Chapter III: Part 3

Knox took up his abode in the first instance at Dieppe, but he soon went to Geneva, and there made acquaintance with Calvin, whom he loved and venerated, and followed more closely than any others of the fathers of the Reformation in his views both of doctrine and ecclesiastical discipline. Towards the close of 1554 he was invited by a congregation of English exiles resident at Frankfort to become one of their pastors. Internal discords, chiefly concerning the ritual and matters of ceremonial observance, in which, notwithstanding the severe and uncomplying temper usually ascribed to him, no blame seems justly due to Knox, soon forced him to quit this charge, and he returned to Geneva; where he spent more than a year in a learned leisure, peculiarly grateful to him after the troubled life which he had led so long. But in August, 1555, moved by the favourable aspect of the time, and by the entreaties of his family, from whom he had now been separated near two years, he returned to Scotland, and was surprised and rejoiced at the extraordinary avidity with which his preaching was attended. He visited various districts, both north and south, and won over two noblemen, who became eminent supporters of the Reformation, the heir-apparent of the earldom of Argyle, and Lord James Stuart, afterwards Earl of Murray. But in the middle of these successful labours he received a call from an English congregation at Geneva to become their pastor; and he appears to have felt it a duty to comply with their request. It would seem more consonant to his character to have remained in Scotland, to watch over the seed which he had sown, and that his own country had the most pressing claim upon his services. But the whole tenor of his life warrants the belief that he was actuated by no unworthy or selfish motives; and in the absence of definite information, some insight into the nature of his feelings may probably be gained from a letter addressed to some friends in Edinburgh, in March, 1557. “Assure of that, that whenever a greater number among you shall call upon me than now hath bound me to serve them, by His grace it shall not be the fear of punishment, neither yet of the death temporal, that shall impede my coming to you.” He quitted Scotland in July, 1556.

During this absence Knox maintained a frequent correspondence with his brethren in Scotland, and both by exhortation and by his advice upon difficult questions submitted to his judgment, was still of material service in keeping alive their spirit. Two of his works composed during this period require mention; his share in the English translation of the Scriptures, commonly called the ‘Geneva Bible,’ and the ‘Blast of the Trumpet against the monstrous Regimen of Women,’ a treatise expressly directed against the government of Mary of England, but containing a bold and unqualified enunciation of the principle, that to admit a woman to sovereignty is contrary to nature, justice, and the revealed will of God. In January, 1559, at the invitation of the leading persons of the Protestant congregation, he again returned to Scotland. Matters at this time were drawing to a crisis. The Queen Regent, after temporising while the support of a large and powerful party was essential to her, had thrown off disguise, and openly avowed her determination to use force for the suppression of heresy: while the leading Protestants avowed as plainly their resolution of protecting their preachers; and becoming more and more sensible of their own increasing strength, resolved to abolish the Roman, and set up the Reformed method of worship in those places to which their influence or feudal power extended. St. Andrew’s was fixed on for the commencement of the experiment; and under the protection of the Earl of Argyle and Lord James Stuart, Prior of St. Andrew’s, Knox, who on his landing had been proclaimed a rebel and outlaw, undertook to preach publicly in the cathedral of that city. The archbishop sent word that he should be fired upon if he ventured to appear in the pulpit, and as that prelate was supported by a stronger force than the retinue of the Protestant noblemen, they thought it best that he should abstain at this time from thus exposing his life. Knox remained firm to his purpose. After reminding them that he had first preached the Gospel in that church, of the sufferings of his captivity, and of the confident hope which he had expressed to many that he should again perform his high mission in that same church, he besought them not to stand in the way when Providence had brought him to the spot. The archbishop’s proved to be an empty threat. Knox preached for four successive days without interruption, and with such effect, that the magistrates and the inhabitants agreed to set up the reformed worship in their town; the monasteries were destroyed, and the churches stripped of images and pictures. Both parties now rose in arms. During the contest which ensued, Knox was a chief agent in conducting the correspondence between Elizabeth and the Lords of the Congregation. The task suited neither his profession nor his character, and he rejoiced when he was relieved from it. In July, 1560, a treaty was concluded with the King and Queen of France, by which the administration of the Queen Regent was terminated; and in August a parliament was convoked, which abolished the papal jurisdiction, prohibited the celebration of mass, and rescinded the laws enacted against Protestant worship.

From the persecuted and endangered teacher of a proscribed religion, Knox had now become, not indeed the head, but a leader and venerated father of an Established Church. He was at once appointed the Protestant minister of Edinburgh, and his influence ceased not to be felt from this time forward in all things connected with the Church, and in many particulars of civil policy. Still his anxieties were far from an end. Many things threatened and impeded the infant Church. Far from acquiescing in the recent acts of the parliament, the young King and Queen of France were bent on putting down the rebellion, as they termed it, in Scotland by force of arms. The death of Francis put an end to that danger; but another, no less serious, was opened by the arrival of Mary in August, 1561, to assume her paternal sovereignty, with a fixed determination of reviving the supremacy of the religion in which she had been brought up, and to which she was devotedly attached. There were also two subjects upon which Knox felt peculiarly anxious, and in which he was thwarted by the lukewarmness, as he considered it, of the legislature,—the establishment of a strict and efficacious system of church discipline, and the entire devotion of the wealth of the Catholic priesthood to the promotion of education, and the maintenance of the true religion. In both these points he was thwarted by the indifference or interestedness of the nobility, who had possessed themselves, to a large amount, of the lands and tithes formerly enjoyed by monasteries.

