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.
[Illustration]
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.
[Illustration:
_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._
]
For many years, during which he held office under the Pelham
administration, he was recognized in the House of Commons as one of the
ablest supporters of government; and he was frequently opposed in the
outset of his career to Mr. Pitt, who, after the elevation of both to
the upper house, bore this high testimony, among others, to Murray’s
weight as a speaker. “No man is better acquainted with his abilities and
learning, nor has a greater respect for them, than I have. I have had
the pleasure of sitting with him in the other house, and always listened
to him with attention. I have not lost a word of what he said, nor did I
ever.” In his official station, he necessarily took a prominent part in
the prosecution of the rebel lords, especially at the trial of Lord
Lovat in 1747; and his eloquence was set off by his fairness towards the
prisoner, whose concern in the rebellion was indeed too evident to admit
of hesitation on the part of his judges. We may follow up the history of
his legal advancement by briefly stating that, in 1754, he was appointed
Attorney-General, and, in 1756, Chief Justice of the King’s Bench, and,
at the same time, raised to the peerage, by the title of Baron
Mansfield. It is said that the Duke of Newcastle was extremely unwilling
to consent to the removal of his most powerful supporter from the
Commons, but was forced to comply by the threat that, if he refused,
Murray would no longer act as Attorney-General.
Lord Mansfield’s private life appears for the most part to have been
passed in tranquil prosperity, which afforded no incidents for the
biographer to dwell on; at least the published records of him are nearly
confined to his exertions as an advocate, his speeches in parliament,
and reports on the important cases which he adjudicated. It will be
sufficient here to mention those events by which Lord Mansfield is
connected with the public history of England, and to make a few general
observations on his character as a lawyer and a judge.
In 1763, the legality of what were called general warrants, not directed
against persons by name specifically, but generally against any person
or persons supposed to be guilty of a certain act, was mooted, in
consequence of a secretary of state’s warrant to apprehend the “authors,
printers and publishers” of the celebrated No. 45 of the ‘North Briton.’
Wilkes, being apprehended by virtue of this warrant, was discharged by
Pratt, afterwards Lord Camden, Chief Justice of the Common Pleas, when
brought up before that court by writ of _habeas corpus_. The question
came before Lord Mansfield in a different form. An action of trespass
was brought in the court of Common Pleas against the messengers who
executed the warrant, and a verdict was given for the plaintiff. A bill
of exceptions against Chief Justice Pratt’s directions to the jury was
tendered, in pursuance of which the question was again argued before
Lord Mansfield, who coincided with his brother chief in holding the
instrument illegal under which the defendants had acted. Since this
decision, general warrants have been disused.
In 1768, Wilkes, then at the height of his popularity, returned to
England, and applied for a reversal of his outlawry. The excitement of
his partisans broke out both in riots and in indecent attempts to
intimidate the judges before whom the point was to be argued. Lord
Mansfield pronounced for the reversal upon the ground of a technical
informality, which the Court held fatal to the process; but in his
elaborate judgment he took care strongly to censure the seditious
efforts which had been made to influence the court, and to impress on
his auditors that the apparently trifling objection on which the
judgment turned was fatal in law, and could not have been passed over in
any other case. This speech has been much admired; nor is it easy to
overrate its beauties as a composition: it lies open, however, to the
objection of being too theatrical. After overruling the objections made
by the defendant’s counsel, it rises into eloquent declamation against
the attacks of the press, and the threats of the mob; and, at the moment
when all seems ripe for a contrary decision, proceeds to grant the thing
so loudly clamoured for. He may safely contemn danger who does not
expose himself to it; and it would on this occasion have been more
dignified to make less parade of independence.
Lord Mansfield’s view of the law of libel exposed him to much obloquy.
