CALVINISM IN AMERICA [Happy "Presbyterian Rebellion" Day, everybody!]

Reformed Theology.org ^ | Loraine Boettner

[Alex Murphy]

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.

[Cronos]

your post 28 is incorrect on the 4th point that Fourth, the modern missionary movement as we have come to know it, was founded and stimulated by William Carey, a Calvinist

As I said The missionary movement was founded by Christ. There is no such thing as "modern missionary movement" indicating a discontinuation with the original message to spread the Word of Christ -- the commission given by Christ Himself. -- are followers of Calvin trying to say that Christ did not start the missionary movement that continues to the present day?

Or are followers of Calvin saying they started a new missionary movement to spread the Gospel of Calvin in opposition to the Gospel of Christ?

[Cronos]

Finally, your point one that must do their utmost to bring the whole world into Christ’s fold, is utterly incompatible with the ideas that God preprogrammed all to good or evil, pre-damned many to heck and no one has any free will -- that means that no one can "do" (a work) anything to "bring" someone into Christ's fold -- it's already predetermined. Jean contradicts himself as do his followers.

[Cronos]

Actually, weren’t there Presbyterians on the English side as well? What about Baptists?

[BlueDragon]

You’re still not making any sense. I give up.

[Titanites]

You’re still not making any sense. I give up.

I suppose that's an easy out.

[BlueDragon]

How can it be both "rebellion against god day" and a happily celebrated (and rightfully enough?) "Independence day".

The inconsistency of that duplicitous position is glaring.

My cult? hah-ha. That's funny.

I'm no Presbyterian. But I appreciate what they did, the influential role they played for the cause of liberty from the tyranny of kings. So sue me. I'm a grateful American.

I hear there are openings in Canada, if you prefer living (somewhat) under monarchy.

I'd favor the West, personally, as I don't speak French, nor have little sympathy for the hardheadedness of the Quebecois separatists. The Western Canadians I've met have been almost universally fine folk, good to be around. I could recommend them as being potentially good neighbors to have close by...

Send us a postcard, wouldya'?

[BlueDragon]

I suppose that's an easy out.

You've burned through what little patience I had left.

Try making sense. I might respond to that...

[Titanites]

You've burned through what little patience I had left.

I can see how refusing to play the games you were up to might do that.

Try making sense. I might respond to that...

The sense of trying to make it look like I was responding to something I wasn't? Nice try, but no, that's not going to happen.

[Cronos]

Titanites:I can see how refusing to play the games you were up to might do that. -- ha ha! Good catch titanites! BD's posts were just that

[Cronos]

BD (posted on 6th of July): "happy presbyterian rebellion day, everybody" -- I guess the "rebellion against God" day is on the 6th of July, eh?

ok.... 6th of July is your cult's day. Good. The rest of America celebrates the 4th as Independence day and your cult (whichever one of the numerous PCUSA, WBC, etc. cults it is) celebrates the 6th as it's "rebellion against God" day...

[Cronos]

In fact, the German Baptists etc. did not even fight for the Revolutionary side in the War -- why didn't your faith ancestors do that?

For instance, Connor Dowd who was a member of the Haw River Separatist Baptist Church. This strongly pacifist congregation had forbidden its members to “take up arms against la[w]ful authority,” that is, the established government.

[Diamond]

...it's already predetermined. Jean contradicts himself as do his followers.

Is that a tacit admission that those I mentioned in post #28:

David Brainerd
John G. Paton
Henry Martyn
Gerorge Whitfield,
Theodore Frelinghuysen
Gilbert Tennent
Jonathan Edwards
those who went to Brazil
countless others, including many martyrs

were, in fact, missionaries who engaged in missionary activity?

I have asked you directly and explicitly three times why, if "Calvinists didn't believe in missionary work", or as you put it, "Calvinism is incompatible with missionary work", the particular Calvinists I listed in post #28 engaged in the extensive missionary work that they did, and when you finally get outside a country mile of answering the question it appears that your tacit, nonsensical answer is that they engaged in such extensive missionary activity because they were contradicting their own theology.

I know that some people react to the name of Calvin like a bull to a matador's cape, but did the possibility ever occur to you that you might not have a correct apprehension of the theology and that you ought to examine it more closely before you brazenly accuse them of contradicting themselves based on nothing but your own caricatures of it?

If past posts on this thread are any indication of what is to come, I do not expect a serious, intelligible answer from you. It will probably be something along the lines of "Calvin created a police state".

