Day 19 — Institutes I.5.§7 [직강]

Yesterday (§6) Calvin tied off the first class of God's works — the ordinary course of nature, the storm and the sea, the aseity ascent from power to eternity to goodness. Today he opens the second class: God read not off the rocks and stars but off his providence in human affairs. Same God, new gallery. Watch the hinge word in S1 — the second class … those which are above the ordinary course of nature. From here to §8 Calvin reads God's justice and mercy off the way history actually runs: the righteous favoured, the wicked struck, the miserable wooed back. The whole section is a courtroom and a hospital at once — God avenger and God physician.

Do not miss the theological nerve of the passage: the problem of the prosperous wicked (S4). Calvin knows your objection before you raise it — "but the guilty exult and the innocent suffer!" He meets it head-on (S4–6) with a sober doctrine of deferred judgment: unpunished crime is not acquitted crime, only postponed crime. Keep that argument in your pocket; it is the most pastorally loaded move of the day.

Grammatically, today is result-clause day and concessive-day. Three engines:

Today's 3 Big Points — mark them now:

1. The result/manner construction "so … as to …" (+ litotes "in no unequivocal manner"). "He so arranges the course of his providence, as daily to declare …" (S2) = "he arranges his providence in such a way that he daily declares …"; and the double-negative "in no unequivocal manner" (S3) = "very plainly indeed."
2. Concessive "though … (nay) … this ought not …" + parallel ellipsis (verbless predicate). "though he often permits the guilty to exult …, the innocent to be driven …, nay, even to be oppressed, this ought not to produce any uncertainty" (S4); and "the righteous [are] the special objects of his favour, the wicked and profane [are] the special objects of his severity" (S2) — the verb gapped in the second limb.
3. Gerund-as-subject + epistemic "it must be because" + exclamatory inversion "how richly does he …?" "his leaving many crimes unpunished only proves …" (S6); "it must be because he hates all crimes" (S6); "how richly does he supply us …" (S7) — exclamation dressed as a question, with do-inversion.

Three engines. Lock them in. Now read.

In the second class of God's works, namely those which are above the ordinary course of nature, the evidence of his perfections are in every respect equally clear. For in conducting the affairs of men, he so arranges the course of his providence, as daily to declare, by the clearest manifestations, that though all are in innumerable ways the partakers of his bounty, the righteous are the special objects of his favour, the wicked and profane the special objects of his severity. It is impossible to doubt his punishment of crimes; while at the same time he, in no unequivocal manner, declares that he is the protector, and even the avenger of innocence, by shedding blessings on the good, helping their necessities, soothing and solacing their griefs, relieving their sufferings, and in all ways providing for their safety. And though he often permits the guilty to exult for a time with impunity, and the innocent to be driven to and fro in adversity, nay, even to be wickedly and iniquitously oppressed, this ought not to produce any uncertainty as to the uniform justice of all his procedure. Nay, an opposite inference should be drawn. When any one crime calls forth visible manifestations of his anger, it must be because he hates all crimes; and, on the other hand, his leaving many crimes unpunished, only proves that there is a Judgment in reserve, when the punishment now delayed shall be inflicted. In like manner, how richly does he supply us with the means of contemplating his mercy when, as frequently happens, he continues to visit miserable sinners with unwearied kindness, until he subdues their depravity, and woos them back with more than a parent's fondness?

Seven sentences. Announce the new class (works above the ordinary course of nature, equally clear) → the thesis: providence daily declares — all share his bounty, but the righteous are favoured, the wicked struck → expand it: certain punishment of crime, and unmistakable protection/avenging of innocence (a cascade of mercies) → the objection answered: though the guilty exult and the innocent suffer, do not doubt his justice → on the contrary → draw the opposite inference: visible anger at one crime proves he hates all crime; unpunished crime only means judgment is in reserve → and on the mercy side: how richly he woos miserable sinners back with more than a parent's love.

