, because it is not literally true; and third, because it is not in harmony with the principles of the organization under whose auspices he was speaking. Nor can that organization take any credit to itself for differing with Mr. Bryan upon the principle involved, for their opposition to the principle is based upon grounds that are un-American. This seeming incongruity will be understood as we proceed. Mr. Bryan’s statement was this:— The people have a right to have what they want in government.
That statement is quite generally believed. But it is the majority of the people who decide such matters; and where there is a majority, there is a minority also. It is possible for a majority to pass a law by whose provisions a minority would be despoiled of rights that are truly inalienable. For instance, a law may be demanded by, and passed by, the majority which would require the minority to help support a system of worship in which they did not believe, or to attend worship at the place where or at the time when the majority worshiped, or even to refrain from labor on a certain day, after worshiping on another, because the majority chose to rest and worship on that certain day. No people have a just right to pass such laws, no matter how great the majority they carry with them. The majority may demand a kind of government that would imprison men or put them to death because of their conscientious convictions which could in no way interfere with the equal rights of others. They have no right to make such a demand or have such a government. Equal and exact justice to all men is the only true basis of government; and the government which grants to one class rights which it withholds from another is not founded on that basis. The people have no right to a government which puts a handicap upon any class because of its religious faith and legitimate religious practise. The National Reform Association does not believe Mr. Bryan’s statement, for they have repudiated the doctrine of majority rule. Rev. J. S. Martin, general superintendent of the National Reform Association, said at this convention on August 14:— This association proposes that there shall be a recognition made in our nation’s fundamental law of the great fundamental principles that are embodied in this national Christianity; namely, that God and not man is the ultimate source of all civil power and authority; that the Lord Jesus Christ, and not any earthly potentate, is the ruler of nations; that the law of God as revealed through Jesus Christ, and not the will of the majority of the people, is the supreme law of the land; that these fundamental principles shall be expressed by the nation itself, and that through its highest law, the national Constitution. That association proposes that the national Constitution shall expressly declare that the will of the majority of the people is not the supreme law of the land; but that the law of God is the supreme law of the land. It is apparent, therefore, that the association can not indorse Mr. Bryan’s position. It is further apparent that such a program would necessitate the transformation of this republic into a hierarchy, with the preachers acting in the capacity of the ancient prophets. If we ask, “How shall the legislators learn the divine will that they may legislate in harmony therewith?” Rev. J. M. Wylie, one of the lecturers at this convention, replies: “The man who speaks for God shall proclaim God’s will concerning this department of the kingdom. . . . God’s spokesmen shall utter his will. The prophets understood better than the kings the fundamental law of the land, and kings were compelled to consult them.” Under such a régime there is no question as to who would be master of the situation. No law would be passed without submission to the clergy, who, when they spoke, would be speaking for God, speaking ex cathedra, as does the Pope of Rome; and any refusal to submit to that authority would be considered both a mortal sin against God and treason against the government. Now in the analysis of the papal form of government and the form of government proposed by the National Reform Association a most striking similarity appears. They are both diametrically opposed to our present form of government. The Roman hierarchy has declared that this government is no government at all. The National Reform Association holds that the government never can be right until the Constitution is completely remodeled. Roman Catholic spokesmen declare that this nation must be made Catholic, that its citizens must have a master, and that there is no one competent to act in that capacity save the Roman Church. (See “Brownson’s Essays,” pages 380-383.) Says the National Reform Association: “The law of God as revealed through Jesus Christ, and not the will of the majority of the people, is the supreme law of the land,” and “God’s spokesmen shall utter his will,” and “the kings were compelled to consult them.” The Roman Church also says, in this connection: “The state is only an inferior court, bound to receive the law from the supreme court [the church], and liable to have its decrees reversed on appeal.”—“Brownson’s Essays,” page 284. The papal system sets up one ultimate authority, dictating to prince and people alike in spiritual and temporal things. The National Reform Association proposes that this government shall establish an authority which shall be ultimate in spiritual as well as temporal things—not a single individual, but a clerical group who shall hold in their hands the legislation of the country, and so shape the spiritual and temporal destinies of the people. All that spiritual Rome did was what the logic of purpose will make it necessary for these to do. What they propose to establish in this country is what Rome did establish wherever she had the power. This is the image of that. If that was the beast, of what is this the image? C. M. S.