It soon became evident that the Queen disliked and feared Knox. She regarded his ‘Blast against the Regimen of Women’ as an attack upon her own right to the throne; and this is not surprising, though Knox always declared that book to be levelled solely against the late Queen of England, and professed his perfect readiness to submit to Mary’s authority in all things lawful, and to wave all discussion or allusion to the obnoxious tenet. His freedom of speech in the pulpit was another constant source of offence; and it is not to be denied that, although the feelings of that age warranted a greater latitude than would now be tolerated in a teacher of religion, his energetic and severe temper led him to use violent and indiscreet language in speaking of public men and public things. For Mary herself he prayed in terms which, however fitting for a minister to employ towards one of his flock whom he regarded to be in deadly and pernicious error, a queen could hardly be expected to endure from a subject without anger. Accordingly, he was several times summoned to her presence, to apologise or answer for his conduct. The narrations of these interviews are very interesting: they show the ascendancy which he had gained over the haughty spirit of the Queen, and at the same time exonerate him from the charge urged by her apologists of having treated her with personal disrespect, and even brutality. He expressed uncourtly opinions in plain and severe language; farther than this he neither violated the courtesy due from man to woman, nor the respect due from a subject to a superior. In addition to the causes of offence already specified, he had remonstrated, from her first landing, against the toleration of the mass in her own chapel. And at a later time, he spoke so freely concerning the probable consequence to the Reformed Church from her marrying a Papist, that in reprimanding and remonstrating with him she burst into a passion of tears. He remained unmoved, protesting that he saw her Majesty’s tears with reluctance, but was constrained, since he had given her no just ground of offence, rather to sustain her tears than to hurt his conscience, and betray the commonwealth through his silence. This interview is one of the things upon which Mr. Hume has sought to raise a prejudice against the reformer in his partial account of this period.

Many of the nobility who had aided in the establishment of the Reformation, gained over either by the fascination of Mary’s beauty and manners, or by the still more cogent appeal of personal interest, were far from seconding Knox’s efforts, or partaking in his apprehensions. The Earl of Murray was so far won over to adopt a temporising and conciliatory policy, that a quarrel ensued in 1563 between him and Knox, which lasted for two years, until quenched, as Knox expresses it, by the water of affliction. Maitland of Lethington, once an active Reformer, a man of powerful and versatile talents, who was now made Secretary of State, openly espoused the Queen’s wishes. In the summer of 1563, Knox was involved in a charge of high treason, for having addressed a circular to the chief Protestant gentlemen, requesting them to attend the trial of two persons accused of having created a riot at the Queen’s chapel. It appears that he held an especial commission from the General Assembly to summon such meetings, when occasion seemed to him to require them. Upon this charge of treasonably convoking the lieges, he was brought before the privy council. Murray and Maitland were earnest to persuade him into submission and acknowledgment of error. Knox, however, with his usual firmness and uprightness, refused positively to confess a fault when he was conscious of none, and defended himself with so much power, that by the voice of a majority of the council he was declared free of all blame.

In March, 1564, more than three years after the death of his first wife, Knox was again married to a daughter of Lord Ochiltree, a zealous Protestant. Throughout that year and the following, he continued to preach as usual. Meanwhile, the Protestant establishment, though confirmed by the parliament, remained still unrecognised by the Queen, whose hasty marriage to Lord Henry Darnley in July, 1565, increased the alarm with which her conduct had already inspired the Reformers. But early in the following year, when Mary, in conjunction with her uncles of the House of Lorrain, had planned the formal re-establishment of Catholicism, her dissensions with her husband led to the assassination of Rizzio, and in rapid succession to the murder of Darnley, her marriage with Bothwell, and the train of events which ended in her formal deposition and the coronation of her infant son James VI. It is denied that Knox was privy to the assassination of Rizzio, and the tenor of his actions warrants us in disbelieving that he would have been an accomplice in any deed of blood; but after that event, he spoke of it in terms of satisfaction, indiscreet, liable to perversion, and unbecoming a Christian preacher. The Queen’s resentment for this and other reasons became so warm against him, that it was judged proper for him to retire from Edinburgh. He preached at the coronation of James VI. After Mary was made prisoner and confined at Lochleven, he, in common with most of the ministers and the great body of the people, insisted strongly on the duty of bringing her to trial for the crimes of murder and adultery, and of inflicting capital punishment if her guilt were proved.

During the short regency of Murray, Knox had the satisfaction, not only of being freed from the personal disquietudes which had been his portion almost through life, but of seeing the interests of the Church, if not maintained to the full extent which he could wish, at least treated with respect, and advocated as far as the crooked course of state-policy would permit. The murder of that distinguished nobleman, January 23, 1570, affected Knox doubly, as the premature decease of a loved and esteemed friend, and as a public calamity to church and state.

