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