Is that what you got out of that paragraph? I doubt if I have ever seen anyone miss the point as widely as you just did. I hope you didn't do it on purpose.
Tell you what! Let's just take that little phrase out of the paragraph, break it up in smaller bites, and see if you can get the point this time:
"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 [Romanism] 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 feared Calvinism as republicanism itself."
It might also be helpful to you to go back to reply #53, click on that paragraph link, and go read the rest of it.
This must be why Catholic Switzerland was a republic long before the reformation, eh? And why the barons of a Catholic England wrote the Magna Carta?
The idea that church government should be selected based on what sort of civil polity we want is worse than backwards; it is absurd. Jesus and the Apostles established a church government: you can see it clearly in the Pastoral Epistles and in the writings of the early Fathers. It's not ours to amend, throw away, or modify.
Oh, BTW: heaven is a monarchy, not a "republic" or a "democracy". Was yesterday, is today, will be tomorrow. Get used to it!