In the following October he suffered a slight fit of apoplexy, from which however he soon recovered so far as to resume his Sunday preachings. But the troubled times which followed on the death of the Regent Murray denied to him in Edinburgh that repose which his infirmities demanded, and in May, 1571, he was reluctantly induced to retire from his ministry and again to seek a refuge in St. Andrew’s. Nor was his residence in that city one of peace or ease, for he was troubled by a party favourable to the Queen’s interests, especially by that Archibald Hamilton who afterwards apostatised to the Roman Catholic Church and became his bitter calumniator; and he was placed in opposition to the Regent Morton with respect to the filling up of vacant bishoprics and the disposal of church property, which, far from being applied to the maintenance of religion and the diffusion of education, was still in great measure monopolised by the nobility. In August, 1572, his health being rapidly declining, he returned to Edinburgh at the earnest request of his congregation, who longed to hear his voice in the pulpit once more. He felt death to be nigh at hand, and was above all things anxious to witness the appointment of a zealous and able successor to the important station in the ministry which he filled. This was done to his satisfaction. On Sunday, November 9, he preached and presided at the installation of his successor, James Lawson, and he never after quitted his own house. He sickened on the 11th, and expired November 24, 1572, after a fortnight’s illness, in which he displayed unmixed tranquillity, and assured trust in a happy futurity, through the promises of the Gospel which he had preached. It is the more necessary to state this, because his calumniators dared to assert that his death was accompanied by horrid prodigies, and visible marks of divine reprobation. The same tales have been related of Luther and Calvin.

Knox’s moral character we may safely pronounce to have been unblemished, notwithstanding the outrageous charges of dissolute conversation which have been brought by some writers against him,—calumnies equally levelled against Beza, Calvin, and other fathers of the Reformation, and which bear their own refutation in their extravagance. As a preacher, he was energetic and effective, and uncommonly powerful in awakening the negligent or the hardened conscience. As a Reformer and leader of the Church, he was fitted for the stormy times and the turbulent and resolute people among whom his lot was cast, by the very qualities which have been made a reproach to him in a more polished age, and by a less zealous generation. He was possessed of strong natural talents, and a determined will which shunned neither danger nor labour. He was of middle age when he began the study of Greek, and it was still later in life when he acquired the Hebrew language,—tasks of no small difficulty when we consider the harassed and laborious tenor of his life. No considerations of temporising prudence could seduce him into the compromise of an important principle; no thought of personal danger could make him shrink when called to confront it. His deep sense and resolute discharge of duty, coupled with a natural fire and impetuosity of temper, sometimes led him into severity. But that his disposition was deeply affectionate is proved by his private correspondence; and that his severity proceeded from no acerbity of temper may be inferred from his having employed his powerful influence as a mediator for those who had borne arms against his party, and from his having never used it to avenge an injury. The best apology for his occasional harshness is that contained in the words of his own dying address to the elders of his church as quoted by Dr. M’Crie. “I know that many have frequently complained, and do still loudly complain, of my too great severity; but God knows that my mind was always void of hatred to the persons of those against whom I thundered the severest judgments. I cannot deny but that I felt the greatest abhorrence at the sins in which they indulged; but still I kept this one thing in view, that, if possible, I might gain them to the Lord. What influenced me to utter whatever the Lord put into my mouth so boldly, and without respect of persons, was a reverential fear of my God, who called and of His grace appointed me to be a steward of divine mysteries, and a belief that He will demand an account of the manner in which I have discharged the trust committed to me, when I shall at last stand before His tribunal.”

A list of Knox’s printed works, nineteen in number, is given by Dr. M’Crie at the end of his notes. They consist chiefly of short religious pieces, exhortations, and sermons. In addition to those more important books which we have already noticed, his ‘History of the Church of Scotland’ requires mention. The best edition is that printed at Edinburgh in 1732, which contains a life of the author, the ‘Regimen of Women,’ and some other pieces. Dr. M’Crie’s admirable ‘Life of Knox’ will direct the reader to the original sources of the history of this period.

]

_Engraved by W. Holl._

ADAM SMITH.

_From a Medallion executed in the life time of A. Smith, by Tafsiel._

Under the Superintendance of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful
Knowledge.

_London, Published by Charles Knight, Ludgate Street._
]

A. SMITH.

Adam Smith was born June 5, 1723, at Kirkaldy, in the county of Fife, where his father held the place of comptroller of the customs. Being a posthumous and only child, he became the sole object of his widowed mother’s tenderness and solicitude; and this was increased by the delicacy of his constitution. Upon her devolved the sole charge of his education; and the value of her care may be estimated from the uninterrupted harmony and deep mutual affection which united them, unchilled, to the end of life. He was remarkable for his love of reading and the excellence of his memory, even at the early age when she first placed him at the grammar-school of Kirkaldy, where he won the affection of his companions by his amiable disposition, though the weakness of his frame hindered him from joining in their sports.

