Among writers nearer our own time there are few who openly and unreservedly uphold Calvin in his conduct to Servetus, none who now advocate persecution unto death for divergence in religious opinion. Even they who hold the memory of Calvin in the highest honour are driven, as we have seen, to find excuses for him in his pursuit of the indiscreet but pious Spaniard. We in these days do, indeed, believe that they who should approve his deed would sin even as he did. Paul Henry, the author of one of the latest lives we have of Calvin, and his measureless partisan and apologist, even with the moderate acquaintance he has with Servetus’ works, feels himself forced at times to pause in the unmitigated condemnation of their author he is disposed to indulge in. Like Farel, in contact with the victim, telling the people that ‘after all the man perhaps meant well;’ Henry says, that ‘from the executed man, _der Gerichtete_, we hear certain echoes of Christianity which sadden as they flow not from the true faith. But his pyre still gleams portentous to the world, and even when it burned it was a herald of the dawn of better days to come. Servetus, in his steadfast protestation even unto death, became a true Reformer. His fate has for ever impressed the Protestant (Henry has the Evangelical) Church with hate of the besetting sin of the Church of Rome, the crime of dealing with religious error by inflicting death. It has even familiarised the world with the thought that there is a still higher development of the religious principle in man than has yet found expression in either the Roman or Reformed Churches, awaiting a coming time.’ This surely is noble writing. Nor does the apologist pause here, but goes on to speak of him who to Calvin and his age was a blasphemer of God, as being really and in truth ‘a pious man.’ ‘Were an assembly of Deputies from every Christian Church now to meet on Champel,’ says Henry, ‘to take into consideration all that is extant on the life and fate of Servetus, and to review the facts in the light of the times to which they refer, they would speak Calvin free from reproach and pronounce him not guilty; of Servetus, on the other hand, they would say, guilty, but with extenuating circumstances.’ We venture to believe, and trust we have shown cause sufficient to warrant our conclusion, that the sentence would be precisely the reverse. Calvin would be found guilty, but with extenuating circumstances; Servetus not guilty in all but the use of intemperate and sometimes improper language.