He was a resolute assertor of the doctrine that juries were to judge of
the fact only, not of the law, or rather of the question, libel or no
libel. A prerogative lawyer on the bench, he was a supporter of Tory
principles in parliament. He strenuously maintained the right of the
British legislature to tax America, and was the advocate, though he
probably would not have been the adviser, of those measures which led to
the American revolution; for the temper of his mind seems to have been
cautious and somewhat timid, and his political conduct was swayed by an
habitual moderation, which sometimes prevented his accession to the more
violent measures of his party. His course was consistent with what we
may suppose to have been his early prejudices, for he came of a Jacobite
family; and it was made a matter of accusation against him, while
Attorney-General (most unfairly revived by Junius), that, as a
schoolboy, he had been known to drink Jacobite toasts. The charge, if
true, was too trivial to merit further notice than George II. bestowed
upon it: “Whatever they were while they were Westminster boys, they are
now my very good friends.” At the same time he was a steady advocate of
religious toleration, both on the bench and in the House of Lords. This
he showed in 1768, on occasion of the prosecution of a Roman Catholic
priest by a common informer, in his strict dealing with the penal laws
enacted against that class of men; and in assigning his reasons for
admitting a Quaker’s evidence on affirmation in certain cases. And the
Dissenters in general, and especially of the city of London, were much
indebted to his support in the House of Lords in 1767, for the abolition
of that mean and oppressive custom by which they were fined for refusing
to serve the office of sheriff, being at the same time subject to legal
penalties if they accepted it. Lord Mansfield’s exposition of the
iniquity of this practice was unsparing and conclusive.
The unprecedentedly-long period during which Lord Mansfield presided in
the King’s Bench is one of considerable importance in the history of
British jurisprudence; indeed, the multiplicity of his decisions during
a period of thirty-four years could not fail materially to affect the
law relating both to commercial and other property, especially in a
country so rapidly increasing in wealth, and in which new cases were
continually arising out of the ever-changing state of society. By a
large body of his admirers, a class including the majority of the
nation, he was regarded with almost unlimited admiration; but several of
his important judgments have since been overruled; and we probably shall
not err in stating it as the general opinion of well-informed persons in
the present day, that, indecent and virulent as is Junius’s attack on
him as a judge, there is a solid foundation for the charge that he was
more prone to enlarge the power of the crown than to protect the liberty
of the subject, and more willingly referred to the Roman law and the law
of nations than to Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights. But the charge
of introducing equitable doctrines into the common law must be received
with much more caution. He may have gone too far in his favourite scheme
of introducing more enlarged and liberal views than had prevailed before
his time; he may have neglected former authorities, and introduced too
great laxity in the interpretation of the law; but, dangerous as such
licence is, lest, in the uncertainty of law, a greater evil be incurred
than by the occasional commission of an essential injustice, yet we must
look with complacency on that alleged tendency to relax the strict
rigour of law in favour of substantial justice, which seems to have
consisted chiefly in a disposition to admit evidence when mere technical
disqualification, and not essential unfitness, was urged against it; and
rather to let right prevail than give the victory to wrong by rigid
adherence to the technicalities of the law. His feelings may be
illustrated by a playful saying of his own to Garrick. “A judge on the
bench is now and then in your whimsical situation between Tragedy and
Comedy; inclination drawing one way, and a long string of precedents the
other.” It is certain that to him we owe all that our mercantile law has
of system, and of consistency with the principles which govern the
practice of other nations. It is no less true that the remedies
generally afforded by our courts of law have become much more
beneficial, since he enlarged and moulded actions originally of an
equitable nature to suit cases to which proceedings in equity are very
ill adapted. Nor is it too much to assert that under him the science of
law assumed the form of a liberal study.
It is hardly necessary to reply to the graver charges of moral guilt
adduced by the able and unscrupulous author to whom we have referred.
The spirit in which they are conceived may be estimated from the
unmeasured vituperation of the Scotch in general, which forms the
opening of the forty-first letter of Junius, addressed to Lord
Mansfield. His lordship’s knowledge of English law has been impugned;
his innovations upon its doctrines have been censured; his application
and extension of its principles have been questioned; and his
constitutional doctrines have been often and justly condemned; but we do
not believe that his honesty has been seriously doubted, since the
violence of party animosity has ceased to inflame men’s passions and
pervert their judgment.