69 Mijn derde lezing verlaat de erve der Religie en treedt over op het terrein van den Staat, de eerste overgang uit den heiligen kring naar het breede veld van ’s werelds leven. Het wanbegrip, alsof het Calvinisme een uitsluitend kerkelijke en dogmatische beweging vertegenwoordigde, vindt dus nu eerst zijn principieele en zakelijke bestrijding. De religieuse beweegkracht van het Calvinisme heeft, juist omdat ze niet enkel de takken besnoeide en den stam zuiverde, maar tot aan den wortel zelf van het leven raakte, ook aan de politieke samenleving een eigen grondgedachte ondergeschoven. Dat dit zoo zijn moest, staat reeds op zichzelf vast voor een ieder, die doorziet, hoe er nooit één staatkundig stelsel tot heerschappij is gekomen, dat niet zijn grondslag vond in een eigenaardige religieuse beschouwing; en dat het ten opzichte van het Calvinisme zoo was, blijkt uit den staatkundigen ommekeer, dien het in Nederland, in Engeland en in Amerika, de drie historische landen der politieke vrijheid, zienderoogen tot stand bracht. Alle deskundige historieschrijvers beamen dan ook om strijd Bancroft’s woord: “The fanatic for Calvinism was a fanatic for liberty, for in the moral warfare for freedom, his creed was a part of his army and his most faithful ally in the battle” ¹⁾, iets wat Groen van Prinsterer aldus uitsprak, dat “in 70 het Calvinisme de oorsprong en waarborg ligt voor onze constitutioneele vrijheden”. Dat het Calvinisme het Staatsrecht eerst voor West-Europa, straks in twee werelddeelen, en thans al meer voor alle beschaafde volken in nieuwe banen heeft geleid, wordt dan ook, nog wel niet door de publieke opinie, maar dan toch in alle wetenschappelijke studie toegegeven. Maar voor het doel dat ik mij voorstelde, is de constateering van dit gewichtige feit niet genoeg. Om overtuiging te wekken, en om voor de toekomst den invloed van het Calvinisme op onze staatsrechtelijke ontwikkeling te verlevendigen, moet worden aangetoond aan welke politieke grondgedachten het Calvinisme ingang schonk, en op wat wijze deze politieke denkbeelden met den religieusen wortel van het Calvinisme samenhangen. Het grondbeginsel van het Calvinisme is de volstrekte souvereiniteit van den Drieëenigen God over alle geschapen leven, hetzij dit zienlijk of onzienlijk zij. Op aarde kent het derhalve geen andere dan de afgeleide souvereiniteit, en dat wel een drievoudige: in den Staat, in de Maatschappij en in de Kerk. Vergunt mij dan het hier vereischte betoog te voeren, door achtereenvolgens stil te staan bij deze drieërlei afgeleidesouvereiniteit, 1º. de souvereiniteit in den Staat, 2º. de souvereiniteit in de kringen van het volksleven, en 3º. de souvereiniteit in Christus’ Kerk op aarde.

1 My third lecture leaves the sanctuary of religion and enters upon the domain of the State; the first transition from the Sacred Circle to the secular field of human life. Only now therefore we proceed, summarily and in principle, to eradicate the wrong idea, that Calvinism represents an exclusive^ ecclesiastical and dogmatic movement.

The religious momentum of Calvinism has placed, beneath political Society, a fundamental conception, all its own, just because it did not only prune the branches and clean the stem, but reached down to the very root of life.

That this had to be so becomes evident at once to everyone, who is able to appreciate that a political scheme has never become dominant, which was not founded in a specific religious conception.

And that this has been the fact, as regards Calvinism, may appear from the political changes, which it has effected in those three historic lands of political freedom, the Netherlands, England and America.

Every competent historian will without exception confirm the words of Bancroft:— "The fanatic for Calvinism was a fanatic for liberty, for in the moral warfare for freedom, 2 his creed was a part of his army, and his most faithful ally in the battle."¹ And Groen van Prinsterer has thus expressed it: "in Calvinism lies the origin and guarantee of our constitutional liberties." That Calvinism has led public law into new paths, first in Western Europe, then in two Continents, and to-day more and more among all civilized nations, is admitted by scientific students, if not yet fully by public opinion.

But for the purpose I have in view, the mere statement of this important fact is insufficient.

In order that conviction may be aroused and the influence of Calvinism on our political development guaranteed for the future, it must be shown, — for what fundamental political conceptions Calvinism has opened the door, and how these political conceptions sprang from its root in religion.

Allow me to argue this matter in detail by pointing out to you a threefold Sovereignty:—

1. the Sovereignty in the sphere of the State; 2. the Sovereignty in the sphere of Social life ; and 3. the Sovereignty in the sphere of the Church.

98 My third lecture leaves the sanctuary of religion and enters upon the domain of the State — the first transition from the sacred circle to the secular field of human life. Only now therefore we proceed, summarily and in principle, to combat the unhistorical suggestion that Calvinism represents an exclusively ecclesiastical and dogmatic movement.

The religious momentum of Calvinism has placed also beneath political Society a fundamental conception, all its own, just because it not merely pruned the branches and cleaned the stem, but reached down to the very root of our human life.

That this had to be so becomes evident at once to everyone who is able to appreciate the fact that no political scheme has ever become dominant which was not founded in a specific religious or anti-religious conception. And that this has been the fact, as regards Calvinism, may appear from the political changes which it has effected in those three historic lands of political freedom, the Netherlands, England and America.

99 Every competent historian will without exception confirm the words of Bancroft: — “The fanatic for Calvinism was a fanatic for liberty, for in the moral warfare for freedom, his creed was a part of his army, and his most faithful ally in the battle.” ¹⁾ And Groen van Prinsterer has thus expressed it: “In Calvinism lies the origin and guarantee of our constitutional liberties.” That Calvinism has led public law into new paths, first in Western Europe, then in two Continents, and today more and more among all civilized nations, is admitted by all scientific students, if not yet fully by public opinion.

But for the purpose I have in view, the mere statement of this important fact is insufficient.

In order that the influence of Calvinism on our political development may be felt, it must be shown for what fundamental political conceptions Calvinism has opened the door, and how these political conceptions sprang from its root principle.

This dominating principle was not, soteriologically, justification by faith, but, in the widest sense cosmologically, the Sovereignty of the Triune God over the whole Cosmos, in all its spheres and kingdoms, visible and invisible. A primordial Sovereignty which eradiates in mankind in a threefold deduced supremacy, viz.. 1. The Sovereignty in the State; 2. The Sovereignty in Society; and 3. The Sovereignty in the Church.

Allow me to argue this matter in detail by pointing out to you how this threefold deduced Sovereignty was understood by Calvinism. 100

Minha terceira palestra deixa o santuário da religião e entra no campo do Estado – a primeira transição do círculo sagrado para o campo secular da vida humana. Agora, entretanto, passaremos sumariamente e em princípio a combater a sugestão não histórica de que o Calvinismo representa um movimento exclusivamente eclesiástico e dogmático.

O impulso religioso do Calvinismo também tem colocado debaixo da Sociedade política uma concepção fundamental toda própria dele, precisamente porque ele não apenas podou os ramos e limpou o tronco, mas alcançou a própria raiz de nossa vida humana.

Que isto deveria ser assim torna-se imediatamente evidente a todos que são capazes de apreciar o fato de que nenhum esquema político jamais se tornou dominante a menos que tenha sido fundado numa concepção religiosa específica ou numa concepção anti-religiosa. E que este tem sido o fato com relação ao Calvinismo, pode evidenciar-se pelas mudanças políticas que produziu naquelas três terras de liberdade política histórica, a Holanda, a Inglaterra e a América.

Todo historiador competente, sem exceção, confirmará as palavras de Bancroft: “O fanático pelo Calvinismo era um fanático por liberdade, pois na guerra moral pela liberdade, seu credo era uma parte de seu exército, e seu mais fiel aliado na batalha.”57 E Groen van Prinsterer o expressou da seguinte forma: “No Calvinismo encontra-se a origem e a garantia de nossas liberdades constitucionais.” Que o Calvinismo tem levado a lei pública a novos caminhos, primeiro na Europa Ocidental, então nos dois Continentes, e hoje mais e mais entre todas as nações civilizadas, é admitido por todos os estudantes científicos, se não ainda plenamente pela opinião pública.

Mas, para o propósito que tenho em vista, a simples afirmação deste importante fato é insuficiente. A fim de que a influência do Calvinismo em nosso desenvolvimento político possa ser sentida, deve ser demonstrado por quais concepções políticas fundamentais ele tem aberto a porta, e como estas concepções políticas nascem de seu princípio radical.

Este princípio dominante não era, soteriologicamente, a justificação pela fé, mas, no sentido cosmologicamente mais rude, a Soberania do Deus Triuno sobre todo o Cosmos, em todas as suas esferas e reinos, visíveis e invisíveis. Uma soberania primordial que irradia-se na humanidade numa tríplice supremacia derivada, a saber, 1. A Soberania no Estado; 2. A Soberania na Sociedade; e 3. A Soberania na Igreja

Permitam-me demonstrar este assunto em detalhes mostrando a vocês como esta tríplice Soberania derivada foi entendida pelo Calvinismo.

Моя третья лекция покидает святилище религии и вторгается в сферу государства — первый переход от священных предметов к мирской стороне человеческой жизни. Поэтому лишь теперь мы приступаем к тому, чтобы конспективно, в сжатом виде дать бой антиисторическому мнению, что кальвинизм представляет собой исключительно церковное и догматическое движение.

Кальвинизм предложил политическому сообществу собственную фундаментальную концепцию уже потому, что добрался до самых корней человеческого существования, а не просто обрезал ветви и очистил его стебель.

То, что так и должно быть, очевидно для всякого, кто способен понять, что никакая политическая схема никогда не становилась господствующей, если не основывалась на религиозной или антирелигиозной концепции. Именно это и случилось с кальвинизмом, что явствует из политических перемен, которые он вызвал в трех странах, где появилась политическая свобода — Нидерландах, Англии, Америке.

Всякий компетентный историк безоговорочно подтвердит слова Бэнкрофта: «Фанатик кальвинизма был фанатиком свободы, ибо в нравственной войне за свободу его вероучение было его оружием и самым верным союзником в борьбе»¹. Грюн ван Принстерер выразил это так: «В кальвинизме — истоки и гарантия наших конституционных свобод». То, что кальвинизм перевел общественный закон на новые пути, сначала в Западной Европе, затем на двух континентах, а сегодня, все больше и больше, — во всех цивилизованных нациях, признают все ученые, если и не все общественное мнение.

Но для той цели, которую я имею в виду, недостаточно просто признать этот важный факт.

Чтобы ощутить влияние кальвинизма на наше политическое развитие, нужно показать, каким основным политическим концепциям кальвинизм отворил дверь, и как эти концепции вытекают из его основного принципа.

Этим основным принципом не был сотериологический принцип оправдания верой. Им был космологический, в самом широком смысле, принцип суверенной власти Триединого Бога над всем мирозданием, во всех его сферах и царствах, видимых и невидимых. Это изначальное верховенство распространяется для человечества на три сферы: 1) верховенство в государстве; 2) верховенство в обществе и 3) верховенство в Церкви.

Позвольте мне подробно это доказать, продемонстрировав вам, как этот тройной суверенитет осмыслен кальвинизмом.

Eerst dan de souvereiniteit in dien politieken kring, dien men den Staat noemt; en dan moet toegegeven, dat de aandrift tot vorming van staten opkomt uit ’s menschen sociale natuur, wat reeds Aristoteles noemde dat de mensch is een "ζῷον πολιτικόν". God had de menschen ook als losse, naast elkander staande, elkaar niet rakende individuën kunnen scheppen. Gelijk Adam afzonderlijk geschapen werd, zoo had ook de tweede, de derde en voorts elke mensch uit eigen hoofde tot existentie kunnen geroepen zijn; maar zo is het niet geschied. De mensch wordt uit den mensch geboren, en hangt krachtens die geboorte organisch met heel het geslacht saam. In wat millioenen ook gepulveriseerd, we vormen saam de ééne menschheid, niet alleen met wie nu leven, maar met alle geslachten, die achter ons liggen of na ons zullen komen. Uit 71 éénen bloede is heel ons menschelijk geslacht. Hiermeê echter rijmt de Staatsidee, die de aarde in werelddeelen, en elk werelddeel in brokstukken indeelt, niet. De organische eenheid van ons geslacht zou dan eerst ten volle uitkomen, wanneer één rijk heel de wereld omvatte, en in dat ééne wereldrijk heel de menschheid organisch saamleefde. Buiten de zonde zou dit dan ook geschied zijn. Indien niet de zonde als ontbindende kracht de menschheid in onderscheidene deelen had uiteen gedreven, zou niets de eenheid van ons geslacht gestoord en gebroken hebben. En de fout der Alexanders, der Augustussen en der Napoleons was niet, dat de gedachte van het ééne wereldrijk hen bekoorde, maar dat ze dit denkbeeld verwezenlijken wilden in eene door zonde stukgebroken wereld. Ook het internationale cosmopolitische streven der Sociaal-democratie heft in zijn eenheidsgedachte een ideaal omhoog, dat ons deswege toespreekt, al grijpt men ook in deze actie naar het onbereikbare, doordien men dit hooge en heilige ideaal nu reeds, in deze zondige wereld, verwerkelijken wil. Ja zelfs de Anarchie, opgevat als het streven om met de Overheid alle mechanische saambinding onder menschen af te schaffen, en een nieuwe organische saambinding uit de natuur zelve te laten opkomen, is niets dan het teruggrijpen naar het verloren paradijs, want zonder zonde zou er metterdaad noch magistraat noch staatsordening ooit geweest zijn, maar heel het leven zich uit het huiselijk leven patriarchaal hebben ineengeschakeld. Buiten zonde is geen rechtbank, geen politie, geen leger, geen vloot denkbaar, en evenzoo zou alle regeling en ordinantie en wet wegvallen, en wegvallen eveneens alle contrôle en magistraal ingrijpen, waar het leven normaal en zonder stoornis zich uit eigen aandrift ontplooide. Wie legt verband aan waar geen breuke is? wie grijpt naar krukken die zelf vlug ter been is? Alle vorming van staten, alle optreden van de Overheid, alle mechanisch dwangmiddel om orde en goeden gang in het leven te waarborgen, is alzoo steeds iets onnatuurlijks, iets waar een diepere trek van onze natuur tegen in verzet komt, en dat juist deswege aanleiding kan geven én tot schrikkelijk misbruik van macht bij de machthebbers, én tot overmoedig verzet bij de groote menigte. Hieruit is de eeuwenoude en eeuwenlange strijd tusschen Gezag en Vrijheid 72 geboren, en het is de ingeschapen dorst naar vrijheid, die het van God verordende middel bleek om het zoo licht in despotisme overslaand gezag te breidelen.

Alle recht inzicht in den aard van het staatsleven en het optreden der Overheid eenerzijds, maar ook anderzijds in het recht en den plicht om voor de vrijheid pal te staan, hangt alzoo juist aan wat het Calvinisme ten deze als primordiale waarheid op den voorgrond schoof, t.w. dat God Overheden heeft ingesteld om der zonde wil. De lichtzijde en de schaduwzijde van het Staatsleven beiden, liggen in die ééne gedachte. De schaduwzijde, want die kunstmatig gevormde staten behoorden er niet te zijn, er moest maar één wereldrijk wezen; die Overheid regeert mechanisch, en hoort eigenlijk bij onze natuur niet; en ook dat Overheidsgezag wordt door zondige menschen uitgeoefend en is alzoo behept met allerlei heerschzuchtig bedoelen. Maar ook de lichtzijde, want een zondige menschheid zonder verdeeling in staten, zonder wet en overheid, en zonder regelend gezag levend, zou thans een hel op aarde geven, een herhaling van wat op aarde bestaan heeft toen God het eerst verwilderde geslacht in den zondvloed verdronk. Door zijn diepe opvatting van de zonde heeft alzoo het Calvinisme den wezenlijken wortel van het Staatsleven blootgelegd, en ons tegelijk tweeërlei ingeprent. Ten eerste, dat we het Staatsleven en de Overheid als nu onmisbaar redmiddel dankbaar uit Gods hand ontvangen zullen; maar ook ten andere, dat we krachtens onze natuurlijke aandrift steeds tegen het gevaar dat in de staatsmacht voor onze persoonlijke vrijheid schuilt, op onze hoede moeten zijn.

First then Sovereignty in that political sphere, which is defined as the State. And then we admit that the impulse to form states arises from man's social nature, which was expressed already by Aristotle, when he called man a l %aov ^olirixov." God might have created men as disconnected individuals, standing side by side and without genealogical coherence. Just as Adam was separately created, the second and third and every further man might have been individually called into existence; but this was not the case.

3 Man is created from man, and by virtue of his birth he is organically united with the whole race. Together we form one humanity, not only with those who are living now, but also with all the generations behind us and with all those who shall come after us, — pulverized into millions though we may be.

All the human race is from one blood. But the conception of States, which subdivide the earth into continents, and each continent into morsels, does not harmonize with this idea.

Then only would the organic unity of our race be realized politically, if one State could embrace all the world, and if the whole of humanity were associated in one world-empire.

Had sin not intervened, no doubt, this would actually have been so. If sin, as a disintegrating force, had not divided humanity into different sections, nothingwould have marred or broken the organic unity of our race.

And the mistake of the Alexanders and of the Augusti and of the Napoleons was not, that they were charmed with the thought of the One World-empire, but it was this — that they endeavored to realize this idea notwithstanding that the force of sin had dissolved our unity.

In like manner the international cosmopolitan endeavors of the Social-democracy present, in their conception of union, an ideal, which on this very account charms us, even when we are aware that they try to reach the unattainable, in endeavouring to realize this high and holy ideal, now and in a sinful world.

Nay even Anarchy, conceived as the attempt to undo all mechanical connections among men, together with the undoing of all human authority, and to encourage, in their stead, the growth of a new organic tie, arising from nature itself, — I say, all this is nothing but a looking backward after a lost paradise. 4 For indeed without sin there would have been neither magistrate nor state-order; but political life, in its entirety, would have evolved itself, after a patriarchal fashion, from the life of the family.

Neither bar of justice, nor police nor army, nor navy is conceivable in a world without sin; and thus every rule and ordinance and law would drop away, even as all control and assertion of the power of the magistrate would disappear, were life to develop itself, normally and without hindrance, from its own impulse.

Who binds up, where nothing is broken? Who uses crutches, where the limbs are sound ?

Every State-formation, every assertion of the power of the magistrate, every mechanical means of compelling order and of guaranteeing a safe course of life is therefore always something unnatural; something, against which the deeper aspirations of our nature rebel ; and which, on this very account, may become the source both of a dreadful abuse of power, by those who exercise it, and of a contumacious revolt by the multitude.

Thus originated the battle of the ages between Authority and Liberty, and in this battle it was the very innate thirst for liberty, which proved itself the God-ordained means to bridle the authority, wheresoever it degenerated into despotism.

Thus all true conception of the nature of the State and of the assumption of authority by the magistrate, but on the other hand also of the right and duty of the people to defend liberty, depend on what Calvinism has here placed in the foreground, as the primordial truth, — that God has instituted the magistrates, by reason of sin.

In this one thought are hidden both the light-side and the shady -side of the life of the State.

The shady-side, for this multitude of states ought not to exist; there should be only one world-empire. These magistrates rule mechanically and do not harmonize with our nature. And this authority of government is exercised 5 by men, and is therefore subject to all manner of despotic ambitions.

But the light-side also, for a sinful humanity, without division in states, without law and government, and without ruling authority, would be a veritable hell on earth ; or at least a repetition of that which existed in the earth, when (rod drowned the first degenerate race, in the deluge. Calvinism has therefore, by its deep conception of sin, laid bare the true root of state life, and has taught us two things. First — that we have gratefully to receive, from the hand of 'rod, the institution of the State with its magistrates, as a means of preservation, now indeed indispensable. And on the other hand also that, by virtue of our natural impulse, we must ever watch against the danger, which lurks in the power of the State, for our personal liberty.

First then a deduced Sovereignty in that political sphere, which is defined as the State. And then we admit that the impulse to form states arises from man’s social nature, which was expressed already by Aristotle, when he called man a “ζῷον πολιτικόν”. God might have created men as disconnected individuals, standing side by side and without genealogical coherence. Just as Adam was separately created, the second and third and every further man might have been individually called into existence; but this was not the case.

Man is created from man, and by virtue of his birth he is organically united with the whole race. Together we form one humanity, not only with those who are living now, but also with all the generations behind us and with all those who shall come after us pulverized into millions though we may be. All the human race is from one blood. The conception of States, however, which subdivide the earth into continents, and each continent into morsels, does not harmonize with this idea. Then only would the organic unity of our race be realized politically, if one State could embrace all the world, and if the whole of humanity were associated in one world empire. Had sin not intervened, no doubt this would actually have been so. If sin, as a disintegrating force, had not divided humanity into different sections, nothing would have marred or broken the organic unity of our race. And the mistake of the Alexanders, and of the Augusti, and of the Napoleons, was not that they were charmed with the thought of the One World-empire, but it was this — that they endeavored to realize this idea notwithstanding that the force of sin had dissolved our unity. 101

In like manner the international cosmopolitan endeavors of the Social-democracy present, in their conception of union, an ideal, which on this very account charms us, even when we are aware that they try to reach the unattainable, in endeavoring to realize this high and holy ideal, now and in a sinful world. Nay, even Anarchy, conceived as the attempt to undo all mechanical connections among men, together with the undoing of all human authority, and to encourage, in their stead, the growth of a new organic tie, arising from nature itself, — I say, all this is nothing but a looking backward after a lost paradise.

For, indeed, without sin there would have been neither magistrate nor state-order; but political life, in its entirety, would have evolved itself, after a patriarchal fashion, from the life of the family. Neither bar of justice nor police, nor army, nor navy, is conceivable in a world without sin; and thus every rule and ordinance and law would drop away, even as all control and assertion of the power of the magistrate would disappear, were life to develop itself, normally and without hindrance, from its own organic impulse. Who binds up, where nothing is broken? Who uses crutches, where the limbs are sound?

Every State-formation, every assertion of the power of the magistrate, every mechanical means of compelling order and of guaranteeing a safe course of life is therefore always something unnatural; something against which the deeper aspirations of our nature rebel; and which, on this very account, may become the source both of a dreadful abuse of power, on the part of those who exercise it, and of a continuous revolt on the part of the multitude. Thus 102 originated the battle of the ages between Authority and Liberty, and in this battle it was the very innate thirst for liberty which proved itself the God-ordained means to bridle the authority wheresoever it degenerated into despotism. And thus all true conception of the nature of the State and of the assumption of authority by the magistrate, and on the other hand all true conception of the right and duty of the people to defend liberty, depends on what Calvinism has here placed in the foreground, as the primordial truth, — that God has instituted the magistrates, by reason of sin.

In this one thought are hidden both the light-side and the shady-side of the life of the State. The shady-side for this multitude of states ought not to exist; there should be only one world-empire. These magistrates rule mechanically and do not harmonize with our nature. And this authority of government is exercised by sinful men, and is therefore subject to all manner of despotic ambitions. But the light-side also, for a sinful humanity, without division of states, without law and government, and without ruling authority, would be a veritable hell on earth; or at least a repetition of that which existed on earth when God drowned the first degenerate race in the deluge. Calvinism has, therefore, by its deep conception of sin laid bare the true root of state-life, and has taught us two things: First — that we have gratefully to receive, from the hand of God, the institution of the State with its magistrates, as a means of preservation, now indeed indispensable. And on the other hand also that, by virtue of our natural impulse, we must ever watch against the 103 danger which lurks, for our personal liberty, in the power of the State.

Então, uma primeira Soberania derivada nesta esfera política, a qual defini como o Estado. E portanto, nós admitimos que o impulso para formar estados nasce da natureza social do homem, a qual já foi expressa por Aristóteles quando ele chamou o homem de um “ζῷον πολιτικόν" - (ser político). Deus poderia ter criado os homens como indivíduos separados, estando lado a lado e sem conexão genealógica. Assim como Adão foi criado separadamente, o segundo e terceiro e assim por diante, cada homem poderia ter sido chamado a existência individualmente; mas este não foi o caso.

O homem é criado do homem, e em virtude de seu nascimento ele está organicamente unido a toda raça. Nós formamos juntos uma humanidade, não somente com aqueles que estão vivos atualmente, mas também com todas as gerações antes de nós e com todas aquelas que virão depois de nós, embora possamos estar pulverizados em milhões.

Toda a raça humana é de um mesmo sangue. A concepção de Estados, contudo, que subdivide a terra em continentes, e cada continente em nacos, não se harmoniza com esta idéia. Então a unidade orgânica de nossa raça somente seria realizada politicamente se um Estado pudesse abraçar todo o mundo, e se toda a humanidade estivesse associada em um império. Se o pecado não tivesse ocorrido, sem dúvida este mundo realmente teria sido assim. Se o pecado, como uma força desintegradora, não tivesse dividido a humanidade em diferentes seções, nada teria estragado ou quebrado a unidade orgânica de nossa raça. E o erro dos Alexandres, dos Augustos e dos Napoleões, não foi que eles foram seduzidos com o pensamento do Império Mundial Único, mas sim que eles se esforçaram para concretizar esta idéia embora a força do pecado tivesse dissolvido nossa unidade.

De modo semelhante o esforço cosmopolita internacional da Social-democracia atual em sua concepção de união, um ideal que por esta mesma razão nos seduz, mesmo quando estamos cientes de que eles tentam alcançar o inatingível ao esforçarem-se para concretizar este alto e santo ideal agora e num mundo pecaminoso. Mais ainda, até mesmo a Anarquia, concebida como tentativa de desfazer todas as conexões mecânicas entre os homens, juntamente com a anulação de toda autoridade humana, e para encorajar em seu lugar o desenvolvimento de uma nova união orgânica, nascendo da própria natureza – eu digo, tudo isto não é nada senão um olhar para trás para um paraíso perdido.

Pois, de fato, sem pecado não teria havido magistrado, nem ordem do estado; mas a vida política em sua inteireza teria se desenvolvido segundo um modelo patriarcal da vida de família. Nem tribunal de justiça, nem polícia, nem exército, nem marinha, é concebível num mundo sem pecado; e se fosse para a vida desenvolver a si mesma, normalmente e sem obstáculo de seu próprio impulso orgânico, conseqüentemente toda regra, ordenança e lei caducaria, bem como todo controle e afirmação do poder do magistrado desapareceria. Quem une onde nada está quebrado? Quem usa muletas quando as pernas estão sadias?

Toda estrutura do Estado, toda afirmação do poder do magistrado, todo meio mecânico de obter pela força a ordem e garantir um curso seguro de vida é, portanto, sempre algo artificial; algo contra o que as aspirações mais profundas de nossa natureza se rebelam; e que, exatamente por causa disto, pode tornar-se a fonte tanto de um terrível abuso de poder por parte daqueles que o exercem, quanto de uma revolta contínua por parte da multidão. Assim, originou-se a batalha dos séculos entre Autoridade e Liberdade, e nesta batalha estava a própria sede inata pela liberdade, a qual revelou-se o meio ordenado por Deus para refrear a autoridade onde quer que ela tenha se degenerado em despotismo. E deste modo toda verdadeira concepção sobre a natureza do Estado e sobre a adoção da autoridade pelo magistrado, e por outro lado, toda verdadeira concepção sobre o direito e o dever do povo de defender a liberdade, depende do que o Calvinismo tem colocado aqui no primeiro plano como a verdade primordial – que Deus tem instituído os magistrados por causa do pecado.

Neste único pensamento está escondido tanto o lado-claro quanto o lado sombrio58 da vida do Estado. O lado-sombrio desta grande quantidade de estados não deveria existir; deveria haver apenas um império mundial. Estes magistrados governam mecanicamente e não estão em harmonia com nossa natureza. E esta autoridade de governo é exercida por homens pecadores, e por isso está sujeita a todo tipo de ambições despóticas. Mas o lado-claro também, por uma humanidade pecaminosa, sem divisão de estados, sem lei e governo e sem autoridade governante, seria um verdadeiro inferno sobre a terra; ou ao menos uma repetição daquilo que existiu sobre a terra quando Deus afogou a primeira raça degenerada no dilúvio. Portanto, o Calvinismo tem, através de sua profunda concepção do pecado, exposto a verdadeira raiz da vida do estado, e nos tem ensinado duas coisas: primeira – que devemos agradecidamente receber da mão de Deus a instituição do Estado com seus magistrados como meio de preservação agora, de fato, indispensável. E por outro lado também que, em virtude de nosso impulso natural, devemos sempre vigiar contra o perigo que está escondido no poder do Estado para nossa liberdade pessoal.

Во-первых, возьмем верховенство в политической сфере, которая определяется как государство, и примем, что побуждение к образованию государства возникает из общественной природы человека, которая описана уже Аристотелем, когда он называл человека zoon politikon. Бог мог бы сотворить не связанных друг с другом, независимых друг от друга индивидов без какой-либо генеалогической связи. Адам был сотворен отдельно; так и второй, и третий и каждый дальнейший человек мог быть отдельно призван к бытию; но было не так.

Человек происходит от человека, и самим рождением органически соединен со всем человеческим родом. Вместе мы составляем одно человечество не только с теми, кто живет сейчас, но и со всеми прежними поколениями и со всеми теми, кто придет после нас, будь их миллионы. Весь человеческий род — одной крови. Однако концепция государства, разделяющая землю на континенты, ее каждый континент — на отдельные части, противоречит этой идее. Органическое единство нашего рода осуществилось бы политически только в том случае, если бы одно государство охватило весь мир, и все человечество объединилось в одну мировую империю. Так, безусловно, и было бы, если бы не грех. Если бы грех, разъединяющая сила, не расколол человечество, ничто бы не испортило и не нарушило органического единства нашего рода. Ошибка всех александров, августов и наполеонов не в том, что они лелеяли мысль о единой мировой империи, а в том, что они стремились осуществить эту идею, несмотря на то, что сила греха расколола наше единство.

Примерно так же выглядят интернациональные космополитические усилия социал-демократов. Эта мечта или утопия все же привлекает нас, хотя мы и сознаем, что они пытаются достичь недостижимого, стремясь осуществить возвышенный и святой идеал сейчас, в этом грешном мире. Более того, даже анархия, пытающаяся разрушить все механические связи между людьми, одновременно уничтожая всякую человеческую власть и способствуя вместо этого росту новых органических связей, возникающих из самой природы, даже она — не что иное, как поиски потерянного рая.

Конечно, без греха не было бы ни судов, ни государственного порядка. Политическая жизнь развивалась бы патриархальным путем, из жизни семьи. Ни суд, ни полиция, ни армия, ни военный флот немыслимы в безгрешном мире; если бы жизнь развивалась нормально, органически, без препятствий, всякое правило, установление, закон отпали бы, контроль и власть — исчезли. Кто связывает то, что не сломано? Кто возьмет костыли, если ноги здоровы?

Всякое государственное образование, всякое утверждение власти, всякое механическое поддержание порядка и обеспечение спокойной жизни неестественно. Против них восстает глубина нашей природы. Они могут привести к ужасным злоупотреблениям и к народным мятежам. Так возникает нескончаемая битва между властью и свободой, и всякий раз, когда власть вырождается в деспотизм, врожденная тяга к свободе утверждала себя в установленных Богом средствах для обуздания зла. Всякая истинная концепция государства и власти, с одной стороны, а с другой стороны — всякая истинная концепция права и долга тех, кто защищает свободу, зависит от первоначальной истины, которую кальвинизм поставил во главу угла: Бог установил власти, поскольку в мире есть грех.

В этой мысли сокрыты и светлая, и темная стороны государственной жизни. Темная сторона состоит в том, что не должно быть множества государств, должна быть только одна мировая империя. Нами правят механически, не согласуясь с нашей природой. От имени государства действуют грешные люди, честолюбивые и властолюбивые. Светлая сторона состоит в том, что в грешном человечестве без разделения на государства, без законов и правительств, без власти жизнь была бы истинным адом; или, по крайней мере, повторила бы то, что творилось на земле перед потопом. Обладая глубокой концепцией греха, кальвинизм выявил истинный корень государственной жизни и научил нас двум вещам: 1) мы должны с благодарностью принять из руки Божией установление государства с его средствами сохранения порядка, без которых теперь не обойтись; 2) мы должны всегда бдительно следить за опасностью для личной свободы, исходящей от власти государства.

Doch het Calvinisme deed meer. Gelijk de diepte der donkerheid niet begrepen wordt dan door de tegenstelling met het licht, zoo kan ook de diepte der zonde niet verstaan worden dan door ook op dit punt alle natie en volk voor het licht van Gods aanschijn te stellen. Ook hier moest niet het volk hoofdzaak zijn, zoodat God er slechts bij kwam, om dat volk te helpen in nood; maar omgekeerd, moest God in zijn majesteit voor aller oog schitteren en alle volk, in de weegschaal opgewogen, als niets bij Hem zijn geacht. Van de einde der aarde daagt God de natiën en volken voor zijn hooge vierschaar. Alle die natiën heeft God geschapen. 73 Ze bestaan om Hem. Ze zijn zijn eigendom. En daarom hebben alle deze volken, en in hen de geheele menschheid, te bestaan voor zijn eer, en dus naar zijn ordinantiën, want juist in het wel-gaan als het gaat naar zijn ordinantiën, moet zijn Goddelijke wijsheid uitblinken. Als dus de menschheid door zonde in veelheid van afgescheiden volken uiteenbreekt, en in den boezem dier volken de zonde verdeelt en verscheurt en woelt in allerlei schande en ongerechtigheid, eischt de eere Gods dat deze gruwelen gestuit worden, dat er orde in dezen chaos terugkeere, en dat een macht van buiten dwingend optrede om menschelijke samenleving mogelijk te maken. Daartoe heeft God en God alleen het recht. Geen mensch heeft recht over een anderen mensch, of het moet zijn, en wordt aanstonds, het recht van den sterkste. Zooals de tijger over het weerlooze hert heerscht in het woud, heerschte ook aan de oevers van den Nijl een Pharao over de voorouders der Fellahîn van Egypte. Ook kan geen groep van menschen door overeenkomst, uit eigen hoofde, u tot gehoorzaamheid aan een medemensch dwingen. Of wat zou het mij binden, dat voor vele eeuwen een mijner voorvaderen een staatkundig verdrag aanging met andere lieden uit dien tijd? Als mensch sta ik fier en vrij tegenover elken medemensch. Ik spreek niet van het gezin, want hierin heerschen natuurlijke banden, maar in den staatskring zwicht en buig ik niet voor wie mensch als ik is. Gezag over menschen kan niet uit menschen opkomen. Ook niet van de meerderheid over de minderheid, of toont niet de historie schier op elke bladzijde dat juist de minderheid gelijk had? En zoo voegt zich dan bij de eerste Calvinistische stelling, dat alleen de zonde het optreden van het Overheidsgezag noodzakelijk heeft gemaakt, deze tweede niet minder gewichtige: dat alle Overheidsgezag op aarde eeniglijk afvloeit uit de souvereiniteit Gods.

Als God mij zegt: Gehoorzaam, dan, ja, buig ik diep eerbiedig het hoofd zonder dat dit mijn persoonlijke eere als mensch te na komt. Even smadelijk toch als ge u verlaagt door te bukken voor een menschenkind, wiens adem in zijne neusgaten is, even hoog verheft het u, zoo ge zwicht voor het gezag van den Heere des hemels en der aarde. Zoo blijft het 74 dan bij het woord der Schrift: “Door Mij regeeren de koningen,” of ook bij het woord van den apostel: “Alle macht die er is, is uit God, zoodat wie zich tegen de macht stelt, God wederstaat.” De Overheid een instrument van gemeene gratie, om de ongebondenheid en den gruwel te stuiten en den goede tegen den kwade te beschermen. Maar zij is meer nog. De Overheid is bij dat alles door God ingesteld als zijn dienaresse, om het kunst werk Gods in zijn schepping der menschheid voor algeheele vernietiging te bewaren. Het zijn Gods ordinantiën, het is Gods bestel, het is Gods gerechtigheid, het is Gods eere als Opperste Kunstenaar en Bouwmeester, die door de zonde worden aangerand. En nu stelde God magistraten in, om tegenover dat woelen der zonde zijn gerechtigheid te handhaven, en geeft daartoe aan de Overheid zelfs het ontzettende recht over leven en dood. Daarom regeert alle Overheid in keizerrijken en in republieken, in steden en in staten, “bij de gratie Gods”. Daarom draagt de justitie een heilig karakter. En daarom ook is een iegelijk onzer tot gehoorzaamheid verbonden, niet om der straffe wil alleen, maar in de consciëntie.

But Calvinism has done more. Just as the depth of darkness is not apprehended, except by antithesis with the light ; so also on this point, the depth of sin cannot be appreciated, unless every nation and people be placed before the face of God. In Politics also the people must not be the principal thing, so that God is only di'agged in, to help this people in the hour of its need : but on the contrary Cod, in His Majesty, must flame before the eyes of every nation, and all nations to gether are to be reckoned before Him as a drop of a bucket and as the small dust of the balances. From the ends of the earth God cites all nations and peoples before His high judgmentseat. For God created the nations. Thej' exist for Him. They are His own. And therefore all these nations, and in them all humanity, must exist for His glory and consequently after his ordinances. For in their wellbeing, when they walk after His ordinances, His divine wisdom must shine forth.

When therefore humanity falls apart through sin, in a multiplicity of separate peoples: and when sin, in the 6 bosom of these nations, separates and tears apart, and reveals itself in all manner of shame and unrighteousness, — the glory of God demands that these horrors be bridled, that order return to this chaos and that a compulsory force, from without, assert itself to make human society a possibility.

This right is possessed, by God and by Him alone.

No man has the right to rule over another man, or it must be, and immediately becomes, the right of the strongest. As the tiger in the jungle rules over the defenceless antilope, so on the banks of the Nile a Pharaoh ruled over the progenitors of the fellaheen of Egypt.

Nor can a group of men, by contract, from their own right, compel you to obey a fellow-man. What binding force is there for me in the fact, that ages ago one of my progenitors made a "Contrat Social", with other men of that time 1 As man I stand, free and bold, over against the most powerful of my fellow-men.

I do not speak of the family, for here natural ties rule; but in the sphere of the State I do not yield or bow down to anyone, who is man, as I am.

Authority over men cannot arise from men. Just as little from a majority over against a minority, for history shows, almost on every page, that very often the minority was right. And thus to the first Calvinistic thesis that—*/// alone has necessitated the institution of governments—, this second and no less momentous thesis is added — that — all authority of governments on earth, originates from the Sovereignty of God alone.

