按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
should have a double call；both an inward call and an outward
one；or an election by the people in union with the clergy。 Paul
and Barnabas set forth elders； but the people indicated their
approval by lifting up their hands。 In the Presbyterianism which
Calvin instituted he maintained that the Church is represented by
the laity as well as by the clergy。 He therefore gave the right of
excommunication to the congregation in conjunction with the clergy。
In the Lutheran Church； as in the Catholic； the right of
excommunication was vested in the clergy alone。 But Calvin gave to
the clergy alone the right to administer the sacraments； nor would
he give to the Church any other power of punishment than exclusion
from the Lord's Supper； and excommunication。 His organization of
the Church was aristocratic； placing the power in the hands of a
few men of approved wisdom and piety。 He had no sympathy with
democracy； either civil or religious； and he formed a close union
between Church and State；giving to the council the right to
choose elders and to confirm the election of ministers。 As already
stated； he did not attempt to shield the clergy from the civil
tribunals。 The consistory； which assembled once a week； was formed
of elders and preachers； and a messenger of the civil court
summoned before it the persons whose presence was required。 No
such power as this would be tolerated in these times。 But the
consistory could not itself inflict punishment； that was the
province of the civil government。 The elders and clergy inflicted
no civil penalties； but simply determined what should be heard
before the spiritual and what before the civil tribunal。 A syndic
presided in the spiritual assembly at first； but only as a church
elder。 The elders were chosen from the council； and the election
was confirmed by the great council； the people； and preachers； so
that the Church was really in the hands of the State； which
appointed the clergy。 It would thus seem that Church and State
were very much mixed up together by Calvin； who legislated in view
of the circumstances which surrounded him； and not for other times
or nations。 This subordination of the Church to the State； which
was maintained by all the reformers； was established in opposition
to the custom of the Catholic Church； which sought to make the
State subservient to the Church。 And the lay government of the
Church； which entered into the system of Calvin； was owing to the
fear that the clergy； when able to stand alone； might become proud
and ambitious； a fear which was grounded on the whole history of
the Church。
Although Calvin had an exalted idea of the spiritual dignity of the
Church； he allowed a very dangerous interference of the State in
ecclesiastical affairs； even while he would separate the functions
of the clergy from those of the magistrates。 He allowed the State
to pronounce the final sentence on dogmatic questions； and hence
the power of the synod failed in Geneva。 Moreover； the payment of
ministers by the State rather than by the people； as in this
country； was against the old Jewish custom； which Calvin so often
borrowed；for the priests among the Jews were independent of the
kings。 But Calvin wished to destroy caste among the clergy； and
consequently spiritual tyranny。 In his legislation we see an
intense hostility to the Roman Catholic Church；one of the
animating principles of the Reformers； and hence the Reformers； in
their hostility to Rome； went from Sylla into Charybdis。 Calvin；
like all churchmen； exalted naturally the theocratic idea of the
old Jewish and Mediaeval Church； and yet practically put the Church
into the hands of laymen。 In one sense he was a spiritual
dictator； and like Luther a sort of Protestant pope； and yet he
built up a system which was fatal to spiritual power such as had
existed among the Catholic priesthood。 For their sacerdotal
spiritual power he would substitute a moral power； the result of
personal bearing and sanctity。 It is amusing to hear some people
speak of Calvin as a ghostly spiritual father； but no man ever
fought sacerdotalism more earnestly than he。 The logical sequence
of his ecclesiastical reforms was not the aristocratic and Erastian
Church of Scotland； but the Puritans in New England； who were
Independents and not Presbyterians。
Yet there is an inconsistency even in Calvin's regime； for he had
the zeal of the old Catholic Church in giving over to the civil
power those he wished to punish； as in the case of Servetus。 He
even intruded into the circle of social life； and established a
temporal rather than a spiritual theocracy； and while he overthrew
the episcopal element； he made a distinction； not recognized in the
primitive church； between clergy and laity。 As for religious
toleration； it did not exist in any country or in any church； there
was no such thing as true evangelical freedom。 All the Reformers
attempted； as well as the Catholics； a compulsory unity of faith；
and this is an impossibility。 The Reformers adopted a catechism；
or a theological system； which all communicants were required to
learn and accept。 This is substantially the acceptance of what the
Church ordains。 Creeds are perhaps a necessity in well…organized
ecclesiastical bodies； and are not unreasonable； but it should not
be forgotten that they are formulated doctrines made by men； on
what is supposed to be the meaning of the Scriptures； and are not
consistent with the right of private judgment when pushed out to
its ultimate logical consequence。 When we remember how few men are
capable of interpreting Scripture for themselves； and how few are
disposed to exercise this right； we can see why the formulated
catechism proved useful in securing unity of belief； but when
Protestant divines insisted on the acceptance of the articles of
faith which they deduced from the Scriptures； they did not differ
materially from the Catholic clergy in persisting on the acceptance
of the authority of the Church as to matters of doctrine。 Probably
a church organization is impossible without a formulated creed。
Such a creed has existed from the time of the Council of Nice； and
is not likely ever to be abandoned by any Christian Church in any
future age； although it may be modified and softened with the
advance of knowledge。 However； it is difficult to conceive of the
unity of the Church as to faith； without a creed made obligatory on
all the members of a communion to accept； and it always has been
regarded as a useful and even necessary form of Christian
instruction for the people。 Calvin himself attached great
importance to catechisms； and prepared one even for children。
He also put a great value on preaching； instead of the complicated
and imposing ritual of the Catholic service； and in most Protestant
churches from his day to ours preaching； or religious instruction；
has occupied the most prominent part of the church service； and it
must be conceded that while the Catholic service has often
degenerated into mere rites and ceremonies to aid a devotional
spirit； so the Protestant service has often become cold and
rationalistic；and it is not easy to say which extreme is the
worse。
Thus far we have viewed Calvin in the light of a reformer and
legislator； but his influence as a theologian is more remarkable。
It is for his theology that he stands out as a prominent figure in
the history of the Church。 As such he showed greater genius； as
such he is the most eminent of all the reformers； as such he
impressed his mind on the thinking of his own age and of succeeding
ages；an original and immortal man。 His system of divinity
embodied in his 〃Institutes〃 is remarkable for the radiation of the
general doctrines of the Church around one central principle； which
he defended with marvellous logical power。 He was not a fencer
like Abelard； displaying wonderful dexterity in the use of
sophistries； overwhelming adversaries by wit and sarcasm； arrogant
and self…sufficient； and destroying rather than building up。 He
did not deify the reason； like Erigina； nor throw himself on
authority like Bernard。 He was not comprehensive like Augustine；
nor mystical like Bonaventura。 He had the spiritual insight of
Anselm； and the dialectical acumen of Thomas Aquinas； acknowledging
no master but Christ； and implicitly receiving whatever the
Scriptures declared； he takes his original position neither from
natural reason nor from the authority of the church； but from the
word of God； and from declarations of Scripture； as he interprets
them； he draws sequences and conclusions with irresistible logic。
In an important sense he is one…sided； since he does not take
cognizance of other truths equally important。 He is perfectly
fearless in pushing out to its most logical consequences whatever
truth he seizes upon； and hence he appears to many gifted and
learned critics to