260 THE REFORMATION IN FRENCH SWITZERLAND.
Calvin, in his theology, mediated between Zwingli and Luther. Melanchthon mediated between Luther and Calvin ; he was a friend of both, though unlike either in disposition and temper, standing as a man of peace between two men of war. The correspondence between Calvin and Melanchthon, considering their disagreement on the deep questions of predestination and free-will, is highly creditable to their head and heart, and proves that theological differences of opinion need not disturb religious harmony and personal friendship.
The co-operative friendships between Luther and Melanchthon, between Zwingli and CEcolampadius, between Farel and Calvin, between Calvin, Beza, and Bullinger, are among the finest chapters in the history of the Reformation, and reveal the hand of God in that movement.
Widely as these Reformers differed in talent, temperament, and sundry points of doctrine and discipline, they were great and good men, equally honest and earnest, unselfish and unworldly, brave and fearless, ready at any moment to go to the stake for their conviction. They labored for the same end: the renovation of the Catholic Church by leading it back to the pure and perennial fountain of the perfect teaching and example of Chi-ist.
§ 66. Calvin's Place in History.
1. Calvin was, first of all, a theologian. He easily tak-es the lead among the systematic expoundei's of the Reformed system of Christian doctrine. He is scarcely inferior to Augustin among the fathers, or Thomas Aquinas among the schoolmen, and more methodical and symmetrical than either. Melanchthon, himself the prince of Lutheran divines and "the Preceptor of Germany," called him emphatically "the Theologian."!
1 With this judgment the Strassburg editors of his ^yo^ks agree, by calling Calvin " theologorum principem et antesignanum " (Opera, I. IX.). Scaliger says : "Calvin is alone among theologians; there is no ancient to compare with
§ 66. Calvin's place ix histokv. 261
Calvin's theology is based upon a thorough knowledge of the Scriptures. He was the ablest exegete among the Reformers, and his commentaries rank among the very best of ancient and modern times. His theology, therefore, is biblical rather than scholastic, and has all the freshness of enthusiastic devotion to the truths of God's Word. At the same time he was a consummate logician and dialectician. He had a rare power of clear, strong, convincing statement. He built up a body of doctrines which is called after him, and which obtained symbolical authority through some of the leading Reformed Confessions of Faith.
Calvinism is one of the great dogmatic systems of the Church. It is more logical than Lutheranism and Arminianism, and as logical as Romanism. And yet neither Calvinism nor Romanism is absolutely logical. Both are happily illogical or inconsistent, at least in one crucial point : the former by denying that God is the author of sin — which limits Divine sovereignty ; the latter by conceding that baptismal (i.e. regenerating or saving) grace is found outside of the Roman Church — which breaks the claim of exclusiveness.^
The Calvinistic system is popularly (though not quite correctly) identified with the Augustinian system, and shares its merit as a profound exposition of the Pauline doctrines of sin and grace, but also its fundamental defect of confining the saving grace of God and the atoning work of Christ to a small circle of the elect, and ignoring the general love of God to all mankind (John 3 : 16). It is a theology of Divine sovereignty rather than of Divine love ; and yet the love of
him." The term 6 d(o\6yos, as a title of special distinction, was first given to the Apostle John, and afterwards to Gregory Nazianzen ; in both cases with special reference to the advocacy of the divinity of Christ (the 0€6Tris rov Xoyov). Calvin earned the title in a more comprehensive sense, as covering the whole field of exegetical, dogmatic, and polemic theology.
^ Expressed in the formula of Cyprian: "extra ecclesiam IRomcinaml nulla salus." Cyprian was logically right, but theologically wrong, when, in his controversy with the Roman bishop, he denied the validity of heretical and schismatical baptism.