De predikanten

De sociale positie van de gereformeerde predikanten in de Republiek der Verenigde Nederlanden voor ± 1700

[p. 182]

Summary

There is in Dutch historiography a widely held view with regard to the social position of the reformed preachers in the Dutch Republic in the 17th century. Their social position was low, it is said; the reformed preachers were democratic-plebeian. This opinion corresponds with another generally accepted idea, the idea that the reformed church was mainly an orthodox lower-class institution constantly struggling with a latiduninarian ruling aristocracy. Plebeian preachers headed the consistories and synods versus the aristocratic governments in the town-halls. There are reasons to doubt these ideas and this doubt is the basis of our study.

First we examined some aspects of the position the reformed church occupied. In the Dutch Republic this church was the public church, but that does not mean the state-church. The position of the reformed church is probably best described as the privileged church. The arminian faction favoured the idea of a state-church, but was defeated at the synod of Dordrecht in 1618-1619. The orthodox calvinists believed in a collateral relation between state and church. Both the state and the church had their own responsibility in their own fields. It was not always easy to put these ideas into practice. There were some serious quarrels on local and national levels, but on the whole the state and the church tried to respect the two separate spheres.

There is a sound explanation for this. It is not true that the consistories and synods were exponents of the lower classes. The consistories were in no way democratic institutions. They mainly consisted of members of the higher social classes. As often as not members of the local government were members of the consistories at the same time. Whenever a quarrel arose between consistory and town-hall this quarrel originated from the distinctions between the factions rather than from class-distinctions. As regards the social configuration of 17th century-society in the Dutch Republic we agree with Perkins' description of English and Dutch pre-industrial society as an open aristocracy based on property and patronage. It was a hierarchic society but classes in the modern sense were unknown. We avoid the use of modern concepts like class. In the seventeenth-century social groups were distinguished according to property and their relation to important families. These social groups were first of all family-networks in which marriage played an important role. We suggest the following hierarchic order of social groups:

1	The nobility and the ruling aristocracy of non-noble descent
2	The non-ruling notables, rich merchants etc.
3	Officers in state-service, such as town clerks and captains in the army; businessmen, shopowners and intellectuals
4	Small businessmen and craftsmen

[p. 183]

5	The workers
6	The mob, beggars etc.

The suggested hierarchy is in keeping with the concepts used by contemporaries, who apart from the patricians distinguished the well-to-do (de brede gemeente), the less well-to-do (de smalle gemeente) and the mob.

Which place was occupied by the reformed preachers? How great was their influence? We examined these questions in three chapters applying some views and methods borrowed from sociology. First, we examined the political and social influence of the preachers. Secondly, we tried to give a picture of the preachers as seen through the eyes of their contemporaries and as they saw themselves. And thirdly, we examined the position of the preachers in three ranksystems of 17th-century Dutch society: property and income, family-network and level of education. The preachers claimed a high position. The orthodox covenant-theology believed the Dutch Republic to be a New Canaan. In their own words: the House of the Bride, the City on a Hill. The preachers regarded their position as equal to the prophets of ancient Israel. They were ambassadors of God in the New Israel, but these aspirations were in no way compatible with their economic position as modestly-paid officers. This often led to frustrations. We have given the example of the reverend Johannes Picardt, preacher in the little town of Coevorden in the middle of the 17th century. He wrote a book ‘Den Prediger’ in which this conflict is the central theme.

From a study of contemporary opinion it became evident that the leadership they claimed for themselves met with strong approbation as well as strong disapprobation. They were called kings and prophets but also demagogic leaders of the mob. To say that the preachers were despised is as wrong as to say that they were generally honoured. The pendulum of public opinion swung between despising and gloryfying.

The examination with the support of the ranksystems led to a more satisfactory picture of the social position of the preachers. The preachers reached the highest rank in one rank-system: in education they were equal to the patricians and the non-ruling aristocracy, but in the other relevant ranksystems they did not reach so high. Their incomes were modest, they earned salaries from about 500 guilders a year in villages up to about 1000 guilders in towns. In large towns the salaries were higher. Usually starting without family-property, they had small or moderate property at the end of their lives. This means they ranked among the members of the third social group.

A study of the family-network of 70 preachers indicated that they were part of a rather closely-knit social group. Especially the marriages of the preachers and the children of preachers and also the status of the godfathers of the children of the preachers made it clear that they associated with the businessmen, the townphysicians, the secretaries, the state-officers etc. It is true that the position of the preacher in the towns was a higher one than the position of the preacher in the villages: the latter was badly paid and had little property.

[p. 184]

Nevertheless both categories belonged to the third social group of the social stratification as suggested. This position offered opportunities for social upmobility. Sons of a minority of preachers succeeded in entering the highest ranks and even became burgomasters.

The preachers in the 17th century were no democratic-plebeian leaders of the mob, but typical members of a social group holding a middle position and they behaved accordingly. Some patricians described the preachers as demagogic leaders of the mob but this description is only true for a small minority.