Schaff - History of the Christian Church Vol. 8 - Media Sabda Org

229
if desired, above Luther; for whilst the latter was in some respects
more original and lively, Calvin, his inferior in genius, appears to
have surpassed him in learning. Luther triumphed as a speaker, but
the pen of Calvin was more correct, especially in Latin, and his
style, though severe, was much more consecutive and chaste. They
equally excelled in speaking the language of their country, and both
possessed an extraordinary vehemence. Each by his talents has
gained many disciples and admirers. Each, elated by success, has
fancied to raise himself above the Fathers; neither could bear
contradiction, and their eloquence abounds in nothing more largely
than virulent invective.”
Richard Simon (1638–1712).
One of the greatest critical and biblical scholars of the Roman Catholic
Church.
From his Critical History of the Old Testament (Latin and French).
“As Calvin was endued with a lofty genius, we are constantly
meeting with something in his commentaries which delights the
mind (quo animus rapitur); and in consequence of his intimate and
perfect acquaintance with human nature, his ethics are truly
charming, while he does his utmost to maintain their accordance
with the sacred text. Had he been less under the influence of
prejudice, and had he not been solicitous to become the leader and
standard-bearer of heresy, he might have produced a work of the
greatest usefulness to the Catholic Church.”
The same passage, with additions, occurs in French. Simon says that no
author “had a better knowledge of the utter inability of the human heart,”
but that “he gives too much prominence to this inability,” and “lets no
opportunity pass of slandering the Roman Church,” so that part of his
commentaries is “useless declamations” (déclamations inutiles). “Calvin
displays more genius and judgment in his works than Luther; he is more
cautious, and takes care not to make use of weak proofs, of which his
adversaries might take advantage. He is subtle to excess in his reasoning,
and his commentaries are filled with references skilfully drawn from the
text—which are capable of prepossessing the minds of those readers who
are not profoundly acquainted with religion.”