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.
BACK