When God says to me— obey — , then I humbly bow my head, without compromising in the least my personal dignity, as a man. For, in like proportion as you degrade yourself, by bowing low to a child of man, whose breath is in his nostrils ; so, on the other hand do you raise yourself, if you submit to the authority of the Lord of heaven and earth. 7 Thus the word of Scripture stands: — "By Me kings reign — ", or as the apostle has elsewhere declared: — " The powers, that be, are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, withstandeth the ordinance of God".

The magistrate is an instrument of common grace, to thwart all license and outrage and to shield the good against the evil. But he is more. Besides all this he is instituted by God as Mis Servant, in order that he may preserve the glorious work of God, in the creation of humanity, from total destruction. Sin attacks God's handiwork, God's plan, God's justice, God's honor, as the Supreme Artificer and Builder. Thus God, ordaining the powers that be, in order that, through their instrumentality, He might maintain His justice against the strivings of sin, has given to the magistrate the terrible right of life and death. Therefore all the powers that be, whether in empires or in republics, in cities or in states, rule "by the //race of God.'' For the same reason justice bears a holy character. And from thej same motive every citizen is bound to obey ; not only from dread of punishment, but for the sake of conscience.

But Calvinism has done more. In Politics also it taught us that the human element — here the people — may not be considered as the principal thing, so that God is only dragged in to help this people in the hour of its need; but on the contrary that God, in His Majesty, must flame before the eyes of every nation, and that all nations together are to be reckoned before Him as a drop in a bucket and as the small dust of the balances. From the ends of the earth God cites all nations and peoples before His high judgment seat. For God created the nations. They exist for Him. They are His own. And therefore all these nations, and in them humanity, must exist for His glory and consequently after his ordinances, in order that in their well-being, when they walk after His ordinances, His divine wisdom may shine forth.

When therefore humanity falls apart through sin, in a multiplicity of separate peoples; when sin, in the bosom of these nations, separates men and tears them apart, and when sin reveals itself in all manner of shame and unrighteousness, — the glory of God demands that these horrors be bridled, that order return to this chaos, and that a compulsory force, from without, assert itself to make human society a possibility.

This right is possessed by God, and by Him alone.

No man has the right to rule over another man, otherwise such a right necessarily, and immediately becomes the right of the strongest. As the tiger in the jungle rules over the defenceless antelope, so on 104 the banks of the Nile a Pharaoh ruled over the progenitors of the fellaheen of Egypt.

Nor can a group of men, by contract, from their own right, compel you to obey a fellow-man. What binding force is there for me in the allegation that ages ago one of my progenitors made a “Contrat Social”, with other men of that time? As man I stand free and bold, over against the most powerful of my fellow-men.

I do not speak of the family, for here organic, natural ties rule; but in the sphere of the State I do not yield or bow down to anyone, who is man, as I am.

Authority over men cannot arise from men. Just as little from a majority over against a minority, for history shows, almost on every page, that very often the minority was right. And thus to the first Calvinistic thesis that sin alone has necessitated the institution of governments, this second and no less momentous thesis is added that: all authority of governments on earth originates from the Sovereignty of God alone. When God says to me, “obey”, then I humbly bow my head, without compromising in the least my personal dignity, as a man. For, in like proportion as you degrade yourself, by bowing low to a child of man, whose breath is in his nostrils; so, on the other hand do you raise yourself, if you submit to the authority of the Lord of heaven and earth.

Thus the word of Scripture stands: “By Me kings reign”, or as the apostle has elsewhere declared: “The powers, that be, are ordained of God. Therefore he that resisteth the power, withstandeth the ordinance of God”. The magistrate is an instrument of “common grace”, to thwart all license and outrage and to shield the good 105 against the evil. But he is more. Besides all this he is instituted by God as His Servant, in order that he may preserve the glorious work of God, in the creation of humanity, from total destruction. Sin attacks God’s handiwork, God’s plan, God’s justice, God’s honor, as the supreme Artificer and Builder. Thus God, ordaining the powers that be, in order that, through their instrumentality, He might maintain His justice against the strivings of sin, has given to the magistrate the terrible right of life and death. Therefore all the powers that be, whether in empires or in republics, in cities or in states, rule “by the grace of God.” For the same reason justice bears a holy character. And from the same motive every citizen is bound to obey, not only from dread of punishment, but for the sake of conscience.

Mas o Calvinismo tem feito mais. Ele também nos ensina que na política o elemento humano – aqui o povo – não pode ser considerado como a coisa principal, de modo que Deus seja forçado a ajudar este povo somente na hora de sua necessidade; mas pelo contrário que Deus, em sua Majestade, deve brilhar diante dos olhos de cada nação, e que todas as nações juntas devem ser consideradas diante dele como uma gota num balde e como o pó fino das balanças. Desde os confins da terra Deus intima todas as nações e povos diante de seu trono de julgamento, pois ele criou as nações. Elas existem por ele e são sua propriedade. E por isso todas estas nações, e nelas a humanidade, devem existir para sua glória e conseqüentemente segundo suas ordenanças, a fim de que sua sabedoria divina possa brilhar publicamente em seu bem-estar, quando elas andam segundo suas ordenanças.

Portanto, quando a humanidade desintegra-se por causa do pecado numa multiplicidade de povos separados; quando o pecado, no seio destas nações, separa os homens e os arrasa, e quando o pecado revela-se em todo tipo de vergonha e iniqüidade – a glória de Deus exige que estes horrores sejam refreados, que a ordem retorne a este caos, e que uma força compulsória, de fora, faça-se valer para tornar a sociedade humana uma possibilidade.

Este direito é possuído por Deus, e somente por ele.

Nenhum homem tem o direito de governar sobre outro homem, do contrário um direito como este necessária e imediatamente torna-se o direito do mais forte.

Como um tigre na selva governa sobre o indefeso antílope, assim nas margens do Nilo um Faraó governou sobre os progenitores dos camponeses59 do Egito.

Tampouco um grupo de homens pode, por contrato, de seu próprio direito constranger você a obedecer um semelhante. Que força obrigatória há para mim numa alegação de que épocas antes um de meus progenitores fez um “Contrato Social” com outros homens daquele tempo? Como homem eu continuo livre e corajoso, em oposição ao mais poderoso de meus semelhantes.

Não falo da família, pois aqui governam laços orgânicos, naturais; mas na esfera do Estado não cedo ou me curvo a qualquer um que é homem como eu sou.

A autoridade sobre os homens não pode originar-se de homens. Nem mesmo de uma maioria em oposição a uma minoria, pois a História mostra, quase em todas as páginas, que muitas vezes a minoria estava certa. E assim, a primeira tese calvinista de que somente o pecado tornou indispensável a instituição de governos, esta segunda e não menos momentosa tese é adicionada que: toda autoridade de governo sobre a terra origina-se somente da Soberania de Deus. Quando Deus diz a mim, “obedeça,” então humildemente curvo minha cabeça, sem comprometer nem um pouco minha dignidade pessoal como homem. Pois na mesma proporção em que vocês se rebaixam, curvando-se a um filho de homem, cujo fôlego está em suas narinas; assim, por outro lado vocês se levantam, se vocês se submetem à autoridade do Senhor do céu e da terra.

Assim sustenta a palavra da Escritura: “Por mim reis reinam,” ou como o apóstolo noutra parte tem declarado: “E as autoridades que existem foram por ele instituídas. De modo que aquele que se opõe à autoridade resiste à ordenação de Deus.” O magistrado é um instrumento da “graça comum”, para frustrar toda desordem e violência e para proteger o bem contra o mal. Mas ele é mais. Além de tudo isso, ele é instituído por Deus como seu servo, a fim de que ele possa preservar a gloriosa obra de Deus, na criação da humanidade, da destruição total. O pecado ataca o trabalho manual de Deus, o plano de Deus, a justiça de Deus, a honra de Deus como o supremo Artífice e Construtor. Assim, Deus ordena os poderes que existem, a fim de que através de sua instrumentalidade possa manter sua justiça contra os esforços do pecado, tem dado ao magistrado o terrível direito da vida e da morte. Portanto, todos os poderes que existem, quer em impérios ou em repúblicas, em cidades ou em estados, governam “pela graça de Deus”. Pela mesma razão a justiça mantém um caráter santo. E pelo mesmo motivo cada cidadão é obrigado a obedecer, não somente por medo da punição, mas por causa da consciência.

Но это не все, кальвинизм сделал больше. В области политики он научил и тому, что человеческий элемент, то есть народ, нельзя считать самым главным, словно Бога используют лишь для того, чтобы помогать этому народу в час нужды. Кальвинизм утверждает, что Бог в Своем Величии должен сиять перед взором всякой нации, а все нации, вместе взятые перед Ним, — словно капля воды в ведре или пылинка на весах. Со всех концов земли Он собирает народы перед Своим судейским престолом. Они существуют для Него, они — Его собственность и потому они сами, а в их лице — все человечество, должны существовать для Его славы и согласно Его установлениям, чтобы, когда они руководствуются Его установлениями, в их благоденствии воссияла Его премудрость.

Человечество по причине греха распалось на множество отдельных народов. Грех, гнездившийся в сердце этих народов, разъединил людей и разделил их. Когда же он проявился в позоре и неправедности, слава Божия потребовала, чтобы зло было обуздано, чтобы в хаос вернулся порядок, и чтобы внешнее принуждение дало человеческому сообществу возможность существовать.

Это право принадлежит только Богу, и Ему одному. Никто не имеет права властвовать над другим человеком, в противном случае такое право с необходимостью и сразу же становится правом сильнейшего. Фараон на побережье Нила властвовал над предками феллахов Египта, как тигр в джунглях властвует над беззащитной антилопой.

Точно так же и группа людей, исходя только из своих собственных прав, не может принудить вас подчиняться кому-либо. К чему обязывает меня то, что в далеком прошлом один из моих предков заключил «Общественный договор» с другими людьми того времени? Как человек я свободен и не должен бояться даже самых влиятельных своих собратьев.

Я не говорю о семье, здесь правят органические, природные связи; но в государственной сфере я не склоняюсь перед таким же человеком как я.

Власть над людьми не может исходить от людей. Это же относится и к власти большинства над меньшинством — история почти повсеместно показывает, что меньшинство очень часто бывает правым. Таким образом, к первому тезису кальвинизма — власти нужны только из-за греха — добавляется второй, столь же важный: всякая земная власть исходит лишь от Божиего всевластия. Когда Бог говорит мне «Повинуйся», я смиренно склоняю голову, не ущемляя ни в чем мое человеческое достоинство. В той же степени, в какой мы унижаем себя, склоняясь перед чадом человеческим, чье дыхание в ноздрях его, мы себя возвышаем, покоряясь Господу неба и земли.

Слово Писания незыблемо: «Мною правят цари», или, как пишет апостол: «Существующие же власти от Бога установлены, поэтому противящийся власти противится Божию установлению». Власти — орудия «общей благодати»; они должны пресекать вседозволенность и своеволие, защищать добро от зла. Но это не все. Начальства и власти поставлены Богом как Его служители, чтобы предохранять славную работу Бога, сотворившего человечество, от полного разрушения. Грех вредит делу Божиих рук, Божиему замыслу, Божией праведности, Божией славе Верховного Творца и Строителя. Словом, Бог учредил существующие власти, чтобы через них утвердить Свою праведность против попыток греха. Тем самым Бог дал правителям страшную власть над жизнью и смертью. Поэтому все существующие власти, в империях или в республиках, в городах или в государствах, правят «по благодати Божией». Поэтому же справедливость носит священный характер. Исходя из того же самого принципа, гражданин обязан повиноваться не только за страх, но и за совесть.

Hoe nu de Overheid wordt ingesteld en in wat vorm ze optreedt, Calvijn heeft het uitdrukkelijk verklaard, verandert aan dit wezen van het Overheidsgezag niets. Voor zichzelf, het is bekend, gaf hij aan de republiek de voorkeur en gevoelde voor het ideëele recht der monarchie, als ware dit de eeniglijk van God gewilde regeeringsvorm, niets. Dit was wel zoo, buiten zonde. Dan toch ware God zelf aller eenige Koning gebleven, iets wat terugkeert in de heerlijkheid die komt, als het eens weer God alles in allen zal zijn. Gods eigen rechtstreeksch regiment is, dit duldt onder monotheïsten geen tegenspraak, volstrekt monarchaal. Maar voor de mechanische gezagsinstelling, die thans om der zonde wil in ons leven is ingeschoven, achtte Calvijn, juist om het gevaar dat de zonde met zich bracht (met beroep op Spreuk. XI : 14: “De behoudenis is in de veelheid der raadslieden”) een verdeeling van het gezag over meerdere personen, d.i. een republiek, in den regel verkieslijk. Toch kon dit in zijn stelsel slechts een gradueel verschil van practische voortreffelijkheid, nooit een principieel onderscheid voor het wezen van de Overheid uitmaken. Monarchie, aristocratie en democatie zijn alle drie 75 voor hem denkbare en bruikbare vormen, mits maar bij elk dezer drie onveranderlijk aan het alles beheerschend grondbeginsel worde vastgehouden, dat het gezag over menschen aan niemand op aarde toekomt, tenzij het op hem gelegd zij bij de gratie Gods, en alzoo niet de mensch, maar God zelf ons tot gehoorzaamheid kome verplichten.

Further Calvin has expressly stated that authority, as such, is in no way affected by the question, how a government is instituted and in what form it reveals itself.

It is well known that personally he preferred a republic, and that he cherished no predilection for a monarchy, as if this were the divine and ideal form of government.

This indeed would have been the case in a sinless state. For had sin not entered, God would have remained the sole king of all men, and this condition will return, in the glory to; come, when God once more will be all and in all.

God's own direct government is absolutely monarchical; no monotheist will deny it.

But Calvin considered a co-operation of many persons under mutual control i.e. a republic, desirable, now that a mechanical institution of government is necessitated b} T reason of sin. 8 Iii his system however, this could only amount to a gradual difference in practical excellency, but never to a fundamental difference, as regards the essence of authority.

He considers a monarchy and an aristocracy, as well as a democracy, both possible and practicable forms of government; provided it be unchangeably maintained, that no one on earth can claim authority over his fellow-men, unless it be laid upon him "by the grace of God''; and therefore, the ultimate duty of obedience, is imposed upon us not by man, but by God Himself.

Further Calvin has expressly stated that authority, as such, is in no way affected by the question how a government is instituted and in what form it reveals itself. It is well known that personally he preferred a republic, and that he cherished no predilection for a monarchy, as if this were the divine and ideal form of government. This indeed would have been the case in a sinless state. For had sin not entered, God would have remained the sole king of all men, and this condition will return, in the glory to come, when God once more will be all and in all. God’s own direct government is absolutely monarchial; no monotheist will deny it. But Calvin considered a co-operation of many persons under mutual control, i.e., a republic desirable, now that a mechanical institution of government is necessitated by reason of sin. 106

In his system, however, this could only amount to a gradual difference in practical excellency, but never to a fundamental difference, as regards the essence of authority. He considers a monarchy and an aristocracy, as well as a democracy, both possible and practicable forms of government; provided it be unchangeably maintained, that no one on earth can claim authority over his fellow-men, unless it be laid upon him “by the grace of God”; and therefore, the ultimate duty of obedience is imposed upon us not by man, but by God Himself.

Além disso, Calvino declarou expressamente que a autoridade, como tal, de modo algum é afetada pela questão como um governo é instituído e de que forma ele se revela. É bem conhecido que pessoalmente ele preferia uma república, e que não nutria predileção pela monarquia, como se esta fosse a forma divina e ideal de governo. Este, de fato, teria sido o caso num estado inocente. Se o pecado não tivesse entrado, Deus continuaria sendo o único rei de todos os homens, e esta condição retornará na glória por vir, quando Deus uma vez mais será tudo em todos. Nenhum monoteísta negará que o governo direto do próprio Deus é absolutamente monárquico. Mas Calvino considerava uma cooperação de muitas pessoas sob controle mútuo, i.e., uma república, desejável, agora que é necessária uma instituição mecânica de governo por causa do pecado.

Em seu sistema, contudo, isto somente poderia significar uma diferença gradual na excelência prática, mas nunca uma diferença fundamental quanto a essência da autoridade. Ele considera uma monarquia e uma aristocracia, bem como uma democracia, todas formas possíveis e praticáveis de governo; contanto que seja imutavelmente mantido que ninguém sobre a terra pode reivindicar autoridade sobre seus semelhantes, exceto aquela colocada sobre ele “pela graça de Deus”; e portanto, o dever último de obediência é imposto sobre nós não pelo homem, mas pelo próprio Deus.

Кальвин ясно утверждал, что власть, как таковая, ни в коей мере не зависит от того, как она установлена и в какой форме существует. Хорошо известно, что лично он предпочитал республику и не испытывал никакой любви к монархии, хотя в те времена ее считали божественной, идеальной формой правления. Так и было бы в безгрешном государстве. Если бы не пришел грех, то Бог оставался бы единственным царем всех людей. И это состояние вернется, когда Бог будет вновь всем и во всем. Прямое правление Бога — монархия в абсолютном смысле слова; никакой монотеист не может этого отрицать. Но Кальвин считал сотрудничество многих лиц под взаимным контролем, т. е. республику, желательным, поскольку установление государства необходимо вследствие греха.

В воззрениях Кальвина, однако, это могло расцениваться как небольшое различие, связанное с практической пользой, а не как фундаментальное различие, связанное с сущностью власти. И монархию, и аристократию, и демократию он считал в равной степени возможными и действенными формами правления; главное в том, что здесь, на земле никто не может претендовать на власть над равным ему человеком, если она не дана ему «по благодати Божией», и, тем самым, долг послушания налагает не человек, а Сам Бог.

De vraag, hoe de aanwijzing geschiedt van de personen, die van Godswege met het Overheidsgezag bekleed zullen worden, is volgens Calvijn noch voor alle volken noch voor alle tijden op gelijke wijze te beantwoorden. Toch aarzelt hij niet, in ideëelen zin uit te spreken, dat de meest begeerlijke toestand dan aanwezig is, als het volk zijn eigen overheden kiest. ²⁾ Waar die toestand bestaat, acht hij dat het volk hierin dankbaar een gunste Gods heeft te erkennen, juist zooals het door meer dan ééne van uwe Constitutiën in den aanhef is uitgedrukt: “Grateful to Almighty God, that He gave us the power to choose our own magistrates.” ³⁾. In zijn commentaar op Samuël roept Calvijn zulke volken dan ook toe: “En gij, volken, aan wie God de vrijheid gegeven heeft, om uw eigen overheden te kiezen, ziet toe, dat gij deze gunst niet verbeurt door deugnieten en vijanden Gods tot de hoogste eereposten te verkiezen” ⁴⁾. Ik voeg hier nog bij dat deze keuze door het volk vanzelf intreedt, waar geene andere ordening bestaat of de bestaande wegvalt. Bij stichting van nieuwe staten, anders dan door verovering of geweld, is steeds het eerste gezag door volkskeuze gevestigd; en ook waar ten gevolge van het uitsterven van een koningsgeslacht, zonder regeling van het erfrecht, of ook tengevolge van gewelddadige omkeering, het hoog gezag in het ongereede was geraakt, kwam het volk steeds in zijn vertegenwoordigers op om het te herstellen. Maar even belist legt Calvijn er nadruk op, dat God vrijmachtig is om, in het bestel zijner 76 Voorzienigheid, aan een volk dezen meest gewenschten toestand te ontnemen of ook van meet af niet te geven, als het volk er óf onbekwaam voor was óf het ten hoogste verbeurd had door zijne zonde. En dan wijst het geschiedkundig verloop van een volk vanzelf uit, op wat andere wijze de opdracht van het gezag plaats heeft. Dan kan die opdracht voortvloeien uit erfrecht, gelijk in de erfelijke monarchie. Ze kan de uitkomst zijn van een hardnekkigen oorlog, gelijk Caesar door Pilatus macht over Jezus bezat, “hem van boven gegeven”. Ze kan uitgaan van keurvorsten, gelijk in het aloude Duitsche keizerrijk. Ze kan berusten bij de staten der gewesten, gelijk in de oude Republiek der Nederlanden. Kortom zij kan allerlei vormen aannemen, omdat de graad van ontwikkeling der volkeren zoo eindeloos verschilt. Een regeeringsvorm als de uwe zou in China geen dag stand houden. Het volk van Rusland is zelfs nu nog onrijp voor elken constitutioneelen regeeringsvorm. En onder de Kaffer- en Hottentotstammen in Afrika zou zelfs een bewind als in Rusland bestaat, ondenkbaar wezen. Dit alles nu bestelt en regelt God door het verborgen raadsbesluit zijner Voorzienigheid. Doch op wat wijs de opdracht van het hoog gezag ook plaats hebbe, dat gezag zelf blijft Goddelijk in oorsprong, en wel hem, die er Gods souvereiniteit in eert.

The question how those persons, who by divine authority are to be clothed with power, are indicated, can, according to Calvin, not be answered alike for all peoples and for all time. And yet he does not hesitate to state, in an ideal sense, that the most desirable conditions there exist. where the people itself chooses its own magistrates.

Where such a condition exists he thinks that the people should gratefully recognize therein a favor of God, precisely as it has been expressed in the preamble of more than one of your constitutions: — "Grateful to almighty God that He gave us the power to choose our own magistrates.''

In his Commentary on Samuel, Calvin therefore admonishes such peoples-. — "And ye, o peoples, to whom God gave the liberty to choose your own magistrates, see to it, that ye do not forfeit this favor, by electing to the positions of highest honor, rascals and enemies of God.''

I may add that the popular choice gains the day, as a matter of course, where no other rule exists, or where the existing rule falls away.

Wherever new States have been founded, except by conquest or force, the first government has always been founded by popular choice; and so also where the highest authority had fallen into disorder, either by want of a determination of the right of succession, or through the violence of revolution, it has always been the people who through their representatives, claimed the right to restore it. 9 But with equal decision, Calvin asserts that God has the sovereign power, in the way of His dispensing providence, to take from a people this most desirable condition, or never to bestow it at all, when a Nation is unfit for it, or, by its sin, has utterly forfeited the blessing.

The historic development of a people shows, as a matter of course, in what other ways authority is bestowed. This bestowal may flow from the right of inheritance, as in a hereditary monarchy. It may result from a hard-fought war, even as Pilate had power over Jesus, "given him from above." It may proceed from electors, as it did in the old German empire. It may rest with the States of the country, as was the case in the old Dutch republic. In a word it may assume a variety of forms, because there is an endless difference in the development of nations. A form of government like your own, could not exist one day in China. Even now, the people of Russia are unfit for any form of constitutional government. And among the Kaffers and Hottentots of Africa, even a government, such as exists in Russia, would be wholly inconceivable. All this is determined and appointed by God, through the hidden counsel of His providence. But in whatever way the highest authority may be conveyed, that authority remains divine in its origin, and blessed is the man, who honors God's sovereignty therein.

The question how those persons, who by divine authority are to be clothed with power, are indicated, cannot, according to Calvin, be answered alike for all peoples and for all time. And yet he does not hesitate to state, in an ideal sense, that the most desirable conditions exist, where the people itself chooses its own magistrates. Where such a condition exists he thinks that the people should gratefully recognize therein a favor of God, precisely as it has been expressed in the preamble of more than one of your constitutions; — “Grateful to almighty God that He gave us the power to choose our own magistrates.” In his Commentary on Samuel, Calvin therefore admonishes such peoples: — “And ye, O peoples, to whom God gave the liberty to choose your own magistrates, see to it, that ye do not forfeit this favor, by electing to the positions of highest honor, rascals and enemies of God.”

I may add that the popular choice gains the day, as a matter of course, where no other rule exists, or where the existing rule falls away. Wherever new States 107 have been founded, except by conquest or force, the first government has always been founded by popular choice; and so also where the highest authority had fall. into disorder, either by want of a determination of the right of succession, or through the violence of revolution, it has always been the people who, through their representatives, claimed the. right to restore it. But with equal decision, Calvin asserts that God has the sovereign power, in the way of His dispensing Providence, to take from a people this most desirable condition, or never to bestow it at all. when a nation is unfit for it, or, by its sin, has utterly forfeited the blessing.

The historic development of a people shows, as a matter of course, in what other ways authority is bestowed. This bestowal may flow from the right of inheritance, as in a hereditary monarchy. It may result from a hard-fought war, even as Pilate had power over Jesus, “given him from above.” It may proceed from electors, as it did in the old German empire. It may rest with the. States of the country, as was the case in the old Dutch republic. In a word it may assume a variety of forms, because there is an endless difference in the development of nations. A form of government like your own could not exist one day in China. Even now, the people of Russia are unfit for any form of constitutional government. And among the Kaffirs and Hottentots of Africa, even a government, such as exists in Russia, would be wholly inconceivable. All this is determined and appointed by God, through the hidden counsel of His providence.

A questão sobre como aquelas pessoas, que pela autoridade divina devem ser revestidas com poder, são indicadas, segundo Calvino não pode ser assegurado semelhantemente para todas as pessoas e para todos os tempos. E, contudo, ele não hesita em afirmar, num sentido ideal, que as condições mais desejáveis existem onde o próprio povo escolhe seus próprios magistrados. Onde existe uma condição como esta, ele conclui, o povo deveria agradecidamente reconhecer nisto um favor de Deus, precisamente como tem sido expresso no preâmbulo de mais de uma de suas constituições; - “Graças ao Deus Todo-Poderoso que deu a nós o poder de escolher nossos próprios magistrados.” Em seu Comentário sobre Samuel, Calvino entretanto admoesta tais povos: “E vós, Ó povos, a quem Deus deu a liberdade de escolher seus próprios magistrados, cuidem-se de não se privarem deste favor, elegendo para a posição de mais alta honra, patifes e inimigos de Deus.”

Posso adicionar que a escolha popular é bem sucedida, naturalmente, onde nenhum outro governo existe, ou onde o governo existente se enfraquece. Onde quer que novos Estados tem sido instituídos, exceto pela conquista ou pela força, o primeiro governo sempre tem sido instituído pela escolha popular; e assim também onde a mais alta autoridade tem caído em desordem, quer pelo desejo de uma fixação do direito de sucessão, quer através de revolução violenta, sempre tem sido o povo que, através de seus representantes, reivindicou o direito de restaurá-lo. Mas com igual resolução, Calvino afirma que Deus tem o poder soberano no modo de administração de sua providência, para tirar de um povo esta condição mais desejável, ou nunca concedê-la absolutamente quando uma nação é inapta para ele, ou, por seu pecado tem sido completamente privada da bênção.

O desenvolvimento histórico de um povo mostra, naturalmente, por quais outros modos a autoridade é concedida. Esta concessão pode fluir do direito de herança, como numa monarquia hereditária. Ela pode resultar de uma guerra renhida, tal como Pilatos tinha sobre Jesus, “dado a ele de cima”. Pode proceder dos eleitores, como fez o velho império alemão; como também, pode repousar com os Estados de um país, como foi o caso na velha república holandesa. Numa palavra, ela pode assumir uma variedade de formas, porque há uma diferença infindável no desenvolvimento das nações. Uma forma de governo como a de vocês não poderia existir um único dia na China. Mesmo agora, os povos da Rússia estão inaptos para qualquer forma de governo constitucional. E entre os Kafires e Hotentotes da África, até mesmo um governo tal como existe na Rússia seria totalmente inconcebível. Tudo isto está determinado e apontado por Deus pelo conselho oculto de sua providência.

На вопрос о том, как же определять, кого божественный авторитет должен облекать властью, по мнению Кальвина, нельзя дать один ответ для всех народов и времен. И все же он без колебаний говорил, что лучшие условия существования людей наличествуют там, где сам народ избирает себе правителей.

Там, где эти условия существуют, народ, по его мнению, должен с благодарностью признавать благоволение Божие, точно так, как это выражено в преамбуле ряда ваших конституций: «Благодарные Всемогущему Богу за то, что Он дал нам власть избирать своих правителей». В толкованиях к пророку Самуилу [I и II Книги Царств] Кальвин увещевает народы: «А вы, о люди, которым Бог дал свободу избирать ваших собственных правителей, смотрите, чтобы не утратить это благоволение, избрав на должности, обладающие высочайшим достоинством, обманщиков и врагов Божиих!»

Могу добавить, что народный выбор теперь возникает везде, где нет другой формы правления или где существующая форма утратила силу. Там, где основывались новые государства, это всегда осуществлялось посредством народного выбора, за исключением тех случаев, когда это происходило посредством завоеваний или силы. Там же, где верховная власть разложилась и пала, или возникли споры о праве наследования, или разгорелся мятеж, именно народ через своих представителей обычно присваивает себе право эту власть восстановить. Однако Кальвин уверен, что Бог посредством Своего Промысла вправе забрать у народа угодный ему способ правления, а то и вообще не давать его, если народ для него не годен или по своим грехам потерял на него право.

Историческое развитие того или иного народа показывает, какими различными путями приобретается власть. Ее может давать наследственное право, как при наследственной монархии. Ее можно присвоить, как присвоил Пилат власть над Иисусом. Ее могут даровать выборщики, как бывало у древних германцев. Ею могут владеть Штаты, как было в старой Голландской республике. Одним словом, она может принимать самые разные формы, ведь уровни развития наций бесконечно различны. Форма правления, подобная вашей, не удержалась бы и дня в Китае. Народ России и теперь не приспособлен к какой-либо форме конституционного правления, а среди кафров и готтентотов Африки даже такая форма, как в России, совершенно немыслима. Все это определяет и устанавливает Бог через сокровенное внушение Своего Промысла.

Dit is daarom geen theocratie. Van theocratie was alleen onder Israël sprake, omdat God in Israël rechtstreeks tusschenbeide trad en zoo door de Urim en Thummim, als door de Profetie, zoo door zijn reddende wonderen als door zijn oordeelen, het rechtsbewind en de leiding van zijn volk zelf in eigen hand hield. Wat daarentegen het Calvinisme met zijn belijdenis van de souvereiniteit Gods bedoelt, geldt voor heel de wereld, gaat door voor alle volk, en houdt stand bij elkgezag, dat een mensch over een mensch uitoefent, zelfs bij het gezag, dat van de ouders over hun kinderen gaat. Een politieke belijdenis alzoo summierlijk in deze drie grondstellingen saam te vatten: 1º. Alleen God, en nooit een éénig schepsel, bezit souverein beschikkingsrecht over de volkeren, omdat God alleen de natiën schiep, door zijne almachtigheid in stand houdt, en door zijne ordinantiën regeert. 2º. De zonde heeft op 77 politiek terrein de rechtstreeksche heerschappij Gods weggebroken, en deswege is toen als mechanisch hulpmiddel de uitoefening van het Overheidsgezag onder menschen ingesteld. En 3º. onder welken vorm dit Overheidsgezag ook optrede, nooit bezit de eene mensch macht over een ander mensch, anders dan door een gezag dat uit de majesteit Gods op hem is afgedaald.

All this however, is no theocracy.

A theocracy was only found in Israel, because in Israel, God intervened immediately. For both by Urim and Thummim and by Prophecy; both by His saving miracles and by His chastising judgments, He held in His own hand the jurisdiction and the leadership of His people.

But the Calviuistic confession of the sovereignty of God, holds good for all the world, is true for all nations and is of force in all authority, which man exercises over man; even in the authorit}', which parents possess over their children. It is therefore a political faith, which may be summarily expressed in these three theses : — 10 1" God only — and never any creature — is possessed of sovereign rights, in the destiny of the nations, because God alone created them, maintains them by His Almighty power, and rules them, by His ordinances. 2° Sin has, in the realm of politics, broken down the direct government of God, and therefore the exercise of authority, for the purpose of government, has subsequently been invested in men, as a mechanical remedy. And 3° In whatever form this authority may reveal itself, man never possesses power over his fellow-man, in any other way than by an authority, which descends upon him from the majesty of God.

All this, however, is no theocracy. A theocracy was 108 only found in Israel, because in Israel, God intervened immediately. For both by Urim and Thummim and by Prophecy; both by His saving miracles, and by His chastising judgments, He held in His own hand the jurisdiction and the leadership of His people. But the Calvinistic confession of the Sovereignty of God holds good for all the world, is true for all nations, and is of force in all authority, which man exercises over man; even in the authority which parents possess over their children. It is therefore a political faith which may be summarily expressed in these three theses: — 1. God only — and never any creature — is possessed of sovereign rights, in the destiny of the nations, because God alone created them, maintains them by His Almighty power, and rules them by His ordinances. 2. Sin has, in the realm of politics, broken down the direct government of God, and therefore the exercise of authority for the purpose of government, has subsequently been invested in men, as a mechanical remedy. And 3. In whatever form this authority may reveal itself, man never possesses power over his fellow-man in any other way than by an authority which descends upon him from the majesty of God.

Tudo isso, contudo, não é teocracia. Uma teocracia somente foi encontrada em Israel, porque em Israel Deus intervia imediatamente. Ele mantinha em suas próprias mãos a jurisdição e a liderança de seu povo tanto pelo Urim e Tumim quanto pela Profecia; tanto por seus milagres salvadores quanto por seus julgamentos punitivos. Mas a confissão calvinista da soberania de Deus vale para todo o mundo, é verdade para todas as nações, e está forçosamente em toda autoridade que o homem exerce sobre o homem; até mesmo na autoridade que os pais possuem sobre seus filhos. É, portanto, uma fé política que pode ser expressa resumidamente nestas três teses: 1. Somente Deus – e nunca qualquer criatura – possui direitos soberanos sobre o destino das nações, porque somente Deus as criou, as sustenta por seu poderoso poder, e as governa por suas ordenanças. 2. O pecado tem, no campo da política, demolido o governo direto de Deus, e por isso o exercício da autoridade com o propósito de governo tem sido subseqüentemente conferido aos homens como um remédio mecânico. 3. E, em qualquer forma que esta autoridade possa revelar-se, o homem nunca possui poder sobre seu semelhante em qualquer outro modo senão por uma autoridade que desce sobre ele da majestade de Deus.

Но все это — не теократия. Теократия была лишь в Израиле, поскольку в делах Израиля Бог участвовал непосредственно. Через урим и туммим, через пророчества и Его спасительные знамения, через кары, Он отправлял судебную и верховную власть над Своим народом. Кальвинистское же исповедание всевластия Божиего относится ко всему миру, справедливо для всех народов и для всякой власти, которую человек осуществляет над человеком; даже к власти родителей над детьми. Эту политическую веру можно кратко изложить в трех тезисах: 1) Только Бог, но никак не человек, вправе определять судьбы народов, ибо только Бог создал их, сохраняет Своей всемогущей силой и правит ими через Свои установления. 2) Грех разрушил в сфере политики прямое правление Бога, и потому власть передана людям в качестве механического средства. 3) В какой бы форме эта власть себя ни являла, человек обладает властью над ближним только в той мере, в какой она сообщается ему величием Божиим.

Tegen deze Calvinistische belijdenis nu staat tweeërlei andere theorie, die van de Volkssouvereiniteit, gelijk ze 1789 antitheïstisch te Parijs geproclameerd is, en die van de Staatssouvereiniteit, gelijk de historisch-pantheïstische school in Duitschland haar uitspon, lijnrecht over. Beide theorieën zijn in haar diepsten grond één, maar eischen duidelijkheidshalve toch afzonderlijke bespreking.

Directly opposed to this Calvinistic confession there are two other theories. That of the papular-sovereignty, as it has been anti-theistically proclaimed at Paris in 1789; aud that of state -sovereignty , as it has of late been developed by the historico-pantheistic school of Germany. Both these theories are at heart identical, but for the sake of clearness they demand a separate treatment.

Directly opposed to this Calvinistic confession there are two other theories. That of the Popular-sovereignty, as it has been antitheistically proclaimed at Paris in 1789; and that of State-sovereignty, as it has of late been developed by the historico-pantheistic school of Germany. Both these theories are at heart identical, 109 but for the sake of clearness they demand a separate treatment.

Diretamente oposta a esta confissão calvinista há duas outras teorias. A da Soberania Popular, como foi anti-teisticamente proclamada em Paris em 1789; e a da Soberania do Estado, como recentemente tem sido desenvolvida pela escola histórico-panteísta da Alemanha. Ambas estas teorias são idênticas na essência, mas por causa da clareza elas exigem um tratamento separado.

Кальвинистскому исповеданию прямо противоположны две другие теории — теория народовластия в той антитеистической форме, в какой она была объявлена в Париже 1789 года, и теория государственной власти, которой занималась историко-пантеистическая школа в Германии. Теории эти по сути тождественны, но ради ясности их лучше рассмотреть отдельно.

Wat dreef, wat bezielde de geesten in de groote Fransche revolutie? Geërgerdheid over ingeslopen misbruiken? Afkeer van gekroond despotisme? Een fier opkomen voor de rechten en vrijheden des volks? Ten deele zeker, maar in dit alles lag zoo weinig zonders, dat ook de Calvinist veeleer dankbaar in dat drieërlei opzicht het oordeel Gods, dat destijds te Parijs voltrokken werd, eerbiedigt. Maar in dat wegruimen van het misbruik school dan ook de drijfkracht dier Revolutie niet. Edmund Burke, het beginsel, dat in de “glorious Revolution” van 1688 triomfeerde, met het beginsel der Revolutie van 1789 vergelijkend, zegt: “Our Revolution and that of France are just the reverse of each other in almost every particular and in the whole spirit of the transaction”. ⁵⁾ Ook uw eigen opstand tegen Engeland heeft Edmund Burke, die feller dan iemand de Fransche Revolutie bestreed, manmoedig verdedigd, als opgekomen uit een “principle of energy showing itself in this good people the main cause of a free spirit, the most adverse to all implicit submission of mind and opinion” ⁶⁾ 78 Van Nederlands opstand tegen Spanje kan hetzelfde gezegd. Al deze omwentelingen lieten de eere Gods onaangeroerd, en gingen juist uit van de erkenning van zijn majesteit. Van den opstand tegen Spanje onder Willem den Zwijger stemt ieder dit toe. Ook is dit nimmer betwijfeld van de “glorious Revolution”, door Willem den Derde van Oranje tegen de Stuarts ondernomen. Maar het geldt evenzeer van uw eigen Revolutie. In de declaration of Independence spreekt John Hancock het met zoovele woorden uit; dat Amerika optrad krachtens “the law of nature and of nature’s God”, dat men handelde als “endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights”, dat men zich beriep op “the supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of his intention” ⁷⁾ en, dat men zijn „Declaration of Independence” deed uitgaan “with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence” ⁸⁾. In de „articles of Confederation” wordt het in den aanhef beleden “that it has pleased the great Governor of the world to incline the hearts of the legislators. ⁹⁾ Ook in de preambule op de Constitutiën der meeste staten heet het: “Grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious Liberty, which He has so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavours” ¹⁰⁾, wordt God geëerd als “the Sovereing Ruler” ¹¹⁾, en wordt met name erkend, dat van God aan het volk toekwam “the right ¹²⁾ to choose our own form of government” ¹³⁾. In een der vergaderingen der Conventie deed Franklin den voorslag, om op een hachelijk oogenblik wijsheid bij God in den gebede te zoeken. En indien er nog bij iemand twijfel mocht rijzen of de Amerikaansche revolutie met die van 79 Parijs homogeen was, heft de felle strijd in 1793 tusschen Jefferson en Hamilton gestreden dien volkomen op, en blijft het oordeel van den Duitschen historiekenner Holtz onaangevochten: “Es wäre Thorheit zu sagen dass die Rousseausche Schriften einen Einfluss auf die Entwicklung in America ausgeübt haben” ¹⁴⁾ Hamilton zelf sprak dit uit in dezen scherpen vorm: De beginselen van de Amerikaansche en de Fransche Revolutie lijken juist evenveel op elkaar, als de stille puriteinsche huismoeder op de echtbreukige vrouw in een Franschen schandaalroman. ¹⁵⁾

What was it that impelled and animated the spirits of men in the great French revolution? Indignation at abuses, which had crept in? A horror of a crowned despotism? A noble defense of the rights and liberties of the people? In part certainly, but in all this there is so little that is sinful, that even a Calvinist gratefully recognizes, in these three particulars, the divine judgment, which at that time was executed at Paris.

