beacon lights of history-iii-2-第51部分

快捷操作: 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! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！


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