But turn we to our Articles, which we proceed to pass under review in connection with the answers made to them by Servetus. In these we shall now find him more intemperate than he has yet shown himself; more aggressive, too; not only indisposed to yield in jot or tittle, but negligent of opportunities to defend his conclusions, and eager to attack his pursuer; ready to call him opprobrious names, and to charge him with wilful misrepresentation and malignity. The recent triumph of Perrin and Berthelier had obviously infected Servetus, and not only lost him his chance of continuing to improve his position with his judges, but even made him careless of making any serious effort to prove himself in the right. At the very outset of his replies, and by way of preface, assuming the Articles to be Calvin’s and Calvin’s alone, Servetus says: ‘It is impossible not to admire the impudence of the man, who is nothing less than a disciple of Simon Magus, arrogating to himself the authority of a Doctor of the Sorbonne, condemning everything according to his fancy, scarcely quoting Scripture for aught he advances, and either plainly not understanding me or artfully wresting my words from their true significance. I am therefore compelled, before replying to his _Articles_, to say, in brief, that the whole purpose of my book is to show, _first_, that when the word Son is met with in Scripture it is always to the man Jesus that the term is applied, he having also the title Christ given him; and, _second_, that the Son or second Person in the Trinity is spoken of as a _person_ because there was visibly relucent in the Deity a Representation or Image of the man Jesus Christ, hypostatically subsisting in the Divine mind from eternity. It is because this _rationale of the Person_ is unknown to Calvin, and because the whole thing depends thereon, that I refer as preliminary to certain passages from the ancient Doctors of the Church on which I rest my conclusions.’ Passages sixteen in number, from Tertullian, Irenæus, Clemens Romanus, and others, are then cited to justify the sense he attaches to the words Person and Son; from which we see that Servetus, following his authorities, adopts the Neo-platonic view of the Son as a pre-existing _idea_ in the Divine mind, not as an _entity_ distinct from the essence of God, having a proper life and subsistence of its own, and only proceeding in time to become incarnate in the man Jesus.