But the impelling force of the French Revolution did not lie in this hatred of abuses. When Edmund Burke compares the "glorious Revolution'' of 16SS, with the principle of the Revolution of 1789, he says — : " Our revolution and that of France are just the reverse ol each other, in almost every particular, and in the whole spirit of the transaction."^*

11 This same Edmund Burke, who so bitterly antagonized the French revolution, has manfully defended your own rebellion against England, as "arising from a principle of energy, showing itself in this good people the main cause of a free spirit, the most adverse to all implicit submission of mind and opinion.''

We may say the same of the rebellion of the Netherlands against Spain. All these revolutions left untouched the glory of God, nay they even proceeded from the acknowledgment of His majesty. Every one will admit this of our rebellion against Spain, under William the Silent. Nor has it even been doubted of the "glorious Revolution", which was crowned by the arrival of William III of Orange, and the overthrow of the Stuarts. It is equally true of your own Revolution. It is expressed, in so many words, in the Declaration of independence, by John Hancock, that the Americans asserted themselves by virtue — "of the law of nature and of nature's God"; that they acted— "as endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights"; that they appealed to — "the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of their intention" ;¹ and that they sent forth their "declaration of Independence" — "with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence". ² In the "Articles of Confederation" it is confessed, in the preamble. — "that it hath pleased the great Governor of the world to incline the hearts of the legislators. ³ It is also declared in the preamble of the Constitution of many of the States: — "Grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty, which He has so long permitted us to enjoy and looking unto Him, for a blessing upon our endeavors." ⁴ God is there honored

12 as "the Sovereign Ruler", ¹ and the "Legislator of the Universe" ² and it is there specifically admitted that from God the people received "the right to choose their own form of government", ³ In one of the meetings of the Convention, Franklin proposed, in a moment of supreme anxiety, that they should ask wisdom from God in prayer. If any one should still doubt whether or not, the American revolution was homogeneous with that of Paris, this doubt is fully set at rest, by the bitter fight, in 1793, between Jefferson and Washington. And so the judgment of the German historian Von Holtz remains intact: "Es ware Thorheit zu sagen dass die Rousseauschen Schriften einen Einfluss auf die Entwicklung in America ausgeiibt haben" ⁴ ("Mere madness would it be to say that the American revolution borrowed its impelling energy from Rousseau and his writings.")

What was it that impelled and animated the spirits of men in the great French revolution? Indignation at abuses, which had crept in? A horror of a crowned despotism? A noble defense of the rights and liberties of the people? In part certainly, but in all this there is so little that is sinful, that even a Calvinist gratefully recognizes, in these three particulars, the divine judgment, which at that time was executed in Paris.

But the impelling force of the French Revolution did not lie in this hatred of abuses. When Edmund Burke compares the “glorious Revolution” of 1688 with the principle of the Revolution of 1789, he says —: “Our revolution and that of France are just the reverse of each other, in almost every particular, and in the whole spirit of the transaction.” ²⁾

This same Edmund Burke, so bitter an antagonist of the French revolution, has manfully defended your own rebellion against England, as “arising from a principle of energy, showing itself in this good people the main cause of a free spirit, the most adverse to all implicit submission of mind and opinion.”

The three great revolutions in the Calvinistic world left untouched the glory of God, nay, they even proceeded from the acknowledgement of His majesty. Every one will admit this of our rebellion against Spain, under William the Silent. Nor has it even been doubted of the “glorious Revolution”, which was crowned by the 110 arrival of William III of Orange and the overthrow of the Stuarts. But it is equally true of your own Revolution. It is expressed in so many words in the Declaration of Independence, by John Hancock, that the Americans asserted themselves by virtue — “of the law of nature and of nature’s God”; that they acted — “as endowed by the Creator with certain unalienable rights”; that they appealed to — “the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of their intention”; ³⁾ and that they sent forth their “declaration of Independence” — “With a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence”. ⁴⁾ in the “Articles of Confederation” it is confessed in the preamble, — “that it hath pleased the great Governor of the world to incline the hearts of the legislators.” ⁵⁾ It is also declared in the preamble of the Constitution of many of the States: — “Grateful to Almighty God for the civil, political and religious liberty, which He has so long permitted us to enjoy and looking unto Him, for a blessing upon our endeavors.” ⁶⁾ God is there honored as “the Sovereign Ruler”, ⁷⁾ and the “Legislator of the Universe” ⁸⁾ and it is there specifically admitted, that from God alone the people received “the right to choose their own form of government.” ⁹⁾ In one of the meetings of the Convention, Franklin proposed, in a moment of supreme anxiety, that they should ask wisdom from God in prayer. And 111 if any one should still doubt whether or not the American revolution was homogeneous with that of Paris, this doubt is fully set at rest by the bitter fight in 1793 between Jefferson and Hamilton. Therefore it remains as the German historian Von Holtz stated it: “Es wäre Thorheit zu sagen dass die Rousseauschen Schriften einen Einfluss auf die Entwicklung in America ausgeübt haben.” ¹⁰⁾ (“Mere madness would it be to say that the American revolution borrowed its impelling energy from Rousseau and his writings.”) Or as Hamilton himself expressed it, that he considered “the French Revolution to be no more akin to the American Revolution than the faithless wife in a French novel is like the Puritan matron in New England.” ¹¹⁾

O que foi que impeliu e animou a disposição dos homens na grande Revolução Francesa? Indignação pelos abusos que tinham se insinuado? Um horror ao despotismo coroado? Uma nobre defesa dos direitos e liberdades do povo? Em parte certamente, mas nestas motivações há tão pouco de pecaminoso, que até mesmo um calvinista agradecidamente reconhece o julgamento divino nestes três particulares, o qual naquele tempo foi executado em Paris.

Mas a força propulsora da Revolução Francesa não encontra-se nesta aversão aos abusos. Quando Edmund Burke compara a “Gloriosa Revolução” de 1688 com o princípio da Revolução de 1789, ele diz: “Nossa revolução e aquela da França são exatamente o contrário uma da outra em quase cada particular, e no espírito todo da operação.” 60

Este mesmo Edmund Burke, tão severo antagonista da Revolução Francesa, defendeu varonilmente sua própria rebelião contra a Inglaterra61, como “originando-se de um princípio de energia que se evidenciou neste povo bom a principal causa de um espírito livre, extremamente oposto a toda submissão implícita da mente e da opinião.”

As três grandes revoluções no mundo calvinista deixaram intacta a glória de Deus, não somente isto, elas até mesmo originaram-se do reconhecimento de sua majestade. Todos admitirão isto de nossa rebelião contra a Espanha, sob William o Silencioso62. Igualmente, isto não foi posto em dúvida sobre a “gloriosa revolução”, que foi coroada pela chegada de William III de Orange63 e o destronamento dos Stuarts. Também é igualmente verdade de sua própria Revolução.

Este reconhecimento é expresso muitas vezes por John Hancock na Declaração de Independência, a qual os Americanos declararam em virtude - “da lei da natureza e da natureza de Deus”; que eles agiram – “como dotados pelo Criador com certos direitos inalienáveis”; que eles apelaram para – “o Supremo Juiz do mundo para a retidão de suas intenções”;64 e que eles produziram sua “declaração de independência”- “com a firme confiança na proteção da providência divina”.65 Nos “Artigos da Confederação” é confessado no preâmbulo, - “que tem agradado ao grande Governador do mundo inclinar os corações dos legisladores”.66 É também declarado no preâmbulo da Constituição de muitos Estados: - “Agradecemos ao Deus Todo-Poderoso pela liberdade civil, política e religiosa, que ele nos tem permitido gozar até aqui e olhamos para ele para abençoar nossos esforços”.67 Deus é ali honrado como “o Soberano Governador”,68 e o “Legislador do Universo”69 e é ali admitido especificamente, que somente de Deus o povo recebeu “o direito de escolher sua própria forma de governo”.70

Em um dos encontros da Assembléia, Franklin propôs, num momento de suprema ansiedade, que eles deveriam pedir sabedoria a Deus em oração. E se alguém ainda tem duvidas se a Revolução Americana foi homogênea com a de Paris ou não, esta dúvida é posta completamente de lado pela luta cruel entre Jefferson e Hamilton em 1793. Portanto, como o historiador alemão Von Holtz declarou: “Es wäre Thorheit zu sagen dass die Rosseauschen Schriften einen Einfluss auf die Entwicklung in America ausgeübt haben”.71 (“Seria simples loucura dizer que a Revolução Americana tomou emprestado sua energia propulsora de Rousseau e seus escritos”.) Ou como o próprio Hamilton o expressou, ele considerava “a Revolução Francesa não ser mais aparentada com a Revolução Americana do que a esposa infiel numa novela francesa é igual a matrona puritana na Nova Inglaterra”.72

Что вдохновляло и вело людей во времена Французской революции? Недовольство злоупотреблениями? Страх перед произволом коронованных особ? Благородная защита прав и свобод народа? Отчасти это и так, но во всем этом так мало греха, что даже кальвинисты с готовностью признают в этих трех обстоятельствах божественный суд, вершившийся в то время в Париже.

Однако движущая сила Французской революции — не в ненависти к злоупотреблениям. Когда Эдмунд Берк сравнивает «Славную революцию» 1688 г. с революцией 1789 г., он говорит: «Наша революция и революция во Франции диаметрально противоположны почти в каждой мелочи, а также во всем том духе, в каком их осуществляли»².

Тот же самый Эдмунд Берк, столь непримиримо враждебный Французской революции, мужественно защищал ваше восстание против Англии, «возникшее из энергичного начала, которое являет в этом добром народе главную причину свободного духа, противостоящего самым решительным образом всякому подчинению ума и мнений».

Три великие революции в кальвинистском мире не посрамили славы Божией. Более того, они исходили из признания Его величия. Всякий согласится с этим, когда вспомнит мятеж против Испании при Вильгельме Молчаливом. Нет сомнений и по поводу «Славной революции», завершившейся воцарением Вильгельма III и ниспровержением Стюартов. Это верно и в отношении вашей Американской революции. Джон Хэнкок в Декларации Независимости развернуто заявляет, что, по мнению американцев, они, повинуясь закону природы и воле ее Творца, действуют «как наделенные Творцом определенными неотчуждаемыми правами»; взывают к «Верховному Судье мира за подтверждением правоты их намерений»³ и издают свою Декларацию Независимости, «твердо полагаясь на защиту Божественного Провидения»⁴. В преамбуле к «Статьям Конфедерации» сказано, что «Великому Правителю мира было угодно склонить сердца законодателей»⁵. Конституции многих Штатов начинаются словами: «Благодарные Всемогущему Богу за гражданские, политические и религиозные свободы, которыми Он столь долго разрешал нам пользоваться, и обращаясь к Нему за благословением наших начинаний…»⁶. Бога почитают как «Высшего Правителя»⁷ и «Законодателя Вселенной»⁸, особенно отмечая, что только от Него народы «получают право избирать собственную форму правления»⁹. На одном из заседаний Конвента Франклин, воспарив духом, предложил помолиться Богу о мудрости. Если кто-то еще сомневается в различии Американской и Французской революции, сомнение это полностью рассеивает жаркая схватка в 1793 г. между Джефферсоном и Гамильтоном. Остается сказать вместе с немецким историком фон Хольтцем: «Es wäre Thorheit zu sagen dass die Rousseauschen Schriften einen Einfluss auf die Entwicklung in Amerika ausgeübt haben». («Было бы глупостью утверждать, что произведения Руссо оказали влияние на развитие событий в Америке»¹⁰.) Сам Гамильтон говорит, что «Французская революция не больше похожа с американскую, чем неверная жена из французского романа похожа на пуританскую матрону Новой Англии»¹¹.

Tegen alle deze nationale omwentelingen, die met het gebed op de lippen, en in het vertrouwen op Gods hulpe, ondernomen werden, staat nu de Fransche Revolutie principieel over. Zij ignoreert God. Zij stelt zich tegenover God. Zij weigert een dieperen grondslag van het leven te erkennen, dan die in de natuur, d.i. hier in den mensch zelven, ligt. Het ni Dieu ni maître is hier het eerste artikel der belijdenis van het meest volstrekte ongeloof. God in zijn vrijmacht wordt onttroond, en de mensch met zijn vrijen wil op den troon geplaatst. ’s Menschen wil beschikt. ’s Menschen welbehagen beslist. Alle macht, alle gezag gaat van den mensch uit. Zoo komt men van den enkelen mensch op de vele menschen, en in die vele menschen als volk genomen schuilt dan de diepste bron van alle souvereiniteit. Er is dus niet als in uwe Staatsstukken sprake van een uit God afgeleide souvereiniteit, die door Hem, onder bepaalde omstandigheden, op het volk gelegd is, neen maar van een oorspronkelijke souvereiniteit, die overal, in alle staten, uit het volk zelf opkomt, en die eenvoudig berust in den menschelijken wil. Een volkssouvereiniteit alzoo, die met Godloochening volkomen gelijk staat. En hierin nu ligt de zelfverlaging. Op Calvinistisch erf, gelijk ook in uw Constitutie, voor God de knie gebogen, maar tegenover den medemensch fier het hoofd omhoog geheven; maar hier, op het standpunt der volkssouvereiniteit tegen God de vermetele vuist gebald, en onderwijl als mensch voor zijn 80 medemensch gekropen, en deze zelfverendering verguld door een fictie van een voor duizenden van jaren, door lieden, waarvan niemand heugenis heeft, gesloten contrat social. De uitkomst toonde dan ook hoe Nederlands opstand, Engelands “glorious revolution”, en uw opstand tegen Engeland de vrijheid in eere brachten, terwijl de Fransche revolutie tot geen ander resultaat leidde dan dat de vrijheid gekluisterd werd in de boeien van Staatsalmacht. Metterdaad geen land kende ooit droever staatshistorie dan Frankrijk in onze 19de eeuw.

The French Revolution is in principle distinct from all these national revolutions, which were undertaken with praying lips and with trust in the help of God.

The French Revolution ignores God. It opposes God_ It refuses to recognize a deeper ground of political life than that which is found in nature, that is, in this instance, in man himself. Here the first article of the confession of the most absolute infidelity is — "ni Dieu ni maitre". The sovereign God is dethroned and man with his free will is placed on the vacant throne. It is the will of man, which determines things. All power, all authority proceeds from man. Thus one comes from the individual man to the many men; and in those many men conceived as the people, there is thus hidden the deepest fountain of all sovereignty. There is no question, as in your Constitution, of a sovereignty, derived from God, which He, under certain conditions implants in the people.

13 Here an original sovereignty asserts itself, which everywhere and in all states, can only proceed from the people itself, having no deeper root than in the human will. A sovereignty of the people therefore, which is perfectly identical with atheism. And herein lies the self-abasement. In the sphere of Calvinism, as also in your Constitution, the knee is bowed to God, while over against man the head is proudly lifted up. But here, from the standpoint of the sovereignty of the people, the fist is defiantly doubled against God, while man grovels before his fellow-men, tinseling over this self-abasement by the ludicrous fiction that, thousands of years ago, men, of whom no one has any remembrance, concluded a political contract, or, as they called it, "Contrat Social". Now, do you ask for the result ? Then, let History tell you how the rebellion of the Netherlands, the ''glorious Revolution" of England and your own rebellion against the British Crown have brought liberty to honor; and answer for yourself the question has the French Revolution resulted in anything else but the shackling of liberty, in the irons of State-omnipotence? Indeed no country in our 19 th century, has made a sadder Statehistory than France.

The French Revolution is in principle distinct from all these national revolutions, which were undertaken with praying lips and with trust in the help of God. The French Revolution ignores God. It opposes God. It 112 refuses to recognize a deeper ground of political life than that which is found in nature, that is, in this instance, in man himself. Here the first article of the confession of the most absolute infidelity is — “ni Dieu ni maitre”. The sovereign God is dethroned and man with his free will is placed on the vacant seat. It is the will of man which determines all things. All power, all authority proceeds from man. Thus one comes from the individual man to the many men; and in those many men conceived as the people, there is thus hidden the deepest fountain of all sovereignty. There is no question, as in your Constitution, of a sovereignty derived from God, which He, under certain conditions, implants in the people. Here an original sovereignty asserts itself, which everywhere and in ail states can only proceed from the people itself, having no deeper root than in the human will. It is a sovereignty of the people therefore, which is perfectly identical with atheism. And herein lies its self-abasement. In the sphere of Calvinism, as also in your Declaration, the knee is bowed to God, while over against man the head is proudly lifted up. But here, from the standpoint of the sovereignty of the people, the fist is defiantly clenched against God, while man grovels before his fellowmen, tinseling over this self-abasement by the ludicrous fiction that, thousands of years ago, men, of whom no one has any remembrance, concluded a political contract, or, as they called it, “Contrat Social”. Now, do you ask for the result? Then, let History tell you how the rebellion of the Netherlands, the “glorious Revolution” of England and your own rebellion against the British Crown have brought liberty to honor; and 113answer for yourself the question: Has the French Revolution resulted in anything else but the shackling of liberty in the irons of State-omnipotence? Indeed, no country in our 19th century has had a sadder State history than France.

Em princípio a Revolução Francesa é distinta de todas estas revoluções nacionais, as quais foram empreendidas com lábios orando e com confiança na ajuda de Deus. A Revolução Francesa ignora Deus. Ela se opõe a Deus e se recusa a reconhecer uma causa mais profunda da vida política do que aquela que é encontrada na natureza, isto é, neste caso, no próprio homem. Aqui o primeiro artigo da confissão da mais absoluta infidelidade é – “ni Dieu ni maitre”. O Deus soberano é destronado e o homem com seu livre arbítrio é colocado no assento vago. É a vontade do homem que determina todas as coisas. Todo poder, toda autoridade procedem do homem.

Assim, parte-se do homem individual para a maioria dos homens; e naquela maioria dos homens concebida como o povo está escondida a fonte mais profunda de toda soberania. Não há indícios, como em sua Constituição73, sobre uma soberania derivada de Deus, a qual ele, sob certas condições, implanta no povo. Aqui afirma-se que em todo lugar e em todos os estados uma soberania original pode proceder somente do próprio povo, não tendo raiz mais profunda do que na vontade humana. Portanto, é uma soberania do povo, o que é perfeitamente idêntico ao ateísmo. E aqui encontra sua auto-humilhação. Na esfera do Calvinismo, como também em sua Declaração, o joelho está dobrado diante de Deus, ao posso que diante do homem a cabeça está orgulhosamente erguida. Mas aqui, do ponto de vista da soberania do povo, o punho está desafiadoramente cerrado contra Deus, enquanto que o homem humilha-se perante seus semelhantes, dando falso brilho a esta auto-humilhação pela ficção ridícula de que, milhares de anos antes, homens de quem ninguém tem qualquer lembrança determinaram um contrato político, ou, como eles o chamam “Contrato Social”.

Agora, perguntem pelo resultado? Então, deixem a História falar sobre como a rebelião da Holanda, a “gloriosa Revolução” da Inglaterra e sua própria rebelião contra a Coroa Britânica tem trazido honra a liberdade; e respondam por vocês mesmos a pergunta: A Revolução Francesa tem resultado em algo mais exceto o algemar da liberdade nos ferros do Estado onipotente? De fato, nenhum país em nosso século 19 tem tido uma história do Estado mais triste do que a França.

Французская революция в принципе отлична от этих национальных революций, которые совершались с молитвой на устах и с упованием на помощь Божию. Она не знает Бога; она Ему противостоит; она признает только ту основу политической жизни, которая заложена в природе, то есть в самом человеке. Поэтому первая статья исповедания самого полного неверия гласит: «Ni Die ni maоtre» («Ни Бога, ни господ»). Суверенный Бог низложен, человек со своей свободной волей посажен на пустующий трон. Именно воля человека все определяет. Вся власть, весь авторитет — от человека. От индивида переходят к группе людей; и в этой большой группе, именуемой народом, сокрыт глубинный источник всякой власти. В отличие от вашей, американской конституции, здесь нет и речи о власти, которой Бог на определенных условиях наделил народ. Здесь утверждает себя та изначальная власть, которая везде, во всех государствах исходит от самого народа, не имея более глубокого корня, чем человеческая воля. Это — народовластие, совершенно тождественное атеизму, что и не дает ему подняться ввысь.

В кальвинизме, как и в вашей Декларации, человек преклоняется перед Богом, а перед другим человеком высоко держит голову. При народовластии Богу грозят кулаком, а перед другим человеком пресмыкаются, прикрывая унижение нелепой выдумкой о том, что тысячи лет назад люди, о которых никто ничего не помнит, заключили политическое соглашение, или, как его называют, «Contrat Social» («Общественный договор»). Надо ли спрашивать, что вышло? Пусть история расскажет вам, как восстание в Нидерландах, «Славная революция» в Англии и ваше, американское восстание против Британской короны прославили свободу; и тогда ответьте сами, к чему привела Французская революция, кроме того, что заковала свободу в кандалы всесильного государства? Поистине, никакая страна в нашем XIX столетии не имеет такой грустной государственной истории.

Met dien waan er op fictie gegronde Volkssouvereiniteit heeft het geleerde Duitschland dan ook reeds sinds De Savigny en Niebuhr gebroken. De door hen gestichte Historische school heeft de aprioristische fictie van 1789 op de kaak gesteld. Elk kenner der Historie lacht er thans om. Alleen maar wat men er voor in plaats stelde, bracht ons nog verder van de wijs. Niet volkssouvereiniteit, neen Staatssouvereiniteit zou het nu zijn, een product van Duitschlands philosophisch pantheïsme. In de realiteit belichamen zich ideeën, en onder alle de verbindingen van mensch en mensch was de Staatsidee de hoogste, de rijkste, de volkomenste. Zoo werd de Staat een mystiek begrip. De Staat was een geheimzinnig wezen, met een schuilend ik, met een zich ontwikkelend Staatsbewustzijn, met een zich sterkenden Staatswil, door een langzaam proces zich bewegende naar een hoogste Staatsdoel. Het volk werd alzoo niet, gelijk bij Rousseau, genomen als de optelsom der individuën. Zeer terecht zag men het in: een volk is geen aggregaat, maar een organisch geheel. Dat organisme nu had zijn organische geledingen. Die kwamen historisch allengs uit. Door deze organen werkt de Staatswil, en voor dien Staatswil had alles te bukken. Deze Staatswil was oppermachtig, was souverein. Die souvereine Staatswil kon zich in een republiek, kon zich in een koningschap, kon zich in een Caesar, kon zich in een Aziatisch despoot, kon zich in een tirannie als van Philips van Spanje, of in een dictator als Napoleon uiten. Dit alles waren slechts vormen waarin de ééne Staatsidee zich belichaamde, stadiën van doorgang in het nooit eindigend proces. Maar in wat vorm dit mystieke wezen van den Staat zich ook openbaarde, de idee bleef oppermachtig, de Staat deed zijn 81 souvereiniteit kortweg gelden, en te zwichten voor deze Staats-apotheose bleef de steen der wijzen voor elk Staatslid. — Zoo vervalt elk transcendent recht in God, waartoe de verdrukte zich opheft. Er is geen ander recht dan het immanente recht, dat in de wet beschreven werd. De wet is recht, niet omdat haar inhoud aan de eeuwige beginselen van het Recht beantwoordt, maar omdat zij wet is. Stelt ze morgen vlak het tegenovergestelde vast, zoo zal ook dit recht wezen. En de vrucht van deze doodende theorie is dan ook dat het rechtsbesef wordt afgestompt, dat elke rechtsvastheid uit de gemoederen wijkt, en dat alle hoogere geestdrift gebluscht wordt. Wat is is goed, omdat het is, en niet een God die ons schiep en kent en die zelf hoog boven alle Staatsmacht uitgaat, maar de gedurig wisselende wil van den Staat, die niemand boven zich heeft, en daardoor feitelijk zelf God wordt, beslist hoe ons leven zal zijn. En als ge nu bedenkt, dat deze mystieke Staat alleen door menschen tot wilsuiting komt, en alleen door menschen zijn wil doorzet en handhaaft, behoeft het dan nog betoog, dat ook deze Staatssouvereiniteit de onderwerping van den mensch aan den mensch niet te boven komt en niet kan opklimmen tot een plicht der gehoorzaamheid, die zijn klem vindt in de consciëntie?

No wonder that Scientific Germany has broken away from this fictitious sovereignty of the people, since the da} r s of De Savignv and Niebuhr. The Historical school, founded by these eminent men, has pilloried the aprioristic fiction of 17S9. Every historical connoisseur now ridicules it. But that which they recommended instead of it, bears no better stamp.

Now it was to be not the sovereignty of the people, but the Sovereignty of the State, a product of Germanic philosophical pantheism. Ideas are incarnated in the reality, and among these the idea of the State was the highest, the richest, the most perfect idea of the relation between man and man. Thus the State became a mystical conception. The State was considered as a mysterious being, with a 14 hidden ego; with a State-consciousness, slowly developing; and with an ever more potent St&te-will, which by a slow process endeavored to reach the highest State-aim. The people was not understood as with Rousseau, to be the sum total of the individuals. It was correctly seen that a people is no aggregate, but an organic whole. This organism must of necessity have its organic members. Slowly these organs arrived at their historic development. By these organs, the will of the State operates, and everything must bow before this will. This sovereign State-will might reveal itself in a republic, in a monarchy, in a Caesar, in an Asiatic despot, in a tyrant as Philip of Spain, or in a dictator like Napoleon. All these were but forms, in which the one State-idea incorporated itself; the stages of development in a never ending process. But in whatever form this mystical being of the State revealed itself, the idea remained supreme ; the State shortly asserted its sovereignty and for every member of the State, it remained the touchstone of wisdom to give way to this State-apotheosis.

Thus all transcendent right in God, to which the oppressed lifted up his face, falls away. There is no other right, but the immanent right, which is written down in the law. The law is right, not because its contents are in harmony with the eternal principles of right, but because it is law. If on the morrow it fixes the very opposite, this also must be right. And the fruit of this deadening theory is, as a matter of course, that the consciousness of right is blunted, that all fixedness of right departs from our minds and that all higher enthusiasm for right is extinguished. That which exists is good, because it exists ; and it is no longer the will of God, of Him Who created us and knows us, but it becomes the ever-changing will of the State, which, having no one above itself, actually becomes God and has to decide how our life and our existence shall be.

And when you further consider that this mystical State 15 expresses and enforces its will only through men — what further proof is demanded that this state-sovereignty even as popular sovereignty, does not outgrow the aliasing subjection of man to his fellow-man and never ascends to a duty of Submission, which finds its cogency in the conscience.

No wonder that scientific Germany has broken away from this fictitious sovereignty of the people, since the days of De Savigny and Niebuhr. The Historical school, founded by these eminent men, has pilloried the a-prioristic fiction of 1789. Every historical connoisseur now ridicules it. Only that which they recommended instead of it, bears no better stamp.

Now it was to be not the sovereignty of the people, but the Sovereignty of the State, a product of Germanic philosophical pantheism. Ideas are incarnated in the reality, and among these the idea of the State was the highest, the richest, the most perfect idea of the relation between man and man. Thus the State became a mystical conception. The State was considered as a mysterious being, with a hidden ego; with a State-consciousness, slowly developing; and with an increasing potent State-will, which by a slow process endeavored to blindly reach the highest State-aim. The people was not understood as with Rousseau, to be the sum total of the individuals. It was correctly seen that a people is no aggregate, but an organic whole. This organism must of necessity have its organic members. Slowly these organs arrived at their historic development. By these organs the will of the State operates, and everything must bow before this will. This sovereign State-will might reveal itself in a republic, in a monarchy, in a 114 Caesar, in an Asiatic despot, in a tyrant as Philip of Spain, or in a dictator like Napoleon, All these were but forms, in which the one State-idea incorporated itself; the stages of development in a never-ending process. But in whatever form this mystical being of the State revealed itself, the idea remained supreme: the State shortly asserted its sovereignty and for every member of the State it remained the touchstone of wisdom to give way to this State-apotheosis.

Thus all transcendent right in God, to which the oppressed lifted up his face, fails away. There is no other right, but the immanent right which is written down in the law. The law is right, not because its contents are in harmony with the eternal principles of right, but because it is law. If on the morrow it fixes the very opposite, this also must be right. And the fruit of this deadening theory is, as a matter of course, that the consciousness of right is blunted, that all fixedness of right departs from our minds, and that all higher enthusiasm for right is extinguished. That which exists is good, because it exists; and it is no longer the will of God, of Him Who created us and knows us, but it becomes the ever-changing will of the State, which, having no one above itself, actually becomes God, and has to decide how our life and our existence shall be.

And when you further consider that this mystical State expresses and enforces its will only through men what further proof is demanded that this state-sovereignty, even as popular sovereignty, does not outgrow the abasing subjection of man to his fellow-man and never ascends to a duty of submission which finds its cogency in the conscience? 115

Não é de admirar que, desde os dias de De Savigny e Niebuhr, a Alemanha científica tenha se libertado desta fictícia soberania do povo. A Escola Histórica, fundada por aqueles homens eminentes, tem exposto ao ridículo a ficção apriorística de 1789. Todo historiador especialista a ridiculariza agora. Somente aquilo que eles recomendaram em lugar dela não traz impressão melhor.

Não mais seria a soberania do povo, mas a soberania do Estado, um produto do panteísmo filosófico alemão. As idéias são encarnadas na realidade, e entre estas a idéia do Estado foi a mais alta, a mais rica, a mais perfeita idéia da relação entre os homens. Assim, o Estado tornou-se uma concepção mística. O Estado foi considerado como um ser misterioso, com um ego oculto; com uma consciência de Estado desenvolvendo-se lentamente; e com uma poderosa vontade de Estado crescendo, a qual por um processo lento esforçou-se para às cegas alcançar o mais alto propósito do Estado. O povo não foi entendido como sendo a soma total dos indivíduos como com Rousseau. Foi corretamente visto que um povo não é um agregado, mas um todo orgânico. Este organismo necessariamente deve ter seus membros orgânicos. Lentamente estes órgãos chegaram a seu desenvolvimento histórico. A vontade do Estado opera por estes órgãos, e tudo deve dobrar-se perante esta vontade.

Esta soberana vontade do Estado poderia revelar-se numa república, numa monarquia, num César, num déspota asiático, num tirano como Filipe da Espanha, ou num ditador como Napoleão. Todas estas eram apenas formas nas quais a idéia única do Estado incorporou-se; os estágios de desenvolvimento num processo sem fim. Mas, em qualquer forma que este ser místico do Estado se revelasse, a idéia continuou suprema; em poucas palavras, o Estado afirmou sua soberania e para cada membro permaneceu a pedra de toque de sabedoria para dar lugar a esta apoteose do Estado.

Assim todo direito transcendente em Deus, para o qual o oprimido erguia sua face, morreu. Não há outro direito exceto o direito imanente que está anotado na lei. A lei está certa, não porque seu conteúdo está em harmonia com os princípios eternos do direito, mas porque ela é a lei. Se no período seguinte ela fixa o próprio oposto, isto também deve estar certo. E o fruto desta teoria enfraquecedora é, naturalmente, que a consciência do direito está embotada, que toda estabilidade do direito afasta-se de nossa mente, e que todo entusiasmo mais alto pelo direito é extinguido. Aquilo que existe é bom porque ele existe; e não é mais a vontade de Deus, daquele que nos criou e nos conhece, mas torna-se a sempre mutável vontade do Estado, que, não tendo ninguém acima dela, realmente torna-se Deus, e deve decidir como será nossa vida e nossa existência.

E quando, além disso, vocês consideram que este Estado místico expressa e aplica sua vontade somente através de homens – que prova a mais é exigida de que esta soberania do Estado, exatamente como a soberania popular, não excede a humilhante sujeição do homem a seu semelhante e nunca eleva-se ao dever de submissão que encontra sua força na consciência?

Надо ли удивляться, что немецкие ученые начиная со времени де Савиньи и Нибура порвали с этой фиктивной властью народа. Историческая школа, основанная этими выдающимися людьми, пригвоздила к позорному столбу бездоказательные вымыслы 1789 года, и каждый знаток истории их высмеивает. Правда, то, что предложено взамен, оказалось не лучшим.

У них главную роль играет не власть народа, а власть государства, порождение германского философского пантеизма. Идеи воплощаются в реальность, а среди этих идей превыше всего — идея государства, самая содержательная, самая совершенная идея отношений между людьми. Государство стало мистическим понятием. В нем видят постепенно развивающееся самосознание, таинственную сущность, в котором сокрыто некое «я», государственная воля, которая медленно и неосознанно стремится достичь своей высшей цели. Народ, в отличие от мысли Руссо, — уже не сумма индивидов, не агрегат, а органическое целое. У организма должны быть свои органы. Постепенно органы эти исторически развиваются, с их помощью и осуществляется воля государства, и все должны склониться перед нею. Суверенная государственная воля может осуществляться в республике, в монархии, в кесаре, в азиатском деспоте, в тиране, подобном Филиппу Испанскому, или в диктаторе, подобном Наполеону; все это — не более чем формы, в которые единая государственная идея воплощает себя, этапы развития в бесконечном процессе. В какую бы форму это мистическое бытие государства себя ни воплотило, сама идея государства остается наивысшей. Государство утверждает свой суверенитет, и для каждого его члена критерий мудрости — не мешать его обожествлению.

Так устраняется трансцендентное право Бога, к Которому угнетенные обращали свой взор. Нет никакого права, кроме имманентного, и отражено оно в законе. Закон верен не потому, что его содержание находится в согласии с вечными принципами права, а потому что это закон. Если завтра закон скажет обратное, то и это должно быть правом. Из этой смертоносной теории следует, очевидно, что сознание права притупляется, неизменность его исчезает из нашей души, стремление к нему гаснет. Все действительное разумно, потому что оно действительно. Это уже не воля Того, Кто сотворил нас и знает о нас, но всегда меняющаяся воля государства, которое, не зная никого выше себя, становится Богом и дерзает решать, какой быть нашей жизни.

Если вы дадите себе труд подумать о том, что это мистическое государство выражает и реализует свою волю лишь через людей, станет ясно, что его всевластие, как и всевластие народа, не поднимется выше унизительного подчинения человека своему собрату и не узнает того высокого послушания, которое коренится в человеческой совести.

Zoowel tegenover de Volkssouvereiniteit der Encyclopaedisten, als tegenover de Staatssouvereiniteit der Duitsche Pantheïsten, handhaaf ik daarom hoog de souvereiniteit Gods, die als bron van alle gezag onder menschen door het Calvinisme geproclameerd is. Het Calvinisme handhaaft het hoogste en het beste in onze aspiratiën door alle mensch en alle volk voor het aanschijn van onzen Vader in de hemelen te plaatsen. Het Calvinisme rekent met het feit der zonde, dat men eerst weggegoocheld heeft, en nu in zijn pessimistische buitensporigheden als het wezen van ons aanzijn begroet. Het onderscheidt tusschen de natuurlijke ineenschakeling van onze organische samenleving, en het mechanisch verband dat het overheidsgezag ons aanlegt. Het maakt het zwichten voor het gezag licht, omdat het in elk gezag ons den eisch van de souvereiniteit Gods doet eerbiedigen. Het verheft ons van een gehoorzaamheid uit vreeze voor den sterken arm, tot een gehoorzaamheid om der consciëntie wil. Het leert ons van de bestaande wet 82 opzien tot de bron van het eeuwig Recht in God, en stort ons den onverwinbaren moed in, om rusteloos tegen het onrecht, ook van de wet, in naam van dat hoogste Recht te protesteeren. En hoe machtig ook de Staat uitbreke en de vrije persoonlijke ontwikkeling in gedrang brenge, boven dien machtigen Staat schittert voor ons zielsoog steeds als nog oneindig machtiger de majesteit van den Koning der koningen, bij wiens vierschaar steeds het recht van appèl voor elken verdrukte openstaat, en tot wien steeds ons gebed blijft opgaan, of Hij ons volk, en in dat volk ons en ons huis, mocht zegenen.

Therefore in opposition both to the atheistic popularsovereignty of the Encyclopaedians, and the pantheistic statesovereignty of German philosophers, I maintain the sovereignty of God, that divine sovereignty, which has been proclaimed by Calvinism as the source of all authority among men.

