Genevese, as constrained lain to desist from all further efforts. He seems also to have kept up his connection with Geneva by addressing letters of counsel and comfort to the faithful there who continued to regard him with affection. It was whilst he was still at Strasburg that there appeared at Geneva a translation of the Bible into French, bearing Calvin s name, but in reality only revised and corrected by him from the version of Olivetan. Meanwhile the way had been opened for his return to the post whence he had been driven in that city. In the summer of 1541, the decree of his banishment was revoked, and in the following September he yielded to the earnest entreaties of his now penitent flock, and returned to Geneva, where he was received with the utmost enthusiasm. He entered upon his work with a firm determination to carry out those reforms which he had originally purposed, and to set up in all its integrity that form of church policy which lie had carefully matured during his residence at Strasburg. He now became the sole directive spirit in the church at Geneva. Farel was retained by the Neufcbatelois, and Viret, soon after Calvin s return, removed to Lausanne. His duties were thus rendered exceedingly onerous, and his labour became excessive. Besides preaching every day in each alternate week, he taught theology three days in the week, attended weekly meetings of his consistory, read the Scriptures once a week in the congregation, carried on an extensive correspondence on a multiplicity of subjects, prepared commentaries on the books of Scripture, and was engaged repeatedly in controversy with the opponents of his opinions. " I have not time," he writes to a friend, " to look out of my house at the blessed sun, and if things continue thus, I shall forget what sort of appearance it has. When I have settled my usual business, I have so many letters to write, so many questions to answer, that many a night is spent without any offering of sleep being brought to nature." We cannot in this sketch follow him through all the details of his brief but busy life after he returned to Geneva ; we can only afford to notice slightly the leading
events.the most important was that in which he defended his doctrine concerning predestination and election. His first antagonist on this head was Pighius, a Romanist, who, resuming the controversy between Erasmus and Luther on the freedom of the will, violently attacked Calvin for the views he had expressed on that subject. Calvin replied to him in a work published in 1543, in which he defends his own opinions at length, as well by general reasonings as by an appeal to both Scripture and the Fathers, especially Augustine. So potent were his reasonings in the esteem of his opponent, that the latter, though owing nothing to the gentleness or courtesy of Calvin, was led to embrace his views. A still more vexatious and protracted con troversy on the same subject arose in 1551, in which Calvin was called to defend his views against Bolsec, originally a Carmelite friar, but who having renounced Romanism had fled from France and come to Geneva, where he appeared as a physician. In becoming a physician, however, he had not relinquished theological studies, and being a zealous opponent of predestinarian views, he was tempted on one occasion, after a sermon on the subject by Calvin to attack him in the public assembly. Calvin replied with equal vehemence ; and an officer of police, scandalized that such a scene should occur In church, took Bolsec into custody. The pastors resolved to have a conference with him before the council ; and for two days the discussion was con ducted by him and Calvin with much ability on both sides. The council were at a loss what course to take ; not that they doubted which of the disputants was right, for they all held by the views of Calvin, but they were unable to determine to what extent and in which way Bolsec should be punished for his heresy. The question was submitted to the Swiss churches, but they also were divided in their judgment, some counselling severity, others gentle measures. The result was that Bolsec was banished from Geneva. The enemies of Calvin insinuated that he counselled the infliction of a heavier penalty; but this he himself in a letter to Bullinger indignantly denies. In this controversy ultimately several others, including Castellio, Fabri, and even Bullinger and Melanchthon took part against Calvin, and only Beza appeared as a zealous coadjutor. But the most memorable of all the contro versies in which Calvin was engaged, was that into which he was brought in 1553 with his old antagonist Servetus. After many wanderings, and after having been condemned to death for heresy at Vienne, from which he was fortunate enough to make his escape, Servetus arrived in July 1553 at Geneva, He appears to have remained in quiet here for some time, and was about to leave for Zurich when, at the instigation of Calvin, he was arrested and conveyed to prison on the charge of blasphemy. This charge was founded on certain statements in a book published by him in 1553, entitled Christianismi fiestitutio, in which he animadverted in terms needlessly offensive on the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, and advanced sentiments strongly savouring of Pantheism.[1] At the trial which followed Calvin appeared as his accuser, and the conflict was con ducted between the two with much ability on both sides, and at the same time with no small keenness and bitter ness. After a protracted trial, the accused was condemned to be burnt to death, and was accordingly burned at Champel near Geneva, on the 27th of October 1553. Farel attended him in his last hours, and accompanied him to the place of execution. He had an interview also with Calvin on the morning of the fatal day, when he asked his forgiveness, but refused to retract any of his expressions. Calvin has been much censured, not to say vituperated, for his share in this unhappy transaction. In order to aggra vate the charge against him it has been alleged that it was by his invitation that Servetus came to Geneva, that it was by his urgency that the magistrates, over whom his influence was unbounded, condemned Servetus to death, and that it was to gratify a personal pique and through hatred of Servetus that he thus cruelly and relentlessly pursued him. Of these allegations not one can be proved, and some are undoubtedly false. It is not true that Calvin induced Servetus to come to Geneva; on the contrary, when Servetus intimated a wish to visit that city if it pleased Calvin that he should do so, Calvin intimated very plainly that it did not please him, and refused to pledge himself for his safety should he come, as he was resolved, should he come, to prosecute him to the death.[2] That Calvin influenced the magistrates to condemn Servetus is true only in the same sense in which any public prosecutor, who pleads before the judge for the condemnation of one against whom he brings a criminal charge, may be said to influence the judge to condemn him. As for the assertion that Calvin s influence with the magistrates was unbounded, this falls to the ground before the fact that at this time he was in a state of antagonism with the dominant party.[3] That Calvin hated the doctrines which he found in Ser- vetus s book there can be no doubt, and that he thought
the author of such views as were there advanced- ↑ A digest of Servetus s views is given by "Corner, Bntvnckelungs- geschichte dcr Lehre von d. Person Christi, ii. pp. 649-656, Eng. trans., div. ii., vol. ii. pp. 161-168.
- ↑ Si mild placeat hue se venturum recipit. Sed nolo fidem meam interponere. Nam si modo valeut mea autoritas vivum exire nuuquom patiar. Calvin to Farel, 12th Feb. 1546.
- ↑ See art. "Servet" byTrechsel iu Herzog s Recd-Encycloptxdie, vol. xiv. p. 297.