At the age of fourteen he was sent to the University of Glasgow, from which, at the end of three years, he was removed to Baliol College, Oxford, in order to qualify himself for taking orders in the English Church. Mathematics and natural philosophy seem to have been his favourite pursuits at Glasgow; but at Oxford he devoted all his leisure hours to belles-lettres, and the moral and political sciences. Among these political economy cannot be reckoned; for at that period it was unknown even in name: still, in such studies, and by the sedulous improvement of his understanding, he was laying the foundations of his immortal work. He remained seven years at Oxford, without conceiving, as may be inferred from some passages in the ‘Wealth of Nations,’ any high respect for the system of education then pursued in the University; and, having given up all thoughts of taking orders, he returned to his mother’s house at Kirkaldy, and devoted himself entirely to literature and science. In 1748 he removed to Edinburgh, where, under Lord Kames’s patronage, he delivered a course of lectures on rhetoric and belles-lettres. These were never published; and, with other papers, were destroyed by Smith a short time before his death. Dr. Blair, in the well-known course which he delivered ten years afterwards on the same subject, acknowledges how greatly he was indebted to his predecessor, and how largely he had borrowed from him.

In 1751 Mr. Smith was elected Professor of Logic in the University of Glasgow, and in the following year he was transferred to the chair of Moral Philosophy, which he filled during thirteen years. The following account of his lectures is given by Professor Millar. “His course of lectures on this subject was divided into four parts. The first contained natural theology, in which he considered the proofs of the being and attributes of God, and those principles of the human mind upon which religion is founded. The second comprehended ethics, strictly so called, and consisted chiefly of the doctrines which he afterwards published in his ‘Theory of Moral Sentiments.’ In the third part he treated more at length of that branch of morality which relates to justice, and which, being susceptible of precise and accurate rules, is for that reason capable of a full and particular explanation.... In the last part of his lectures he examined those political regulations which are founded, not on the principle of justice, but on that of expediency, and which are calculated to increase the riches, the power, and the prosperity of a state. Under this view, he considered the political institutions relating to commerce, to finances, to ecclesiastical and military establishments. What he delivered on these subjects contained the substance of the work he afterwards published under the title of ‘An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations.’”

“There was no situation in which the abilities of Dr. Smith appeared to greater advantage than as a professor. In delivering his lectures, he trusted almost entirely to extemporary elocution. His manner, though not graceful, was plain and unaffected; and as he seemed to be always interested in the subject, he never failed to interest his hearers. Each discourse consisted of several distinct propositions, which he successively endeavoured to prove and to illustrate. These propositions, when announced in general terms, had, from their extent, not unfrequently something of the air of a paradox. In his attempts to explain them, he often appeared at first not to be sufficiently possessed of the subject, and spoke with some hesitation. As he advanced, however, the matter seemed to crowd upon him, his manner became warm and animated, and his expression easy and fluent. In points susceptible of controversy, you could easily discern that he secretly conceived an opposition to his opinions, and that he was led upon this account to support them with greater energy and vehemence. By the fulness and variety of his illustrations, the subject gradually swelled in his hands, and acquired a dimension which, without a tedious repetition of the same views, was calculated to seize the attention of his audience, and to afford them pleasure as well as instruction in following the same object through all the diversity of shades and aspects in which it was presented, and afterwards in tracing it backwards to that original proposition or general truth from which this beautiful train of speculation had proceeded.”

“His reputation as a professor was accordingly raised very high, and a multitude of students from a great distance resorted to the University merely upon his account. Those branches of science which he taught became fashionable at this place, and his opinions were the chief topics of discussion in clubs and literary societies. Even the small peculiarities in his pronunciation or manner of speaking became frequently the objects of imitation.”

Smith published his ‘Theory of Moral Sentiments’ in 1759. The fundamental principle of this work, we use the summary of Mr. Macculloch, is that “_sympathy_ forms the real foundation of morals; that we do not immediately approve or disapprove of any given action, when we have become acquainted with the intention of the agent and the consequences of what he has done, but that we previously enter, by means of that sympathetic affection which is natural to us, into the feelings of the agent, and those to whom the action relates; that having considered all the motives and passions by which the agent was actuated, we pronounce, with respect to the _propriety_ or _impropriety_ of the action, according as we sympathise or not with him; while we pronounce, with respect to the _merit_ or _demerit_ of the action, according as we sympathise with the gratitude or resentment of those who were its objects; and that we necessarily judge of our own conduct by comparing it with such maxims and rules as we have deduced from observations previously made on the conduct of others.” This theory, ingenious as it is, is generally abandoned as untenable. Dr. Brown has argued, and the objection seems fatal, that though sympathy may diffuse, it cannot originate moral sentiments: at the same time he bears the strongest testimony to the literary merits and moral tendency of the work.

In 1763 Smith received from the University of Glasgow the honorary degree of Doctor of Laws, and he was offered, and accepted, the situation of travelling tutor to the young Duke of Buccleugh. His long residence in the populous and manufacturing metropolis of western Scotland had enabled him to collect a rich hoard of materials for the great work he had in view; and this new appointment changed the method, rather than interrupted the course, of his studies. It afforded him the means of examining the habits, institutions, and condition of man under new forms, and in new countries, and he observed with his natural acuteness and sagacity the influence of locality, of climate, and of government. He no doubt derived considerable advantage from the society of the distinguished men with whom he associated at Paris; among these, Turgot, D’Alembert, Helvetius, Marmontel, Morellet, Rochefoucauld, and Quesnay, were his intimate friends. So highly did he appreciate the talents of the last-named person as an economist, that he had intended, had Quesnay lived, to have acknowledged the debt he owed him by dedicating to him his own great work on the ‘Wealth of Nations.’