Cordially,

[BlueDragon]

Good catch titanites! BD's posts were just that

That take on it it is as backward as his. I attempted to explain it twice to him, but I guess pride, and the desire to be a pain in the neck precluded understanding.

Let me know when you find some earth-bound king to submit yourself to.

[Cronos]

BlueDragon: You're trying to make people think the Reformation began and ended with Calvin?

Are you talking of the new reformatters like John Smith or Charles Taze Russell or Ellen G White?

So the Reformation goes on!! And thanks to the re-re-reformatting there is Genie Robinson! congratulations!

[Cronos]

BD: Let me know when you find some earth-bound king to submit yourself to.

No thank you, I'm American. If you want to submit yourself to some such earth-bound king and follow Calvin's advice, you're welcome to do so...

[Cronos]

Actually, that's a good point -- Calvin did create a police state in Geneva, where they attacked fellow Protestants as exemplified in

1. Belot, an Anabaptist was arrested for passing out tracts in Geneva and also accusing Calvin of excessive use of wine. With his books and tracts burned, he was banished from the city and told not to return on pain of hanging (J.L. Adams, The Radical Reformation, pp. 597-598).
2. Jacques Gruent was racked and then executed for calling Calvin a hypocrite
3. A man who publicly protested against the reformer's doctrine of predestination was flogged at all the crossways of the city and then expelled.
4. Calvin's Letter to the Marquis Paet, chamberlain to the King of Navarre, 1561. "Honour, glory, and riches shall be the reward of your pains; but above all, do not fail to rid the country of those scoundrels [Anabaptists and others], who stir up the people to revolt against us. Such monsters should be exterminated, as I have exterminated Michael Servetus the Spaniard."

Sources quoted in Philip Schaff's History of the Christian Church, vol. 8:

• "The death penalty against heresy, idolatry and blasphemy and barbarous customs of torture were retained. Attendance at public worship was commanded on penalty of three sols. Watchmen were appointed to see that people went to church. The members of the Consistory visited every house once a year to examine the faith and morals of the family. Every unseemly word and act on the street was reported, and the offenders were cited before the Consistory to be either censured and warned, or to be handed over to the Council for severer punishment."

• Several women, among them the wife of Ami Perrin, the captain-general, were imprisoned for dancing.

• A man was banished from the city for three months because on hearing an ass bray, he said jestingly 'He prays a beautiful psalm.'

• A young man was punished because he gave his bride a book on housekeeping with the remark: 'This is the best Psalter.'

• Three men who laughed during a sermon were imprisoned for three days.

• Three children were punished because they remained outside of the church during the sermon to eat cakes.

• A man who swore by the 'body and blood of Christ' was fined and condemned to stand for an hour in the pillory on the public square.

• A child was whipped for calling his mother a thief and a she-devil.

• A girl was beheaded for striking her parents.

• A banker was executed for repeated adultery.

• A person named Chapuis was imprisoned for four days because he persisted in calling his child Claude (a Roman Catholic saint) instead of Abraham.

• Men and women were burnt to death for witchcraft. (See Pike, pp. 55,56).

From Other Sources:

[Cronos]

who are these boys sent to Brazil by Calvin? Are they the same as in your list?

[Diamond]

your post 28 is incorrect — as I pointed out clearly, the second is utterly false, Calvin did not evangelize France — that was done by Remigius in 496 AD — are you saying that France was not Christian until Cauvin popped up?

Are you saying that evangelism was completed by Remugius in France and that it therefore ceased, there being no need for it anymore in Calvin's day? On one hand you say (committing a category error) that there is no such thing as a modern missionary movement because the Great Commission of Christ is continuous, and on the other hand you imply that Calvin did not and could not have evangelized France because evangelism in France was completed or accomplished by Remigius. Your statements on this topic are inchoherent.

Was everyone in France a Christian in Remugius' day? Is everyone in France today a Christian?

If you can define historical facts out of existence merely by definition, sooner or later you will end up contradicting yourself.

Cordially,

[Cronos]

you said "Henry Martyn" -- he was an Anglican priest, not a Presbtyerian calvinist one

ditto for George Whitefield -- Anglican

it seems to be fairly common for followers of Calvin to claim a lot of stuff, eh?

Then you said "Theodore Frelinghuysen" -- he was a politician, not a missionary

[Cronos]

Are YOU saying that Calvin started or finished evangelization in France?

either way that's false

Remigius baptised Clovis I, France was already Christian for over a thousand years before Jean Cauvin, so your statement that "Calvin evangelized France" was false