When we come to study
the influence of Calvinism as a political force in the history of the United
States we come to one of the brightest pages of all Calvinistic history.
Calvinism came to America in the Mayflower, and Bancroft, the greatest of
American historians, pronounces the Pilgrim Fathers "Calvinists in their faith
according to the straightest system."1 John Endicott, the first
governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony; John Winthrop, the second governor
of that Colony; Thomas Hooker, the founder of Connecticut; John Davenport, the
founder of the New Haven Colony; and Roger Williams, the founder of the Rhode
Island Colony, were all Calvinists. William Penn was a disciple of the
Huguenots. It is estimated that of the 3,000,000 Americans at the time of the
American Revolution, 900,000 were of Scotch or Scotch-Irish origin, 600,000
were Puritan English, and 400,000 were German or Dutch Reformed. In addition
to this the Episcopalians had a Calvinistic confession in their Thirty-nine
Articles; and many French Huguenots also had come to this western world. Thus
we see that about two-thirds of the colonial population had been trained in
the school of Calvin. Never in the world's history had a nation been founded
by such people as these. Furthermore these people came to America not
primarily for commercial gain or advantage, but because of deep religious
convictions. It seems that the religious persecutions in various European
countries had been providentially used to select out the most progressive and
enlightened people for the colonization of America. At any rate it is quite
generally admitted that the English, Scotch, Germans, and Dutch have been the
most masterful people of Europe. Let it be especially remembered that the
Puritans, who formed the great bulk of the settlers in New England, brought
with them a Calvinistic Protestantism, that they were truly devoted to the
doctrines of the great Reformers, that they had an aversion for formalism and
oppression whether in the Church or in the State, and that in New England
Calvinism remained the ruling theology throughout the entire Colonial period.
With this background
we shall not be surprised to find that the Presbyterians took a very prominent
part in the American Revolution. Our own historian Bancroft says: "The
Revolution of 1776, so far as it was affected by religion, was a Presbyterian
measure. It was the natural outgrowth of the principles which the
Presbyterianism of the Old World planted in her sons, the English Puritans,
the Scotch Covenanters, the French Huguenots, the Dutch Calvinists, and the
Presbyterians of Ulster." So intense, universal, and aggressive were the
Presbyterians in their zeal for liberty that the war was spoken of in England
as "The Presbyterian Rebellion." An ardent colonial supporter of King George
III wrote home: "I fix all the blame for these extraordinary proceedings upon
the Presbyterians. They have been the chief and principal instruments in all
these flaming measures. They always do and ever will act against government
from that restless and turbulent anti-monarchial spirit which has always
distinguished them everywhere."2 When the news of "these
extraordinary proceedings" reached England, Prime Minister Horace Walpole said
in Parliament, "Cousin America has run off with a Presbyterian parson" (John
Witherspoon, president of Princeton, signer of Declaration of Independence).
History is eloquent
in declaring that American democracy was born of Christianity and that that
Christianity was Calvinism. The great Revolutionary conflict which resulted in
the formation of the American nation, was carried out mainly by Calvinists,
many of whom had been trained in the rigidly Presbyterian College at
Princeton, and this nation is their gift to all liberty loving people.
