Calvin’s challenge of Servetus’s fortitude in the face of death is most unjust. Servetus went bravely to his death; though to him, in the vigour of life, and possessed of all his powers, With thoughts that wandered through Eternity, life assuredly was sweet; and to lose it not only for no crime, but for the avowal of what he believed to be holy truth, was hard indeed. To Servetus existence was not summed up in ministering to mere material wants and putting off and on at eve and morn; it meant _doing_ in the knowable, _speculating_ in that which transcends the known, furthering knowledge of the world we live in, striving after congruous conceptions of the Almighty Cause of the good, and ministering to the ill that befals--a truly noble life! But Calvin could no more forgive Servetus his constancy and consistency than he could endure his theological divergences and his personal insults. ‘Could we but have had a retractation from Servetus as we had from Gentilis!’ exclaims he, upon another occasion. Strange! that men in whom the religious sense is strong should still be blind to the truth that if there be sincerity in the world, they, too, who feel strongly though divergently on religion, must be as truly religious and sincere as themselves; and that convictions in the sphere of faith--those garments of the soul--cannot be put off and on at pleasure, like the garments of the body! It were needless to say that Calvin’s refutation, or shall we say _condemnation_ of Servetus, is full and complete, if it be not at all times of the complexion which unimpassioned weighing of the argument, considerate appreciation of the purpose, and truthful interpretation of the language of an opponent would have secured. Both of the forms in which the book appeared were well received by the public; the ‘_Déclaration pour Maintenir la Vraye Foy_’ having been extensively read by those who were not masters of the Latin; the ‘_Fidelis expositio Errorum_’ by those who were. Bullinger, it appears from what Calvin says, must formerly have urged him on to severity; and, as we have just seen, now shows himself anxious to have his friend appear in defence of what had been done. Writing immediately after the publication of the book, he congratulates the writer on his work; the only fault he has to find with it being the terseness of the style, which leads at times to obscurity, and its brevity. Calvin, in reply, excuses himself for the conciseness of his language and the modest length of his work. But his letter, in so far as it relates to our subject, is too important not to have a place in our narrative.