While religious and
civil liberty have no organic connection, they nevertheless have a very strong
affinity for each other; and where one is lacking the other will not long
endure. History is eloquent in declaring that on a people's religion ever
depends their freedom or their bondage. It is a matter of supreme importance
what doctrines they believe, what principles they adopt: for these must serve
as the basis upon which the superstructure of their lives and their government
rests. Calvinism was revolutionary. It taught the natural equality of men, and
its essential tendency was to destroy all distinctions of rank and all claims
to superiority which rested upon wealth or vested privilege. The
liberty-loving soul of the Calvinist has made him a crusader against those
artificial distinctions which raise some men above others.
Politically,
Calvinism has been the chief source of modern republican government. Calvinism
and republicanism are related to each other as cause and effect; and where a
people are possessed of the former, the latter will soon be developed. Calvin
himself held that the Church, under God, was a spiritual republic; and
certainly he was a republican in theory. James I was well aware of the effects
of Calvinism when he said: "Presbytery agreeth as well with the monarchy as
God with the Devil." Bancroft speaks of "the political character of
Calvinism, which with one consent and with instinctive judgment the monarchs
of that day feared as republicanism." Another American historian, John Fiske,
has written, "It would be hard to overrate the debt which mankind owes
to Calvin. The spiritual father of Coligny, of William the Silent, and of
Cromwell, must occupy a foremost rank among the champions of modern democracy
.... The promulgation of this theology was one of the longest steps that
mankind has ever taken toward personal freedom."1 Emilio Castelar,
the leader of the Spanish Liberals, says that "Anglo-Saxon democracy is the
product of a severe theology, learned in the cities of Holland and
Switzerland." Buckle, in his History of Civilization says, "Calvinism is
essentially democratic," (I, 669). And de Tocqueville, an able political
writer, calls it "& democratic and republican religion."2
The system not only
imbued its converts with the spirit of liberty, but it gave them practical
training in the rights and duties as freemen. Each congregation was left to
elect its own officers and to conduct its own affairs. Fiske pronounces it,
"one of the most effective schools that has ever existed for training men in
local serf-government."3 Spiritual freedom is the source and
strength of all other freedom, and it need cause no surprise when we are told
that the principles which governed them in ecclesiastical affairs gave shape
to their political views. Instinctively they preferred a representative
government and.stubbornly resisted all unjust rulers. After religious
despotism is overthrown, civil despotism cannot long continue.
We may say that the
spiritual republic which was founded by Calvin rests upon four basic
principles. These have been summed up by an eminent English statesman and
jurist, Sir .lames Stephen, as follows: "These principles were, firstly that
the will of the people was the one legitimate source of the power of the
rulers; secondly, that the power was most properly delegated by the people, to
their rulers, by means of elections, in which every adult man might exercise
the right of suffrage; thirdly, that in ecclesiastical government, the clergy
and laity were entitled to an equal and co-ordinate authority; and fourthly
that between the Church and State, no alliance, or mutual dependence, or other
definite relation, necessarily or properly existed."4
The principle of the
sovereignty of God when applied to the affairs of government proved to be very
important. God as the supreme Ruler, was vested with sovereignty; and whatever
sovereignty was found in man had been graciously granted to him. The
scriptures were taken as the final authority, as containing eternal principles
which were regulative for all ages and on all peoples. In the following words
the Scriptures declared the State to be a divinely established institution:
"Let every soul be in subjection to the higher powers: for there is
no power but of God; and the powers that be are ordained of God. Therefore he
that resisteth the power, withstandeth the ordinance of God; and they that
withstand shall receive to themselves judgment. For rulers are not a terror to
the good work, but to the evil. And wouldst thou have no fear of the power? do
that which is good, and thou shalt have praise for the same: for he is a
minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be
afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is a minister of God, an
avenger for wrath to him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be in
subjection, not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience sake. For
this cause ye pay tribute also; for they are ministers of God's service,
attending continually upon this very thing. Render to all their dues; custom
to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor," Romans 13:1-7.
No one type of
government, however, whether democracy, republic, or monarchy, was thought to
be divinely ordained for any certain age or people, although Calvinism showed
a preference for the republican type. "Whatever the system of government,"
says Meeter, "be it monarchy or democracy or any other form, in
each case the ruler (or rulers) was to act as God's representative, and to
administer the affairs of government in accordance with God's law. The
fundamental principle supplied at the same time the very highest incentive for
the preservation of law and order among its citizens. Subjects were for God's
sake to render obedience to the higher powers, whichever these might be. Hence
Calvinism made for highly stabilized governments.