J. R. Sizoo tells us:
"When Cornwallis was driven back to ultimate retreat and surrender at
Yorktown, all of the colonels of the Colonial Army but one were Presbyterian
elders. More than one-half of all the soldiers and officers of the American
Army during the Revolution were Presbyterians."3
The testimony of
Emilio Castelar, the famous Spanish statesman, orator and scholar, is
interesting and valuable. Castelar had been professor of Philosophy in the
University of Madrid before he entered politics, and he was made president of
the republic which was set up by the Liberals in 1873. As a Roman Catholic he
hated Calvin and Calvinism. Says he: "It was necessary for the republican
movement that there should come a morality more austere than Luther's, the
morality of Calvin, and a Church more democratic than the German, the Church
of Geneva. The Anglo-Saxon democracy has for its lineage a book of a primitive
society — the Bible. It is the product of a severe theology learned by the few
Christian fugitives in the gloomy cities of Holland and Switzerland, where the
morose shade of Calvin still wanders . . . And it remains serenely in its
grandeur, forming the most dignified, most moral and most enlightened portion
of the human race."4
Says Motley: "In
England the seeds of liberty, wrapped up in Calvinism and hoarded through many
trying years, were at last destined to float over land and sea, and to bear
the largest harvests of temperate freedom for great commonwealths that were
still unborn.5 "The Calvinists founded the commonwealths of
England, of Holland, and America." And again, "To Calvinists more than to any
other class of men, the political liberties of England, Holland and America
are due."6
The testimony of
another famous historian, the Frenchman Taine, who himself held no religious
faith, is worthy of consideration. Concerning the Calvinists he said: "These
men are the true heroes of England. They founded England, in spite of the
corruption of the Stuarts, by the exercise of duty, by the practice of
justice, by obstinate toil, by vindication of right, by resistance to
oppression, by the conquest of liberty, by the repression of vice. They
founded Scotland; they founded the United States; at this day they are, by
their descendants, founding Australia and colonizing the world."7
In his book, "The
Creed of Presbyterians," E. W. Smith asks concerning the American colonists,
"Where learned they those immortal principles of the rights of man, of human
liberty, equality and self-government, on which they based their Republic, and
which form today the distinctive glory of our American civilization ? In the
school of Calvin they learned them. There the modern world learned them. So
history teaches," (p. 121).
We shall now pass on
to consider the influence which the Presbyterian Church as a Church exerted in
the formation of the Republic. "The Presbyterian Church," said Dr. W. H.
Roberts in an address before the General Assembly, "was for three-quarters of
a century the sole representative upon this continent of republican government
as now organized in the nation." And then he continues: "From 1706 to the
opening of the revolutionary struggle the only body in existence which stood
for our present national political organization was the General Synod of the
American Presbyterian Church. It alone among ecclesiastical and political
colonial organizations exercised authority, derived from the colonists
themselves, over bodies of Americans scattered through all the colonies from
New England to Georgia. The colonies in the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries, it is to be remembered, while all dependent upon Great Britain,
were independent of each other. Such a body as the Continental Congress did
not exist until 1774. The religious condition of the country was similar to
the political. The Congregational Churches of New England had no connection
with each other, and had no power apart from the civil government. The
Episcopal Church was without organization in the colonies, was dependent for
support and a ministry on the Established Church of England, and was filled
with an intense loyalty to the British monarchy. The Reformed Dutch Church did
not become an efficient and independent organization until 1771, and the
German Reformed Church did not attain to that condition until 1793. The
Baptist Churches were separate organizations, the Methodists were practically
unknown, and the Quakers were non-combatants."
Delegates met every
year in the General Synod, and as Dr. Roberts tells us, the Church became "a
bond of union and correspondence between large elements in the population of
the divided colonies." "Is it any wonder," he continues, "that under its
fostering influence the sentiments of true liberty, as well as the tenets of a
sound gospel, were preached throughout the territory from Long Island to South
Carolina, and that above all a feeling of unity between the Colonies began
slowly but surely to assert itself? Too much emphasis cannot be laid, in
connection with the origin of the nation, upon the influence of that
ecclesiastical republic, which from 1706 to 1774 was the only representative
on this continent of fully developed federal republican institutions. The
United States of America owes much to that oldest of American Republics, the
Presbyterian Church."8
It is, of course, not
claimed that the Presbyterian Church was the only source from which sprang the
principles upon which this republic is founded, but it is claimed that the
principles found in the Westminster Standards were the chief basis for the
republic, and that "The Presbyterian Church taught, practiced, and maintained
in fulness, first in this land that form of government in accordance with
which the Republic has been organized." (Roberts).