Having spent two years on the Continent, Dr. Smith returned to England with his pupil, and soon after joined his mother at Kirkaldy, where he resided for about ten years almost entirely in seclusion, occupied in the prosecution of his great work. It was published in 1776; and few books have ever been given to the world tending more directly to destroy the prejudices, develop the powers, and promote the happiness of mankind. But the world at that time was not clear-sighted enough to appreciate its merits. Dr. Smith however had the gratification to see that, during fifteen years which elapsed between its publication and his death, it had produced a considerable effect upon public opinion, and that the eyes of men were beginning to be opened upon an object of such importance to human happiness. In this country at least Dr. Smith was the creator of the science of political economy, for he had only a chaos of materials from which to form it. Some defects may be discovered in his arrangement, and some errors detected in the principles as laid down by him; for it is hardly given to human intellect, that the originator of a science should also carry it to perfection. But Smith established the foundation upon which all future superstructures must rest; and the labours of Ricardo, Malthus, and some now living, eminent as they are, instead of superseding their predecessor do but enhance his merit. With all the progress which liberty of every kind has made since his time, no one has maintained the freedom of industry in all its bearings more forcibly than himself. The theories of rent, and of population, seem to be the only important branches of the science, as it now stands, which had escaped his observation.

In 1778 Dr. Smith was appointed Commissioner of the Customs for Scotland. The duties of his office obliged him to quit London, where he had resided for two years subsequent to the publication of the ‘Wealth of Nations,’ and where his society had been courted by the most distinguished characters; and he took up his abode in Edinburgh, accompanied by his aged mother. In 1787 he was elected Rector of the University of Glasgow; a compliment which gave him great pleasure, as he was much attached to that body, and grateful for the services it had rendered him in his youth, and the honours it had conferred on him at a more advanced age.

His mother died in 1784, and his grief on this occasion is supposed to have injured his health, and his constitution, which had never been robust, began to give way. He suffered another severe privation in the death of his cousin, Miss Douglas, who had managed his household for many years, since the infirmities of his parent had disqualified her for that employment. He survived Miss Douglas only two years, and died in 1790 of a tedious and painful illness, which he bore with patience and resignation.

Adam Smith’s private character is thus summed up by his friend Mr. Dugald Stewart: “The more delicate and characteristical features of his mind it is perhaps impossible to trace. That there were many peculiarities both in his manners and in his intellectual habits was manifest to the most superficial observer; but, although to those who knew him, these peculiarities detracted nothing from the respect which his abilities commanded; and although, to his intimate friends, they added an inexpressible charm to his conversation, while they displayed in the most interesting light the artless simplicity of his heart, yet it would require a very skilful pencil to present them to the public eye. He was certainly not fitted for the general commerce of the world, or for the business of active life. The comprehensive speculations with which he had been occupied from his youth, and the variety of materials which his own inventions continually supplied to his thoughts, rendered him habitually inattentive to familiar objects and to common occurrences; and he frequently exhibited instances of absence which had scarcely been surpassed by the fancy of La Bruyère. Even in company he was apt to be engrossed with his studies, and appeared, at times, by the motion of his lips, as well as by his looks and gestures, to be in the fervour of composition. I have often however been struck, at the distance of years, with his accurate memory of the most trifling particulars; and am inclined to believe, from this and some other circumstances, that he possessed a power, not perhaps uncommon among absent men, of recollecting, in consequence of subsequent efforts of reflection, many occurrences which, at the time when they happened, did not seem to have sensibly attracted his notice.

“To the defect now mentioned, it was probably owing, in part, that he did not fall in easily with the common dialogue of conversation, and that he was somewhat apt to convey his own ideas in the form of a lecture. When he did so however, it never proceeded from a wish to engross the discourse, or gratify his vanity. His own inclination disposed him so strongly to enjoy in silence the gaiety of those around him, that his friends were often led to concert little schemes, in order to engage him in the discussions most likely to interest him. Nor do I think I shall be accused of going too far, when I say that he was scarcely ever known to start a new topic himself, or to appear unprepared upon those topics that were introduced by others. Indeed, his conversation was never more amusing than when he gave a loose to his genius, upon the very few branches of knowledge of which he only possessed the outlines.

“In his external form and appearance there was nothing uncommon. When perfectly at ease, and when warmed with conversation, his gestures were animated, and not ungraceful; and in the society of those he loved, his features were often brightened with a smile of inexpressible benignity.... He never sat for his picture, but the medallion by Tassie conveys an exact idea of his profile, and of the general expression of his countenance.” It is from this that our portrait of him is engraved.

