§ 111. CALVIN'S COjMMENTAIUES. 529
Sabastian Miinster (Basel, 1536), and of Robert Stephens (Etienne, Paris, 1539-46). For the Greek Testament they had the editions of Erasmus (Basel, live ed. 1516-35), the Complutensian Polyglot (1520), Colin^us (Paris, 1534), Stephens (Paris and Geneva, 1546-51). A year after Calvin's death, Beza began to publish his popular editions of the Greek Testament, with a Latin version (Geneva, 1565- 1604).
Textual criticism was not yet born, and could not begin its operations before a collection of the textual material from manuscripts, ancient versions, and patristic quotations. In this respect, therefore, all the commentaries of the Reformation period are barren and useless. Literary criticism was stimulated by the Protestant spirit of inquiry with regard to the Jewish Apocrypha and some Antilegomena of the New Testament, but was soon repressed by dogmatism.
Calvin, besides being a master of Latin and French, had a very good knowledge of the languages of the Bible. He had learned the Greek from Volmar at Bourges, the Hebrew from Grynteus during his sojourn at Basel, and he industriously continued the study of both.^ He was at home in classical antiquity ; his lirst book was a Commentary on Seneca, De Clementia, and he refers occasionally to Plato, Aristotle, Plutarch, Polybius, Cicero, Seneca, Virgil, Horace, Ovid, Terence, Liv}^ Pliny, Quintilian, Diogenes Laertius, Aulus Gellius, etc. He inferred from Paul's quotation of Epimenides, Tit. 1:12, "■ that those are superstitious who never venture to quote anything from profane authors.
1 His knowledge of Hebrew was unjustly depreciated by the Roman Catholic Richard Simon. But Dr. Diestel, a most competent judge, ascribes to Calvin " a very solid knowledge of Hebrew." See above, p. 270, and p. 525. Tholuck, also, in his essay above quoted, asserts that " every glance at Calvin's Commentary on the Old Testament assures us not only that he understood Hebrew, but that he had a very thorougli knowledge of this language." He mentions, by way of illustration, a number of difficult Hebrew and Greek words which Calvin correctly explains. He denies that lie was dependent on Pellican's notes, as Semler had gratuitously suggested.
530 THE REFORMATION IN FRENCH SWITZERLAND.
Since all truth is from God, if anything has been said aptly and truly even by impious men, it ought not to be rejected, because it proceeded from God. And since all things are of God, why is it not lawful to turn to his glory whatever may be aptly applied to this use ? " On 1 Cor. 8 : 1, he observes : " Science is no more to be blamed when it puffs up than a sword when it falls into the hands of a madman." But he never makes a display of learning, and uses it only as a means to get at the sense of the Scripture. He wrote for educated laymen as well as for scholars, and abstained from minute investigations and criticisms ; but he encouraged Beza to publish his Commentar}^ on the New Testament in which philological scholarship is more conspicuous.
Calvin was also familiar with the patristic commentators, and had much more respect for them than Luther. He fully appreciated the philological knowledge and tact of Jerome, the spiritual depth of Augustin, and the homiletical wealth of Chrysostom; but he used them with independent judgment and critical discrimination .^
1 He expresses his estimate of tlie Fathers in the Preface to his Institutes as follows : " Another calumny is their charging us with opposition to the fathers ; I mean the writers of the earlier and purer ages, as if those writers were abettors of their impiety ; whereas if the contest were to be terminated by this authority, the victory in most parts of the controversy, to speak in the most modest terms, would be on our side. But though the writings of those fathers contain many wise and excellent things, yet, in some respects, they have suffered the common fate of mankind ; these very dutiful children reverence only their errors and mistakes, but their excellencies they either overlook, or conceal, or corrupt ; so that it may be truly said to be their only study to collect dross from the midst of gold. Then they overwhelm us with senseless clamors, as despisers and enemies of the fathers. But we do not hold them in such contempt, but that if it were consistent with my present design, I could easily support by their suffrages most of the sentiments that we now maintain. Yet, while we make use of their writings, we always remember that ' All things are ours' to serve us, not to have dominion over us, and that ' we are Christ's ' alone, and owe him universal obedience. He who neglects this distinction will have nothing decided in religion, since those holy men were ignorant of many things, frequently at variance with each other and sometimes even inconsistent with themselves." In the preface to his commentary on the Romans he praises the Fathers for their pittas, eruditio,