The opening of the
Revolutionary struggle found the Presbyterian ministers and churches lined up
solidly on the side of the colonists, and Bancroft accredits them with
having made the first bold move toward independence.9 The synod
which assembled in Philadelphia in 1775 was the first religious body to
declare openly and publicly for a separation from England. It urged the people
under its jurisdiction to leave nothing undone that would promote the end in
view, and called upon them to pray for the Congress which was then in session.
The Episcopalian
Church was then still united with the Church of England, and it opposed the
Revolution. A considerable number of individuals within that Church, however,
labored earnestly for independence and gave of their wealth and influence to
secure it. It is to be remembered also that the Commander-in-Chief of the
American armies, "the father of our country," was a member of her household.
Washington himself attended, and ordered all of his men to attend the services
of his chaplains, who were clergymen from the various churches. He gave forty
thousand dollars to establish a Presbyterian College in his native state,
which took his name in honor of the gift and became Washington College.
N. S. McFetridge has
thrown light upon another major development of the Revolutionary period. For
the sake of accuracy and completeness we shall take the privilege of quoting
him rather extensively. "Another important factor in the independent
movement," says he, "was what is known as the 'Mecklenburg Declaration,'
proclaimed by the Scotch-Irish Presbyterians of North Carolina, May 20, 1775,
more than a year before the Declaration (of Independence) of Congress. It was
the fresh, hearty greeting of the Scotch-Irish to their struggling brethren in
the North, and their bold challenge to the power of England. They had been
keenly watching the progress of the contest between the colonies and the
Crown, and when they heard of the address presented by the Congress to the
King, declaring the colonies in actual rebellion, they deemed it time for
patriots to speak. Accordingly, they called a representative body together in
Charlotte, N. C., which by unanimous resolution declared the people free and
independent, and that all laws and commissions from the king were henceforth
null and void. In their Declaration were such resolutions as these: 'We do
hereby dissolve the political bands which have connected us with the
mother-country, and hereby absolve ourselves from all allegiance to the
British crown' .... 'We hereby declare ourselves a free and independent
people; are, and of right ought to be, a sovereign and self-governing
association, under control of no power other than that of our God and the
general government of Congress; to the maintenance of which we solemnly pledge
to each other our mutual cooperation and our lives, our fortunes and our most
sacred honor.' ... That assembly was composed of twenty-seven staunch
Calvinists, just one-third of whom were ruling elders in the Presbyterian
Church, including the president and secretary; and one was a Presbyterian
clergyman. The man who drew up that famous and important document was the
secretary, Ephraim Brevard, a ruling elder of the Presbyterian Church and a
graduate of Princeton College. Bancroft says of it that it was, 'in effect, a
declaration as well as a complete system of government.' (U.S. Hist. VIII,
40). It was sent by special messenger to the Congress in Philadelphia, and was
published in the Cape Fear Mercury, and was widely distributed throughout the
land. Of course it was speedily transmitted to England, where it became the
cause of intense excitement.
"The identity of
sentiment and similarity of expression in this Declaration and the great
Declaration written by Jefferson could not escape the eye of the historian;
hence Tucker, in his Life of Jefferson, says: 'Everyone must be persuaded that
one of these papers must have been borrowed from the other.' But it is certain
that Brevard could not have 'borrowed' from Jefferson, for he wrote more than
a year before Jefferson; hence Jefferson, according to his biographer, must
have 'borrowed' from Brevard. But it was a happy plagiarism, for which the
world will freely forgive him. In correcting his first draft of the
Declaration it can be seen, in at least a few places, that Jefferson has
erased the original words and inserted those which are first found in the
Mecklenberg Declaration. No one can doubt that Jefferson had Brevard's
resolutions before him when he was writing his immortal Declaration."10
This striking
similarity between the principles set forth in the Form of Government of the
Presbyterian Church and those set forth in the Constitution of the United
States has caused much comment. "When the fathers of our Republic sat down to
frame a system of representative and popular government," says Dr. E. W.