"On the other
hand this very principle of the sovereignty of God operated as a mighty
defense of the liberties of the subject citizens against tyrannical rulers.
Whenever sovereigns ignored the Will of God, trampled upon the rights of the
governed and became tyrannical, it became the privilege and the duty of the
subjects, in view of the higher responsibility of the supreme Sovereign, God,
to refuse obedience and even, if necessary, to depose the tyrant, through the
lesser authorities appointed by God for the defense of the rights of the
governed."5
The Calvinistic ideas
concerning governments and rulers have been ably expressed by J.C. Monsma in
the following lucid paragraph: "Governments are instituted by God through the
instrumentality of the people. No kaiser or president has any power inherent
in himself; whatever power he possesses, whatever sovereignty he exercises, is
power and sovereignty derived from the great Source above. No might, but
right, and right springing from the eternal Fountain of justice. For the
Calvinist it is extremely easy to respect the laws and ordinances of the
government. If the government were nothing but a group of men, bound to carry
out the wishes of a popular majority, his freedom-loving soul would rebel. But
now, to his mind, and according to his fixed belief , — back of the government
stands God, and before Him he kneels in deepest reverence. Here also lies the
fundamental reason for that profound and almost fanatical love of freedom,
also the political freedom, which has always been a characteristic of the
genuine Calvinist. The government is God's servant. That means that AS MEN all
government officials stand on an equal footing with their subordinates; have
no claim to superiority in any sense whatever For exactly the same reason the
Calvinist gives preference to a republican form of government over any other
type. In no other form of government does the sovereignty of God, the
derivative character of government powers and the equality of men as men, find
a clearer and more eloquent expression."6
The theology of the
Calvinist exalted one Sovereign and humbled all other sovereigns before His
awful majesty. The divine right of kings and the infallible decrees of popes
could not long endure amid a people who place sovereignty in God alone. But
while this theology infinitely exalted God as the Almighty Ruler of heaven and
earth and humbled all men before Him, it enhanced the dignity of the
individual and taught him that all men as men were equal. The Calvinist feared
God; and fearing God he feared nobody else. Knowing himself to have been
chosen in the counsels of eternity and marked for the glories of heaven, he
possessed something which dissipated the feeling of personal homage for men
and which dulled the lustre of all earthly grandeur. If a proud aristocracy
traced its lineage through generations of highborn ancestry, the Calvinists,
with a loftier pride, invaded the invisible world, and from the book of life
brought down the record of the noblest enfranchisement, decreed from eternity
by the King of kings. By a higher than any earthly lineage they were heaven's
noblemen because God's sons and priests, joint heirs with Christ, kings and
priests unto God, by a divine anointing and consecration. Put the truth of the
sovereignty of God into a man's mind and heart, and you put iron in his blood.
The Reformed Faith has rendered a most valuable service in teaching the
individual his rights.
In striking contrast
with these democratic and republican tendencies which are found to be inherent
in the Reformed Faith we find that Arminianism has a very pronounced
aristocratic tendency. In the Presbyterian and Reformed Churches the elder
votes in Presbytery or Synod or General Assembly on full equality with his
pastor; but in Arminian churches the power is largely in the hands of the
clergy, and the laymen have very little real authority. Episcopacy stresses
rule by the hierarchy. Arminianism and Roman Catholicism (which is practically
Arminian) thrive under a monarchy, but there Calvinism finds its life cramped.
On the other hand Romanism especially does not thrive in a republic, but there
Calvinism finds itself most at home. An aristocratic form of church government
tends toward monarchy in civil affairs, while a republican form of church
government tends toward democracy in civil affairs. Says McFetridge, "Arminianism
is unfavorable to civil liberty, and Calvinism is unfavorable to despotism.
The despotic rulers of former days were not slow to observe the correctness of
these propositions, and, claiming the divine right of kings, feared Calvinism
as republicanism itself."7
Footnotes:
1Beginnings
of New England, p. 58.
2Democracy, I., p. 884.
3The Beginnings of New England, p. 59.
4Lectures on the History of France, p. 415.
5The Fundamental Principles of Calvinism, H. H. Meeter, p. 92.
6What Calvinism Has Done for America, p. 6.
7Calvinism in History, p. 21.
