Men are called great and obtain a place in history under different titles. With some it is exalted station, and glory, and great power during their lifetime which makes them great; with others the importance and permanence of their works; with others again it is moral elevation of nature and beauty and purity of life. The greatness of Calvin arises from all these sources; he is great by reason of his marvellous powers, his lasting labours, and the moral height and purity of his motives. When Pope Pius IV. heard of his death, he said: 'The strength of that heretic consisted in this, that money never had the slightest charm for him. If I had such servants, my dominions would extend from sea to sea.' It is true that Calvin's disinterestedness was a very prominent characteristic, but it was by no means his chief or only one. He was never influenced or governed by any interest, any desire, any personal pleasure other than the triumph of his faith, and the success of his labours for a moral as well as a religious reformation. Although he took a leading part in a great revolution, he had neither revolutionary ideas nor passions. He was essentially a lover of order, he knew the conditions as well as the claims of power, and had received from nature the gift of exercising authority. Upon principle he neither recognised nor admitted the claims of liberty, either in human nature or human society. In his eyes man was God's instrument and not a 'fellow-worker with God,' as St. Paul says. {362} God, as he thought, had preordained the destiny of every man, and of the whole human race. The mission of the civil powers was therefore to recognise and carry out the law of God in all its precepts and towards all its subjects, in private as well as in public life, both in the family and in the state. But, in point of fact, and in spite of his doctrines on free-will and predestination, Calvin contributed largely to the progress of liberty in the Christian world, for he both claimed and used it in opposition to the religious and civil tyrants of his period. He separated Church and State, but he united laymen and ecclesiastics in the government of the religious society, and he placed the soul of man not under the direction of a priest but under the direct influence of the law of God made known in the Scriptures. As a moral philosopher he was inaccurate and inconsistent, but he was strictly consistent in the practical application of his theories to his own conduct and his duties towards his fellow-men. He honoured men but did not trust them; had an ardent desire for their moral welfare, but did not dare to leave their part in its accomplishment in their own hands; and he obtained the devoted affection of the best men and the esteem of all, without ever seeking to please them.