The Calvinist upholds the highest and best in our aspirations, by placing every man and every people before the face of our Father in heaven. He takes cognizance of the fact of sin, which erstwhile was juggled away and which now, in pessimistic extravagance, is accounted the essence of our being. It points to the difference between the natural concatination of our organic society and the mechanical tie, which the authority of the magistrate imposes. It makes it easy for us to obey authority, because, in all authority, it causes us to honor the demand of divine sovereignty. It lifts us from an obedience, born of dread of the strong arm, iuto an obedience for conscience sake. It teaches us to look upward from the existing law to the source of the eternal Right, in God, and it creates in us the indomitable courage, incessantly to protest against the unrighteousness of the law in the name of this highest Eight. And however powerfully the State may assert itself and oppress the free individual development, above that powerful State there is always glittering, before our soul's eye, as infinitely more powerful, the majesty of the King of Kings; whose righteous bar ever maintains the right of appeal for all the oppressed, and unto whom the prayer of the people ever ascends, to bless our nation and, in that nation, us and our house ! 16

Therefore in opposition both to the atheistic popular-sovereignty of the Encyclopedians, and the pantheistic state-sovereignty of German philosophers, the Calvinist maintains the Sovereignty of God, as the source of all authority among men. The Calvinist upholds the highest and best in our aspirations by placing every man and every people before the face of our Father in heaven. He takes cognizance of the fact of sin, which erstwhile was juggled away in 1789, and which now, in pessimistic extravagance, is accounted the essence of our being. Calvinism points to the difference between the natural concatenation of our organic society and the mechanical tie, which the authority of the magistrate imposes. It makes it easy for us to obey authority, because, in all authority, it causes us to honor the demand of divine sovereignty. It lifts us from an obedience born of dread of the strong arm, into an obedience for conscience sake. It teaches us to look upward from the existing law to the source of the eternal Right in God, and it creates in us the indomitable courage incessantly to protest against the unrighteousness of the law in the name of this highest Right. And however powerfully the State may assert itself and oppress the free individual development, above that powerful State there is always glittering, before our soul’s eye, as infinitely more powerful, the majesty of the King of kings, Whose righteous bar ever maintains the right of appeal for all the oppressed, and unto Whom the prayer of the people ever ascends, to bless our nation and, in that nation, us and our house!116

Entretanto, em oposição tanto à soberania popular ateísta dos enciclopedistas, como a soberania do estado panteísta dos filósofos alemães, o calvinista mantém a soberania de Deus, como a fonte de toda autoridade entre os homens. E defende nossas mais altas e melhores aspirações colocando cada homem e cada povo diante da face de nosso Pai celeste. Toma conhecimento do fato do pecado, que outrora foi jogado fora em 1789, e que agora, em extravagância pessimista, é considerando a essência de nosso ser.

O Calvinismo aponta para a diferença entre a concatenação natural de nossa sociedade orgânica e o laço mecânico que a autoridade do magistrado impõe. Ele torna fácil para nós obedecer a autoridade, porque, com toda autoridade, nos motiva a honrar a exigência da soberania divina. Ergue-nos de uma obediência nascida do medo do exército forte, para uma obediência por causa da consciência. Ensina-nos a olhar por cima da lei existente para a fonte do Direito eterno de Deus, e cria em nós a coragem indomável para protestar incessantemente contra a injustiça da lei em nome deste Direito superior. E embora o Estado possa poderosamente afirmar-se e oprimir o livre desenvolvimento individual, acima deste Estado poderoso há sempre brilhando diante dos olhos de nossa alma, como infinitamente mais poderosa, a majestade do Rei dos reis. Cujo tribunal justo sempre mantém o direito de apelação para todos os oprimidos, e para quem a oração do povo sempre sobe, para abençoar nossa nação e, nesta nação, nós e nossa casa!

И атеистическому народовластию энциклопедистов, и пантеистическому всевластию государства у немецких философов кальвинизм противопоставляет всевластие Бога как источник всякой человеческой власти. Он поддерживает высшее и лучшее в наших устремлениях, помещая каждого человека и каждый народ перед нашим Отцом на небесах. Он признает грехопадение, которое отбросили было в 1789 году, а теперь, с пессимистической причудливостью, считают сущностью нашего существования. Кальвинизм указывает на различие между природными узами органического сообщества и механическими узами, которые налагает земная власть. Он облегчает для нас подчинение власти, заставляя во всякой власти почитать требования Божественной власти. Он избавляет нас от послушания, порожденного страхом перед силой, и приводит нас к послушанию, порожденному совестью. Он учит нас уводить взгляд от земного закона ввысь, к источнику вечного права в Боге, и порождает в нас неукротимое мужество, побуждающее восставать против неправды во имя высшего права. Как бы могущественно государство ни утверждало себя и ни подавляло свободное развитие человека, превыше могущественного государства перед очами нашей души всегда сияет бесконечно большее могущество Царя царей. Его справедливый суд дает угнетенным право апелляции. Ему мы молимся о том, дабы Он благословил нашу нацию, нас и наш дом.

Zóóveel over de Souvereiniteit in den Staat; komen we thans tot de „Souvereiniteit in eigen kring”. Hieronder wordt van Calvinistische zijde verstaan, dat het huisgezin, het bedrijf, de wetenschap, de kunst, en zooveel meer, maatschappelijke kringen vormen, die niet aan den Staat hun aanzijn danken, noch ook aan de hoogheid van den Staat hun levenswet ontleenen, maar gehoorzamen aan een hoog gezag in eigen boezem, dat evenals de Staatssouvereiniteit heerscht bij de gratie Gods. De tegenstelling tusschen Staat en Maatschappij is hierbij in het spel, maar onder deze nadere bepaling, dat die Maatschappij niet als mengelmoes wordt genomen, maar ontleed in hare organische deelen, om in elk dier deelen het hun toekomend zelfstandig karakter te eeren. In dat zelfstandig karakter openbaart zich noodzakelijkerwijs gezag. Dit gezag moge in onderscheidene kringen met trappen opklimmen, maar neemt ten slotte toch den vorm aan van een hoogste gezag in dien kring. En dat hoogste gezag nu bestempelen we opzettelijk met den naam van „souvereiniteit in eigen kring”, om scherp en beslist uit te drukken, dat dit hoogste gezag in elken kring niets dan God boven zich heeft, en dat de Staat zich hier niet tusschen kan schuiven en hier niet uit eigen macht heeft te bevelen. Gelijk ge aanstonds gevoelt, het diep ingrijpend vraagstuk van onze Burgerlijke Vrijheden.

So much for the sovereignty of the state. We now come to sovereignly in the individual sphere of social life.

In a Calvinistic sense we understand hereby, that the family, the business, science, art and so forth are all social spheres, which do not owe their existence to the State, and which do not derive the law of their life from the superiority of the state, but obey a high authority within their own bosom, which rules, by the grace of God, just as the sovereignty of the State does.

This involves the antithesis between State and Society, but upon this condition, that we do not conceive this society as a conglomerate, but as analysed in its organic parts, to honor, in each of these parts, the independent character, which appertains to them.

In this independent character a special authority is of necessity involved. And though in the different departments of these spheres this authority may be graduated, finally it must assume the form of the highest authority in each particular sphere. And this highest authority we intentionally call — sovereignty in the individual sphere, in order that it may be sharply and decidedly expressed that these different developments of social life have nothing above themselves but God, and that the State cannot intrude here, and has nothing to command in their domain. As you feel at once, this is the deeply interesting question of our civil liberties.

So much for the sovereignty of the State. We now come to sovereignty in the sphere of Society.

In a Calvinistic sense we understand hereby, that the family, business, science, art and so forth are all social spheres, which do not owe their existence to the state, and which do not derive the law of their life from the superiority of the state, but obey a high authority within their own bosom; an authority which rules, by the grace of God, just as the sovereignty of the State does.

This involves the antithesis between State and Society, but upon this condition, that we do not conceive this society as a conglomerate but as analyzed in its organic parts, to honor, in each of these parts, the independent character, which appertains to them.

In this independent character a special higher authority is of necessity involved and this highest authority we intentionally call — sovereignty in the individual social spheres, in order that it may be sharply and decidedly expressed that these different developments of social life have nothing above themselves but God, and that the State cannot intrude here, and has nothing to command in their domain. As you feel at once, this is the deeply interesting question of our civil liberties. ¹²⁾

Chega de soberania do Estado. Vamos agora para a soberania da esfera da sociedade.

Num sentido calvinista nós entendemos que a família, os negócios, a ciência, a arte e assim por diante, todas são esferas sociais que não devem sua existência ao Estado, e que não derivam a lei de sua vida da superioridade do Estado, mas obedecem uma alta autoridade dentro de seu próprio seio; uma autoridade que governa pela graça de Deus, do mesmo modo como faz a soberania do Estado.

Isto envolve a antítese entre o Estado e a Sociedade, mas com a condição de não concebermos esta sociedade como um conglomerado, porém, como analisada em suas partes orgânicas, para honrar, em cada uma destas partes, o caráter independente que pertence a elas.

Neste caráter independente está necessariamente envolvido uma autoridade superior especial e intencionalmente chamamos esta autoridade superior de – soberania nas esferas sociais individuais, a fim de que possa estar claro e decididamente expresso que estes diferentes desenvolvimentos da vida social nada tem acima deles exceto Deus, e que o Estado não pode intrometer-se aqui, e nada tem a ordenar em seu campo. Como vocês imediatamente percebem, esta é a questão profundamente interessante de nossas liberdades civis.74

Но хватит говорить о власти государства. Перейдем к власти в обществе.

Мы, кальвинисты, подразумеваем под этим, что семья, дело, наука, искусство, как и все прочее в этом роде, — социальные сферы, которые не обязаны своим существованием государству, не выводят закон своей жизни из его верховенства, но подчиняются высшей власти, находящейся в их среде и правящей по благодати Божией, так же, как правит власть государства.

Тем самым мы противопоставляем государство и общество, при этом мы понимаем общество не как конгломерат, мы анализируем его в его органических частях с тем, чтобы воздать должное независимому характеру каждой из них.

Независимость эта тесно связана с особой властью, которую мы назовем властью в отдельных социальных сферах, чтобы решительно и отчетливо выразить тот факт, что различные достижения социальной жизни не имеют выше себя ничего, кроме Бога. Государство не может вмешиваться и управлять ими. Как вы сразу почувствовали, мы коснулись крайне интересного вопроса — наших гражданских свобод¹².

Hierbij nu is het van het uiterste gewicht, scherp het graadverschil in het oog te vatten tusschen het organische leven der 83 maatschappij, en het mechanisch karakter der Overheid, waarop ik reeds herhaaldelijk wees, maar dat hier breeder moet toegelicht. Al wat onder menschen regelrecht uit de schepping opkomt, bezit alle gegevens voor eigen ontwikkeling in de menschelijke natuur als zoodanig. Ge doorziet dit terstond aan het huisgezin en het verband van bloed- en aanverwanten. Uit de tweeheid van man en vrouw komt het huwelijk op. Uit het eerst voorkomen van één man en ééne vrouw de monogamie. Uit het ingeschapen voorttelingsvermogen komen de kinderen voort. De kinderen bestaan elkander vanzelf als broeders en zusters. En als straks die kinderen op hun beurt huwen, ontstaan even vanzelf al die betrekkingen van bloed- en aanverwantschap die geheel het familieleven beheerschen. In dit alles is niets mechanisch. Het ontwikkelt zich vanzelf evenals de stengel en de twijgen aan de plant. En wel heeft de zonde ook hier storend ingewerkt, een veel tot een vloed gemaakt, wat ten zegen bedoeld was, maar die noodlottige doorwerking der zonde is gestuit door de gemeene gratie; en hoe ook de vrije liefde woele en het concubinaat ontheilige, voor de overgroote meerderheid van ons geslacht blijft het huwelijk de grondslag der menschelijke samenleving en blijft in het sociologisch saâmleven het huisgezin de primordiale kring. Ditzelfde nu geldt ook van de overige levenskringen. Ten gevolge der zonde moge de natuur om ons heen haar paradijsweelde verloren hebben, en de aarde ons nu doornen en distelen telen, zoodat er geen brood te eten is, dan in het zweet onzes aanschijns, de hoofdstrekking van alle menschelijke bemoeienis blijft toch ook nu wat ze krachtens de schepping en vóór de val in zonde was, t.w. de heerschappij over de natuur, en die heerschappij is niet anders te verwerven dan door aanwending der krachten, die dank zij de scheppingsordinantiën in de natuur zijn ingeschapen. Diensvolgens is alle wetenschap niet anders dan de natuurlijke productiviteit van ons verbeeldingsleven. Al geven we dus toe dat de zonde, gestuit door de “gemeene gratie”, in deze onderscheidene levensuitingen verlerlei wijziging aanbracht, die eerst na het verloren paradijs 84 opkwam en straks weer ondergaat als het rijk der heerlijkheid komt, toch is het grondkarakter van deze levensuitingen gebleven wat het oorspronkelijk was. Het is altegader scheppingsleven naar scheppingsordinantie, en die organisch zich ontwikkelend.

It is here of the highest importance sharply to keep in mind the difference in grade between the organic life of society and the mechanical character of the government; — a difference, which has been repeatedly alluded to, but which now has to be more fully- considered.

Whatever among men originates directly from creation, is possessed of all the data for its development, in human nature as such.

You see this at once in the family and in the connection of blood relations and other ties. From the duality of man 17 and woman marriage arises. From the original existence of one man and one woman monogamy comes forth. The children exist by reason of the innate power of reproduction. Naturally the children are connected as brothers and sisters. And when by and by these children, in their turn, marry again, as a matter of course all those connections originate from blood-relationship and other ties, which dominate the whole of family-life.

In all this there is nothing mechanical. The development is spontaneous, just as that of the stem and the branches of a plant. True, sin here also has exerted its disturbing influence and has distorted much which was intended for a blessing, into a curse. But this fatal efficiency of sin has been stopped by common grace. Free-love may try to dissolve, and the concubinate to desecrate, the holiest ties, as it pleases, but, for the vast majority of our race marriage remains the foundation of human society and the family retains its position, as the primordial sphere in sociology.

The same may be said of the other spheres of life.

Nature about us may have lost the glory of paradise, by reason of sin, and the earth may bear thorns and thistles, so that we can eat our bread only in the sweat of our brow; notwithstanding all this the chief aim of all human effort remains, what it was by virtue of our creation and before the fall, — namely dominion over nature. And this dominion caunot be acquired, except by the exercise of the ] lowers, which, by virtue of the ordinances of creation, are innate in nature itself. Accordingly all Science is only the application to the cosmos of the powers of investigation and thought, created within us; and Art is nothing but the natural productivity of the life of our imagination. When we admit therefore that sin, though arrested by common grace, has caused many modifications of these several expressions of life, which originated only after paradise was lost, and will disappear again, with the coming 18 of the Kingdom of glory; — we still maintain that the fundamental character of these expressions' remains as it was originally. All together they form the life of creation, in accord with the ordinances of creation, and therefore are organically developed.

It is here of the highest importance sharply to keep in mind the difference in grade between the organic life of society and the mechanical character of the government. 117 Whatever among men originates directly from creation is possessed of all the data for its development, in human nature as such. You see this at once in the family and in the connection of blood relations and other ties. From the duality of man and woman marriage arises. From the original existence of one man and one woman monogamy comes forth. The children exist by reason of the innate power of reproduction, Naturally the children are connected as brothers and sisters. And when by and by these children, in their turn, marry again, as a matter of course, all those connections originate from blood-relationship and other ties, which dominate the whole family-life. In all this there is nothing mechanical. The development is spontaneous, just as that of the stem and the branches of a plant. True, sin here also has exerted its disturbing influence and has distorted much which was intended for a blessing into a curse. But this fatal efficiency of sin has been stopped by common grace. Free-love may try to dissolve, and the concubinate to desecrate, the holiest tie, as it pleases; but, for the vast majority of our race, marriage remains the foundation of human society and the family retains its position as the primordial sphere in sociology.

The same may be said of the other spheres of life.

Nature about us may have lost the glory of paradise by reason of sin, and the earth may bear thorns and thistles so that we can eat our bread only in the sweat of our brow; notwithstanding all this the chief aim of all human effort remains what it was by virtue of our creation and before the fall, — namely dominion over nature. And this dominion cannot be acquired, except 118 by the exercise of the powers, which, by virtue of the ordinances of creation, are innate in nature itself. Accordingly all Science is only the application to the cosmos of the powers of investigation and thought, created within us; and Art is nothing but the natural productivity of the potencies of our imagination. When we admit therefore that sin, though arrested by “common grace”, has caused many modifications of these several expressions of life, which originated only after paradise was lost, and will disappear again, with the coming of the Kingdom of glory; — ;we still maintain that the fundamental character of these expressions remains as it was originally. All together they form the life of creation, in accord with the ordinances of creation, and therefore are organically developed.

Aqui, é da mais alta importância ter claro na mente a diferença na classificação entre a vida orgânica da sociedade e o caráter mecânico do governo. Tudo quanto entre os homens origina-se diretamente da criação, possui todos os elementos para seu desenvolvimento na natureza humana como tal. Vocês vêem isto imediatamente na família, na ligação de consangüinidade e outros laços. Da dualidade de homem e mulher surge o casamento. Da existência original de um homem e uma mulher vem a monogamia. As crianças existem por causa do poder inato de reprodução. As crianças estão naturalmente relacionadas como irmãos e irmãs. E, em breve, quando estas crianças, por sua vez, casam-se, naturalmente começam de novo todas aquelas ligações de consangüinidade e outros laços que dominam toda a vida da família. Em tudo isto não há nada mecânico. O desenvolvimento é espontâneo, exatamente como o do tronco e dos ramos de uma planta. É verdade que o pecado também exerceu aqui sua influência perturbadora e tem deformado muito do que foi planejado para ser uma bênção numa maldição. Mas esta eficiência fatal do pecado tem sido detida pela graça comum. O amor livre pode tentar dissolver e o concubinato profanar o laço mais santo como quiserem; mas para a grande maioria de nossa raça o casamento continua o fundamento da sociedade humana, e a família mantém sua posição como a esfera primordial na sociologia.

O mesmo pode ser dito de outras esferas da vida. A natureza ao nosso redor pode ter perdido a glória do paraíso por causa do pecado, e a terra pode produzir espinhos e cardos de modo que somente podemos comer nosso pão no suor de nosso rosto; apesar de tudo isto o propósito principal de todo esforço humano continua aquele que era em virtude de nossa criação e antes da queda, -a saber, domínio sobre a natureza. E este domínio não pode ser adquirido exceto pelo exercício dos poderes que, em virtude das ordenanças da criação, são inatos a própria natureza. Conseqüentemente, toda Ciência é apenas a aplicação dos poderes de investigação e pensamento criados dentro de nós ao cosmos; e a Arte nada mais é do que a produtividade natural dos poderes de nossa imaginação. Portanto, quando admitimos que o pecado, embora detido pela “graça comum”, produziu muitas modificações nas diversas expressões da vida, as quais se originaram somente depois que o paraíso foi perdido, e desaparecerão novamente com a vinda do Reino da glória; - nós ainda sustentamos que o caráter fundamental destas expressões continuam como eram originalmente. Todas elas juntas formam a vida da criação, de acordo com as ordenanças da criação e, portanto, devem ser desenvolvidas organicamente.

Чрезвычайно важно как можно четче осознавать разницу между органической жизнью общества и механическим характером управления. Все, что возникло среди людей изначально, с первых мгновений творения, наделено всем необходимым для своего развития и обязано этим человеческой природе как таковой. Вы видите это на примере семьи, кровных уз и других связей. Исходя из деления на два пола возникает брак. С самого начала, с первой минуты вступает в силу моногамия. Дети рождаются, поскольку нам изначально дана сила воспроизводства. Природа связала их между собой как братьев и сестер. Когда они сами вступают в брак, все связи возникают из новых родственных отношений, которые управляют их семейной жизнью. Во всем этом нет ничего механического. Развитие спонтанно, как и возникновение ствола и веток у растения. Грех и здесь оказал свое разрушительное влияние; многое, задуманное как благословение, стало проклятием. Но роковая действенность греха остановлена общей благодатью. Свободная любовь может пытаться разрушить, а сожительство — осквернить священные узы; но для подавляющего большинства брак остается основой человеческого общества, а семья образует важнейший предмет социологии. Это же можно сказать и об остальных сферах жизни.

Окружающая нас природа, быть может, утратила красоту и славу рая, и земля производит волчцы и тернии, мы едим наш хлеб в поте лица; но, несмотря на все это, основная цель человеческих усилий остается такой же, какой она была и до грехопадения, мы стремимся к господству над природой. Господства этого можно достичь, только используя те силы, которые благодаря Божиим установлениям присущи самой природе. Соответственно, наука применяет для исследования мира силы разума и мысли, дарованные нам, а искусство — не что иное, как естественная способность нашего воображения. Допуская, что грех, хотя и ограниченный «общей благодатью», создал во множестве модификаций те проявления жизни, которые возникли лишь после утраты рая и снова исчезнут с приходом Царства, мы тем не менее полагаем, что в основном они остаются такими же, какими были изначально. Они образуют жизнь тварного мира в соответствии с его законами и потому развиваются органически.

Maar zoo is het optreden der Overheid niet. Want wel zou ook buiten de zonde de behoefte zich geopenbaard hebben om de vele gezinnen in hoogere eenheid saam te vatten, maar die eenheid zou innerlijk gebonden hebben gelegen in het koningschap van God, dat regelmatig, regelrecht en harmonisch in aller hart en aller leven zou geheerscht en uitwendig zich zou belichaamd hebben in de patriarchale hiërarchie. Zoo zouden er niet Staten, maar zou er slechts één wereldrijk onder God als koning zijn geweest; juist datgene dus wat ons nu geprofeteerd is voor de toekomst, die ons na het wegsterven van alle zonde te wachten staat. Juist dit echter brak de zonde thans uit ons menschelijk leven uit. Die eenheid is er niet meer. Die heerschappij van God kan niet meer doorwerken. De patriarchale hiërarchie is verbroken. Thans kan en mag er geen wereldrijk meer zijn. Dat tóch gewild te hebben was de vermetelheid van Babels torenbouw. Zoo kwamen er volken en natiën. Die volken vormden staten. En over die staten stelde God Overheden aan. — Er is dus, als ik mij zoo mag uitdrukken, geen natuurlijk hoofd dat organisch uit het volkslichaam is uitgegroeid, maar een mechanisch hoofd, dat van buiten op den volksromp is opgezet. Een redmiddel voor den ontstanen misstand. Een stok bij de plant aangebracht om haar overeind te doen staan, daar ze anders, ten gevolge van haar innerlijke verzwakking, op den grond zou neerslaan. Het hoofdkenmerk nu van deze Overheid ligt in het recht over leven en dood. Ze draagt als attribuut, volgens het apostolisch getuigenis het zwaard, en dat zwaard heeft drieërlei beduidenis. Het is het zwaard der gerechtigheid, om den misdadiger aan den lijve te straffen. Het is het zwaard van den oorlog om de eer en het recht en het belang van den Staat tegen den vijand te verweren. En het is het zwaard van de orde, om binnenslands gewelddadig verzet te keer te gaan. Luther en de overige reformatoren wezen er dan ook op, hoe de eigenlijke instelling en met volmacht bekleeding van de Overheid eerst na den 85 zondvloed plaats greep, toen God het bevel liet uitgaan dat wie ’s menschen bloed vergoot, dien gruwel met de doodstraf boeten zou. Het recht om iemand het leven te benemen, komt alleen toe aan Hem, die het leven geven kan, d.i. aan God, en diensvolgens bezit niemand op aarde hiertoe wettige macht, tenzij God hem die verleend heeft. Daarom staat het Romeinsche recht, dat het jus vitae et necis aan den vader en aan den slavenhouder toevertrouwde, principieel veel lager dan Israëls recht, dat geen ander ontnemen van het leven kent dan door den magistraat of krachtens magistrale opdracht. In de justitie blijft dan ook onveranderlijk de hoogste taak der Overheid uitkomen, en voorts heeft zij zorg te dragen voor het volk als eenheid genomen, deels binnenslands opdat zijn eenheid steeds dieper doordringe en niet verstoord worde, deels tegenover het buitenland, opdat de nationale existentie geen schade lijde.

Resultaat nu hiervan is dat er in een volk eenerzijds allerlei organische levensuiting opwerkt uit de maatschappelijke kringen, en dat zich hoog boven deze de mechanische eenheidsdrang der overheid doet gevoelen. Hieruit nu ontstaat alle wrijving en botsing. De overheid toch neigt er steeds toe, om met haar mechanisch gezag in het maatschappelijk leven in te dringen, dit aan zich te onderwerpen, en het mechanisch te regelen. Dit is de Staatsalmacht. Maar ook anderzijds poogt het maatschappelijk leven steeds zich het overheidsgezag van de schouders te werpen, gelijk dit streven nu weer culmineert in de sociaal-democratie en het anarchisme, beide niets anders bedoelende dan dat de mechanische gezagsinstelling geheel wegvalle. Afgezien echter van deze beide uitersten, was elk gezond volks- en staatsleven steeds de historische uitkomst van de worsteling tusschen deze beide machten, en het is in het dusgenaamde constitutioneele staatsrecht dat gepoogd werd beider wederzijdsche verhouding op vaster voet te regelen. In die worsteling nu nam voor het eerst het Calvinisme positie. Zoo hoog als het de van God ingestelde magistrale autoriteit eerde, even hoog verhief het de van God, krachtens scheppingsordinantie, in de maatschappelijke kringen gelegde souvereiniteit. Het eischte voor beide zelfstandigheid in eigen 86 kring; en regeling van beider verhouding in de wet. En het is door dien gestrengen eisch dat het Calvinisme gezegd mag worden het constitutioneele staatsrecht uit zijn grondgedachte te hebben gegenereerd. Het getuigenis der historie is dan ook onwraakbaar, dat niet in de Roomsche noch ook in de Luthersche staten, maar in de volken met Calvinistisch type, dit constitutioneele staatsrecht het eerst en het best tot bloei kwam.

Grondslag is hier derhalve de grondgedachte, dat de souvereiniteit Gods waar ze op menschen nederdaalt, zich splitst in twee sferen, eenerzijds in de gezagssfeer van den Staat en anderzijds in de gezagssfeer van de maatschappelijke levenskringen, en dat in beide sferen het inwonend gezag souverein is, d.w.z. alleen God boven zich heeft. Toch mag hier niet voorbij gezien, dat de aard van deze souvereiniteit in beide sferen niet dezelfde is. In de gezagssfeer van den Staat dwingt ze mechanisch, d.i. uitwendig met den sterken arm; in de gezagssfeer van het maatschappelijk leven dwingt ze organisch, d.i. door moreel en inherent overwicht. En terwijl beide alzoo met een eigen karakter tegen elkander overstaan, vertoont het huisgezin alleen een vermenging van beide. Goede ouders heerschen moreel, maar handhaven ook in het uiterste geval de tucht. — Het mechanisch dwingende gezag der Overheid eischt hier geen verdere toelichting, wel het organisch-sociale gezag. Het duidelijkst ontwaart men het heerschappij voerend karakter van dit organisch-sociale gezag op het erf der wetenschap. In het voorbericht voor een uitgave van Lombardus Sententiae en van Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica, schreef de geleerde Thomist: “Lombardus’ werk heeft honderd vijftig jaren geheerscht en Thomas voortgebracht, en na hem heeft Thomas’ Summa geheel Europa geregeerd (totam Europam rexit) gedurende vijf volle eeuwen en alle na hem komende theologen geteeld.” ¹⁶⁾ Geef nu toe dat dit al te fier gesproken is, toch is het denkbeeld, dat hier tot uiting komt, onberispelijk juist. De heerschappij van mannen als Aristoteles en Plato, van Lombardus en Thomas, van Luther en Calvijn, van Kant en Darwin bestrijkt voor elk hunner een veld van eeuwen. 87 Genie is souvereine macht, vormt school, grijpt met onweerstaanbaar overwicht de geesten aan en oefent onmetelijken invloed op de geheele gestalte van het menschelijk leven. Die souvereiniteit nu van het genie is gave Gods, bij zijne gratie alleen bezeten, is aan niemand onderworpen en alleen verantwoordelijk aan Hem, die dit geniale overwicht schonk. Op het terrein der kunst ziet ge hetzelfde verschijnsel. — Elk geniaal kunstenaar is priester in den tempel der kunst, niet bij erfrecht noch bij aanstelling, maar uitsluitend bij de gratie Gods. En ook deze virtuosen leggen gezag op, onderwerpen zich aan niemand, maar heerschen over allen, en ten slotte buigt een ieder voor het overwicht van hun kunstgave. — Van de souvereine macht der persoonlijkheid dient hetzelfde beleden te worden. Persoonsgelijkheid is er niet. Er zijn zwakke, enghartige personen, met geen breeder vlerkgewip dan de huismusch, maar er zijn ook sterke, breede imponeerende karakters met den vleugelslag van den adelaar. Onder die laatsten vindt ge er dan weer enkelen met koninklijk karakter, en deze heerschen in hun kring, onverschillig of men voor hen wijkt of hen tegenstaat, bij tegenstand meest nog te krachtiger. En geheel datzelfde proces nu gaat op alle terreinen des levens door. Op het ambacht, in de fabriek, op de beurs, in den handel, bij de scheepvaart, op het terrein der weldadigheid en der menschenliefde. Telkens blijkt de een machtiger dan de andere te zijn, door zijn persoon, door zijn talent, door de omstandigheden. Overal is er heerschappij, maar eene heerschappij, die organisch werkt; niet krachtens staatsinvestituur, maar uit de souvereiniteit van het leven.

But the case is wholly different with the assertion of the powers of government. For though it be admitted that even without sin the need would have asserted itself of combining the many families, in a higher unity; this unity would have internally been bound up in the Kingship of God, which would have ruled regularly, directly and harmoniously in the hearts of all men, and which would externally have incorporated itself in a patriarchal hierarchy. Thus no States would have existed, but only one world-empire, with God as its King ; exactly what is prophesied for the future which awaits us. when all sin shall have disappeared.

But it is exactly this, which sin has now eliminated from our human life. This unity does no longer exist. This government of God can no longer assert itself. This patriarchal hierarchy has been destroyed. A world-empire neither can nor may be established. For in this very desire consisted the contumacy of the building of Babel's tower. Thus peoples and nations originated. These peoples formed States. And over these States God appointed government. And thus, if I may be allowed the expression, it is not a natural head, which orgauically grew from the body of the people, but a mechanical head, which from without has been placed upon the trunk of the nation. A mere remedy therefore, for a wrong condition supervening. A stick placed by the plant to hold it up, since without it, by reason of its inherent weakness, it would fall to the ground.

The principal characteristic of government is the right of life . and death. According to the apostolic testimony this government bears the sword, and this sword has a threefold meaning. It is the sword of. justice, to mete out corporeal punishment to the criminal. It is the sword of war to defend 19 the honor and the rights and the interests of the State against its enemies. And it is the sword of peace, to thwart at home all forcible rebellion.

Luther and his co-Reformers have correctly pointed out that the institution proper and the full investiture of the magistrate with power was only brought about after the flood, when God commanded that capital punishment should fall upon him who shed man's blood.

The right of taking life belongs only to Him, who can give life, i.e. to God; and therefore no one on earth is invested with this authority, except it be God-given. On this account, Roman law, which committed the jus vitae et necis to the father and to the slave-owner, stands intrinsically much lower, than the law of Moses, which knows no other capital punishment but that by the magistrate and at his command.

The highest duty of the government remains therefore unchangeably that of justice, and in the second place it has to care for the people as an unit, partly at home, in order that its unity may grow ever deeper and may not be disturbed, and partly abroad, lest the national existence suffer harm. The consequence of all this is that on the one hand, in a people, all sorts of organic phenomena of life arise, from its social spheres, and that, high above all these, the mechanical unifying force of the government is observable. From this arises all friction and clashing. For the government is always inclined, with its mechanical authority, to invade social life, to subject it and mechanically to arrange it. Thus does the State strive for Omnipotence.

But on the other hand social life always endeavors to shake off the authority of the government, just as this endeavor at the present time again culminates in socialdemocracy and in anarchism, both of which aim at nothing less but the total overthrow of the institution of authority. But leaving these two extremes alone, it will be 20 admitted that all healthy life of people or state has ever been the historical consequence of the struggle between these two " powers. It was the socalled constitutional public law, which endeavored more firmly to regulate the mutual relation of these two. And in this struggle Calvinism was the first to take its stand. Just in proportion as it honored the authority of the magistrate, instituted by God, did it lift up that second sovereignty, which had been implanted by God in the social spheres, in accordance with the ordinances of creation.

It demanded for both independence in their own sphere and regulation of the relation between both, under the law. And by this stern demand, Calviuism may be said to have generated constitutional public law, from its own fundamental idea.

The testimony of history is unassailable that this constitutional public law has not flourished in Roman Catholic or in Lutheran States, but among the nations of a Calvinistic type.

The idea is here fundamental therefore that the sovereignty of God, in its descent upon men, separates itself into two spheres. On the one hand the sphere of State-authority and on the other hand the sphere of the authority of the Social circles. And in both these spheres the inherent authority is sovereign, that is to say, it has above itself nothing but God.

And yet we are not to forget that the nature of this sovereignty, in these two spheres, is not identical. In the sphere of State-authority it compels mechanical///, that is externally, with the strong arm. In the sphere of the authority of social life, on the contrary, it compels organically, that is to say by a moral and inherent force. And whilst both are thus opposed to each other, each having its own specific character, the family alone reveals an intermixture of the two. Good parents rule morally, but in extreme cases they also maintain discipline. 21 Now for the mechanically coercing authority of the government any further explanation is superfluous, not so for the organic social authority.

Nowhere is the dominating character of this organic social authority more plainly discernable than in the sphere of Science. In the introduction to an edition of the "Sententiae" of Lombard and of the "Summa Theologica" of Thomas Aquinas, the learned Thomist w T rote : — "The work of Lombard has ruled one hundred and fifty years and has produced Thomas, and after him the 'Summa' of Thomas has ruled all Europe (totam Europam rexit) during five full centuries and has generated all the subsequent Theologians".^* Suppose we admit that this language is overbold, yet the idea, here expressed, is unquestionably correct. The dominion of men like Aristotle and Plato, Lombard and Thomas, Luther and Calvin, Kant and Hegel, extends, for each of them, over a field of man}' ages.

Genius is a sovereign power; it forms schools, it lays hold on the spirits of men, with irresistible might; and it exercises an immeasurable influence on the whole condition of human life. This sovereignty of genius is a gift of God, possessed only by His Grace. It is subject to no one and is responsible to Him alone Who has granted it this ascendency.

The same phenomenon is observable in the sphere of Art. Every master-artist is a king in the Palace of Art, not by the law of inheritance or by appointment, but only by the grace of God. And these maestros also impose authority, and are subject to no one, but rule over all and in the end receive from all the homage due to their artistic superiority.

And the same is to be said of the sovereign power of personality. There is no equality of persons. There are weak narrow minded persons, with no broader expanse of wings than a common sparrow; but there are also broad,

22 imposing characters, with the wing-stroke of the eagle. Among the last you will find a few of royal grandeur and these rule in their own sphere, whether people draw back from them or antagonize them; usually waxing all the stronger, the more they are opposed. And this entire process is carried out in all the spheres of life. In the labor of the mechanic, in the shop, or on the exchange, in commerce, on the sea, in the held of benevolence and philanthropy. Everywhere one man is more powerful than the other, by his personality, by his talent and by circumstances. Dominion is exercised everywhere, but it is a dominion, which works organically; not by virtue of a State-investiture, but from life's sovereignty itself.

But the case is wholly different with the assertion of the powers of government. For though it be admitted that even without sin the need would have asserted itself of combining the many families in a higher unity, this unity would have internally been bound up in the Kingship of God, which would have ruled regularly, directly and harmoniously in the hearts of all men, and which would externally have incorporated itself in a patriarchal hierarchy. Thus no States would have existed, but only one organic world-empire, with God as its King; exactly what is prophesied for the future which awaits us, when all sin shall have disappeared.

But it is exactly this, which sin has now eliminated from our human life. This unity does no longer exist. This government of God can no longer assert itself. This patriarchal hierarchy has been destroyed. A 119 world-empire neither cannot be established nor ought it to be. For in this very desire consisted the contumacy of the building of Babel’s tower. Thus peoples and nations originated. These peoples formed States. And over these States God appointed governments. And thus, if I may be allowed the expression, it is not a natural head, which organically grew from the body of the people, but a mechanical head, which from without has been placed upon the trunk of the nation. A mere remedy, therefore, for a wrong condition supervening. A stick placed beside the plant to hold it up, since without it, by reason of its inherent weakness. it would fall to the ground.

The principal characteristic of government is the right of life and death. According to the apostolic testimony the magistrate hears the sword, and this sword has a threefold meaning. It is the sword of justice, to mete out corporeal punishment to the criminal. It is the sword of war to defend the honor and the rights and the interests of the State against its enemies. And it is the sword of order, to thwart at home all forcible rebellion. Luther and his co-Reformers have correctly pointed out that the institution proper and the full investiture of the magistrate with power were only brought about after the flood, when God commanded that capital punishment should fall upon him who shed man’s blood. The right of taking life belongs only to Him. who can give life, i.e., to God; and therefore no one on earth is invested with this authority, except it be God-given. On this account. Roman law, which committed the jus vitae et necis to the father and to the slave-owner stands intrinsically much lower than 120 the law of Moses, which knows no other capital punishment but that by the magistrate and at his command.

The highest duty of the government remains therefore unchangeably that of justice, and in the second place it has to care for the people as a unit, partly at home, in order that its unity may grow ever deeper and may not be disturbed, and partly abroad, lest the national existence suffer harm. The consequence of all this is that on the one hand. in a people, all sorts of organic phenomena of life arise, from its social spheres but that, high above all these, the mechanical unifying force of the government is observable. From this arises all friction and clashing. For the government is always inclined, with its mechanical authority, to invade social life, to subject it and mechanically to arrange it. But on the other hand social life always endeavors to shake off the authority of the government, just as this endeavor at the present time again culminates in social-democracy and in anarchism, both of which aim at nothing less than the total overthrow of the institution of authority. But leaving these two extremes alone, it will be admitted that all healthy life of people or state has ever been the historical consequence of the struggle between these two powers. It was the so-called “constitutional government”, which endeavored more firmly to regulate the mutual relation of these two. And in this struggle Calvinism was the first to take its stand. For just in proportion as it honored the authority of the magistrate, instituted by God, did it lift up that second sovereignty, which had been implanted by God in the social spheres, in accordance with the ordinances of creation. 121

It demanded for both independence in their own sphere and regulation of the relation between both, not by the executive, but under the law. And by this stern demand, Calvinism may be said to have generated constitutional public law, from its own fundamental idea.

The testimony of history is unassailable that this constitutional public law has not flourished in Roman Catholic or in Lutheran States, but among the nations of a Calvinistic type. The idea is here fundamental therefore that the sovereignty of God, in its descent upon men, separates itself into two spheres. On the one hand the mechanical sphere of State-authority, and on the other hand the organic sphere of the authority of the Social circles. And in both these spheres the inherent authority is sovereign, that is to say, it has above itself nothing but God.

Now for the mechanically coercing authority of the government any further explanation is superfluous, not so, however, for the organic social authority.