To those of Smith’s works of which we have already spoken, we have to add two articles in a short-lived periodical publication, called the ‘Edinburgh Review,’ for 1755, containing a review of Johnson’s Dictionary, and a letter on the state of literature in the different countries of Europe; an ‘Essay on the Formation of Languages;’ and Essays, published after his death by his desire, with an account of his life and writings prefixed, by Dugald Stewart, on the Principles which lead and direct Philosophical Inquiries; on the nature of the Imitation practised in the Imitative Arts; on the affinity between certain English and Italian verses; and on the External Senses. To that account of his life we may refer for an able analysis of his most important writings, as well as to the memoir prefixed to Mr. Macculloch’s edition of the ‘Wealth of Nations,’ from which this sketch is principally taken.

_Engraved by T. Woolnoth._

CALVIN.

_From a Print engraved by C. Dankertz._

Under the Superintendance of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful
Knowledge.

_London, Published by Charles Knight, Ludgate Street._
]

CALVIN.

John Cauvin (afterwards called Calvin) was born of humble parents, his father following the trade of a cooper, at Noyon in Picardy, July 10, 1509. He was intended in the first instance for the profession of the church, and two benefices were already set apart for him, when, at a very early age, from what motive is not exactly known, his destination was suddenly changed, and he was sent, first to Orleans and then to Bourges, to learn under distinguished teachers the science of jurisprudence. He is said to have made great proficiency in that study; but nevertheless, he found leisure to cultivate other talents, and made himself acquainted with Greek, Hebrew, and Syriac, during his residence at Bourges. His natural inclination seems ever to have bent him towards those pursuits to which his earliest attention was directed; and though he never attended the schools of theology, nor had at any time any public master in that science, yet his thoughts were never far away from it; and the time which he could spare from his professional labours was employed on subjects bearing more or less directly upon religion.

Thus it was, that he failed not to take part in the discussions, which arose in France during his early years, respecting the principles of the Reformation; and it may be, that his happy escape from theological tuition made him more disposed to embrace them. It is certain that his opposition to the Church of Rome became very soon notorious, and made him, young as he was, an object of jealousy to some of its powerful adherents. Even the moderate Erasmus viewed his aspiring talents and determined character with some undefined apprehension; and he is related (after a conversation with Calvin at Strasbourg) to have remarked to Bucer, who had presented him,—“I see in that young man the seeds of a dangerous pest, which will some day throw great disorder into the Church.” The weak and wavering character of Erasmus renders it difficult for us to understand what sort of disorder it was that he anticipated, or what exactly was the _Church_ on which the apprehended mischief was to fall. In 1535 Calvin published his great work, the ‘Christian Institute,’ which was intended as a sort of confession of faith of the French reformers, in answer to the calumnies which confounded them with the frantic Anabaptists of Germany.

In 1536, finding that his person was no longer secure in France, Calvin determined to retire into Germany, and was compelled by accident to pass through Geneva. He found this city in a state of extreme confusion. The civil government was popular, and in those days tumultuous: the ecclesiastical had been entirely dissolved by the departure of the bishops and clergy on the triumph of the Reformation, and only such laws existed as the individual influence of the pastors was able to impose upon their several flocks. It was a tempting field for spiritual ambition, and Calvin was readily persuaded to enter into it. He decided to remain at Geneva, and forthwith opened a theological school.

In the very year following his arrival, he formed the design of introducing into his adopted country a regular system of ecclesiastical polity. He assembled the people; and, not without much opposition, prevailed on them at length to bind themselves by oath; _first_, that they would not again, on any consideration, ever submit to the dominion of Rome; _secondly_, that they would render obedience to a certain code of ecclesiastical laws, which he and his colleagues had drawn up for them. Some writers do not expressly mention that this second proposition was accepted by the people—if accepted, it was immediately violated: and as Calvin and his clerical coadjutors (who were only two in number) refused with firmness to administer the holy communion to such as rejected the condition, the people, not yet prepared to endure that bondage, banished the spiritual legislators from the city, in April, 1538.

Calvin retired to Strasbourg, where he renewed his intimacy with Bucer, and became more and more distinguished for his talents and learning. He was present at the Conferences of Worms and Ratisbon, where he gained additional reputation. He founded a French reformed church at Strasbourg, and obtained a theological chair in that city; at the same time, he continued in communication with Geneva, and in expressions of unabated affection for his former adherents. Meanwhile, the disorders which had prevailed in that city were in no manner alleviated by his exile, and a strong reaction gradually took place in his favour; insomuch, that, in the year 1541, there being a vacancy in the ministry, the senate and the assembly of the people proclaimed with equal vehemence their wish for the return of Calvin. “We will have Calvin, that good and learned man, Christ’s minister.” “This,” says Calvin, Epist. 24, “when I understood, I could not choose but praise God; nor was I able to judge otherwise, than that this was the Lord’s doing; and that it was marvellous in our eyes; and that the stone which the builders refused was now made the head of the corner.”