Smith, "their task was not so difficult as some have imagined. They had a
model to work by."11
"If the average
American citizen were asked, who was the founder of America, the true author
of our great Republic, he might be puzzled to answer. We can imagine his
amazement at hearing the answer given to this question by the famous German
historian, Ranke, one of the profoundest scholars of modern times. Says Ranke,
'John Calvin was the virtual founder of America.'"12
D'Aubigne, whose
history of the Reformation is a classic, writes: "Calvin was the founder of
the greatest of republics. The Pilgrims who left their country in the reign of
James I, and landing on the barren soil of New England, founded populous and
mighty colonies, were his sons, his direct and legitimate sons; and that
American nation which we have seen growing so rapidly boasts as its father the
humble Reformer on the shore of Lake Leman."13
Dr. E. W. Smith says,
"These revolutionary principles of republican liberty and self-government,
taught and embodied in the system of Calvin, were brought to America, and in
this new land where they have borne so mighty a harvest were planted, by whose
hands? — the hands of the Calvinists. The vital relation of Calvin and
Calvinism to the founding of the free institutions of America, however strange
in some ears the statement of Ranke may have sounded, is recognized and
affirmed by historians of all lands and creeds."14
All this has been
thoroughly understood and candidly acknowledged by such penetrating and
philosophic historians as Bancroft, who far though he was from being
Calvinistic in his own personal convictions, simply calls Calvin "the father
of America," and adds: "He who will not honor the memory and respect the
influence of Calvin knows but little of the origin of American liberty."
When we remember that
two-thirds of the population at the time of the Revolution had been trained in
the school of Calvin, and when we remember how unitedly and enthusiastically
the Calvinists labored for the cause of independence, we readily see how true
are the above testimonies.
There were
practically no Methodists in America at the time of the Revolution; and, in
fact, the Methodist Church was not officially organized as such in England
until the year 1784, which was three years after the American Revolution
closed. John Wesley, great and good man though he was, was a Tory and a
believer in political non-resistance. He wrote against the American
"rebellion," but accepted the providential result. McFetridge tells us: "The
Methodists had hardly a foothold in the colonies when the war began. In 1773
they claimed about one hundred and sixty members. Their ministers were almost
all, if not all, from England, and were staunch supporters of the Crown
against American Independence. Hence, when the war broke out they were
compelled to fly from the country. Their political views were naturally in
accord with those of their great leader, John Wesley, who wielded all the
power of his eloquence and influence against the independence of the colonies.
(Bancroft, Hist. U.S., Vol. VII, p. 261.) He did not foresee that independent
America was to be the field on which his noble Church was to reap her largest
harvests, and that in that Declaration which he so earnestly opposed lay the
security of the liberties of his followers."15
In England and
America the great struggles for civil and religious liberty were nursed in
Calvinism, inspired by Calvinism, and carried out largely by men who were
Calvinists. And because the majority of historians have never made a serious
study of Calvinism they have never been able to give us a truthful and
complete account of what it has done in these countries. Only the light of
historical investigation is needed to show us how our forefathers believed in
it and were controlled by it. We live in a day when the services of the
Calvinists in the founding of this country have been largely forgotten, and
one can hardly treat of this subject without appearing to be a mere eulogizer
of Calvinism. We may well do honor to that Creed which has borne such sweet
fruits and to which America owes so much.
Footnotes:
1Hist. U.
S., I, p. 463.
2Presbyterians and the Revolution, p. 49.
3They Seek a Country, J. G. Slosser, editor, p. 155.
4Harper's Monthly. June and July, 1872.
5The'United Netherlands, III., p. 121.
6The United Netherlands, IV., pp. 548, 547.
7English Literature, II., p. 472.
8Address on, "The Westminster Standards and the Formation of the
American Republic.
9Hist. U.S., X., p. 77.
10Calvinism in History, pp. 85-88.
11The Creed of Presbyterians, p. 142.
12Id. p. 119.
13Reformation in the Time of Calvin, I., p. 5.
14The Creed of Presbyterians, p. 132.
15Calvinism in History, p. 74.