Nowhere is the dominating character of this organic social authority more plainly discernible than in the sphere of Science. In the introduction to an edition of the “Sententiae” of Lombard and of the “Summa Theologica” of Thomas Aquinas, the learned Thomist wrote: — “The work of Lombard has ruled one hundred and fifty years and has produced Thomas, and after him the ‘Summa’ of Thomas has ruled all Europe (totam Europam rexit) during five full centuries and has generated all the subsequent theologians”. ¹³⁾ Suppose we 122 admit that this language is overbold, yet the idea, here expressed, is unquestionably correct. The dominion of men like Aristotle and Plato, Lombard and Thomas, Luther and Calvin, Kant and Darwin, extends, for each of them, over a field of ages. Genius is a sovereign power; it forms schools; it lays hold on the spirits of men, with irresistible might; and it exercises an immeasurable influence on the whole condition of human life. This sovereignty of genius is a gift of God, possessed only by His grace. It is subject to no one and is responsible to Him alone Who has granted it this ascendancy.

The same phenomenon is observable in the sphere of Art. Every maëstro is a king in the Palace of Art, not by the law of inheritance or by appointment, but only by the grace of God. And these maëstros also impose authority, and are subject to no one, but rule over all and in the end receive from all the homage due to their artistic superiority.

And the same is to be said of the sovereign power of personality There is no equality of persons. There are weak, narrow-minded persons, with no broader expanse of wings than a common sparrow; but there are also broad, imposing characters, with the wing-stroke of the eagle. Among the last you will find a few of royal grandeur, and these rule in their own sphere, whether people draw back from them or thwart them; usually waxing all the stronger, the more they are opposed. And this entire process is carried out in all the spheres of life. In the labor of the mechanic, in the shop, or on the exchange, in commerce, on the sea, in the field of benevolence and philanthropy. Everywhere one man 123 is more powerful than the other, by his personality, by his talent and by circumstances. Dominion is exercised everywhere; but it is a dominion which works organically; not by virtue of a State-investiture, but from life’s sovereignty itself.

Mas quanto a afirmação dos poderes de governo o caso é totalmente diferente. Pois apesar de ser admitido que mesmo sem o pecado a necessidade de uma unidade maior teria feito valer-se pela combinação de muitas famílias, internamente esta unidade estaria inseparavelmente ligada a monarquia de Deus, que governaria regular, direta e harmoniosamente nos corações de todos os homens, e que externamente se incorporaria numa hierarquia patriarcal. Assim não existiria nenhum Estado, mas apenas um império mundial orgânico com Deus como seu Rei; exatamente o que é profetizado para o futuro que nos aguarda, quando todo pecado tiver desaparecido.

Mas é exatamente isto que o pecado tem agora eliminado de nossa vida humana. Esta unidade não existe mais. Este governo de Deus não pode mais fazer-se valer. Esta hierarquia patriarcal foi destruída. Um império mundial não pode ser estabelecido nem o deve ser. Pois a contumácia de construir a Torre de Babel consistiu neste próprio desejo. Assim originaram-se os povos e nações. Esses povos formaram os Estados. E sobre esses Estados Deus estabeleceu governos. E assim, se me é permitido a expressão, não é uma cabeça natural, que organicamente cresceu do corpo do povo, mas uma cabeça mecânica, a qual de fora tem sido colocada sobre o tronco da nação. Um mero paliativo, portanto, para uma condição errônea subjacente. Uma vara colocada ao lado da planta para mantê-la em pé, visto que sem ela, por causa de sua fraqueza inerente, cairia ao chão.

A principal característica do governo é o direito sobre a vida e a morte. Segundo o testemunho apostólico o magistrado traz a espada, e esta espada tem um triplo significado. É a espada da justiça para distribuir a punição corpórea ao criminoso. É a espada da guerra para defender a honra, os direitos e os interesses do Estado contra seus inimigos. E é a espada da ordem para frustrar em seu próprio país toda rebelião violenta. Lutero e seus co-reformadores corretamente mostraram que a própria instituição e a plena investidura do magistrado com poder foram postos em execução somente após o dilúvio, quando Deus ordenou que a punição capital deveria cair sobre quem derramasse o sangue do homem. O direito de tirar a vida pertence somente àquele que pode dar vida, i.e., a Deus; e portanto, ninguém sobre a terra está investido com esta autoridade, a menos que seja dada por Deus. Por conta disso, a lei Romana, que consignou a jus vitae et necis ao pai e ao proprietário de escravos, fica intrinsecamente muito abaixo da lei de Moisés, que não conhece outra punição capital senão aquela aplicada pelo magistrado e a sua ordem.

Portanto, o mais alto dever do governo continua imutavelmente o da justiça e, em segundo lugar, ele deve ter cuidado pelo povo como uma unidade, em parte em seu próprio país, a fim de que sua unidade possa crescer sempre mais profunda e não possa ser perturbada, e em parte no exterior para que a existência nacional não sofra dano. A conseqüência de tudo isso é que por um lado, num povo, surjam de suas esferas sociais, todos os tipos de fenômenos orgânicos da vida, mas que, muito acima disso, a força mecânica unificadora do governo seja observável. Origina-se, daí, todo atrito e discórdia. Pois o governo está sempre inclinado, com sua autoridade mecânica, a invadir a vida social, a sujeitá-la e arranjá-la mecanicamente.

Por outro lado, a vida social sempre se esforça para livrar-se da autoridade do governo, assim como hoje este esforço culmina novamente na social-democracia e no anarquismo, ambos objetivando nada menos do que a destruição total da instituição da autoridade. Mas deixando esses dois extremos sozinhos, deve ser admitido que toda vida sadia do povo ou do Estado sempre foi a conseqüência histórica da luta entre estes dois poderes. Foi o assim chamado “governo constitucional” que se esforçou mais firmemente para regularizar a relação mútua desses dois. E nessa luta o Calvinismo foi o primeiro a tomar sua posição. Pois na mesma proporção em que ele honrou a autoridade do magistrado instituído por Deus, estimulou essa segunda soberania, a qual foi implantada por Deus nas esferas sociais de acordo com as ordenanças da criação.

Ele exigiu para ambas independência em suas próprias esferas e regulamentação da relação entre elas, não pelo executivo, mas sob a lei. E por esta rigorosa exigência de seu próprio conceito fundamental, pode ser dito que o Calvinismo gerou a lei pública constitucional.

O testemunho da História é incontestável no sentido de que esta lei pública constitucional não tem prosperado nos Estados Católicos romanos ou nos Luteranos, mas entre as nações do tipo calvinista. Portanto, o conceito fundamental aqui é que a soberania de Deus, em sua descida sobre os homens, separa-se em duas esferas. Por um lado a esfera mecânica da autoridade do Estado, e por outro lado a esfera orgânica da autoridade dos círculos Sociais. E em ambas estas esferas a autoridade inerente é soberana, isto é, nada tem acima de si exceto Deus.

Quanto a autoridade do governo mecanicamente constrangedora qualquer explicação adicional é supérflua, não é assim, contudo, quanto a autoridade orgânica social.

Em parte alguma o caráter dominante desta autoridade orgânica social é mais claramente discernível que na esfera da Ciência. Na Introdução a uma edição da “Sententiae” de Lombardo e da “Suma Teológica” de Tomás de Aquino, o erudito tomista escreveu: “A obra de Lombardo governou cento e cinqüenta anos e seu trabalho produziu Tomás, e depois disso a ‘Suma’ de Tomás governou toda a Europa (totam Europam rexit) durante cinco séculos e gerou todos os teólogos subsequentes.”75 Nós admitimos que supor essa linguagem é ousadia, todavia a idéia aqui expressa está inquestionavelmente correta. O domínio de homens como Aristóteles e Platão, Lombardo e Tomás, Lutero e Calvino, Kant e Darwin, estende-se, para cada um deles, sobre um período de tempo. Genialidade é um poder soberano; ele forma escolas; exerce controle sobre o estado de espírito dos homens com irresistível poder; exerce uma influência imensurável sobre toda condição da vida humana. Essa soberania da genialidade é um dom de Deus, possuído somente por sua graça. Não está sujeita a ninguém e é responsável somente perante aquele que lhe concedeu essa ascendência.

O mesmo fenômeno é observável na esfera da Arte. Todo maestro é um rei no Palácio da Arte, não pela lei da herança ou por nomeação, mas somente pela graça de Deus. E esses maestros também impõe autoridade e não estão sujeitos a ninguém, mas governam sobre todos e, no fim, recebem de todos a homenagem devido a sua superioridade artística.

E o mesmo deve ser dito do poder soberano da personalidade. Não há igualdade de pessoas. Há pessoas fracas e bitoladas, com extensão de asas não maior do que a de um pardal comum; mas há também pessoas abertas e imponentes, com vôos como os da águia. Entre os últimos vocês encontrarão uns poucos de grandiosidade real, e estes governam em sua própria esfera, quer o povo se afaste deles ou frustre-os; geralmente tornando-se tanto mais fortes quanto maior a oposição. E todo este processo é realizado em todas as esferas da vida. No trabalho do mecânico, na loja, ou no câmbio, no comércio, no mar, no campo da benevolência e da filantropia. Em qualquer lugar um homem é mais poderoso do que outro, por sua personalidade, por seu talento e pelas circunstâncias. O domínio é exercido em toda parte; mas é um domínio que opera organicamente; não em virtude da investidura do Estado, mas da própria soberania da vida.

Все совершенно иначе, когда речь идет о власти. Можно допустить, что и без греха необходимость привела бы к союзу многих семей, который был бы внутренне привязан к царствованию Бога, а уж оно законно, непосредственно и гармонично правило бы в сердцах всех людей, внешним образом воплощаясь в патриархальной иерархии. Не было бы никаких государств, только одна органичная мировая империя во главе с Богом в качестве Царя. Собственно, это и предсказано о будущем, ожидающем нас, когда всякий грех исчезнет.

Но именно это грех и устранил из нашей человеческой жизни. Такого единства больше нет. Правление Бога уже не может утвердить себя. Патриархальная иерархия уничтожена. Мировую империю установить нельзя. Когда строили Вавилонскую башню, именно такое желание и погубило ее строителей. Так возникли народы и нации. Эти народы сформировали государства. В государствах Бог установил правительства. Если можно так выразиться, это — не голова, которая органически связана с телом народа, а механизм, который просто извне присоединили к телу нации. Правительство — просто вспомогательное средство, которое устраняет негативные последствия неблагоприятных условий. Это — подпорка для растения, без которой оно, по врожденной слабости, просто упало бы на землю.

Основной признак власти — право распоряжаться жизнью и смертью. Согласно апостольскому свидетельству, власть носит меч, и у меча — три назначения. Это — меч справедливости, налагающий на преступника соответствующее наказание. Это — меч войны, защищающий честь, права и интересы государства от его врагов. Это — меч порядка, который призван подавлять всякое насильственное возмущение внутри страны. Лютер и его сторонники правильно напомнили, что правителей наделили полной властью только после потопа, когда Бог повелел, чтобы тех, кто пролил человеческую кровь, подвергали смертной казни. Право отнять жизнь принадлежит лишь Тому, Кто может ее дать, т. е. Богу. Никто на земле не наделен этой властью, ее может препоручить только Бог. В этом отношении римское право, передавшее «jus vitae et necis» («Право над жизнью и смертью» (лат.)) отцу и рабовладельцу, много ниже закона Моисеева, который разрешал смертную казнь только по решению и распоряжению суда.

Высший долг властей неизменно остается долгом справедливости. Кроме того, они должны заботиться о народе как об едином целом, и у себя дома, чтобы его единство возрастало и никто не возмущал его, и за пределами своей страны, чтобы никто не принес ему вреда. Тем самым, с одной стороны, в народе проявляются все явления органической жизни (это относится прежде всего к социальным сферам), а с другой стороны, над ними стоит механическая и объединяющая сила властей. Естественно, возникают трения и столкновения. Правительство, с его механической властью, всегда склонно вторгаться в общественную жизнь, чтобы покорить ее и механически организовать. Общественная жизнь всегда стремится сбросить с себя власть правительства. В современном мире это стремление дошло до предела в социал-демократии и анархизме, причем оба движения хотят вообще низвергнуть институт власти. Если же оставить эти две крайности в стороне, общепризнанно, что всякая здоровая жизнь народа или государства всегда была историческим следствием борьбы социальной жизни и власти. Так называемое «конституционное правительство» особенно стремится урегулировать их взаимоотношения. И в этой борьбе кальвинизм первым занял определенную позицию. Почитая установленный Богом авторитет власти, он высоко ставил и другой суверенитет, который Бог даровал социальным сферам в соответствии с установлениями, данными при сотворении мира.

Он требовал независимости для каждой силы в ее собственной области, а также регулирования отношений между ними, но не посредством исполнительных органов, а посредством закона. Из-за этого жесткого требования можно сказать, что основная идея кальвинизма породила конституционное общественное право.

История неоспоримо свидетельствует, что это право процветало не в католических и лютеранских государствах, а у наций кальвинистского вероисповедания. Основная идея — в том, что власть Бога, спускаясь на уровень людей, разделяется на две сферы, механическую сферу государственной власти и органическую сферу социальных кругов. В обеих этих областях внутренне им присущая власть суверенна, то есть имеет над собой только Бога, и больше никого.

Что до механически принуждающей власти, объяснять тут нечего. Когда речь идет об общественной власти, это не так.

Доминирующий характер этой власти нигде не виден столь отчетливо, как в сфере науки. В предисловии к «Сентенциям» Петра Ломбардского и «Сумме теологии» Фомы Аквинского, один ученый томист написал: «Труд Ломбардца правил сто пятьдесят лет и произвел Фому, а после него „Сумма“ правила всей Европой (totam Europam rexit) пять полных столетий и породила всех последующих теологов»¹³. Согласимся, что сказано слишком смело, и все же идея, выраженная здесь, безусловно, правильна. Влияние таких людей, как Аристотель и Платон, Петр Ломбардский и Фома Аквинский, Лютер и Кальвин, Кант и Дарвин, простирается на многие века. Гений наделен суверенной властью. Он создает школы; он с непреодолимой силой владеет умами; он оказывает неизмеримое влияние на всю человеческую жизнь. Суверенитет гения — дар от Бога, которым обладают только по Его милости. Гений не подчинен никому и ответствен лишь перед Тем, Кто его одарил.

То же самое наблюдается и в сфере искусства. Всякий творец — царь в Храме Искусства, не по закону наследования и не по должности, а лишь по милости Божией. Эти творцы тоже наделены властью и никому не подотчетны, но правят над всем и в конце концов получают поклонение, причитающееся их мастерству.

То же самое следует сказать о суверенной власти личности. Здесь нет равенства. Есть слабые, узколобые люди с крылышками воробья; есть и гиганты с орлиным размахом крыльев. Среди этих гигантов мало царствующих особ, они правят в собственной сфере, даже если от них шарахаются или их преследуют, возмущаясь тем сильнее, чем больше они одарены. Происходит это во всех сферах жизни — на фабрике, в магазине, на бирже, на море, даже в сфере благотворительности. Везде один сильнее другого благодаря характеру, талантам и обстоятельствам. Органическое господство осуществляется везде; не по дозволению властей, а по велению суверенной жизни.

Hiermede in verband en op geheel denzelfden grond van organische meerderheid, vestigt zich, naast deze persoonlijke souvereiniteit, de souvereiniteit van den kring. De universiteit bezit wetenschappelijke macht, de academie voor schoone kunsten bezit kunstkracht, de gilde beschikt over technisch vermogen, de trade-union over arbeidskracht, en elk dezer kringen of corporatiën is er zich bewust van, dat zij op eigen terrein tot zelfstandig oordeelen bevoegd en tot krachtig handelen bekwaam is. Achter deze organische kringen met 88 intellectueele, aesthetische, of technische souvereiniteit, ontsluit zich dan de kring van het huisgezin met zijn huwelijksrecht, huisvrede, recht van opvoeding en bezitsrecht, en ook in dezen kring is het natuurlijk hoofd zich bewust, zijn daarop rustend gezag uit te oefenen, niet omdat de Overheid het hem toestaat, maar omdat God het hem opdroeg. Het vaderlijk gezag wortelt in het levensbloed zelf en is geproclameerd in het vijfde gebod. En ten slotte zij opgemerkt, dat ook het locale samenleven in steden en dorpen een levenskring formeert, die uit de noodzakelijkheid zelve van het leven opkomt, en daarom autonoom in eigen boezem moet zijn.

In relation herewith, and on entirely the same ground of organic superiority, there exists, side by side with this personal sovereignty, the sovereignty of the sphere. The university exercises scientific dominion; the Academy of fine arts is possessed of art-power ; the guild exercised a technical dominion; the trades-union rules over labor; — and each of these spheres or corporations is conscious of the power of exclusive independent judgment and authoritative action, within its proper sphere of operation. Behind these organic spheres, with intellectual, aesthetical and technical sovereignty, the sphere of the family opens itself, with its right of marriage, domestic peace, education and possession; and in this sphere also the natural head is conscious of exercising an inherent authority, — not because the government allows it, but because God has imposed it. Paternal authority roots itself in the very life-blood and is proclaimed in the fifth Commandment.

And so also finally it may be remarked that the social life of cities and villages forms a sphere of existence, which arises from the very necessities of life, and which therefore must be autonomous.

In relation herewith, and on entirely the same ground of organic superiority, there exists, side by side with this personal sovereignty the sovereignty of the sphere. The University exercises scientific dominion; the Academy of fine arts is possessed of art power; the guild exercised a technical dominion; the trades-union rules over labor; — and each of these spheres or corporations is conscious of the power of exclusive independent judgment and authoritative action, within its proper sphere of operation. Behind these organic spheres, with intellectual, aesthetical and technical sovereignty, the sphere of the family opens itself, with its right of marriage, domestic peace, education and possession; and in this sphere also the natural head is conscious of exercising an inherent authority, — not because the government allows it, but because God has imposed it. Paternal authority roots itself in the very lifeblood and is proclaimed in the fifth Commandment. And so also finally it may be remarked that the social life of cities and villages forms a sphere of existence, which arises from the very necessities of life, and which therefore must be autonomous.

Em relação a isso, e inteiramente sobre a mesma base de superioridade orgânica, existe, lado a lado com esta soberania pessoal, a soberania da esfera. A Universidade exerce domínio científico; a Academia das belas-artes possui o poder da arte; o grêmio exerce um domínio técnico; o sindicato governa sobre o trabalho – e cada uma destas esferas ou corporações está consciente do poder de exclusivo julgamento independente e ação autoritária dentro de sua própria esfera de operação. Por trás dessas esferas orgânicas, com soberania intelectual, estética e técnica, a esfera da família torna-se pública com seus direitos de casamento, paz doméstica, educação e posses; e também nessa esfera a cabeça natural está consciente de exercer uma autoridade inerente, - não porque o governo a permite, mas porque Deus a tem imposto. A autoridade paterna enraíza-se na própria vida e é proclamada no quinto mandamento. E desse modo também, finalmente, pode ser observado que a vida social das cidades e vilas formam uma esfera de existência que nasce das próprias necessidades da vida, e que por isso deve ser autônoma.

На том же самом основании бок о бок с суверенитетом личности существует и суверенитет общественных сфер. Университет осуществляет научное господство, академия художеств делает это в сфере искусств, гильдия — в сфере техники, профсоюзы управляют трудом, и каждая из этих сфер или корпораций осознает за собой власть независимого суждения и авторитетного действия внутри своей собственной сферы. За этими органическими сферами с их интеллектуальным, эстетическим и техническим суверенитетом открывается сфера семьи, с ее правом брака, домашнего мира, образования и собственности. Ее природный глава тоже сознает, что он — глава семьи не по дозволению правительства, а потому что Бог наделил его этой властью. Отцовская власть коренится в родстве и провозглашается в пятой заповеди. Таким образом, можно сказать в конце концов, что социальная жизнь города и деревни образует свою собственную сферу, которая порождена жизненной необходимостью, и потому должна быть автономной.

In velerlei onderscheiding zien we alzoo de souvereiniteit in eigen kring zich doen gelden, 1º. in de persoonlijke sfeer door de souvereiniteit van het genie en de persoonlijke meerderheid, 2º. in de corporatieve sfeer der universiteiten, gilden, genootschappen enz., 3º. in den domestieken kring van het gezin en huwelijksleven, 4º. in de gemeentelijke autonomie. In alle vier deze sferen nu heeft de Overheid niet eigenmachtig haar ordonnantiën op te leggen, maar de ingeschapen levenswet te eerbiedigen. God heerscht in die sferen even vrijmachtig als Hij in den staatskring door de Overheid heerschappij voert. Gebonden door haar eigen lastbrief, mag alzoo de Overheid den Goddelijken lastbrief, waaronder deze sferen staan, niet ignoreeren, noch wijzigen, noch verscheuren. De Overheids-souvereiniteit bij de gratie Gods gaat hier, om Gods wil, voor een andere souvereiniteit van even Goddelijken oorsprong uit den weg. Noch het wetenschappelijk leven, noch het kunstleven, noch de landbouw, noch de nijverheid, noch de handel, noch de scheepvaart, noch het huisgezin, noch het familieleven, noch het gemeentelijk leven mag gedwongen worden zich naar de gratie der Overheid te voegen. De Staat mag geen woekerplant zijn, die alle leven opslorpt. Op eigen wortel heeft ze te midden van de andere stammen haar plaats in het woud in te nemen, en alzoo alle leven dat zelfstandig opschiet, in zijn heilige autonomie te mainteneeren.

In many different directions we see therefore that sovereignty in one's own sphere asserts itself — 1° in the personal 23 sphere, by personal superiority ; 2° in the corporative sphere of universities, guilds, associations, etc; 3o in the domestic sphere of the family and of married life; and 4° in communal autonomy.

In all these four spheres the government cannot impose its laws, but must reverence the innate law of life. God rules in these spheres, just as supremely and sovereignly as He exercises dominion in the sphere of the State, through the government.

Bound bj r its own mandate therefore the government may neither ignore nor modify nor disrupt the divine mandate, under which these spheres stand.

The sovereignty, by the grace of God. of the government is here set aside and limited, for God's sake, by another sovereignty, which is equally divine in origin. Neither the life of science or nor of art, nor of agriculture, nor of industry, nor of commerce; nor of navigation, nor of the family, nor of human relationship may be coerced to suit itself to the Grace of the government.

The State may never become an octopus, which stifles the whole of life.

It must occupy its own place, on its own root, among all the other trees of the forest, and thus it has to honour and maintain every form of life, which grows independently, in its own sacred autonomy.

In many different directions we see therefore that sovereignty in one’s own sphere asserts itself — 1. In the social sphere, by personal superiority. 2. In the corporative sphere of universities, guilds, associations, etc. 3. In the domestic sphere of the family 124 and of married life, and 4. In communal autonomy.

In all these four spheres the State-government cannot impose its laws, but must reverence the innate law of life. God rules in these spheres, just as supremely and sovereignly through his chosen virtuosi, as He exercises dominion in the sphere of the State itself, through his chosen magistrates.

Bound by its own mandate. therefore, the government may neither ignore nor modify nor disrupt the divine mandate, under which these social spheres stand. The sovereignty, by the grace of God, of the government is here set aside and limited, for God’s sake, by another sovereignty, which is equally divine in origin. Neither the life of science nor of art, nor of agriculture, nor of industry, nor of commerce, nor of navigation, nor of the family, nor of human relationship may be coerced to suit itself to the grace of the government. The State may never become an octopus, which stifles the whole of life. It must occupy its own place, on its own root, among all the other trees of the forest, and thus it has to honor and maintain every form of life which grows independently in its own sacred autonomy.

Portanto, em muitas direções diferentes vemos que a soberania declarar-se em sua própria esfera – 1. Na esfera social, pela superioridade pessoal. 2. Na esfera corporativa das universidades, grêmios, associações, etc. 3. Na esfera doméstica da família e da vida de casado. 4. Na autonomia pública.

Em todas estas quatro esferas o governo do Estado não pode impor suas leis, mas deve reverenciar a lei inata da vida. Deus governa nessas esferas suprema e soberanamente através de seus virtuosi eleitos, do mesmo modo como ele exerce domínio na esfera do próprio Estado através de seus magistrados escolhidos.

Limitado por seu próprio mandato, portanto, o governo não pode nem ignorar, nem modificar, nem romper a mandato divino sob o qual estas esferas sociais estão. Pela graça de Deus a soberania do governo está aqui guardada e limitada, por causa de Deus, por uma outra soberania que é igualmente divina na origem. Nem a vida da ciência, nem da arte, nem da agricultura, nem da indústria, nem do comércio, nem da navegação, nem da família, nem do relacionamento humano pode ser constrangida a adequar-se ao favor do governo. O Estado nunca pode tornar-se um octópode que asfixia a totalidade da vida. Ele deve ocupar seu próprio lugar, em sua própria raiz, entre todas as outras árvores da floresta, e assim deve honrar e manter cada forma de vida que cresce independentemente em sua própria autonomia sagrada.

Словом, мы видим, что суверенитет утверждает себя: 1) в социальной сфере (через личное верховенство); 2) в корпоративной сфере университетов, гильдий, ассоциаций и т. д.; 3) в сфере семьи и домашней жизни; и 4) в общинном самоуправлении.

Во всех этих четырех сферах государство не может устанавливать законы и должно уважать их внутренний закон. Бог правит в этих сферах так же верховно и суверенно через Своих избранных мастеров (virtuosi), как Он правит в сфере государства через Им же избранных правителей.

Правительство не может ни обходить, ни изменять, ни разрушать того божественного наказа, согласно которому действуют эти социальные сферы. Суверенитет правительства по благодати Божией заменен и ограничен иным суверенитетом, тоже исходящим от Бога. Ни наука, ни искусство, ни сельское хозяйство, ни промышленность, ни торговля, ни мореплавание, ни семья, ни человеческие отношения не могут принуждать к зависимости от милости правительства. Государство ни в коем случае не должно становиться спрутом, который давит и душит всякую жизнь. Оно занимает свое место, скажем так — растет на своем собственном корне среди всех других деревьев. Тем самым оно обязано чтить и поддерживать всякую форму жизни, которая прорастает независимо от него на своей автономной территории.

Beduidt dit dat de Overheid elk recht van inmenging in deze autonome levenssferen derft? Allerminst. Harer is en blijft de 89 drievuldige roeping: 1º. om bij botsing tusschen kring en kring over een weer eerbiediging van elks grenzen af te dwingen; 2º. de roeping om de enkele individuën, en het zwakke in die kringen tegen misbruik van overmacht te beveiligen, en 3º. de roeping om alle saam te dwinge ntot het praesteeren van persoonlijke en geldelijke lasten tot instandhouding van de natuurlijke eenheid in den Staat. Doch juist hierdoor ontstaat dan ook de wrijving en het gevaar voor botsing. De beslissing kan hier niet aan de Overheid unilateraal staan. Alleen de Wet kan hier elks recht uitwijzen, en het recht der burgerij over eigen buidel moet de machtsoverschrijding der Overheid tegengaan. En hier nu ligt het uitgangspunt voor die saamwerking van de souvereiniteit der Overheid met de souvereiniteit in de maatschappelijke kringen, die in de Constitutie haar regeling vindt. Naar de gesteldheid der dingen in zijn tijd werd dat voor Calvijn de leer der „magistratus inferiores”. Ridderstand, stederecht, gilderecht en zooveel meer leidde toen nog tot het optreden van sociale “staten” met eigen regeermacht, en uit de saamwerking van deze met de Hooge Overheid liet hij de Wet opkomen, en door deze het machtsmisbruik der Overheid weerstaan. Sinds hebben deze verhoudingen, die ten deele uit het leenstelsel waren opgekomen, algeheele wijziging ondergaan. Met magistrale macht zijn deze corporatiën of standen thans niet meer bekleed, en in plaats van deze alle saam trad thans het Parlement op, of met wat naam de generale vertegenwoordiging in de onderscheidene landen ook genoemd wordt, om voor allen en in aller naam de volksrechten en volksvrijheden bij en desnoods tegenover de landsoverheid tot haar recht te doen komen. Aan deze gezamenlijke verdediging gaf men boven afzonderlijk verweer de voorkeur, om het samenstel en de werking der Staatsinrichting eenvoudiger te maken, en sneller te doen functioneeren. Doch hoe ook in vorm gewijzigd, in den grond blijft het de oude Calvinistische gedachte, om het volk in al zijne rangen en standen, in al zijne kringen en sferen, in al zijne corporatiën en zelfstandige instituten, in gezond democratischen zin, wettelijk geregelden invloed op het vaststellen van de wet te geven. Geschil bestaat nog alleen over de belangwekkende 90 vraag, of men volharden zal bij de nu geldende oplossing van aller bijzondere rechten en vrijheden in het individueele stemrecht, dan wel of het geraden zal zijn hiernaast een corporatief stemrecht te plaatsen, dat tot afzonderlijk verweer bekwaamt. Een neiging naar organisatie openbaart zich thans opnieuw tot in de kringen van handel en nijverheid, en niet het minst van den arbeid, en zelfs tot uit Frankrijk zijn stemmen opgegaan, om het stemrecht zich aan deze organisatiën te laten aansluiten. Ik voor mij zou dit, mits niet eenzijdig, laat staan uitsluitend, toegepast, toejuichen, maar het zijn niet deze zwenkingen, die mij hier mogen ophouden. Hoofddoel van mijn betoog was u aan te toonen, hoe het Calvinisme door een van God ontvangen recht en souverein gezag ook in de sociale levenssferen te handhaven, protest indient tegen de almacht van den Staat, protest tegen de afschuwelijke voorstelling alsof er geen recht boven en buiten de geldende wet zou bestaan, en protest evenzoo tegen de hooghartigheid van het absolutisme dat geen grondwettelijke rechten kent dan als uitvloeisel van vorstengunst. Alle drie deze voorstellingen, die door het opkomend Pantheïsme weer zoo gevaarlijk gevoed worden, zijn de dood voor onze burgervrijheid, en aan het Calvinisme komt de eere toe, tegen dezen absolutistischen stroom een dam te hebben opgeworpen, niet door een beroep op volksgeweld, noch op waan van menschelijke hoogheid, maar door die rechten en vrijheden der burgermaatschappij te hebben afgeleid uit dezelfde Bron, waaruit het hoog gezag der Overheid vloeit, t.w. uit de absolute souvereiniteit Gods. Uit die ééne Bron in God vloeit de souvereiniteit in eigen kring, voor het huisgezin en voor elke sociale levenssfeer, even rechtstreeks als de overhoogheid van het Staatsgezag. Daarom hebben beide zich met elkander te verstaan, en beide staan onder de even heilige verplichting, om hun souverein gezag te handhaven en aan de majesteit Gods dienstbaar te maken. Een volk dat het gezinsrecht of een universiteit die het recht der wetenschap veil biedt aan overheidsinmenging, staat even schuldig voor God, als een natie die zich aan het overheidsrecht vergrijpt. En zoo is de strijd voor de vrijheid niet slechts voor geoorloofd verklaard, maar zelfs tot plicht gesteld voor een ieder in zijn kring, niet door, gelijk 91 in de Fransche revolutie, God opzij te zetten en den mensch in den troon der Almacht te plaatsen, maar juist door alle mensch, den magistraat incluis, diep eerbiedig te doen buigen voor de majesteit van den almachtigen God.

Does this mean that the government has no right whatever of interference in these autonomous spheres of life ? Not at all.

It possesses the threefold right and duty: 1° whenever different spheres clash, to compel mutual regard for the boundary-lines of each; 2° to defend individuals and the weak ones, in those spheres, against the abuse of power of the rest; and 3° to coerce all together to bear personal and financial burdens for the maintenance of the natural unity of the State.

But in this way exactby friction is created and thus the 24 danger of a clash arises. The decision cannot, in these cases, unilaterally rest with the Government. The law here has to indicate the rights of each, and the rights of the citizens over their own parses must remain the invincible bulwark against the abuse of power on the part of the government.

And here exactly lies the starting-point for that cooperation of the sovereignty of the government, with the sovereignty in the social sphere, which finds its regulation in the Constitution.

According to the order of things, in his time, this became to Calvin the doctrine of the "magistratus inferiores".

Knighthood, the rights of the city, the rights of guilds and much more, led then to the self-assertion of social "States", with their own civil authority ; now Calvin wished the law to be made by the cooperation of these with the High magistrates, and so by laws he caused the abuse of power on the part of the magistrates to be restricted.

Since that time these medieval relations, which in part arose from the feudal-system, have become totally antiquated.

These corporations or social orders are now no longer invested with ruling power, their place is taken by Parliament, or whatever name the general house of representatives may bear in different countries, and now it remains the duty of those Assemblies to maintain the popular rights and liberties of all and in the name of all, with and if need be against the government.

This united defense was preferred to individual resistance, both to simplify the construction and operation of State institutions and to accelerate their functions.

But in whatever way the form may be modified, it remains essentially the old Calvinistic plan, to assure to the people, in all its classes and orders, in all its circles and spheres, in all its corporations and independent institutions, a legal and orderly influence in the making of the laws and the course of government, in a healthy democratic sense. 25 The only difference of opinion is yet on the important question, whether we shall continue in the now prevailing solution of the special rights of those social spheres in the individual right of franchise; or whether it is desirable to place by its side a corporative right of franchise, which shall enable the different circles to make a separate defense.

At present a new tendency to organization reveals itself even in the spheres of commerce and industry and not less in that of labor, and even from France voices arise, which clamor for the juncture of the right of franchise with these organizations.

I for one, would welcome such a move, provided its application were not onesided, much less exclusive ; but I may not linger over these side issues.

I set out in the main to show how Calvinism, — by the maintenance even in the social spheres of life, of a Godgiven right and sovereign authority — protests against State-omnipotence, against the horrible conception that no right exists above and beyond existing laws ; and against the pride of absolutism, which recognizes no constitutional rights, except as the result of princely favor.

These three representations, which find so dangerous a nourishment in the ascendency of Pantheism, are death to our civil liberties. And Calvinism is to be praised for having built a dam across this absolutistic stream, not by appealing to popular force, nor to the hallucination of human greatness, but by deducing those rights and liberties of social life from the same source, from which the high authority of the government flows — even the absolute sovereignty of God. From this one source, in God, sovereignty in the individual sphere, in the family and in every social circle, is just as directly derived as the supremacy of State-authority. These two must therefore come to an understanding, and both have an equally sacred obligation to maintain their God-given sovereign authority and to make it subservient to the majesty of God. 26 A people, which abandons to State Supremacy the right of the family, or a University which abandons to it the rights of science, is just as guilty before God, as a nation which lays its hands upon the rights of the magistrates. And thus the struggle for liberty is not only declared permissible, but is made a duty for each individual in his own sphere. And this not as was done in the French Revolution, by setting God aside and by placing man on the throne of God's Omnipotence ; but on the contrary, by causing all men. the magistrates included, to bow, in deepest humility before the majesty of God Almighty.

Does this mean that the government has no right whatever of interference in these autonomous spheres of life? Not at all.

It possesses the threefold right and duty: 1. Whenever different spheres clash, to compel mutual regard for the boundary-lines of each; 2. To defend individuals and the weak ones, in those spheres, against the abuse of power of the rest; and 3. To coerce all together to bear personal and financial burdens for the maintenance of 125the natural unity of the State. The decision cannot, however, in these cases, unilaterally rest with the magistrate. The Law here has to indicate the rights of each, and the rights of the citizens over their own purses must remain the invincible bulwark against the abuse of power on the part of the government.

And here exactly lies the starting-point for that cooperation of the sovereignty of the government, with the sovereignty in the social sphere, which finds its regulation in the Constitution. According to the order of things, in his time, this became to Calvin the doctrine of the “magistratus inferiores”. Knighthood, the rights of the city, the rights of guilds and much more, led then to the self-assertion of social “States”, with their own civil authority; and so Calvin wished the law to be made by the cooperation of these with the High magistrates.

Since that time these medieval relations, which in part arose from the feudal system, have become totally antiquated. These corporations or social orders are now no longer invested with ruling power, their place is taken by Parliament, or whatever name the general house of representatives may bear in different countries, and now it remains the duty of those Assemblies to maintain the popular rights and liberties, of all and in the name of all, with and if need be against the government. A united defence which was preferred to individual resistance, both to simplify the construction and operation of State institutions and to accelerate their functions.

But in whatever way the form may be modified, it remains essentially the old Calvinistic plan, to assure to the people, in all its classes and orders, in all its 126circles and spheres, in all its corporations and independent institutions, a legal and orderly influence in the making of the law and the course of government, in a healthy democratic sense. And the only difference of opinion is yet on the important question whether we shall continue in the now prevailing solution of the special rights of those social spheres in the individual right of franchise; or whether it is desirable to place by its side a corporative right of franchise, which shall enable the different circles to make a separate defence. At present a new tendency to organization reveals itself even in the spheres of commerce and industry and not less in that of labor, and even from France voices, like that of Benoit, arise, which clamor for the juncture of the right of franchise with these organizations.

I for one, would welcome such a move, provided its application were not one-sided, much less exclusive; but I may not linger over these side issues. Let it suffice to have shown that Calvinism protests against State-omnipotence; against the horrible conception that no right exists above and beyond existing laws; and against the pride of absolutism, which recognizes no constitutional rights, except as the result of princely favor.

These three representations, which find so dangerous a nourishment in the ascendancy of Pantheism, are death to our civil liberties. And Calvinism is to be praised for having built a dam across this absolutistic stream, not by appealing to popular force, nor to the hallucination of human greatness, but by deducing those rights and liberties of social life from the same source from which the high authority of the government flows — 127 even the absolute sovereignty of God. From this one source, in God, sovereignty in the individual sphere, in the family and in every social circle, is just as directly derived as the supremacy of State-authority. These two must therefore come to an understanding, and both have the same sacred obligation to maintain their God-given sovereign authority and to make it subservient to the majesty of God.

A people therefore which abandons to State Supremacy the rights of the family, or a University which abandons to it the rights of science, is just as guilty before God as a nation which lays its hands upon the rights of the magistrates. And thus the struggle for liberty is not only declared permissible, but is made a duty for each individual in his own sphere. And this not as was done in the French Revolution, by setting God aside and by placing man on the throne of God’s Omnipotence; but on the contrary, by causing all men, the magistrates included, to bow in deepest humility before the majesty of God Almighty.

Isso quer dizer que o governo não tem qualquer direito de interferência nessas esferas autônomas da vida? Não, absolutamente.

Ele possui o tríplice direito e dever: 1. Quando esferas diferentes entram em conflito para forçar respeito mútuo as linhas divisórias de cada uma; 2. Defender pessoas individuais e fracas, naquelas esferas, contra o abuso de poder dos demais; e 3. Constranger todos a exercer as obrigações pessoais e financeiras para a manutenção da unidade natural do Estado. Contudo, a decisão não pode, nesses casos, repousar unilateralmente com o magistrado. A lei deve indicar aqui os direitos de cada um, e os direitos dos cidadãos sobre seus próprios bolsos deve permanecer o baluarte invencível contra o abuso de poder por parte do governo.