It was on September 13th that he returned from his exile in the pride of spiritual triumph; and he began, without any loss of time, while the feelings of all classes were yet warm in his favour, to establish that rigid form of ecclesiastical discipline which he may formerly have meditated, but which he did not fully propound till now. He proposed to institute a standing court (the Consistory), consisting of all the ministers of religion, who were to be perpetual members, and also of twice the same number of laymen to be chosen annually. To these he committed the charge of public morality, with power to determine all kinds of ecclesiastical causes; with authority to convene, control, and punish, even with excommunication, whomsoever they might think deserving. It was in vain that many advanced objections to this scheme: that they urged the despotic character of this court; the certainty too, that the perpetual judges, though fewer in number, would in fact predominate over a majority annually elected; and that Calvin, through his power over the clergy, would be master of the decisions of the whole tribunal. He persisted inflexibly; and since there now remained with the people of Geneva only the choice of receiving his laws or sending him once more into exile, they acquiesced reluctantly in the former determination. On the 20th of November, in the same year (1541), the Presbytery was established at Geneva.

Maimbourg, in his ‘History of Calvinism,’ has remarked that, from this time forward, Calvin became, not pontiff only, but also caliph, of Geneva; since the unbounded influence which he possessed in the Consistory extended to the council, and no important state-affair was transacted without his advice or approbation. At the same time, he enlarged the limits of his spiritual power, and made it felt in every quarter of Europe. In France most especially he was regarded personally as the head of the Reformed Church; he composed a liturgy for its use; and, secured from persecution by his residence and dignity, he gave laws, by his writings and his emissaries, to the scattered congregations of Reformers. The fruits of his unwearied industry were everywhere in their hands. His Institute, and his learned Expositions of Scripture, were substantial foundations of spiritual authority; and he became to his Church what the “Master of the Sentences,”—almost what Augustin himself—had been to the Church of Rome. And he did the Reformed Church an essential service by procuring the establishment of the academy, or university of Geneva; which was long the principal nursery of Presbyterian ministers, and which was the chief instrument of communicating to the citizens of its little state, that general mental culture and love of literature for which they have been remarkable.

The peculiarities of his religious opinions are known to all our readers; nor indeed, at any rate, have we space, in this brief outline of the Life of the Reformer, so to detail his tenets as to avoid the chance of misconception, either by his followers or his adversaries. We shall, therefore, proceed to another subject, respecting which there will be little difference, either as to the facts themselves, or the judgment to be formed of them—we mean that darkest act of his life, which being, as far as we learn, unatoned and unrepented, throws so deep a shadow over all the rest, as almost to make us question his sincerity in any good principle, or his capability of any righteous purpose.

A Spaniard, named Servetus, born at Villa Nueva, in Aragon, in the same year with Calvin, had been long engaged in a correspondence with the latter, which had finally degenerated into angry and abusive controversy. He had been educated as a physician, and had acquired great credit in his profession; when, in an evil hour, he entered the field of theological controversy, and professed without fear, and defended without modification, the Unitarian doctrine; adding to it some obscure and fanciful notions, peculiar, we believe, to his own imagination. He published very early in life ‘Seven Books concerning the Errors of the Trinity,’ and he continued in the same principles until the year 1553, when he put forth (at Vienne, in Dauphiné), a work entitled ‘The Restoration of Christianity, &c.,’ in further confirmation of his views.

Now it is very true, that the propagation of these opinions by a professed Reformer was at that crisis a matter of great scandal, and perhaps even of some danger to the cause of the Reformation. It was felt as such by some of the leading Reformers. Zuinglius and Œcolampadius eagerly disclaimed the error of Servetus. “Our Church will be very ill spoken of,” said the latter in a letter to Bucer, “unless our divines make it their business to cry him down.” And had they been contented to proclaim their dissent from his doctrine, or to assail it by reasonable argument, they would have done no more than their duty to their own communion absolutely demanded of them.

But Calvin was not a man who would argue where he could command, or persuade where he could overthrow. Full of vehemence and bitterness, inflexible and relentless, he was prepared to adopt and to justify extreme measures, wheresoever they answered his purpose best. He was animated by the pride, intolerance, and cruelty of the Church of Rome, and he planted and nourished those evil passions in his little Consistory at Geneva.

Servetus, having escaped from confinement at Vienne, and flying for refuge to Naples, was driven by evil destiny, or his own infatuation, to Geneva. Here he strove to conceal himself, till he should be enabled to proceed on his journey; but he was quickly discovered by Calvin, and immediately cast into prison. This was in the summer of 1553. Presently followed the formality of his trial; and when we read the numerous articles of impeachment, and observe the language in which they are couched;—when we peruse the humble petitions which he addressed to the “Syndics and Council,” praying only that an advocate might be granted him, which prayer was haughtily refused;—when we perceive the misrepresentations of his doctrine, and the offensive terms of his condemnation, we appear to be carried back again to the Halls of Constance, and to be witnessing the fall of Huss and Jerome beneath their Roman Catholic oppressors. So true it is (as Grotius had sufficient reason to say), “that the Spirit of Antichrist did appear at Geneva as well as at Rome.”

But the magistrates of this Republic did not venture completely to execute the will of Calvin, without first consulting the other Protestant cities of Switzerland; namely, Zurich, Berne, Bâsle, and Schaffhausen. The answers returned by these all indicated very great anxiety for the extinction of the heresy, without however expressly demanding the blood of the heretic. The people of Zurich were the most violent: and the answer of their “Pastors, Readers, and Ministers,” which is praised and preserved by Calvin, is worthy of the communion from which they had so lately seceded. As soon as these communications reached Geneva, Servetus was immediately condemned to death (on the 26th of October, 1553), and was executed on the day following.