E exatamente aqui encontra-se o ponto de partida para aquela cooperação da soberania do governo com a soberania na esfera social, a qual encontra sua regulamentação na Constituição. De acordo com a ordem das coisas, em seu tempo, isto tornou-se para Calvino a doutrina do “magistratus inferiores”. O cavalheirismo, os direitos da cidade, os direitos dos grêmios e muito mais, levou-o então à defesa dos direitos do “Estado” social, com sua própria autoridade civil; e assim Calvino quis que a lei fosse feita pela cooperação destes com os Altos magistrados.

Desde aquele tempo estas relações medievais, que em parte nasceram do sistema feudal, se tornaram totalmente antiquadas. Atualmente estas corporações ou ordens sociais não estão mais investidas com poder governante, seu lugar foi tomado pelo Parlamento, ou qualquer nome que a casa geral dos representantes possa ter nos diferentes países, e agora continua o dever daquelas Assembléias de manter os direitos e liberdades populares, de todos e em nome de todos, com e se necessário for contra o governo. A defesa unida foi preferida a resistência individual, tanto para simplificar a construção e operação das instituições do Estado como para acelerar suas funções.

Mas em qualquer modo que a forma possa ser modificada, essencialmente ela ainda é o velho plano calvinista, assegurar ao povo em todas as suas classes e ordens, em todos os seus círculos e esferas, em todas as suas corporações e instituições independentes, uma influência legal e ordenada na produção da lei e no curso do governo num sadio sentido democrático. E a única diferença de opinião ainda está sobre a importante questão se continuaremos na solução atualmente predominante dos direitos especiais daquelas esferas sociais no direito individual de imunidade e privilégio; ou se é desejável colocar ao seu lado um direito corporativo de imunidade e privilégio, que habilitará os diferentes círculos fazerem uma defesa separada. Hoje, uma nova tendência a organização revela-se até mesmo nas esferas do comércio e industria e não menos na do trabalho, e até mesmo vozes francesas, como a de Benoit, levantam-se e clamam pela junção do direito de imunidade e privilégios com estas organizações.

Quanto a mim, seria bem-vindo um movimento como este, contanto que sua aplicação não fosse unilateral, muito menos exclusiva; mas eu não posso me prolongar sobre este lado da questão. É suficiente ter mostrado que o Calvinismo protesta contra a onipotência do Estado; contra a horrível concepção de que não existe direito acima e além das leis existentes; e contra o orgulho do absolutismo, que não reconhece os direitos constitucionais, exceto como o resultado do favor principesco.

Essas três representações, que encontram um sustento tão perigoso na ascendência do Panteísmo, são mortais para nossas liberdades civis. E o Calvinismo deve ser louvado por ter construído uma barragem no outro lado desse rio absolutista, não por apelar a força popular, nem à ilusão da grandeza humana, mas por deduzir aqueles direitos e liberdades da vida social da mesma fonte da qual a alta autoridade do governo flui – a própria soberania absoluta de Deus. Desta única fonte, em Deus, a soberania nas esferas individuais, na família e em cada círculo social, é tão diretamente derivada quanto a supremacia da autoridade do Estado. Estes dois, portanto, devem chegar a um entendimento, e ambos têm a mesma obrigação sagrada de manter sua soberana autoridade dada por Deus e fazê-la subserviente à majestade de Deus.

Portanto, um povo que abandona os direitos da família para a Supremacia do Estado, ou uma Universidade que abandona os direitos da ciência para ele, são tão culpados diante de Deus quanto uma nação que põe suas mãos sobre os direitos dos magistrados. E assim, a luta pela liberdade não é apenas declarada permissível, mas torna-se um dever para cada indivíduo em sua própria esfera. E isto não como foi feito na Revolução Francesa, pondo Deus de lado e colocando o homem no trono da Onipotência de Deus; mas pelo contrário, levando todos os homens, inclusive os magistrados, a curvarem-se na mais profunda humildade perante a majestade do Deus Todo-Poderoso.

Означает ли это, что правительство не может вмешиваться в эти автономные сферы жизни? Совсем нет.

У него три права, три долга: 1) когда разные сферы сталкиваются между собой, оно способствует тому, чтобы каждая действовала в собственных пределах; 2) оно защищает слабых, чтобы сильные не злоупотребляли властью; и 3) оно принуждает всех вместе нести личную и финансовую ответственность и утверждает естественное единство государства. Решения эти, однако, не могут принимать только правители. Права каждого определены законом, и право на собственный кошелек должно оставаться незыблемым оплотом против злоупотреблений властью со стороны правительства.

Здесь и начинается сотрудничество суверенного правительства с суверенной социальной сферой, которое регулирует конституция. Согласно тогдашнему порядку вещей, Кальвин назвал это доктриной о «magistratus inferiores» («низших властях»). Рыцарство, права городов, права гильдий и многое другое привели к самоутверждению этих социальных «государств», со своей собственной гражданской властью; а Кальвин хотел, чтобы эти низшие власти принимали закон в сотрудничестве с высшими.

С той поры средневековые отношения, порожденные отчасти феодальной системой, совершенно устарели. Корпорации или социальные группы больше не имеют власти, их место занял парламент или какое-либо другое собрание представителей; и долг этих ассамблей — вместе с правительством или, если надо, против него, утверждать народные права и свободы во имя всех и каждого. Совместная защита предпочтительнее индивидуального сопротивления и тогда, когда надо упростить устройство и действие государственных институтов, и тогда, когда надо их действие ускорить.

Как бы ни изменялась форма, старый кальвинистский замысел по-прежнему сводится к тому, чтобы обеспечить народу во всех его классах и группах, кругах и сферах, во всех корпорациях и независимых институтах, возможность законно и организованно влиять на принятие законов и на ход управления в здравом демократическом смысле. Но все же остается различие мнений по одному важному вопросу: будем ли мы и дальше обеспечивать права этих социальных сфер через личное право голоса или лучше заменить его правом корпоративным, которое даст возможность разным кругам защищать себя самостоятельно. Новая тенденция проявляется даже в торговле и производстве, тем более — в сфере труда. И даже во Франции появляются люди, подобные Бенуа, которые требуют дать этим организациям право голоса.

Я бы приветствовал такое движение, если бы только оно не было односторонним, а тем более — исключительным; но не могу останавливаться сейчас на этих побочных вопросах. Пока достаточно того, о чем мы сказали: кальвинизм выступает против всемогущества государства; выступает против ужасающей теории, гласящей, что выше существующих законов и кроме них никакого права нет. Выступает он и против гордыни абсолютизма, который не признает конституционных прав, зная только права, милостиво дарованные господином.

Эти три явления, получившие мощное подкрепление в виде пантеизма, гибельны для наших гражданских свобод. Кальвинизм достоин похвалы за то, что он строит дамбу, перекрывающую этот абсолютистский поток, не взывая к насилию со стороны народа и не обращаясь к фантазиям о человеческом величии, но выводя права и свободы социальной жизни из того же самого источника, из которого проистекает высшая власть правительства, а именно — из абсолютной власти Бога. Суверенитет индивидуальной сферы, семьи, социального круга вытекает из этого источника так же непосредственно, как и суверенитет государства. Поэтому два суверенитета должны прийти к взаимопониманию. Оба они одинаково обязаны утверждать данную Богом власть, подчиняя ее величию Божиему.

Народ, уступающий права семьи верховенству государства, или университет, уступающий ему права науки, так же виноваты перед Богом, как и нация, которая поднимает руку на права властей. Борьба за свободу не только законна, это — долг каждой личности в ее собственной сфере. Но не так, как это делалось во времена Французской революции, когда устранили Бога и поместили человека на Его престол. Наоборот, пусть же все, включая правителей, склонятся в глубочайшем смирении перед величием Всемогущего.

Als derde of laatste deel van deze lezing rest ons de bespreking van het nog neteliger vraagstuk, hoe in den Staat te oordeelen zij over de souvereiniteit der Kerk. Netelig noem ik dit vraagstuk, niet omdat ik over de conclusie aarzel, of ook ten opzichte van deze conclusie aan uwe instemming twijfel. Wat over vrijheid van eeredienst en juxtapositie van kerk en staat, eerst in uwe Constitutie verklaard, en straks in uwe Confessiën gewijzigd is, heft alle onzekerheid dienaangaande op. En wat mij persoonlijk aangaat, reeds voor meer dan het vierde eener eeuw schreef ik boven mijn blad de leus: “De vrije kerk in den vrijen Staat”; in harden strijd is die leuze door mij hoog gehouden; en ook in ónze Confessie staat het desbetreffend artikel te worden herzien. Het netelige van dit vraagstuk ligt elders. In den brandstapel van Servet. In het optreden van de Presbyterianen tegen de Independenten. In de beperking van vrijen eeredienst en in de “civil disabilities”, zelfs in Nederland eeuwenlang toegepast op de Roomschen. Het netelige ligt in het artikel onzer Belijdenis dat aan de Overheid de taak oplegt, “om te weren en uit te roeien alle afgoderij en valschen godsdienst.” Het netelige ligt in de eenparige en eenstemmige betoogen van Calvijn en zijn epigonen, die juist de tusschenkomst der Overheid in de zake der Religie vorderen. En nóg sterker spreekt dit netelige in het niet te loochenen feit, dat het niet zelden Baptisten en Remonstranten waren, die voor nu drie eeuwen, dit stelsel der vrije kerk tegen het Calvinisme verdedigd hebben. Voor de hand ligt dan ook de beschuldiging dat we met voor vrijheid van religie te kiezen niet den handschoen voor het Calvinisme opnemen, maar lijnrecht tegen het Calvinisme ingaan.

As third and last part of this lecture, the discussion remains of a question yet more difficult than the previous one, namely how we must conceive of the Sovereignty of the Church in the state.

I call this a difficult problem, not because I am in doubt as to the conclusions, or because I doubt your assent to these conclusions. For, as far as regards American life, all uncertainty in this respect is removed by what your Constitution at first declared— and has later been modified in your Confessions — concerning the liberty of worship and the separation of Church and State. And as far as 1 am personally concerned, more than a quarter of a century ago I wrote above my Weekly paper the motto — "A free Church in a free State." In a hard struggle this motto has ever been lifted on high by me and our churches also are about to reconsider the article in our Confession which touches on this matter.

The difficulty of the problem lies elsewhere. It lies in the pile and fagots of Servetus. It lies in the attitude of the Presbyterians toward the Independents. It lies in the restrictions of liberty of worship and in the "civil disabilities", under which for centuries even in the Netherlands, the Roman Catholics have suffered. The difficulty lies in the fact that an 27 article of our old Calviuistic Confession of Faith entrusts to the government the task, "of defending against and of extirpating every form of idolatry and false religion and to protect the sacred service of the Church." The difficulty lies in the unanimous and uniform advice of Calvin and his epigones, who demanded intervention of the government in the matter of religion. And still more apparent is this difficulty from the undeniahle fact that it has frequently heen Baptists and Remonstrants who, for three successive centuries. have defended this system of a free church, against the Calvinists.

The accusation is therefore a natural one that, by choosing in favor of liberty of religion, we do not pick up the gauntlet for Calvinism, but that we directly oppose it.

As third and last part of this lecture, the discussion remains of a question yet more difficult than the previous one, namely how we must conceive of the Sovereignty of the Church in the State.

I call this a difficult problem, not because I am in doubt as to the conclusions, or because I doubt your assent to these conclusions. For, as far as regards American life, all uncertainty in this respect is removed by what your Constitution at first declared — and has 128 later been modified in your Confessions concerning the liberty of worship and the coordination of Church and State. And as far as I am personally concerned, more than a quarter of a century ago I wrote above my Weekly paper the motto — “A free Church in a free State.” In a hard struggle this motto has ever been lifted on high by me, and our Netherland churches also are about to reconsider the article in our Confession which touches on this matter.

The difficulty of the problem lies elsewhere. It lies in the pile and fagots of Servetus. It lies in the attitude of the Presbyterians toward the Independents. It lies in the restrictions of liberty of worship and in the “civil disabilities”, under which for centuries even in the Netherlands the Roman Catholics have suffered. The difficulty lies in the fact that an article of our old Calvinistic Confession of Faith entrusts to the government the task, “of defending against and of extirpating every form of idolatry and false religion and to protect the sacred service of the Church.” The difficulty lies in the unanimous and uniform advice of Calvin and his epigonies, who demanded intervention of the government in the matter of religion.

The accusation is therefore a natural one that, by choosing in favor of liberty of religion, we do not pick up the gauntlet for Calvinism, but that we directly oppose it.

Como terceira e última parte desta palestra, a discussão gira em torno de uma questão ainda mais difícil que a anterior, a saber, como devemos conceber a Soberania da Igreja no Estado.

Chamo a isto um problema difícil, não porque estou em dúvida quanto às conclusões, ou porque duvido da concordância de vocês a estas conclusões. Pois, até onde observo a vida americana, toda incerteza a este respeito está removida pelo que sua Constituição a princípio declarou – e mais tarde foi modificado em suas Confissões – a respeito da liberdade de adoração e a coordenação da Igreja e Estado. E no que pessoalmente me diz respeito, há mais de um quarto de século, escrevi em meu Jornal Semanal o moto – “Uma Igreja livre num Estado livre.” Em meio a uma dura luta este moto sempre foi levantado ao alto por mim, e nossas Igrejas na Holanda também estão prontas a reconsiderar o artigo em nossa Confissão que toca nesta matéria.

A dificuldade do problema encontra-se noutra parte, encontra-se na fogueira e feixes de Serveto. Encontra-se na atitude dos Presbiterianos para com os Independentes. Encontra-se nas restrições da liberdade de adoração e nas “incapacidades civis”, sob as quais por séculos os Católicos romanos têm sofrido até mesmo na Holanda. A dificuldade encontra-se no fato de que um artigo de nossa velha Confissão de Fé calvinista confia ao governo a tarefa “de defender contra e de extirpar toda forma de idolatria e falsa religião, e de proteger o serviço sagrado da Igreja.” A dificuldade encontra-se no conselho unânime e uniforme de Calvino e seus epígonos76, que exigia a intervenção do governo em questões de religião.

Portanto, é natural a acusação de que, optando pela liberdade de religião, não estamos privilegiando o Calvinismo, antes nos opomos diretamente a isto.

В третьей и последней части этой лекции остается рассмотреть еще более сложный вопрос. Как мы должны представлять себе суверенитет Церкви в государстве?

Я называю его сложным не потому, что сомневаюсь в выводах, или в вашем согласии с ними. Здесь, в Америке, всякая неопределенность в этом отношении устраняется тем, что сказано о сотрудничестве Церкви и государства в вашей конституции, а позднее внесено в ваши вероисповедания. Что касается меня, то четверть столетия назад я начертал для себя девиз «Свободная Церковь в свободном государстве» и в тяжелой борьбе претворял его в жизнь. Наши голландские церкви также намереваются пересмотреть в своих исповеданиях все касающееся данного вопроса.

Сложность проблемы в ином — в сожжении Сервета; в отношении пресвитериан к индепендентам; в ограничении свободы культа и в «гражданских лишениях», которые веками даже в Нидерландах испытывали католики. Сложность — в том, что статья нашего старого кальвинистского вероисповедания доверяет правительству «защиту истинной веры, искоренение всякого идолопоклонства и ложной веры, охрану священного служения Церкви». Сложность — в том, что Кальвин и его соратники единодушно требовали, чтобы правительство вмешивалось в дела религии.

Поэтому нас можно обвинить, сказав, что, избирая религиозную свободу, мы не защищаем кальвинизм, но противимся ему.

Ter afwering nu van dit onverkwikkelijk vermoeden, plaats ik den regel op den voorgrond, dat het bijzondere karakter van een stelsel niet gekend wordt uit wat het met andere voorafgaande stelsels gemeen 92 heeft, maar zich teekent in datgene waarin het van die voorafgaande stelsels verschilt. De roeping der Overheid om allen valschen godsdienst en afgoderij uit te roeien, dagteekent van Constantijn den Groote, en was de terugslag op de afschuwelijke vervolgingen, door zijn heidensche voorgangers op den keizerlijken troon aangewend tegen de sekte van den Nazarener. Sinds was dat stelsel door alle Roomsche theologen bepleit en door alle Christenvorsten toegepast. Dat in dat stelsel de waarheid school was in de dagen van Luther en Calvijn de algemeen gangbare overtuiging. Alle theologen van naam, Melanchton voorop, hebben dan ook Servets brandstapel goedgekeurd; en het schavot te Leipzig voor een streng Calvinist, Krell, opgericht droeg van Luthersche zijde een veel bedenkelijker karakter. Maar terwijl in de eeuw der Reformatie schier alleen de Gereformeerden, (die der Lutherschen en Roomschen zijn spoedig geteld), aan schavot en brandstapel hun slachtoffers bij tienduizenden geleverd hebben, begaat men nochtans in de historie de grove en verregaande onbillijkheid, om hún steeds dien éénen brandstapel van Servet als crimen nefandum te blijven voorwerpen. Desniettemin bestreur ik niet alleen dien éénen brandstapel, maar keur dien onvoorwaardelijk af. Edoch af, niet als de uiting van een specialen karaktertrek van het Calvinisme, maar, heel anders, als de fatale uiting van een eeuwenoud stelsel, dat het Calvinisme gevonden had, waarin het was opgegroeid, en waaraan het zich nog niet had ontworsteld. Wil ik daarentegen weten wat ten deze uit het eigen beginsel van het Calvinisme voortvloeit, dan is het vraagstuk geheel anders te stellen. Dan dient ingezien en erkend, dat dit stelsel, om afwijking in religie-aangelegenheden onder de crimineele jurisdictie der Overheid te brengen, regelrecht voortvloeit uit de overtuiging dat de kerk van Christus op aarde slechts in één vorm en als één instituut kan optreden. Alleen die ééne kerk was de Kerk van Christus, en al wat van haar afweek, werd geacht vijandig tegen die ééne ware kerk over te staan. De Overheid had dus niet te oordeelen, niet te keuren, noch zelf te beslissen. Er was slechts ééne kerk van Christus op aarde, en die eenig denkbare kerk had zij tegen schisma, haeresie en secte te beveiligen. Doch breek die ééne kerk, geef toe dat de kerk van Christus in onderscheidene 93 landen, ja in een zelfde land, in velerlei formatie, in veelheid van instituut kan optreden, en met de eenheid der zichtbare kerk valt aanstonds weg al wat er uit voortvloeide. Valt nu niet tegen te spreken, dat het Calvinisme zelf feitelijk breuke in de eenheid der kerk bracht, en dat juist in de Calvinistische landen een rijke veelheid van allerlei formatiën optrad, dan is de echt Calvinistische karaktertrek ten deze te zoeken, niet in wat het een tijdlang het oude stelsel nasprak, maar in datgene wat het nieuw uit zijn eigen wortel geteeld heeft. De uitkomst getuigt dan ook nog na drie eeuwen, dat in alle overwegend Roomsche landen, zelfs in de Zuid-Amerikaansche republieken, de Roomsche, en in alle Luthersche landen de Luthersche kerk, Staatskerk is en bleef, terwijl de vrije kerk uitsluitend opbloeide in die landen, die onder de beademing van het Calvinisme kwamen, d.i. in Zwitserland, Nederland, Engeland, Schotland en de Vereenigde Staten van Noord-Amerika. In Roomsche landen wordt de gelijkstelling tusschen de onzichtbare met de zichtbare kerk, onder pauselijke eenheid nog volgehouden. In Luthersche landen heeft men met het “cuius regio eius religio” op gedrochtelijke wijze de hof-confessie tot landconfessie gemaakt, en de Gereformeerden hard behandeld, als ballingen afgewezen en als vijanden van den Christus gesmaad, te Leipzig ze zelfs ter dood gebracht. In het Calvinistisch Nederland daarentegen vonden alle vervolgden om des geloofs wille een toevluchtsoord, werden zelfs de Joden gastvrij ontvangen, waren de Martinisten in eere, bloeiden de Mennonieten, en traden ook de Remonstranten en Roomschen met huiskerken op. De Independenten, uit Engeland verjaagd, hebben in het Calvinistische Nederland de plek voor het hol van hun voet gevonden, en het is uit datzelfde Nederland dat de Mayflower uitzeilde om de Pilgrimfathers over te brengen naar hun nieuwe vaderland.

In order to shield myself from this undesirable suspicion, I advance the rule — that a system is not known by what it has in common with other preceding systems ; but that it is distinguished by that in which it differs from those preceding systems.

The duty of the government to extirpate every form of false religion and idolatry, dates from Constantine the Great, and was the reaction against the horrible persecutions which his pagan predecessors, on the imperial throne, had inflicted upon the sect of the Nazarene. Since that day this system has been defended by all Romish theologians and applied by all Christian princes. In the time of Luther and Calvin, it was a uuiversal conviction that that system was the true one. Every famous theologian of the period, Melanchton first of all, approved of the death by fire of Servetus ; and the scaffold, which was erected at Leipzic for Krell, the thorough-Calvinists, was infinitely more reprehensible, when looked at from a protestant standpoint.

But whilst the Calvinists, in the age of the Reformation, yielded their victims, by tens of thousands, to the scaffold and the stake, (those of the Lutherans and Roman Catholics 28 being hardly worth counting), history has been guilty of the great and far-reaching unfairness of ever casting in their teeth this one execution of fire of Servetus, as a crimen nefandum.

Notwithstanding all this I do net only lament that one stake, but I do unconditionally disapprove of it; yet not as if it were the expression of a special characteristic of Calvinism, but on the contrary as the fatal expression of a system, grey with age, which Calvinism found in existence, under which it had grown up, and from which it had not yet been able entirely to liberate itself.

If I desire to know what in this respect must follow from the specific principles of Calvinism, then the question must be put quite differently.

Then we must see and acknowledge that this system of bringing differences in religious matters under the criminal jurisdiction of the government, results directly from the conviction that the Church of Christ on earth can express itself only in one form and as one institution.

This one church alone was the Church of Christ, and everything, which differed from her, was looked upon as inimical to this one true church.

The government, therefore, was not called upon to judge, or to weigh, or to decide for itself. There was only one Church of Christ on earth, and it was the task of the Magistrate to protect that church from schisms, heresies and sects.

But break that one Church into fragments, admit that the Church of Christ can reveal itself in many forms, in different countries; nay even in the same country, in a multiplicity of institutions; and immediately everything, which was deduced from this unity of the visible church, drops out of sight.

If it cannot be denied that Calvinism itself has ruptured the unity of the church, and that in Calvinistic countries a rich variety of all manner of church-formations 29 revealed itself, then it follows that we must not seek the true Calvinistic characteristic in what, for a time, it has retained of the old system, but rather in that, which, new and fresh, has sprung up from its own root.

Results have shown that, even after the lapse of three centuries, in all distinctive Roman Catholic countries, even in the South American Republics, the Roman Catholic church is and remains the State-church, precisely as does the Lutheran church in Lutheran countries. And the free church has exclusively flourished in those countries, which were touched by the breath of Calvinism, i. e., in Switzerland, the Netherlands, England, Scotland and the United States of North America.

In Roman Catholic countries, the identification of the invisible and the visible church, under papal unity, is still maintained. In Lutheran countries, with the aid of "cuius regio eius religio", the Court-confession has been monstrously imposed on the people as the land-confession ; there the Reformed were treated harshly, they were exiled and outraged, as enemies of Christ, and at Leipsic Krell has even been condemned to death. In the Calvinistic Netherlands, on the contrary, all those who were persecuted for religion's sake, found a harbor of refuge. There the Jews were hospitably received; there the Martinists were in honor ; there the Mennonites flourished ; and even the Remonstrants and Catholics were permitted the free exercise of their religion at home and in secluded churches. The Independents, driven from England, have found a resting place for the soles of their feet in the Calvinistic Netherlands; and from this same country the Mayflower sailed forth to transport the Pilgrim Fathers to their new fatherland.

In order to shield myself from this undesirable suspicion, I advance the rule — that a system is not known in what it has in common with other preceding systems; but that it is distinguished by that in which it differs from those preceding systems. 129

The duty of the government to extirpate every form of false religion and idolatry was not a find of Calvinism, but dates from Constantine the Great, and was the reaction against the horrible persecutions which his pagan predecessors on the imperial throne had inflicted upon the sect of the Nazarene. Since that day this system had been defended by all Romish theologians and applied by all Christian princes. In the time of Luther and Calvin, it was a universal conviction that that system was the true one. Every famous theologian of the period, Melanchthon first of all, approved of the death by fire of Servetus; and the scaffold, which was erected by the Lutherans at Leipzig for Krell, the thorough Calvinist, was infinitely more reprehensible when looked at from a Protestant standpoint.

But whilst the Calvinists, in the age of Reformation, yielded their victims, by tens of thousands, to the scaffold and the stake (those of the Lutherans and Roman Catholics being hardly worth counting), history has been guilty of the great and far-reaching unfairness of ever casting in their teeth this one execution of fire of Servetus, as a crimen nefandum.

Notwithstanding all this, I not only deplore that one stake, but I unconditionally disapprove of it; yet not as if it were the expression of a special characteristic of Calvinism, but on the contrary as the fatal after-effect of a system, grey with age, which Calvinism found in existence, under which it had grown up, and from which it had not yet been able entirely to liberate itself.

If I desire to know what in this respect must follow from the specific principles of Calvinism, then the 130 question must be put quite differently. Then we must see and acknowledge that this system of bringing differences in religious matters under the criminal jurisdiction of the government resulted directly from the conviction that the Church of Christ on earth could express itself only in one form and as one institution This one Church alone, in the Middle Ages, was the Church of Christ, and everything, which differed from her, was looked upon as inimical to this one true Church. The government, therefore, was not called upon to judge, or to weigh or to decide for itself. There was only one Church of Christ on earth, and it was the task of the Magistrate to protect that Church from schisms, heresies and sects.

But break that one Church into fragments, admit that the Church of Christ can reveal itself in many forms, in different countries; nay, even in the same country, in a multiplicity of institutions; and immediately everything which was deduced from this unity of the visible church drops out of sight. And therefore, if it cannot be denied that Calvinism itself has ruptured the unity of the Church, and that in Calvinistic countries a rich variety of all manner of church-formations revealed itself, then it follows that we must not seek the true Calvinistic characteristic in what, for a time, it has retained of the old system, but rather in that, which, new and fresh, has sprung up from its own root.

Results have shown that, even after the lapse of three centuries, in all distinctively Roman Catholic countries, even in the South American Republics, the Roman Catholic church is and remains the State-church, precisely 131 as does the Lutheran Church in Lutheran countries. And the free churches have exclusively flourished in those countries which were touched by the breath of Calvinism, i.e., in Switzerland, the Netherlands, England, Scotland, and the United States of North America.

In Roman Catholic countries, the identification of the invisible and the visible Church, under Papal unity, is still maintained. In Lutheran countries, with the aid of “cuius regio eius religio”, the Court-confession has been monstrously imposed on the people as the land-confession; there the Reformed were treated harshly, they were exiled and outraged, as enemies of Christ. In the Calvinistic Netherlands, on the contrary, all those who were persecuted for religion’s sake, found a harbor of refuge. There the Jews were hospitably received; there the Lutherans were in honor there the Mennonites flourished; and even the Arminians and Roman Catholics were permitted the free exercise of their religion at home and in secluded churches. The independents, driven from England, have found a resting place in the Calvinistic Netherlands; and from this same country the Mayflower sailed forth to transport the Pilgrim Fathers to their new fatherland.

A fim de proteger-me desta suspeita indesejável, antecipo a regra – que um sistema não é conhecido pelo que ele tem em comum com outros sistemas precedentes; mas que ele é distinguido por aquilo em que difere daqueles sistemas precedentes.

O dever do governo de extirpar toda forma de religião falsa e idolatria não foi descoberta pelo Calvinismo, mas data de Constantino o Grande, e foi a reação contra a horrível perseguição que seu predecessor pagão no trono imperial infligiu sobre a seita do Nazareno. Desde aquele dia este sistema tem sido defendido por todos os teólogos Romanistas e aplicado por todos os príncipes cristãos. No tempo de Lutero e Calvino, era a convicção universal que esse sistema era a única verdade. Cada teólogo famoso da época, Melanchton para começar, aprovou a morte de Serveto pelo fogo; e o cadafalso que foi erigido pelos Luteranos em Leipzig para Krell77, o calvinista radical, foi infinitamente mais repreensível quando visto de um ponto de vista protestante.

Mas enquanto os calvinistas, na época da Reforma, produziram dezenas de milhares de vítimas, enviadas ao cadafalso e às fogueiras (as dos Luteranos e Católicos romanos nem valem a pena contar), a História tem sido culpada da grande e extensa injustiça de sempre lançar no rosto dos calvinistas esta única execução de Serveto no fogo, como um crimen nefandum.

Apesar de tudo isto, não somente deploro aquela única estaca, mas incondicionalmente reprovo seu uso; todavia não como se fosse a expressão de uma característica especial do Calvinismo, pelo contrário, como o efeito secundário fatal de um sistema cinza como a época que o Calvinismo encontrou existindo, sobre o qual tinha amadurecido, e do qual não tinha ainda sido capaz de livrar-se inteiramente.

Se desejo saber o que, a este respeito, deve seguir dos princípios específicos do Calvinismo, então a questão deve ser colocada completamente diferente. Então devemos ver e reconhecer que esse sistema de levar diferenças em questões religiosas para a jurisdição criminal do governo era o resultado direto da convicção de que a Igreja de Cristo sobre a terra deveria expressar-se somente em uma forma e como uma instituição. Na Idade Média, somente esta única Igreja era a Igreja de Cristo, e tudo que diferia dela era visto como hostil a esta única Igreja verdadeira. O governo, portanto, não era chamado para julgar, ou para examinar ou para decidir por si mesmo. Havia somente uma única Igreja de Cristo na terra, e era a tarefa do Magistrado proteger esta Igreja de cismas, heresias e seitas.

Não obstante, quebrar esta única Igreja em fragmentos, admitir que a Igreja de Cristo pode revelar-se em muitas formas, em diferentes países; mais ainda, até mesmo no próprio país, numa multiplicidade de instituições; e imediatamente tudo o que era deduzido desta unidade da igreja visível desaparece de vista. E portanto, se não pode ser negado que o próprio Calvinismo rompeu a unidade da Igreja, e que nos países calvinistas uma rica variedade de todos os tipos de formações eclesiásticas revelou-se, então segue-se que não devemos procurar a verdadeira característica calvinista no que, por um tempo, ele tinha retido do velho sistema, mas antes naquilo que, novo e fresco, tem nascido de sua própria raiz.

Os resultados mostram que, mesmo depois do lapso de três séculos, em todos os países distintivamente Católicos romanos, mesmo nas repúblicas da América do Sul, a Igreja Católica Romana é e continua sendo o Igreja do Estado, do mesmo modo como fazem as Igrejas Luteranas nos países luteranos. E as igrejas livres têm prosperado exclusivamente naqueles países que foram tocados pelo sopro do Calvinismo, i.e., na Suíça, na Holanda, na Inglaterra, na Escócia, e nos Estados Unidos da América.

Nos países Católicos romanos é ainda sustentada a identificação da Igreja invisível com a visível, sob a unidade papal. Nos países Luteranos, com a ajuda da “curius regio eius religio”, a Confissão do Tribunal foi monstruosamente imposta sobre o povo como a confissão da terra; ali os reformados foram tratados asperamente, foram exilados e ultrajados como inimigos de Cristo. Na Holanda calvinista, ao contrário, todos aqueles que eram perseguidos por causa da religião encontraram um porto de refúgio. Ali, os judeus foram recebidos hospitaleiramente; ali os Luteranos foram honrados; ali os Menonitas prosperaram; e até mesmo aos Arminianos e Católicos romanos foi permitido o livre exercício de sua religião em casa e em igrejas separadas. Os Independentes, fugindo da Inglaterra, encontraram um lugar de repouso na Holanda calvinista; e deste mesmo país o Mayflower78 zarpou para transportar os pais peregrinos para sua nova terra natal.

Чтобы защитить себя от этого подозрения, я предлагаю такое правило: система распознается не по тому, что у нее общего с другими, предшествующими системами, а по тому, чем она от них отличается.

Не кальвинизм решил, что правительство должно искоренять все формы лжерелигии и идолопоклонства. Это восходит к Константину Великому и было реакцией на ужасные гонения, которым его языческие предшественники на императорском троне подвергали «секту назореев». С тех дней такую систему защищали римские теологи и применяли все христианские государи. Во времена Лютера и Кальвина преобладало убеждение в ее истинности. Все знаменитые теологи того времени, прежде всего — Меланхтон, одобрили казнь Сервета. Эшафот, воздвигнутый лютеранами в Лейпциге для Крелля¹⁴, убежденного кальвиниста, заслуживал бесконечно больших порицаний, если его рассматривать с протестантской точки зрения.

В то время как кальвинисты в эпоху Реформации приносились в жертву десятками тысяч на эшафоте и на костре (едва ли надо подсчитывать жертвы лютеран и католиков), история оказывается виновной в большой и далеко идущей несправедливости, постоянно обвиняя их в сожжении Сервета, представляя это crimen nefandum (несказанное преступление).

Я не только оплакиваю эту казнь, но и безусловно ее порицаю; и все же скажу, что это не особенность кальвинизма, а фатальное следствие системы, древней системы. Кальвинизм застал ее, в ее условиях вырос и еще не мог полностью от нее освободиться.

Если же я спрошу, что должно следовать в этом отношении из самих принципов кальвинизма, вопрос придется поставить иначе. Придется заметить и понять, что переносить религиозные споры в область уголовного судопроизводства побудило убеждение, что Церковь Христова может выражаться лишь в одной форме и как один институт. Только эта Церковь в средние века была Церковью Христовой, и все, что от нее отличалось, считали враждебным этой единственно истинной Церкви. Правительство и не должно было что-то решать. Раз на земле только одна Церковь, суды, естественно, защищают ее от расколов, ересей и сект.

Но разделите эту Церковь на части; допустите, что Церковь Христова может открываться во множестве форм в разных странах, мало того — даже в одной и той же стране она иногда существует в виде многих организаций; и сразу же исчезнет все, что выводилось из единства видимой Церкви. Бесспорно, кальвинизм сам разорвал единство Церкви (Этими словами Кайпер утверждает только то, что кальвинизм «разорвал» сплоченность Римско-католической церкви как видимого института. Но единство истинной Церкви как сообщества всех верующих остается нерушимым. См. Бельгийское исповедание, арт. 27: «Мы верим и исповедуем, что существует единая Вселенская или Кафолическая Церковь, являющаяся святой общиной и собранием истинно верующих христиан, ожидающих своего полного спасения в Иисусе Христе, омытых Его кровью, освященных и запечатленных Святым Духом». — Прим. науч. консультанта ) , и в кальвинистских странах обнаружилось богатое разнообразие церковных образований, а отсюда следует, что искать что-то подлинно кальвинистское надо не в том, что он на время сохранил от старой системы, а скорее в том новом и свежем, что произросло из его собственного корня.

Результаты показали, что и через три столетия во всех католических странах, даже в южноамериканских республиках, Римская католическая церковь остается государственной, как и лютеранские церкви в лютеранских странах. Свободные церкви процветают исключительно в тех странах, которые затронуты дыханием кальвинизма, т. е. в Швейцарии, Нидерландах, Англии, Шотландии и Северной Америке.

В католических странах все еще остается прочным отождествление невидимой и видимой Церкви под главенством папы. В странах, где лютеранство было грубо предписано народу как национальное исповедание с помощью принципа «cuius regio eius religio» («чье правление, того и вера») с реформатами обходились жестко; их изгоняли как врагов Христовых. В кальвинистских же Нидерландах все те, кого преследовали за веру, нашли спокойную гавань. Там гостеприимно принимали евреев, там были в почете лютеране, там процветали меннониты; и даже арминианам и католикам позволялось свободно исповедовать их религию дома и в церквах. Индепенденты, изгнанные из Англии, обрели там спокойное прибежище; и оттуда же отплыл «Мейфлауер», чтобы перевезти отцов-пилигримов на их новую родину.

Het is dus geen uitvlucht waarin ik heul zoek, het zijn de klare feiten der historie, waarop ik mij beroep; en ik herhaal hier: niet in wat het Calvinisme uit het verleden overnam, maar in wat het nieuw schiep, moet de diepe grondtrek gezocht van zijn karakter. Opmerkelijk is het dan ook dat de vrijheid van conscientie van meet af door onze Calvinistische theologen en 94 juristen tegenover de Inquisitie verdedigd is. Rome doorzag uitnemend wel, hoe vrijheid van conscientie het fundament van de eenheid der kerk loswoelde, en ging er tegen in. Maar ook omgekeerd moet dan erkend, dat het Calvinisme door luide de vrijheid der conscientie te eeren, de eenheid der zichtbare Kerk in beginsel prijs gaf. Zoodra in den boezem van een zelfde volk de belijdenis der eene helft tegen die der andere helft getuigen mocht, was de breuke een feit geworden en hielpen geen placcaten meer. Reeds in 1649 werd het uitgesproken, dat vervolging om des geloofs wil “a spiritual murder was, an assassination of the soul, a rage against God himself, the most horrible of sins”. En dat Calvijn zelf, al kwam hij nog niet tot de juiste conclusie, toch reeds de praemisse voor die conclusie neerschreef, blijkt uit zijn erkenning van den Roomschen Doop, uit zijn betuiging dat tegenover den Atheist zelfs de Roomsche onze bondgenoot is, uit zijn volmondig erkennen van de Luthersche kerken, en ten deele zelfs uit zijn thetische verklaring: “Scimus tres esse errorum gradus, et quibusdam fatemur dandam esse veniam, aliis modicam castigationem sufficere, ut tantum manifesta impietas capitali supplicio plectatur. ¹⁷⁾ D.i. Er bestaat drieërlei afwijking van de Christelijke waarheid; een geringe, die men stil moet laten begaan, een matige die door matige kastijding moet hersteld, en alleen vermetele goddeloosheid moet crimineel gestraft worden”. Een nog altoos harde uitspraak, ik geef het toe, maar dan toch een uitspraak, waarin principieel de zichtbare eenheid wordt prijsgegeven, en waar die eenheid breekt, daagt de vrijheid vanzelf.

Van oudsher lag de ongebroken eenheid der Kerk gegrondvest in de overtuiging, dat de belijdenis die men beleed de absolute belijdenis der Waarheid was; en aan deze zinsbegoocheling ontkwam ook het Calvinisme bij zijn eerste opkomst niet. Juist echter overmits het verbreken van de eenheid der Kerk van zelf het relatief karakter ook van elke bijzondere belijdenis aan het licht moest doen komen, heeft het Calvinisme door een pluriformiteit van 95 kerkformatie mogelijk te maken, de beperktheid van ons inzicht ook bij de Belijdenis der Waarheid aan het licht gebracht.

I do not build therefore on subterfuge, but 1 appeal to clear historical facts. And here I repeat— the deep lying characteristic of Calvinism must be sought, not in what it has adopted from the past, but in what it has newly created. 30 It is remarkable, in this connection, that, from the very beginning, our Calvinistic Theologians and jurists have defended liberty of conscience against the Inquisition. Rome perceived very clearly how liberty of conscience must loosen the foundations of the unity of the church and therefore she antagonized it. But on the other hand it must be admitted that Calvinism, by praising aloud liberty of conscience, has in principle abandoned every absolute characteristic of the visible church.

As soon as in the bosom of one and the same people the conscience of one half witnessed against that of the other half, the breach had been accomplished and placards were no longer of any avail.

As early as 1649 it was declared that persecution, for faith's sake, was— "a spiritual murder, an assassination of the soul, a rage against God himself, the most horrible of sins".

And it is evident that Calvin himself wrote down the premises of the correct conclusion, by his acknowledgment that against atheists even the Catholics are our allies; by his open recognition of the Lutheran Church; and still more emphatically by his pertinent declaration: "Scimus tres esse errorum gradus, et quibus dam fatemur dandam esse veniam, aliis modicam castigationem sufricere, ut tantum manifesta impietas capitali supplitio plectatur.^* That is to say: "There exists a threefold departure from the Christian truth; a slight one, which had better be left alone ; a moderate one, which must be restored by a moderate chastisement; and only manifest godlessness must be capitally punished". I admit that this is still a harsh decision, but yet a decision in which in principle the visible unity is discarded; and where that unity is broken, there liberty will dawn as a matter of course. With Rome the system of persecution issued from the 31 identification of the visible with the invisible church, and from this dangerous line Calvin departed, but what he persevered in defending was the identification of our Confession of the Truth with the absolute Truth itself, and it only wanted fuller experience to realize that this proposition, true as it must ever remain in our personal conviction, may never be imposed by force upon other people.

I do not build therefore on subterfuge, but I appeal to clear historical facts. And here I repeat the underlying characteristic of Calvinism must be sought, not in what it has adopted from the past, but in what it has newly created. It is remarkable, in this connection, that, from the very beginning, our Calvinistic Theologians and jurists have defended liberty of conscience against the Inquisition. Rome perceived very clearly 132 how liberty of conscience must loosen the foundations of the unity of the visible Church, and therefore she opposed it. But on the other hand it must be admitted that Calvinism, by praising aloud liberty of conscience, has in principle abandoned every absolute characteristic of the visible Church.

As soon as in the bosom of one and the same people the conscience of one half witnessed against that of the other half, the breach had been accomplished, and placards were no longer of any avail. As early as 1649 it was declared that persecution, for faith’s sake, was — “A spiritual murder, an assassination of the soul, a rage against God himself, the most horrible of sins”. And it is evident that Calvin himself wrote down the premises of the correct conclusion, by his acknowledgment that against atheists even the Catholics are our allies; by his open recognition of the Lutheran Church; and still more emphatically by his pertinent declaration: “Scimus tres esse errorum gradus, et quibusdam fatemur dandam esse veniam, aliis modicam castigationem sufficere, ut tantum manifesta impietas capitali supplitio plectatur.” ¹⁴⁾ That is to say: “There exists a threefold departure from the Christian truth; a slight one, which had better be left alone; a moderate one, which must be restored by a moderate chastisement; and only manifest godlessness must be capitally punished”. I admit that this is a harsh decision, but yet a decision in which in principle the visible unity is discarded; and where that unity is broken, there liberty will dawn as a matter of course. For here lies the 133 solution of the problem: With Rome the system of persecution issued from the identification of the visible with the invisible Church, and from this dangerous line Calvin departed. But what he still persevered in defending was the identification of his Confession of the Truth with the absolute Truth itself, and it only wanted fuller experience to realize that also this proposition, true as it must ever remain in our personal conviction, may never be imposed by force upon other people.

Portanto, não me baseio em subterfúgio, mas apelo para fatos históricos claros. E aqui, repito, a característica latente do Calvinismo deve ser vista, não no que adotou do passado, mas no que criou de novo. É notável que, neste aspecto, desde o começo nossos teólogos e juristas calvinistas defenderam a liberdade de consciência contra a Inquisição. Roma percebeu muito claramente como a liberdade de consciência afrouxaria os fundamentos da unidade da Igreja visível, e por isso opôs-se a ela. Mas por outro lado deve ser admitido que o Calvinismo, louvando em voz alta a liberdade de consciência, em princípio abandonou toda característica absoluta da Igreja visível.

Assim, que no seio de um e do mesmo povo a consciência de uma metade testemunhou contra a outra metade, a brecha foi produzida e slogans não eram mais de nenhuma utilidade. Já em 1649 foi declarado que a perseguição por causa da fé, era – “Um homicídio espiritual, um assassinato da alma, uma violência contra o próprio Deus, o mais horrível dos pecados”. E é evidente que o próprio Calvino escreveu sob as premissas da conclusão correta, por seu reconhecimento de que contra os ateístas até mesmo os Católicos são nossos aliados; por seu aberto reconhecimento da Igreja Luterana; e ainda mais enfaticamente por sua pertinente declaração: “Scimus tres esse errorum gradus, et quibusdam fatemur dandam esse veniam, aliis modicam castigationem sufficere, ut tantum manifesta impietas capitali supplitio plectatur.”79 Isto quer dizer: “Ali existe uma tríplice divergência da verdade cristã; insignificante, que seria melhor ser deixada sozinha; uma moderada, que deve ser restaurada por um castigo moderado; e somente a impiedade manifesta deve ser punida capitalmente.” Admito que esta é uma decisão severa, mas, contudo, uma decisão na qual em princípio a unidade visível é descartada; e onde esta unidade é quebrada, ali a liberdade desponta naturalmente. Pois aqui encontra-se a solução do problema: Com Roma, o sistema de perseguição era o resultado da identificação da Igreja visível com a invisível, e Calvino afastou-se desta perigosa linha. Mas o que ele ainda continuou defendendo foi a identificação de sua Confissão sobre a Verdade com a Verdade absoluta em si, e apenas desejou experiência mais plena para compreender que esta proposição também, verdadeira como sempre deve permanecer em nossa convicção pessoal, nunca pode ser imposta pela força sobre outras pessoas.

Я не надеюсь уйти от ответа, но взываю к очевидным историческим фактам, а потому повторяю: основополагающие особенности кальвинизма следует искать не в том, что он взял из прошлого, а в том, что он создал нового. Примечательно, что с самого начала наши кальвинистские теологи и юристы защищали свободу совести против инквизиции. Рим очень ясно понимал, что эта свобода вероисповедания разрушит единство видимой Церкви, и потому противостоял ей. В то же время надо признать, что, восхваляя свободу совести, кальвинизм в принципе упразднил всякую абсолютность видимой Церкви.

Как только в недрах какого-нибудь народа совесть одной половины начинала спорить с совестью другой, происходил раскол, и попытки умиротворения не приносили пользы. Уже в 1649 г. было объявлено, что гонения за веру — это «духовное убийство; умерщвление души, восстание против Бога, самый ужасный из грехов». Совершенно очевидно, что Кальвин заложил основания для правильных выводов, допустив, что против атеистов даже католики — наши союзники и, одновременно с этим, открыто признав лютеранскую Церковь. Еще выразительней его постоянные заявления: «Scimus tres esse errorum gradus, et quibusdam fatemur dandam esse veniam, aliis modicam castigationem sufficere, ut tantum manifesta impietas capitali supplitio plectatur» («Нам ведомы три степени заблуждения относительно христианской истины — слабое, которое лучше оставить в покое; умеренное, которое дoлжно исправлять умеренным наказанием; и открытое нечестие, которое нужно карать смертной казнью»)¹⁵. Я допускаю, что это жесткое решение, но оно в принципе отменяет видимое единство; а где нарушается единство, там неизбежно должна воссиять свобода. Проблема решается именно так. У католиков система преследований вытекала из отождествления видимой Церкви с невидимой, и от этой опасной идеи Кальвин отошел. Но то, что он еще защищал, тоже зиждилось на отождествлении его исповедания истины с абсолютной истиной. Требовался более богатый жизненный опыт, чтобы понять, что и это положение, хотя оно всегда останется истинным для отдельного человека, нельзя навязывать силой другим людям.

Zooveel over de feiten, brengen we thans de theorie zelve ter toetse en bezien we achtereenvolgens de roeping der Overheid in geestelijke dingen 1º. tegenover God, 2º. tegenover de Kerk, en 3º. tegenover de enkele personen. Wat nu het eerste punt betreft, zoo is en blijft de Overheid “Dienaresse Gods.” Ze moet God als haar Opperheer erkennen, aan Wien ze haar macht ontleent. Ze moet God dienen door het volk naar zijn ordinantiën te regeeren. Ze moet Godslastering, waar ze het rechtstreeksch karakter van hoon tegen Gods majesteit aanneemt, te keer gaan. Dat erkennen van Gods oppermacht doet ze door zijn Naam in de Constitutie te belijden, door zijn sabbat hoog te houden, door bid- en dankdagen uit te lokken, door in te roepen zijn Goddelijken zegen, en door aan de kerken haar bescherming te verleenen. Voorts om te regeeren naar zijn heilige ordinantiën, is elk magistraatspersoon verplicht zelf de rechten Gods in het natuurlijk leven en in zijn Woord te onderzoeken, niet om zich aan de uitspraak van eenige Kerk te onderwerpen, maar om zelf het licht op te vangen dat hij voor de kennisse van Gods wil behoeft. En wat aangaat de Godslastering, zoo berust het recht der Overheid om deze te keer te gaan in het Godsbesef dat een ieder van nature ingeschapen is, en vloeit de plicht er toe voort uit het feit dat God Opperkoning over elk volk is. Doch juist deswege is het feit van Godslastering alleen dan geconstateerd te achten, als het opzet bleek, om in arren moede deze Oppersouvereiniteit van God over heel het volk te honen. Wat dan gestraft wordt is niet de religieuse afwijking, noch de onvrome zin, maar de aanranding van den staatsrechtelijken grondslag, waarop èn Staat èn Overheid rust. Intusschen is het verschil aanmerkelijk, dat hier opkomt tusschen Staten, die absoluut door een monarch, en staten, die, constitutioneel, onder veler beleid, of sterker nog republikeinsch door een breede vergadering geregeerd worden. Bij den absoluten monarch is één het bewustzijn en één de persoonlijke wil, en is dus deze eene persoon geroepen, 96 naar zijn persoonlijk inzicht in de ordinantiën Gods, te regeeren. Werkt daarentegen veler bewustzijn en veler wilsuiting saam, dan gaat die eenheid te loor, en kan het subjectieve inzicht van de velen in de ordinantiën Gods slechts zijdelings doorwerken. Maar hetzij ge met de wilsuiting van een enkel persoon of met de wilsuiting van velen in een door stemming genomen besluit te doen hebt, hoofdzaak blijft, dat de Overheid zelfstandig te oordeelen en zelfstandig te besluiten heeft. Niet als appendix van de kerk, noch als haar naspreekster. Het Staatsterrein zelf staat onder de majesteit des Heeren. Op dat Staatsterrein geldt alzoo tegenover God een zelfstandige verantwoordelijkheid. Niet het kerkelijk erf is gewijd en profaan het Staatsterrein dat daar buiten ligt, maar Kerk en Staat beide hebben elk op hun eigen terrein God te gehoorzamen en zijn eere te dienen. En daartoe nu moet op beider gebied Gods Woord heerschen, edoch op Staatsterrein alleen door de consciëntie der met macht bekleede personen. Hoogste eisch is en blijft natuurlijk, dat alle volken Christelijk geregeerd worden, d.w.z. naar die beginselen, die voor het Staatsbeleid uit den Christus voortvloeien, maar gerealiseerd kan dit nooit anders worden dan door de subjectieve overtuiging van de personen die in de macht staan, krachtens hun persoonlijk inzicht in wat het Christelijk beginsel voor het Staatsbeleid eischt.

So much for the facts. Now let us put the theory itself to the test and look successively at the duty of the magistrate in things spiritual: 1". towards God. 2°. towards the Church, and 3". towards individuals. As regards the first point, the magistrates are and remain— "God's servants." They have to recognize God as supreme ruler, from whom they derive their power. They have to serve God, by ruling the people according to His ordinances. They have to restrain blasphemy, where it directly assumes the character of an affront to the divine majesty. And God's supremacy is to be recognized, by confessing His name in the Constitution, by maintaining the Sabbath, by proclaiming days of prayer and thanksgiving, and by invoking His divine blessing.

Therefore in order that they may govern, according to His holy ordinances, every magistrate is in duty bound to investigate the rights of God, both in the natural life and His Word. Not to subject himself to the decision of any church, but in order that he himself may catch the light which he needs for the knowledge of the divine will. And as regards blasphemy, the right of the magistrates to restrain it rests in the God-consciousness innate in every man; and the duty to exercise this right flows from the fact that God is the supreme and sovereign Ruler over every State and over every Nation. But for this very reason the fact of blasphemy is only then to be deemed established, when the intention is apparent contumaciously to affront this majesty of God as supreme Ruler of the State. What is then punished is not the religious offense, nor the impious 32 sentiment, but the attack upon the foundation of public law, upon which both the State and its government are resting.

Meanwhile there is in this respect a noteworthy difference between States which are absolutely governed b} r a monarch, and States which are governed constitutionally ; or in a republic, in a still wider range, by an extensive assembly.

In the absolute monarch the consciousness and the personal will are one and thus this one person is called to rule his people after his own personal conception of the ordinances of God. When on the contrary the consciousness and the will of many cooperate, this unity is lost and the subjective conception of the ordinances of God, by these many, can only be indirectly applied. But whether you are dealing with the will of a single individual, or with the will of many men, in a decision arrived at by a vote, the principal thing remains that the government has to judge and to decide independently. Not as an appendix to the Church, nor as its pupil. The sphere of State stands itself under the majesty of the Lord. In that sphere therefore an independent responsibility to God is to be maintained. The ecclesiastical estate is not sacred; and that of the State outside of it is not profane. But both Church and State must, each in their own sphere, obey God and serve His honor. And to that end in either sphere God's Word must rule, but in the sphere of the State only through the conscience of the persons invested with authority. The first thing of course is and remains that all nations shall be governed in a Christian way; that is to say in accordance withj the principle which, for all statecraft, flow from the Christ. But this can never be realized except through the subjective convictions of those in authority, according to their personal views of the demands of that Christian principle, as regards the public service. 33

So much for the facts. Now let us put the theory itself to the test and look successively at the duty of the magistrate in things spiritual: 1°. towards God, 2°. towards the Church, and 3°. towards individuals. As regards the first point, the magistrates are and remain — “God’s servants.” They have to recognize God as Supreme Ruler, from Whom they derive their power. They have to serve God, by ruling the people according to His ordinances. They have to restrain blasphemy, where it directly assumes the character of an affront to the Divine Majesty. And God’s supremacy is to be recognized by confessing His name in the Constitution as the Source of all political power, by maintaining the Sabbath, by proclaiming days of prayer and thanksgiving, and by invoking His Divine blessing.

Therefore in order that they may govern, according to His holy ordinances, every magistrate is in duty bound to investigate the rights of God, both in the natural life and in His Word. Not to subject himself to the decision of any Church, but in order that he 134 himself may catch the light which he needs for the knowledge of the Divine will. And as regards blasphemy, the right of the magistrate to restrain it rests in the God-consciousness innate in every man; and the duty to exercise this right flows from the fact that God is the Supreme and Sovereign Ruler over every State and over every Nation. But for this very reason the fact of blasphemy is only then to be deemed established, when the intention is apparent contumaciously to affront this majesty of God as Supreme Ruler of the State. What is then punished is not the religious offence, nor the impious sentiment, but the attack upon the foundation of public law, upon which both the State and its government are resting.

Meanwhile there is in this respect a noteworthy difference between States which are absolutely governed by a monarch, and States which are governed constitutionally; or in a republic, in a still wider range, by an extensive assembly.

In the absolute monarch the consciousness and the personal will are one, and thus this one person is called to rule his people after his own personal conception of the ordinances of God. When on the contrary the consciousness and the will of many cooperate, this unity is lost and the subjective conception of the ordinances of God, by these many, can only be indirectly applied. But whether you are dealing with the will of a single individual, or with the will of many men, in a decision arrived at by a vote, the principal thing remains that the government has to judge and to decide independently. Not as an appendix to the Church, nor 135 as its pupil. The sphere of State stands itself under the majesty of the Lord. In that sphere therefore an independent responsibility to God is to be maintained The sphere of the State is not profane. But both Church and State must, each in their own sphere, obey God and serve His honor. And to that end in either sphere God’s Word must rule, but in the sphere of the State only through the conscience of the persons invested with authority. The first thing of course is, and remains, that all nations shall be governed in a Christian way; that is to say, in accordance with the principle which, for all statecraft, flows from the Christ. But this can never be realized except through the subjective convictions of those in authority, according to their personal views of the demands of that Christian principle as regards the public service.

Esses fatos são suficientes. Vamos agora submeter a própria teoria ao teste e olhar sucessivamente para o dever do magistrado nas coisas espirituais: 1. Para com Deus, 2. Para com a Igreja, e 3. Para com os indivíduos.

Com relação ao primeiro ponto, os magistrados são e continuam sendo – “servos de Deus”. Eles devem reconhecer Deus como o Supremo Governador, de quem eles derivam seu poder. Eles devem servir a Deus governando o povo segundo suas ordenanças. Devem reprimir a blasfêmia onde ela diretamente assume o caráter de uma afronta à Majestade Divina. E a supremacia de Deus deve ser reconhecida pela confissão de seu nome na Constituição como a Fonte de todo poder político, mantendo o sábado, proclamando dias de oração e ações de graça, e invocando sua divina bênção.

Portanto, a fim de que eles possam governar segundo suas santas ordenanças, cada magistrado está no dever de limitar-se a investigar os direitos de Deus tanto na vida natural como em sua Palavra. Não para sujeitar-se à decisão de alguma Igreja, mas a fim de que ele mesmo possa alcançar a luz que necessita para o conhecimento da vontade Divina. E com relação a blasfêmia, o direito do magistrado de reprimi-la repousa na consciência de Deus inata em cada homem; e o dever de exercer este direito nasce do fato que Deus é o Supremo e Soberano Governador sobre cada Estado e sobre cada nação. Mas por esta mesma razão, o fato da blasfêmia deve ser considerado estabelecido somente quando a intenção é afrontar esta majestade de Deus como Supremo Governador sobre o Estado de modo aparentemente contumaz. Então o que é punido não é a ofensa religiosa, nem o sentimento ímpio, mas o ataque ao fundamento da lei pública, sobre a qual ambos, o Estado e seu governo, estão alicerçados.

Neste aspecto, entretanto, há uma diferença digna de nota entre os Estados que são governados absolutamente por um monarca, e os Estados que são governados constitucionalmente; ou numa república, numa classe ainda mais ampla, por uma assembléia geral.

No monarca absoluto a consciência e a vontade pessoal são uma, e assim esta única pessoa é chamada para governar seu povo segundo sua própria concepção pessoal das ordenanças de Deus. Quando, ao contrário, a consciência e a vontade de muitos cooperam, esta unidade é perdida e a concepção subjetiva das ordenanças de Deus por parte destes muitos somente pode ser aplicada indiretamente. Mas se vocês estão lidando com a vontade de um só indivíduo ou com a vontade de muitos homens, numa decisão alcançada pelo voto permanece o fato principal de que o governo deve julgar e decidir independentemente. Não como um apêndice à Igreja, nem como seu pupilo. A esfera do Estado coloca-se sob a majestade do Senhor. Nesta esfera, portanto, deve ser mantida uma responsabilidade independente para com Deus. A esfera do Estado não é profana. Mas tanto a Igreja como o Estado devem, cada um em sua própria esfera, obedecer a Deus e servir para sua honra. E para este fim a Palavra de Deus deve governar em ambas as esferas, mas na esfera do Estado somente através da consciência das pessoas investidas com autoridade. A primeira coisa certamente é, e continua sendo, que todas as nações deverão ser governadas de um modo cristão; isto quer dizer, de acordo com o princípio que flui de Cristo para toda administração pública. Mas isto nunca pode ser realizado exceto através da convicções subjetivas daqueles que estão em autoridade, segundo seus conceitos pessoais sobre as exigências deste princípio cristão com relação ao serviço público.

Однако хватит с нас фактов. Теперь обсудим эту теорию и последовательно рассмотрим долг властей в духовных вопросах: 1) по отношению к Богу; 2) по отношению к Церкви; и 3) по отношению к индивидам. Что до первого пункта, власти остаются «Божиими слугами». Они должны признавать Бога Верховным Правителем, от Которого получают свою власть. Они должны служить Богу, управляя народом согласно Его установлениям. Они должны обуздывать богохульство там, где оно бросает прямой вызов Божественному Величию. Они должны признавать верховенство Бога, указывая в Конституции на Его имя как на источник всякой политической власти, утверждая соблюдение воскресного дня, объявляя дни молитв и благодарений, и призывая Божие благословение.

Чтобы править согласно Его святым установлениям, власти должны исследовать права, принадлежащие Богу и в естественной жизни, и в Его Слове, — не для того, чтобы подчинить себя решениям какой-либо Церкви, а чтобы самим уловить тот свет, без которого не познаешь Божией воли. Что касается богохульства, то право обуздывать его покоится на богосознании, присущем каждому человеку; и долг осуществлять это право вытекает из того факта, что Бог — Верховный и Суверенный Судия над всеми народами и государствами. Однако по этой самой причине факт богохульства должен считаться установленным только тогда, когда очевидно намерение бросить вызов величию Бога как Верховного Правителя. Здесь карается не религиозное оскорбление и не безбожное мнение, а подрывание основ общественного права, на котором покоятся и государство, и его правители.

В то же время есть существенное различие между государствами, которые являются абсолютными монархиями, и государствами, которые управляются конституционно; республика же управляется еще более широкой представительной ассамблеей.

У абсолютного монарха сознание и личная воля едины, то есть — одна личность призвана править своим народом согласно своему личному представлению об установлениях Божиих. Когда же взаимодействуют сознание и воля многих людей, такое единство теряется, и субъективное представление о заповедях Божиих, присущее разным людям, может применяться лишь косвенно. Но имеем ли мы дело с волей индивида, с волей множества людей, или с решением, достигаемым через голосование, основной принцип остается тем же: правительство должно судить и решать само, независимым образом, а не как придаток Церкви или ее подчиненный. Сфера государства подчиняется величию Божиему. Поэтому в ней нужно утверждать независимую ответственность перед Богом. Сфера государства не безбожна, и Церковь, и государство должны слушаться Бога и служить Его славе в своих собственных сферах. Божие Слово должно править в каждой из этих сфер, но в сфере государства — только через совесть облеченных ответственностью лиц. Конечно, самое главное, чтобы всеми нациями управляли по-христиански, то есть в согласии с принципами, которые в этой сфере исходят от Христа. Но это можно осуществить только опираясь на субъективные убеждения облеченных властью людей, с их личными воззрениями на требования христианского принципа общественного служения.

Van geheel anderen aard is de tweede vraag, welke de verhouding tusschen de Overheid en de Kerk moet zijn. Ware het de wille Gods geweest dat deze zichtbare Kerk steeds één formatie zou blijven, zoo zou op deze vraag een geheel ander antwoord te geven zijn dan thans. Dat men aanvankelijk naar die eenheid gestreefd heeft, is natuurlijk. Eenheid van religie heeft voor het volksleven hooge bekoring, en aan de woede der wanhoop waarmeê Rome in de 16e eeuw voor het behoud dier eenheid gestreden heeft, kan alleen de kleinzieligheid zich ergeren. En ook is het begrijpelijk dat deze eenheid aanvankelijk haar beslag kreeg. Hoe lager een volk op de trap van ontwikkeling staat, hoe minder nog verschil in denkwijze uitkomt. Schier bij alle volken ziet men dan ook dat ze met eenheid van religie beginnen. Maar wint het individueele leven bij voortgaande ontwikkeling in kracht, 97 dan is het even natuurlijk, dat die eenheid splijt, en veelvormigheid zich als de onafwijsbare eisch van rijker levensontwikkeling doet gelden. En zoo staan we dan nu voor het feit, dat de zichtbare Kerk gespleten is, en dat in niet één land de absolute eenheid van de zichtbare Kerk meer is vol te houden. Welke is nu bij dien stand van zaken de roeping van de overheid? Heeft zij, want hierop komt het vraagstuk neer, zich alsnu een eigen oordeel te vormen, welke onder die vele kerken de ware kerk is, en deze tegenover de andere te handhaven; of wel heeft de Overheid zich van eigen oordeel te onthouden en in het veelvormig complex van al deze gezindheden de totaliteit der openbaring van Christus’ kerk op aarde te zien? En dan moet van Calvinistisch standpunt in laatstgemelden zin beslist, niet uit valsch begrip van neutraliteit, maar overmits zij als Overheid de gegevens mist, om te oordeelen, en elk oordeel ten deze de souvereiniteit der kerk te na komt. Anders toch krijgt ge, zoo de overheid een absoluut monarch is, het cuius regio eius religio der Luthersche vorsten, dat steeds van Calvinistische zijde bestreden is. Of ook, berust de overheidsmacht bij een veelheid van personen, dan wordt, al naar de stemming uitvalt, heden de ware kerk geacht wat gisteren de valsche kerk heette, en gaat alle continuïteit in het Staatsbeleid te loor. Vandaar de de Calvinisten steeds zoo fier en manmoedig, in onderscheiding van de Luthersche theologen, voor de vrijheid, d.i. voor de souvereiniteit der kerk in eigen boezem gestreden hebben. De kerk bezit in Christus haar eigen koning. Ze treedt in den Staat op niet krachtens verlof der Overheid, maar jure divino. Ze heeft haar eigen inrichting. Ze heeft haar eigen ambtsdragers. En zoo ook de haar eigene gave, om waarheid van leugen te onderscheiden. Aan haar komt het dus toe, en niet aan de Overheid, om haar eigen kenmerken als van de ware kerk vast te stellen, en haar eigen belijdenis als de belijdenis der waarheid te proclameeren. Staan andere kerken daarbij tegenover haar, dan zal ze tegenover deze den geestelijken strijd met geestelijke en sociale wapenen uitstrijden, maar ze ontzegt en betwist aan wien ook, en zoo ook aan de Overheid, het recht om zich als een macht boven deze 98 verschillende instituten op te werpen, en tusschen haar en hare nevenformatiën te beslissen. De Overheid draagt het zwaard, dat wondt, niet het zwaard des geestes, dat in geestelijke vraagstukken beslist. Juist daarom kwamen de Calvinisten er steeds tegen op, dat aan de Overheid een patria potestas zou worden toegekend. Zeker, een vader in zijn gezin regelt ook de religie in zijn gezin. Maar toen de Overheid optrad, viel het huisgezin niet weg, maar bleef, en de Overheid ontving slechts een beperkte taak, die door de souvereiniteit in eigen kring en niet het minst door de souvereiniteit van Christus in zijn kerk, begrensd wordt.

Nu zij men hierin niet te puriteinsch en weigere in Europa niet met de nawerking van historische toestanden te rekenen. Het is zoo geheel iets anders of ge nieuw bouwt op vrij erf of wel verbouwen moet aan een huis dat er staat. Maar in niets kan dit den grondregel breken, dat de Overheid het complex van Christelijke kerken als de veelvormige openbaring van de kerk van Christus op aarde heeft te eeren; dat ze de vrijheid, d.i. de souvereiniteit van Christus’ kerk op het eigen terrein dezer kerken te eerbiedigen heeft; dat de kerken het weligst tieren, als de Overheid ze uit eigen kracht laat leven; en dat alzoo noch de Caesaropapie van Ruslands Czaar, noch de onderwerping van den Staat aan de kerk, die Rome leert, noch het “cuius regio eius religio” der Luthersche juristen, noch het irreligieus neutralistisch standpunt der Fransche revolutie, maar alleen het stelsel van de Vrije Kerk in den vrijen Staat op Calvinistisch standpunt mag worden geëerd. Een standpunt dat tweeërlei eisch met zich brengt, waarvan de eerste is, dat de Overheid in al wat de religie raakt, de kerken als belanghebbenden hoore; en waarvan de tweede is, dat de Overheid in haar burgerlijke huishouding haar eigen weg ga en niet toesta dat een godsdienstige fractie op het stuk van de monogamie of op welk ander punt van burgerlijke rechtsordening het ook zijn moge, met sociale feiten inga tegen de Wet van den Staat. De souvereiniteit van den Staat en de souvereiniteit van de Kerk bestaan naast elkander en begrenzen, d.i. beperken, elkander over en weer.

Of an entirely different nature is the second question, what ought to be the relation between the government and the visible Church. If it had been the will of God to maintain the formal unity of this visible Church, this question would have to be answered quite differently from what is now the case. That this unity was originally sought is natural. Unity of religion has great value for the life of a people and not a little charm. And only narrowmindedness can feel itself offended, by the rage of despair, wherewith Koine, in the 16th century, fought for the maintenance of that unity. It can also be easily understood that this unity was originally established. The lower a people stands in the scale of development, the less difference of opinion is revealed. We see therefore that nearly all nations begin with unity of religion. But it is equally natural that this unity is split up. where the individual life, in the process of development, gains in strength, and where multiformity asserts itself, as the undeniable demand of a richer development of life. And thus we are confronted with the fact that the visible church has been split up, and that in no country whatever the absolute unity of the visible church can be any longer maintained.

What then is the duty of the government? Must it — for the question may be reduced to this, — must it now form an individual judgment, as to which of those many churches is the true one? And must it maintain this one over against the others ? Or is it the duty of the government to suspend its own judgment and to consider the multiform complex of all these denominations, as the totality of the manifestation of the Church of Christ on earth?

From a Calvinistic standpoint we must decide in favor of the latter suggestion. Not from a false idea of neutrality, nor as if Calvinism could ever be indifferent to what is true and what false, but because the government lacks the 34 data of judgment and because every magisterial judgment here infringes the sovereignty of the Church. For otherwise, if the government be an absolute monarchy, you get the "cuius regio eius religio" of the Lutheran princes, which has ever been combated, from the side of Calvinism. Or if the government rests with a plurality of persons, the Church which yesterday w T as counted the false one, is to-day considered the true one, according to the decision of the vote ; and thus all continuity of state-administration and church position is lost.

Hence it is that the Calvinists have always struggled so proudly and courageously lor the liberty, that is to say for the sovereignty, of the Church, within her own sphere, in distinction from the Lutheran theologians. In Christ, they contended, the Church has her own king. Her position in the State is not assigned her by the permission of the Government, but jure divino. She has her own organisation. She possesses her own office-bearers, and in a similar way she has her own gifts to distinguish truth from the lie. It is therefore her privilege, and not that of the State, to determine her own characteristics as the true Church and to proclaim her own confession, as the confession of the truth.

If in this position she is opposed by other churches, she will fight against these her spiritual battle, with spiritual and social weapons ; but she denies and contests the right of every one whomsoever, and therefore also of the government, to pose as a power above these different institutions and to render a decision between her and her sisterchurches. The government bears the sword which wounds; not the sword of the Spirit, which decides in spiritual questions. And for this reason the Calvinists have ever resisted the idea to assign to the government a pal rut pofeslas. To be sure a father regulates in his family the religion of that family. But when the government was organized, the family was not set aside, but it remained, and the government received only a limited task, which 35 is defined by the sovereignty in the individual sphere and not least of all by the sovereignty of Christ in His Church. Only let us guard here against exaggerated Puritism and let us not refuse, in Europe at least, to reckon with the effects of historical conditions. It is an entirely different matter whether one puts up a new building, on a free lot, or whether one must restore a house, which is standing.

But this can in no regard break the fundamental rule that the government must honor the complex of Christian churches, as the multiform manifestation of the Church of Christ on earth. • That it has to respect the liberty i. e. the sovereignty of the Church of Christ in the individual sphere of these churches. That those churches flourish most richly, when the government allows them to live from their own strength on the voluntary principle. And that therefore neither the Caesaropapy of the Czar of Russia; nor the subjection of the State to the Church, taught by Rome ; nor the "Cuius regio eius religio" of the Lutheran jurists; nor the irreligious neutral standpoint of the French revolution; but that only the system of a free Church, in a free State, may be honored from a Calvinistic standpoint.

A standpoint, which demands two things; in the first place — that the government shall give ear to the churches as the interested parties, in everything pertaining to religion; and in the second place — that the government, in her civic sphere, shall keep her own way and shall not tolerate that a religious fraction, — say in the matter of monogamy or in any other point of civil law. — should antagonize the statute of the State.

The sovereignty of the State and the sovereignty of the Church exist side by side and they mutually limit each other.

Of an entirely different nature is the second question, what ought to be the relation between the government and the visible Church. If it had been the will of God to maintain the formal unity of this visible Church, this question would have to be answered quite differently from what is now the case That this unity was originally sought is natural. Unity of religion has great value for the life of a people and not a little charm. And only narrow mindedness can feel itself offended by the rage of despair wherewith Rome in the 16th century fought for the maintenance of that unity. It can also be easily understood that this unity was originally established. The lower a people stands 136 in the scale of development, the less difference of opinion is revealed. We see therefore that nearly all nations begin with unity of religion. But it is equally natural that this unity is split up, where the individual life, in the process of development, gains in strength, and where multiformity asserts itself as the undeniable demand of a richer development of life. And thus we are confronted with the fact that the visible Church has been split up, and that in no country whatever the absolute unity of the visible Church can be any longer maintained.

What then is the duty of the government?

Must it — for the question may be reduced to this, — must it now form an individual judgment, as to which of those many Churches is the true one? And must it maintain this one over against the others? Or is it the duty of the government to suspend its own judgment and to consider the multiform complex of all these denominations as the totality of the manifestation of the Church of Christ on earth?

From a Calvinistic standpoint we must decide in favor of the latter suggestion. Not from a false idea of neutrality, nor as if Calvinism could ever be indifferent to what is true and what false, but because the government lacks the data of judgment, and because every magisterial judgment here infringes the sovereignty of the Church. For otherwise, if the government be an absolute monarchy, you get the “cuius regio eius religio” of the Lutheran princes, which has ever been combated from the side of Calvinism. Or if the government rests with a plurality of persons, the Church which yesterday 137 was counted the false one, is today considered the true one, according to the decision of the vote; and thus all continuity of state-administration and church-position is lost.

Hence it is that the Calvinists have always struggled so proudly and courageously for the liberty, that is to say, for the sovereignty, of the Church, within her own sphere, in distinction from the Lutheran theologians. In Christ, they contended, the Church has her own King. Her position in the State is not assigned her by the permission of the Government, but jure divino. She has her own organization. She possesses her own office-bearers. And in a similar way she has her own gifts to distinguish truth from the he. It is therefore her privilege, and not that of the State, to determine her own characteristics as the true Church, and to proclaim her own confession as the confession of the truth.

If in this position she is opposed by other Churches, she will fight against these her spiritual battle, with spiritual and social weapons; but she denies and contests the right of everyone whomsoever, and therefore also of the government, to pose as a power above these different institutions and to render a decision between her and her sister-churches The government bears the sword which wounds; not the sword of the Spirit, which decides in spiritual questions. And for this reason the Calvinists have ever resisted the idea to assign to the government a patria potestas. To be sure a father regulates in his family the religion of that family. But when the government was organized, the family 138 was not set aside, but remained; and the government received only a limited task, which is defined by the sovereignty in the individual sphere, and not least of all by the sovereignty of Christ in His Church. Only let us guard here against exaggerated Puritanism and let us not refuse, in Europe at least, to reckon with the effects of historical conditions. It is an entirely different matter whether one puts up a new building on a free lot or whether one must restore a house which is standing.

But this can in no regard break the fundamental rule that the government must honor the complex of Christian churches as the multiform manifestation of the Church of Christ on earth. That the magistrate has to respect the liberty, i.e., the sovereignty, of the Church of Christ in the individual sphere of these churches. That Churches flourish most richly when the government allows them to live from their own strength on the voluntary principle. And that therefore neither the Caesaropapy of the Czar of Russia; nor the subjection of the State to the Church, taught by Rome nor the “Cuius regio eius religio” of the Lutheran jurists; nor the irreligious neutral standpoint of the French revolution; but that only the system of a free Church, in a free State, may be honored from a Calvinistic standpoint.

The sovereignty of the State and the sovereignty of the Church exist side by side, and they mutually limit each other.139

A segunda questão é de uma natureza inteiramente diferente. Qual deve ser a relação entre o governo e a Igreja visível. Se fosse a vontade de Deus manter a unidade formal dessa Igreja visível, esta questão deveria ser respondida de forma completamente diferente do que é agora o caso. É natural que essa unidade fosse originalmente procurada. A unidade da religião tem grande valor para a vida de um povo e não pouco encanto. E somente a intolerância pode sentir-se ofendida pela violência do desprezo com que Roma, no século 16, lutou para a manutenção dessa unidade. Também pode ser facilmente entendido que essa unidade foi estabelecida originalmente. Quanto mais baixo um povo está na escala de desenvolvimento, tanto menos diferença de opinião é revelada. Por isso, vemos que quase todas as nações começaram com a unidade da religião. Porém, é igualmente natural que essa unidade seja quebrada onde a vida individual, no processo de desenvolvimento, ganha em força, e onde a multiformidade afirma-se como a exigência inegável de um desenvolvimento mais rico da vida. E assim, somos confrontados com o fato de que a Igreja visível tem sido dividida, e que em nenhum país, seja qual for, a unidade absoluta da Igreja visível não pode mais ser mantida.

Então, qual é o dever do governo? Deve ele – pois a questão pode ser reduzida a isto – agora formar um julgamento individual quanto a qual daquelas muitas Igrejas é a única verdadeira? E deve ele manter essa única Igreja acima e contra as outras? Ou é o dever do governo suspender seu próprio julgamento e considerar o complexo multiforme de todas essas denominações como a totalidade da manifestação da Igreja de Cristo na terra?

De um ponto de vista calvinista devemos decidir a favor da última sugestão. Não de uma falsa idéia de neutralidade, nem como se o calvinista devesse ser sempre indiferente ao que é verdadeiro e ao que é falso, mas porque o governo tem falta de dados para o julgamento, e porque todo julgamento magistral aqui infringe a soberania da Igreja. Pois caso contrário, se o governo for um monarca absoluto, vocês alcançam o “cuius regio eius religio” dos príncipes Luteranos, que sempre foi combatido por parte do Calvinismo. Ou se o governo repousa com uma pluralidade de pessoas, a Igreja que ontem foi contada como falsa, é hoje considerada a única verdadeira, segundo a decisão do voto; e assim perde-se toda continuidade da administração do Estado e da posição da igreja.