There is extant a letter written by Calvin to his friend and brother-minister, William Farel (dated the 26th), which announces that the fatal sentence had been passed, and would be executed on the morrow. It is only remarkable for the cold conciseness and heartless indifference of its expressions. Not a single word indicates any feeling of compassion or repugnance. And as the work of persecution was carried on without mercy, and completed without pity, so likewise was it recollected without remorse; and the Protestant Republican Minister of Christ continued for some years afterwards to insult with abusive epithets the memory of his victim.

Soon after the death of Servetus, Calvin published a vindication of his proceedings, in which he defended, without any compromise, the principle on which he had acted. It is entitled, “A Faithful Exposition and short Refutation of the Errors of Servetus, wherein it is shown that heretics should be restrained by the power of the sword.” His friend and biographer Beza also put forth a work “On the propriety of punishing Heretics by the Civil authority.” Thus Calvin not only indulged his own malevolent humour, but also sought to establish among the avowed principles of his own Church the duty of exterminating all who might happen to differ from it.

He lived eleven years longer; and expired at Geneva on the 27th of May, 1564; having maintained his authority to the end of his life, without acquiring any of the affection of those about him. Neither of these circumstances need surprise us, for it was his character to awe, to command, and to repel. Fearless, inflexible, morose, and imperious; he neither courted any one, nor yielded to any one, nor conciliated any one. Yet he was sensible of, and seemingly contrite for, his defects of temper; for he writes to Bucer: “I have not had harder contests with my vices, which are great and many, than with my impatience. I have not yet been able to subdue that savage brute.” His talents were extremely powerful, both for literature and for business. His profound and various learning acquired for him the general respect which it deserved. He was active and indefatigable; he slept little, and was remarkable for his abstemious habits. With a heart inflated and embittered with spiritual pride, he affected a perfect simplicity of manner; and professed, and may indeed have felt, a consummate contempt for the ordinary objects of human ambition. Besides this, he was far removed from the besetting vice of common minds, by which even noble qualities are so frequently degraded—avarice. He neither loved money for itself, nor grasped at it for its uses; and at his death, the whole amount of his property, including his library, did not exceed, at the lowest statement, one hundred and twenty-five crowns, at the highest, three hundred.

We may thus readily understand how it was that Calvin acquired, through the mere force of personal character thrown into favourable circumstances, power almost uncontrolled over a state of which he was not so much as a native, and considerable influence besides over the spiritual condition of Europe—power and influence, of which deep traces still exist both in the country which adopted him, and in others where he was only known by his writings and his doctrines. His doctrines still divide the Christian world; but that ecclesiastical principle, which called in the authority of the sword for their defence, has been long and indignantly disclaimed by all his followers.

The best clue to the real character of Calvin will be found in his letters. Many accounts of his life, as well as of his doctrines and writings, exist; but they are mostly influenced by party feeling. The earliest is that of his friend Beza; it is said however not to be strictly accurate even as to the facts of Calvin’s life before 1549, when the author became acquainted with him, and it is of course a panegyric.

MANSFIELD

The first Earl of Mansfield was a younger son of a noble house in Scotland, which he raised to higher rank by his own brilliant talents and successful industry.

William Murray was the eleventh child of David, Viscount Stormont, and was born at Perth, March 2, 1704. He received his education at Westminster School and Christchurch College, Oxford, where he gained distinction by the elegance of his scholarship. He took his degree of M.A. in June, 1730, and was called to the bar in the Michaelmas term following: the interval he employed in travelling in France and Italy. At an early age he gained the friendship of Pope, who in several passages has borne testimony to the grace, eloquence, rising fame, and attractive social accomplishments of the young lawyer. In 1737, in consequence of the sudden illness of his leader, who was seized with a fit in court, Mr. Murray had to undertake, at an hour’s notice, the duty of senior counsel, in the cause of Cibber _v._ Sloper. From his success on this occasion he was wont to date the origin of his fortune. “Business,” he said, “poured in upon me on all sides; and from a few hundred pounds a year I fortunately found myself, in every subsequent year, in possession of thousands.” In the same year he was retained by the corporation of Edinburgh in the memorable transactions which arose out of the Porteous riot; and his exertions to preserve their privileges were subsequently acknowledged by the gift of the freedom of the city in a gold box. November 20, 1738, Mr. Murray was married to Lady Elizabeth Finch, daughter of the Earl of Winchelsea, a lady who, in addition to rank and fortune, possessed those more valuable qualities which rendered their married life, through near half a century, one of harmony and domestic happiness.

Mr. Murray was appointed Solicitor-General in 1742, and took his seat in parliament, for the first time, as member for Boroughbridge.

_Engraved by W. Holl._

LORD MANSFIELD.

_From the original Picture by Sir Joshua Reynolds in the Possession of
Lord Mansfield._

Under the Superintendance of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful
Knowledge.

_London, Published by Charles Knight, Ludgate Street._
]