É por isso que os calvinistas sempre lutaram tão orgulhosa e corajosamente pela liberdade, isto é, pela soberania da Igreja dentro de sua esfera, em distinção aos teólogos luteranos. Em Cristo, eles afirmaram, a Igreja tem seu próprio Rei. Sua posição no Estado não é atribuída a ela pela permissão do Governo, mas jure divino. Ela tem sua própria organização. Possui seus próprios oficiais. E de um modo similar ela tem seus próprio dons para distinguir a verdade da mentira. Portanto, é seu privilégio, e não o do Estado, determinar suas próprias características como a Igreja verdadeira e proclamar sua própria confissão como a confissão da verdade.

Se nessa posição ela se opõe a outras Igrejas, lutará contra essas sua batalha espiritual com armas espirituais e sociais; mas ela nega e contesta o direito de cada um, quem quer que seja, e, portanto, também do governo de proclamar-se como um poder acima dessas diferentes instituições e de tomar uma decisão entre ela e suas igrejas irmãs. O governo traz a espada com feridas; não a espada do Espírito que decide questões espirituais. E por esta razão os calvinistas sempre resistiram a idéia de atribuir ao governo uma patria potestas. Sem dúvida, um pai regula em sua família a religião dessa família. Mas quando o governo foi organizado, a família não foi colocada de lado, mas permaneceu; e o governo recebeu apenas uma tarefa limitada, a qual é definida pela soberania na esfera individual, e não menos pela soberania de Cristo em sua Igreja. Somente vamos nos guardar aqui contra o Puritanismo exagerado e não vamos nos recusar, na Europa ao menos, a levar em conta os efeitos das condições históricas. É uma questão inteiramente diferente se alguém ergue um novo edifício sobre um terreno livre ou se deve restaurar uma casa que está de pé.

Mas isto não pode em nenhum aspecto quebrar a regra fundamental de que o governo deve honrar o complexo de Igrejas cristãs como a multiforme manifestação da Igreja de Cristo na terra. Que o magistrado deve respeitar a liberdade, i.e., a soberania da Igreja de Cristo na esfera individual dessas igrejas. Que as Igrejas prosperam mais ricamente quando o governo lhes permite viver de sua própria força sobre o princípio voluntário. E que, portanto, nem o Cesaropapado* do Czar da Rússia; nem a sujeição do Estado à Igreja, ensinada por Roma; nem a “Cuius regio eius religio” dos juristas luteranos; nem o irreligioso ponto de vista neutro da Revolução Francesa; mas somente este sistema de uma Igreja livre num Estado livre pode ser honrado de um ponto de vista calvinista.

A soberania do Estado e a soberania da Igreja existem lado a lado, e limitam-se mutuamente uma a outra.

Второй вопрос — совершенно другого свойства. Каким должно быть отношение между правительством и видимой Церковью? Если бы Бог хотел установить формальное единство видимой Церкви, на данный вопрос следовало бы отвечать совсем не так, как мы это делаем сейчас. Такое единство, вполне естественно, искали с самого начала. Единство религии обладает большой ценностью и привлекательностью для народа. Только ограниченного человека удивляет отчаянная ярость, с которой Рим в XVI столетии стремился утвердить единство. Нетрудно понять, что изначально единство существовало. Чем ниже уровень развития, тем меньше различий во мнениях. Мы видим, что почти все народы начинали с единства религии. Но так же естественно, что это единство расщепляется тогда, когда индивидуальная жизнь в процессе развития набирает силу, и неоспоримое требование все более полного развития утверждает себя в многообразии. Таким образом, мы сталкиваемся с тем, что видимая Церковь раскололась, и что ни в одной стране абсолютное единство видимой Церкви уже невозможно сохранять.

Что же должны делать власти?

Вопрос можно свести к тому, должны ли они решить, какая из церквей истинна, и поддерживать ее вопреки всем другим церквам. Или же их долг — воздерживаться от суждения, рассматривая многообразие деноминаций как полноту проявления Церкви Христовой на земле?

Для кальвинистов верно второе предположение. Дело не в ложной идее нейтральности; не в том, что кальвинизм безразличен к истине и лжи (это не так). Просто у властей не хватает оснований для суждения, и всякое их суждение подрывает суверенитет Церкви. Если власти представлены абсолютным монархом, мы получим «cuius regio eius religio» лютеранских князей, а этот принцип оспаривался кальвинистами. Если же власть состоит из множества лиц, то ту Церковь, которую еще вчера считали ложной, сегодня могут посчитать истинной согласно результатам голосования, что лишает смысла и преемственность государственного управления, и положение церкви.

Поэтому кальвинисты в отличие от лютеран всегда отважно боролись за свободу, то есть за суверенитет Церкви в ее собственной сфере. У Церкви, утверждали они, есть собственный Царь, Христос. Ее положение в государстве определяет не дозволение власти, а божественное право. Она обладает своей организацией, у нее есть свои служители. Точно так же она обладает собственными способностями отличать истину от лжи. Поэтому она, а не государство, должна определять свойства истинной Церкви и провозглашать свое исповедание как исповедание истины.

Если ей противостоят другие церкви, она будет сражаться против них в духовной битве духовным и социальным оружием; но она отрицает и оспаривает право кого бы то ни было, включая правительство, властвовать над этими многообразными институтами и разрешать споры между нею и братскими церквами, с которыми она устанавливает отношения. Власть носит меч, способный ранить, а не меч Духа. По этой причине кальвинисты никогда не приписывали властям свойство patria potestas (отеческая власть). Конечно, отцы в своих семьях управляют религиозной жизнью. Но когда организовывается правительство, семья не исчезает, не отодвигается в сторону; правительство принимает на себя лишь ограниченные задачи, которые определяются суверенитетом в индивидуальной сфере, и не в последней степени — суверенитетом Христа в Его Церкви. Конечно, нужно остерегаться преувеличенного пуританства и учитывать, по крайней мере — в Европе, исторические обстоятельства. Одно дело — закладывать новое строение на свободном участке, совсем другое — реставрировать уже построенный дом.

Однако это ни в коем случае не может нарушить основного правила: власти должны уважать множественность христианских церквей как многообразное проявление Церкви Христовой на земле. Они должны уважать свободу, т. е. суверенитет Церкви Христовой в индивидуальной сфере этих церквей. Церкви процветают в наибольшей степени, когда власти позволяют им жить самостоятельно на основе добровольно избранного принципа. Кальвинистской признают не цезарепапизм русского царя, не римское подчинение государства Церкви, не «Cuius regio eius religio» лютеранских правоведов, не безрелигиозную нейтральность Французской революции, а систему свободной Церкви в свободном государстве.

Суверенитет государства и суверенитет Церкви существуют наряду друг с другом и взаимно ограничивают друг друга.

Van geheel andere natuur daarentegen is het laatste vraagstuk 99 dat ik aanstipte, t.w. de roeping van de Overheid in zake de souvereiniteit van den enkelen persoon. Reeds in het tweede gedeelte van deze lezing wees ik er op, dat de ontwikkelde mensch ook een persoonlijke levenssfeer bezit, met souvereiniteit in eigen kring. Hiermeê bedoel ik hier niet zijn gezin. Dit toch is reeds eene sociale verbinding van meerdere personen. Bedoeld is hier wat Prof. Weitbrecht aldus uitdrukt: “Ist jedoch vermöge seines Gewissens Jeder ein König, ein Souverain, der über jede Verantwortung erhaben ist” ¹⁸⁾, of wat Dr. Held in dezer voege formuleerde: „In gewisser Beziehung wird jeder Mensch supremus oder souverain sein, denn jeder Mensch muss eine Sphäre haben, und hat sie auch wirklich, in welcher er der Oberste ist.” ¹⁹⁾ Ik wijs hierop, niet om de beteekenis der conscientie te overschatten; wie de conscientie vrij ook tegenover God en zijn Woord wil maken, begroet ik als tegenstander, niet als bondgenoot. Maar dit belet niet dat ik de souvereiniteit van de conscientie, als het palladium van alle persoonlijke vrijheid, in dien zin handhaaf, dat de conscientie nooit een mensch, en nooit anders dan God boven zich heeft. Toch doet zich de behoefte der persoonlijke vrijheid van de conscientie niet aanstonds gevoelen. Niet in het kind, eerst in den volwassen man spreekt zij zich met nadruk uit, en zoo ook sluimert ze nog meest bij nog onontwikkelde volken, en wordt ze eerst bij hoog ontwikkelde volken onweerstaanbaar. Een man van rijpe, rijke ontwikkeling gaat liever in vrijwillige ballingschap, laat zich gevangen zetten, of brengt het offer van zijn leven, dan dat hij dwang in het forum van zijn conscientie zou dulden; en de diep gewortelde wrevel, die in drie lange eeuwen tegen de inquisitie niet uitstierf, sproot rusteloos op uit het besef dat haar practijk het menschelijke in den mensch schond en aanrandde. Hieruit nu vloeit voor de Overheid tweeërlei verplichting voort, de eerste om die vrijheid van conscientie te doen eerbiedigen door de kerk, de tweede om zelve voor de souvereine conscientie uit den weg te gaan. Wat het eerste aangaat vindt de souvereiniteit der kerk 100 in de souvereiniteit der vrije persoonlijkheid haar natuurlijke beperking. Souverein op eigen territoir, heeft ze over wie buiten dat terrein leeft, niets te zeggen, en waar in strijd hiermeê overschrijding van macht plaats greep, moet de aanspraak op bescherming van de zijde der Overheid ten behoeve van elk burger geëerbiedigd worden. De kerk mag niet gedwongen worden als lid te dulden, wien zij uit haar kring verwijderen wil, maar ook geen burger van den Staat mag gedwongen worden in een kerk te blijven, die hij uit conscientiedrang verlaten wil. Doch wat de Overheid ten deze van de kerken eischt, heeft ze dan ook zelf in practijk te brengen, en de vrijheid van conscientie aan elk burger toe te kennen als primordiaal elk mensch toekomend recht. Een heldenworsteling heeft het gekost om deze diepste van alle menschelijke vrijheden aan de dwingelandij te ontwringen en bij stroomen is het menschelijk bloed vergoten, eer ze veroverd werd; maar juist deswege werpt dan ook elke zoon der Reformatie de eere zijner vaderen weg, die niet volhardend, en zonder van wijken te weten, voor dit palladium onzer vrijheden opkomt. Juist om over menschen te kunnen regeeren, moet de Overheid deze diepst liggende ethische kracht van ons menschelijk wezen onaangerand laten. Een natie van burgers met geknakte conscientiën, is zelve geknakt in haar nationale veerkracht.

Of an entirely different nature, on the contrary, is the last question, to which I referred, namely the duty of the 36 government, as regards the sovereignty of tin- individual person.

In the second part of this lecture I have already indicated that the developed man also possesses an individual sphere of life, with sovereignty in his own circle.

Here I do not refer to the family, for this is a social bond between several individuals. I have reference to that, which is thus expressed by Prof. Weitbrecht : „Ist doch vennoge seines gewissens jeder ein Konig, ein Souverain, der fiber jede Verautwortung erhaben is." ¹ ("Every man stands a king in his conscience, a sovereign in his own person, exempt from all responsibility.") Or that, which Held has formulated in this way: ,,In gewisser Beziehung wird jeder Mensch supremus oder Souverain sein, denn jeder Mensch muss erne Sphiire haben, und hat sie audi wirklich, in welcher er der Oberste ist." ² (In some respect every man is a sovereign, for everybody must have and has, a sphere of life of his own, in which he has no one above him, but God alone.) I do not point to this to overestimate the importance of conscience, for whosoever wishes to liberate conscience, where God and His Word are concerned, I meet as an opponent not as an ally. This however does not prevent my maintaining the sovereignty of conscience, as the palladium of all personal liberty, in this sense — that conscience is never subject to man but always and ever to God Almighty.

This need of the personal liberty of conscience however, does not immediately assert itself. It does not express itself with emphasis in the child, but only in the mature man ; and in the same way it mostly slumbers among undeveloped peoples and is irresistible only among highly developed nations. A man of ripe and rich development will rather become a voluntary exile, will rather suffer imprisonment, nay even sacrifice life itself, than tolerate constraint in the forum of his conscience. And the deeply rooted 37 repugnance against the Inquisition, which for three long centuries would not be assuaged, grew up from the conviction that its practices violated and assaulted human life in man. This imposes on the government a twofold obligation. In the first place that it must cause this liberty of conscience to be respected by the Church; and in the second place that it must give way itself to the sovereign conscience.

As regards the first, the sovereignty of the Church finds its natural limitation in the sovereignty of the free personality. Sovereign within her own domain, she has no power over those who live outside of that sphere. And wherever, in violation of this principle, transgression of power may occur, the government has to respect the claims on protection of every citizen. The Church may not be forced to tolerate as a member one whom she feels obliged to expel from her circle; but on the other hand no citizen of the State must be compelled to remain in a church which his conscience forces him to leave.

Meantime what the government in this respect demands of the churches, it must practise itself, by allowing to each and every citizen liberty of conscience, as the primordial and inalienable right of all men.

It has cost an heroic struggle to wrest this greatest of all human liberties from the grasp of despotism, and streams of human blood have been poured out before the object was attained. But for this very reason every son of the Reformation tramples upon the honor of the fathers, who does not assiduously and without retrenching, defend this palladium of our liberties. In order that it may be able to rule men, the government must respect this deepest ethical power of our human existence. A nation, consisting of citizens whose consciences are bruised, is itself broken in its national strength.

Of an entirely different nature, on the contrary, is the last question to which I referred, namely, the duty of the government as regards the sovereignty of the individual person.

In the second part of this lecture I have already indicated that the developed man also possesses an individual sphere of life, with sovereignty in his own circle. Here I do not refer to the family, for this is a social bond between several individuals. I have reference to that which is thus expressed by Prof. Weitbrecht: “Ist doch vermöge seines Gewissens jeder ein König, ein Souverain, der über jede Verantwortung exhaben ist.” ¹⁵⁾ (“Every man stands a king in his conscience, a sovereign in his own person, exempt from all responsibility.”) Or that which Held has formulated in this way: “In gewisser Beziehung wird jeder Mensch supremus oder Souverain sein, denn jeder Mensch muss eine Sphäre haben, und hat sie auch wirklich, in welcher er der Oberste ist.” ¹⁶⁾ (In some respects every man is a sovereign. for everybody must have and has a sphere of life of his own, in which he has no one above him, but God alone.) I do not point to this to over-estimate the importance of conscience, for whosoever wishes to liberate conscience, where God and His Word are concerned, I meet as an opponent, not as an ally. This, however, does not prevent my maintaining the sovereignty of conscience as the palladium of all personal liberty, in this sense — that conscience is never subject to man but always and ever to God Almighty. 140

This need of the personal liberty of conscience, however, does not immediately assert itself. It does not express itself with emphasis in the child, but only in the mature man; and in the same way it mostly slumbers among undeveloped peoples, and is irresistible only among highly developed nations. A man of ripe and rich development will rather become a voluntary exile, will rather suffer imprisonment, nay, even sacrifice life itself, than tolerate constraint in the forum of his conscience. And the deeply rooted repugnance against the Inquisition, which for three long centuries would not be assuaged, grew up from the conviction that its practices violated and assaulted human life in man. This imposes on the government a twofold obligation. In the first place it must cause this liberty of conscience to be respected by the Church, and in the second place, it must give way itself to the sovereign conscience.

As regards the first, the sovereignty of the Church finds its natural limitation in the sovereignty of the free personality. Sovereign within her own domain, she has no power over those who live outside of that sphere. And wherever, in violation of this principle, transgression of power may occur, the government has to respect the claims on protection of every citizen. The Church may not be forced to tolerate as a member one whom she feels obliged to expel from her circle; but on the other hand no citizen of the State must be compelled to remain in a church which his conscience forces him to leave.

Meantime what the government in this respect demands 141 of the churches, it must practice itself, by allowing to each and every citizen liberty of conscience, as the primordial and inalienable right of all men.

It has cost a heroic struggle to wrest this greatest of all human liberties from the grasp of despotism; and streams of human blood have been poured out before the object was attained. But for this very reason every son of the Reformation tramples upon the honor of the fathers, who does not assiduously and without retrenching, defend this palladium of our liberties. In order that it may be able to rule men, the government must respect this deepest ethical power of our human existence. A nation, consisting of citizens whose consciences are bruised, is itself broken in its national strength.

De uma natureza inteiramente diferente, ao contrário, é a última questão à qual fiz referência, a saber, o dever do governo com relação a soberania da pessoa individual.

Na segunda parte desta palestra, tenho indicado que o homem desenvolvido também possui uma esfera individual de vida, com soberania em seu próprio círculo. Aqui, não faço referência à família, pois este é um laço social entre diversos indivíduos. Faço referência àquilo que é expresso pelo Prof. Weitbrecht deste modo: “Ist doch vermöge seines Gewissens jeder ein König, ein Souverain, der über jede Verantwortung exhaben is.”80 (“Cada homem coloca-se como um rei em sua consciência, um soberano em sua própria pessoa, isenta de toda responsabilidade.”) Ou aquilo que Held formulou deste modo: “In gewisser Beziehung wird jeder Mensch supremus oder Souverain sein, denn jeder Mensch muss eine Sphäre haben, und hat sie auch wirklich, in welcher er der Oberste ist.”81 (Em algum aspecto todo homem é um soberano, pois todos devem ter e tem uma esfera de vida própria dele, na qual não tem ninguém acima dele, exceto somente Deus.) Não chamo a atenção para isto para superestimar a importância da consciência, pois a todo aquele que deseja libertar a consciência, onde Deus e sua Palavra estão envolvidas, apresento-me como um oponente, não como um aliado. Isto, contudo não impede minha manutenção da soberania da consciência como a salvaguarda de toda liberdade pessoal, neste sentido – esta consciência nunca está sujeita ao homem mas sempre e continuamente ao Deus Todo-Poderoso.

Esta necessidade da liberdade pessoal da consciência, contudo, não faz valer seus direitos imediatamente. Ela não se expressa com ênfase na criança, mas somente no homem maduro; e do mesmo modo na maior parte das vezes está dormindo entre as pessoas não desenvolvidas, e é irresistível somente entre nações altamente desenvolvidas. Um homem de desenvolvimento maduro e rico deseja antes se tornar um voluntário ao exílio, antes sofrer o aprisionamento, mais ainda, até mesmo sacrificar a própria vida, do que tolerar o constrangimento no fórum de sua consciência. E a repugnância profundamente enraizada contra a Inquisição, que por três longos séculos não seria atenuada, cresceu da convicção de que sua prática violou e assaltou a vida no homem. Isto impõe sobre o governo uma dupla obrigação. Em primeiro lugar, ele deve fazer esta liberdade de consciência ser respeitada pela Igreja; e em segundo lugar, deve ele mesmo dar lugar à soberania da consciência.

Com relação a primeira, a soberania da Igreja encontra sua limitação natural na soberania da personalidade livre. Soberana dentro de seu próprio campo, ela não tem poder sobre aquilo que vive fora desta esfera. E sempre que, em violação deste princípio, possa ocorrer a transgressão de poder, o governo deve respeitar as reivindicações de proteção de cada cidadão. A Igreja não pode ser forçada a tolerar como um membro alguém que ela se sente obrigada a expelir de seu círculo; mas por outro lado nenhum cidadão do Estado deve ser compelido a permanecer numa igreja que sua consciência o força deixar.

Entretanto, o que o governo exige das igrejas neste aspecto, ele mesmo deve praticar, permitindo a cada um e a todos os cidadãos a liberdade de consciência, como o direito primordial e inalienável de todos os homens.

Custou uma luta heróica arrancar do controle do despotismo esta maior de todas as liberdades humanas; e rios de sangue humano foram derramados para que o objetivo fosse atingido. Porém por esta mesma razão cada filho da Reforma, que não defende esta salvaguarda de nossas liberdades zelosamente e sem omitir-se, esmaga aos pés a honra dos pais. A fim de que possa ser capaz de governar os homens, o governo deve respeitar este poder profundamente ético de nossa existência humana. Uma nação, consistindo de cidadãos cujas consciências estão oprimidas, está quebrando-se a si mesma em sua força nacional.

Последний вопрос, к которому я обращаюсь, а именно, долг властей по отношению к суверенности личности — совершенно другой природы.

Во второй части этой лекции я уже говорил, что развитый человек обладает индивидуальной сферой жизни, суверенитетом в своем собственном кругу. Здесь я имею в виду не семью, которая представляет собою социальную связь между людьми, а то, что проф. Вайтбрехт выразил следующим образом: «Ist jedoch vermöge seines Gewissens Jeder ein König, ein Souverain, der über jede Verantwortung erhaben ist» (Всякий — король своей собственной совести, суверен своей собственной личности, лишенный ответственности)¹⁶. Гельд сформулировал это так: «In gewisser Beziehung wird jeder Mensch supremus oder souverain sein, denn jeder Mensch muss eine Sphäre haben, und hat sie auch wirklich, in welcher er der Oberste ist» (В некотором отношении всякий — суверен, ибо у всякого должна быть и есть своя сфера жизни, в которой он главенствует»)¹⁷. Цитирую я это не для того, чтобы преувеличить роль совести, — с каждым, кто захочет освободить совесть от Бога и Его Слова, я буду спорить, а не соглашаться. Однако это не мешает мне утверждать суверенитет совести как оплот личной свободы, ибо совесть подчинена не человеку, а только и всегда Всемогущему Богу.

Однако потребность в личной свободе совести не утверждает себя непосредственно. Она выражает себя не в ребенке, а только в зрелом человеке. Точно так же она большей частью дремлет в малоразвитых народах; она приобретает выраженный и неодолимый характер только в высокоразвитых нациях. Зрелый и высокоразвитый человек скорее уйдет в изгнание, сядет в тюрьму, даже пожертвует жизнью, чем потерпит насилие над совестью. Глубоко укорененное отвращение к инквизиции, которое не исчезало три долгих столетия, вызвано тем, что она насиловала саму жизнь, заключенную в человеке. Указанное обстоятельство налагает на власти двойственную обязанность. Во-первых, они должны сделать так, чтобы Церковь уважала свободу совести; во-вторых, они сами должны давать суверенной совести дорогу.

Что касается первого, то суверенитет Церкви естественно ограничен суверенитетом свободного человека. Суверенная в своей области, она не обладает властью над теми, кто живет вне ее сферы. И где бы ни происходило нарушение этого принципа, власть должна уважать требование защиты свободы каждого гражданина. Нельзя заставить Церковь терпеть в качестве своего члена того, кого она считает нужным изгнать из своего круга; с другой стороны, никакого гражданина нельзя силой оставлять в Церкви, которую совесть велит ему покинуть.

То, что власти требуют от церквей, они должны соблюдать и сами, позволяя каждому гражданину пользоваться свободой совести как изначальным и неотчуждаемым правом всех людей.

Эту величайшую из человеческих свобод отвоевали у деспотизма в поистине героической борьбе. Прежде чем цель была достигнута, пролились реки крови. Но по этой же самой причине любой сын Реформации растаптывает честь своих отцов, если он не защищает постоянно и неотступно эту твердыню наших свобод. Чтобы править людьми, власти должны уважать эту глубочайшую этическую силу нашего человеческого существования. Нация, состоящая из граждан, чья совесть повреждена, лишается своей национальной силы.

En al geef ik nu voetstoots toe, dat onze vaderen in theorie nog niet alle gevolgtrekkingen doorzagen en aandorsten, die uit de vrijheid van conscientie voor de vrijheid van het woord en de vrijheid van aanbidding voortvloeide, al weet ik dat ook zij nog de wanhopende poging waagden om door censuur en verbod van uitgave, de verspreiding van hun min gevallige lectuur tegen te gaan, dit alles neemt het feit niet weg, dat practisch het eerst in het Calvinistisch Nederland de vrije uiting der gedachte door het gesproken en gedrukte woord haar triomf behaalde; dat wie elders bemoeilijkt werd, op Calvinistischen bodem het eerst de vrijheid der gedachte en de vrijheid van drukpers kon genieten; en dat alzoo de logisch ontwikkeling van wat in de vrijheid der conscientie besloten lag, evenals die conscientievrijheid zelve, uit het Calvinisme aan de wereld is toegekomen. Want wel heeft eerst de 101 Fransche Revolutie in de Romaansche landen aan het geestelijk en politiek despotisme voor goed de nederlaag toegebracht, en mag in zooverre dankbaar erkend, dat ze de zaak der vrijheid bevorderd heeft, maar wie in de historie nagaat, hoe de guillotine, heel Frankrijk door, niet tot ruste kon komen, om andersdenkenden uit den weg te ruimen; wie zich herinnert hoe wreed en zonder sparen te Parijs de Roomsche geestelijken vermoord werden die weigerden door een onheiligen eed hun conscientie te verkrachten; of ook wie, gelijk ik zelf, bij ondervinding de geestelijke tirannie kent, door het Europeesche liberalisme én conservatisme toegepast op hen, die andere paden kozen, die gevoelt toch dat vrijheid en vrijheid hier twee zijn.

And even if I am forced to admit that our fathers, in theory, had not the courage of the conclusions which follow 38 from this liberty of conscience, for the liberty of speech and the liberty of worship; even if I am well aware that the}' made a desperate effort to hinder the spread of literature which they disliked, by censure and refusal of publication ;— all this does not set aside the fact that the free expression of thought, by the spoken and printed word, has first achieved its victory in the Calvinistic Netherlands. Whosoever was elsewhere straightened could first enjoy the liberty of ideas and the liberty of the press, on Calvinistic ground. And thus the logical development of what was enshrined in the liberty of conscience, as well as that liberty itself, first blessed the world from the side of Calvinism.

For it is true that, in Roman lands, spiritual and political despotism have been finally vanquished by the French Revolution, and that in so far we have gratefully to acknowledge that this revolution also began by promoting the cause of liberty. But whosoever learns from history that the guillotine, all over France, for years and years could not rest from the execution of those who were of a different mind; whosoever remembers how cruelly and wantonly the Roman Catholic clergy were murdered, because they refused to violate their conscience by an unholy oath ; or whosoever, like myself, by a sad experience, knows the spiritual tyranny, which liberalism and conservatism on the European Continent has applied, and is still applying, to those who have chosen different paths,— is forced to appreciate that liberty in Calvinism and liberty in the French Revolution are two different things.

And even if I am forced to admit that our fathers, in theory, had not the courage of the conclusions which follow from this liberty of conscience, for the liberty of speech, and the liberty of worship; even if I am well aware that they made a desperate effort to hinder the spread of literature which they disliked, by censure and refusal of publication; — all this does not set aside the fact that the free expression of thought, by the spoken and printed word, has first achieved its victory in the Calvinistic Netherlands. Whosoever was elsewhere straightened, could first enjoy the liberty of ideas and the liberty of the press on Calvinistic ground. And thus the logical development of what was enshrined in the liberty of conscience, as well as that liberty itself, first blessed the world from the side of Calvinism.

For it is true that, in Roman lands, spiritual and 142 political despotism have been finally vanquished by the French Revolution, and that in so far we have gratefully to acknowledge that this revolution also began by promoting the cause of liberty. But whosoever learns from history that the guillotine, all over France, for years and years could not rest from the execution of those who were of a different mind; whosoever remembers how cruelly and wantonly the Roman Catholic clergy were murdered, because they refused to violate their conscience by an unholy oath; or whosoever, like myself, by a sad experience, knows the spiritual tyranny which liberalism and conservatism on the European Continent have applied, and are still applying, to those who have chosen different paths, — is forced to admit that liberty in Calvinism and liberty in the French Revolution are two quite different things.

E mesmo que eu seja forçado a admitir que nossos pais, em teoria, não tinham a coragem das conclusões que se seguiam desta liberdade de consciência para a liberdade de expressão, e a liberdade de adoração; mesmo que eu esteja bem ciente de que eles fizeram um esforço desesperado para impedir a expansão da literatura que viam com maus olhos, censurando e rejeitando a publicação – tudo isto não exclui o fato de que a livre expressão de pensamento, através da palavra falada e impressa, obteve sua vitória primeiro na Holanda calvinista. Qualquer outra nação, em qualquer outro lugar, que tenha seguido este caminho pôde gozar a liberdade de idéias e a liberdade da imprensa primariamente sobre bases calvinistas. E assim, o desenvolvimento lógico do que foi venerado na liberdade da consciência, bem como esta própria liberdade, primeiro abençoou a mundo do lado do Calvinismo.

Pois é verdade que nas terras Romanas o despotismo espiritual e político foi finalmente derrotado pela Revolução Francesa, e nesta medida devemos agradecidamente reconhecer que esta revolução também começou promovendo a causa da liberdade. Mas todo aquele que aprende com a História que a guilhotina, sobretudo na França, por anos e anos não poderia descansar da execução daqueles que eram de mente diferente; todo aquele que relembra quão cruel e devassamente o clero Católico Romano foi assassinado, porque eles se recusaram a violar sua consciência por um juramento profano; ou todo aquele que, como eu mesmo, por uma triste experiência, conhece a tirania espiritual que o liberalismo e o conservantismo aplicou no continente Europeu, e ainda está aplicando àqueles que têm escolhido caminhos diferentes, - é forçado a admitir que a liberdade no Calvinismo e a liberdade na Revolução Francesa são duas coisas totalmente diferentes.

И даже если меня заставят признать, что наши отцы не осмелились в теории сделать из свободы совести заключения в пользу свободы слова и свободы веры; если я признаю (а я это просто знаю), что они отчаянно пытались предотвратить распространение неугодных им книг, подвергая их цензуре и отказываясь печатать, — все это не отменяет того факта, что свободное выражение мысли посредством устного и печатного слова впервые одержало победу в кальвинистских Нидерландах. Всякий, кого где-то притесняли, мог впервые пользоваться там свободой мысли и свободой печати. Логическое развитие того, что заложено в свободе совести, как и в самом понятии свободы, впервые принесло благословение миру от имени кальвинизма.

В католических странах духовный и политический деспотизм в конце концов победила Французская революция, и мы должны с благодарностью признать, что она тоже положила начало делу свободы. Но всякий, узнавший из истории, что гильотина многие годы убивала по всей Франции тех, кто имел иное мнение; всякий, помнящий, как жестоко и бессмысленно убивали католических священников, потому что они отказывались запятнать свою совесть нечестивой клятвой; всякий, кто подобно мне имел печальный опыт духовной тирании, которую либерализм и консерватизм на европейском континенте до сих пор применяли и применяют в отношении тех, кто избирает иную стезю, вынужден признать, что свобода кальвинизма и свобода Французской революции — совершенно разные вещи.

In de Fransche revolutie een vrijheid voor de Christelijke minderheid om Amen op de uitspraken der ongeloovige meerderheid te zeggen, in het Calvinisme een vrijheid van conscientie, opdat een iegelijk God zou kunnen dienen naar de inspraak van zijn hart.

1) Bancroft Hist. of the United States from the discovery of the United States, 15th ed. Boston 1853 I, 464. D.i.: De Calvinistische ijveraar was tegelijk een dweepziek strijder voor de Vrijheid, want in de zedelijke worsteling voor de vrijmaking der volkeren was zijn geloofsbelijdenis, als het ware een deel van zijn leger en zijn trouwste bondgenoot op het slagveld.

2) Calv. Opera. Ed. Schippers. Tom. I. p. 321. Haec maxime optabilis est libertas, non cogi ad parendum quibuslibet, qui per vim impositi fuerunt capitibus nostris, sed electionem permitti ut nemo dominetur, nisi qui probatus fuerit.

3) Dankbaar aan God Almachtig, dat Hij ons de macht schonk om onze eigen Overheden te verkiezen.

4) Comm. in I Lib. Sam. c. II. 27-30.

5) Burke, Works, III p. 52. Ed. Mc. Lean, London. Onze Revolutie en die van Frankrijk zijn juist het omgekeerde van elkander, zoowel in elke bijzonderheid als in den geest die beide bezielde.

6) Opgekomen uit een drijvend beginsel, dat bij dit goede volk de aandrift van vrijheid levendig hield en lijnrecht gekant stond tegen alle slavernij van geest en gedachte.

7) American Constitutions, by Franklin B. Hugh. Albany, Weed Parsons and Cº 1872. Vol. I p. 5.

8) Ibidem p. 8.

9) P. 19.

10) II. p. 549. Dankbaar aan God Almachtig voor de burgerlijke, staatkundige en godsdienstige vrijheid, die Hij ons zoo lang te genieten schonk, en Hem biddende om een zegen op onze pogingen.

11) P. 555.

12) P. 555.

13) P. 549.

14) Holtz. Verfassung und Democratie der Vereinigte Staten von Amerika. Dusseldorf 1873 I p. 96.

15) John F. Morse. Thomas Jefferson. Boston, 1883. p. 147.

16) Editie van Migne te Parijs 1841 Tome I praef. 1.

17) Tome VIII. p. 516c. Ed. Schippers.

18) Weitbrecht, Woher und Wohin, Stuttgart 1877 p. 103.

19) Held, Verfassungssystem, I. p. 234.

In the French revolution a liberty of conscience, which emancipates men from God; in Calvinism a liberty of conscience, which enables every man to serve God, according to dictates of his own heart.

1) History of the United States, from the discovery of the V. States. Fifteenth Ed. Boston 1853, I. 464.

* Burke, Works III p. 25 Ed. Mc. Lean. London.

1) American Constitutions, by Franklin B. Hugh, Albany Weed Parsons & Co 1872. Vol I. p. 5.

2) Ibidem p. 8.

3) p. 19.

4) Ibidem II, p. 549.

1) Ibidem p. 555.

2) p. 555.

3) p. 549.

4) Von Holtz, Verfassung and Democratie der Vereenigten Staten von America. Dusseldorf. 1873 I p. 96.

* Edition of Migne at Paris 1841. Tome I, proof 1.

* Tome VIII p. 516c Ed. Schippers.

1) Weitbrecht, Woher und Wohin. Stuttgart 1877 p. 103.

2) Held, Verfassungsystem I p. 234.

In the French Revolution a civil liberty for every Christian to agree with the unbelieving majority; in Calvinism, a liberty of conscience, which enables every man to serve God according to his own conviction and the dictates of his own heart.

1) Bancroft, History of the United States of America. Fifteenth Ed. Boston 1853, I. 464. Ed. New York, 1891, I. 319.

2) Burke, Works III p. 25 Ed. McLean, London.

3) American Constitutions, by Franklin B. Hugh, Albany Weed Parsons & Co. 1872. Vol.1, p.5.

4) Ibidem p.8.

5) Ibidem p.19.

6) Ibidem II, p. 549.

7) Ibidem p. 555.

8) Ibidem p. 555.

9) Ibidem p. 549.

10) Von Holtz, Verfassung und Democratie der Vereinigten Staten von America. Dusseldorf. 1873 I, p.96.

11) John F. Morse, Thomas Jefferson, Boston 1883; p. 147. In a positively Christian sense Hamilton proposed in a letter to Bayard (April 1801) the founding of “A Christian Constitutional Society”, and wrote in another letter, quoted by Henry Cabot Lodge, Alexander Hamilton, Boston 1892, p. 256: “When I find the doctrines of Atheism openly advanced in the Parisian Convention. and heard with loud applause; when I see the sword of fanaticism extended to force a political creed upon citizens, who were invited to submit to the arms of France as the harbingers of Liberty; when I behold the hand of rapacity outstretched to prostate and ravish the monuments of religious worship, I acknowledge, that I am glad to believe, that there is no real resemblance between what was the cause of America and the cause of France”.

12) Cf. Dr. A. Kuijper. Calvinism the source and guarantee of our constitutional liberties, 1873, and Dr. A. Kuijper, Sovereignty in the Spheres of Society, 1880.

13) Edition of Migne at Paris 1841. Tome 1, proof 1.

14) Tome VIII p. 516c Ed Schippers.

15) Weitbrecht, Woher und Wohin. Stuttgart 1877 p. 103.

16) Held, Verfassungsysteem I p. 234.

Na Revolução Francesa uma liberdade civil para todo cristão concordar com a maioria incrédula; no Calvinismo, uma liberdade de consciência, que habilita cada homem a servir a Deus segundo sua própria convicção e os ditames de seu próprio coração.

Французская революция дала каждому христианину свободу соглашаться с неверующим большинством. Кальвинизм провозглашает свободу совести, которая дает каждому человеку возможность служить Богу в согласии с его собственными убеждениями и велением сердца.

1 Bankroft, History of the United States of America, Fifteenth Edition; Boston, 1853; I, 464; Ed. New York, 1981, I, 319.

2 Burke, Works, III, p. 25. Ed. McLean, London.

3 American Constitutions by Franklin B. Hugh; Albany; Weed. Parsons and Co.; 1872. Vol. I, p. 5.

4 Ibidem, р. 8.

5 Ibidem, p. 19.

6 Ibidem, II, p. 549.

7 Ibidem, p. 555.

8 Ibidem, p. 555.

9 Ibidem, p. 549.

10 Von Holtz, Verfassung und Democratie der Vereinigten Staten von America; Dusseldorf, 1873, 1, s. 96.

11 John F. Morse, Thomas Jefferson, Boston, 1883; с. 147. В позитивно-христианском смысле Гамильтон предложил в письме к Байарду (апрель, 1801) основать «христианское конституционное общество», и написал в другом письме, цитируемом Генри Лоджем («Alexander Hamilton», Boston, 1892 с. 256): «Когда я нахожу, что учение атеизма открыто провозглашают в парижском собрании и встречают громкими аплодисментами; когда я вижу, как меч фанатизма навязывает политическое кредо гражданам, которым предлагали подчиниться Франции как провозвестнице свободы; когда я созерцаю хищную руку, протянутую, чтобы осквернить и ограбить памятники веры, я искренне верю, что нет никакого сходства между тем, что было причиной того, что происходило в Америке, и причиной происходящего во Франции»..

12 Ср. Dr. A. Kuyper. Calvinism the Source and Guarantee of Our Constitutional Liberties, 1873; Dr. A. Kuyper, Sovereignty in the Spheres of Society, 1880.

13 Издание Минье в Париже, 1841, том 1.

14 Николай Крелль, канцлер Христиана I, лидер крипто-кальвинистов в Германии. Обезглавлен в 1601 г. после десяти лет сурового тюремного заключения. Знать ненавидела его. Суд, вынесший ему приговор, проводили весьма произвольно.

15 Tome VIII, p. 516; Ed. Schippers.

16 Weitbrecht, Woher und Wohin; Stuttgart, 1877, s. 103.

17 Held, Verfassung systeem, 1, s. 234.