[NEW CLASS] second class = works above the ordinary course; equally clear     (S1)
[THESIS]    providence DAILY declares: all share bounty, BUT                   (S2)
            righteous = favour / wicked = severity   (verb gapped)
[EXPAND]    sure punishment of crime + unmistakable protection of innocence    (S3)
            (blessings, help, solace, relief, safety — cascade)
[OBJECTION] though guilty exult & innocent suffer → do NOT doubt his justice   (S4)
[PIVOT]     Nay — draw the OPPOSITE inference                                   (S5)
[DOUBLE     anger at one crime ⇒ he hates ALL crime;                           (S6)
 PROOF]     crimes unpunished ⇒ Judgment IN RESERVE (only delayed)
[MERCY]     how richly he woos miserable sinners back — more than a parent     (S7)

Examiner's Eye: the trap field is S4–S6, the prosperous-wicked argument. A test option that says "Calvin admits that the prosperity of the wicked makes God's justice uncertain" reverses him: he says the exact opposite — this ought not to produce any uncertainty, and an opposite inference should be drawn. Second trap: the logic of S6. Unpunished crime does not mean God approves or overlooks it; it means there is a Judgment in reserve — punishment delayed, not cancelled. An option that has Calvin say God lets some crimes go forever unpunished inverts the deferred-judgment doctrine.

Star scale: ★★★ exam-critical, conquer it. ★★ know the structure. ★ one point and move.

Formula 1 — the result construction "so … as to …" (+ litotes "in no unequivocal manner"):

S + SO + [verb/adv] … , AS (daily) TO + [verb] …     ⟺   "in such a way that S [verb]s …"
"he SO arranges his providence, AS daily TO declare …"
IN NO UNEQUIVOCAL manner                              ⟺   most plainly (double negative = strong yes)
no(neg.) × un-(neg.) = emphatic affirmative

⚠️ so … as to V is result ("to such a degree that"), not "like" or "because." And in no unequivocal manner is litotes: no + un- cancel to "very plainly" — do not read the pile of negatives as a denial. Drill: He so orders human affairs as daily to declare, in no unequivocal manner, that he is the avenger of innocence.

Formula 2 — concessive "though … (nay, even) … this ought not …" (+ parallel ellipsis / verb gapping):

THOUGH + [hard fact] … , NAY, EVEN [worse fact] … , THIS ought not to + [verb]
"THOUGH he permits the guilty to exult …, NAY, EVEN to be oppressed, THIS ought not to produce uncertainty"
[A] is X , [B] ( ‹is› ) Y                              ⟺   verb gapped in the 2nd limb (ellipsis)
"the righteous ARE … favour, the wicked  ‹are›  … severity"

⚠️ The though-clause concedes the objection; the main clause overrides it — keep them apart. And in a balanced pair, English drops the repeated verb: restore the gapped are to parse the wicked … the special objects of his severity. Drill: Though the guilty exult and the innocent suffer, nay, even are oppressed, this ought not to shake our trust; the just are his favour, the wicked his severity.

Formula 3 — gerund-subject "his V-ing …" + epistemic "it must be because" + exclamatory inversion "how + adv + does he …?":

HIS + [V-ing] + [object] … + PROVES that …            ⟺   "the fact that he V-s … proves …"
"HIS LEAVING many crimes unpunished only PROVES …"
IT MUST BE because …                                  ⟺   epistemic must (inference: "it can only be that")
HOW + [adv] + DOES + he + [verb] … ?                  ⟺   exclamation, not a real question
"HOW richly DOES HE supply us …?"  = how richly he supplies us!

⚠️ his leaving = gerund with a possessive subject (a clause turned into a noun) — the subject of the main verb. It must be because is the must of inference, not duty. And how richly does he …? with do-inversion + ? is an exclamation in question-dress — translate it as "how richly he …!" Drill: His sparing the guilty for a time only proves a Judgment in reserve; and — how richly does he woo us back! — it must be because his mercy outlasts our depravity.

Where §7 sits — the door into "the second class of works." Beveridge's chapter-summary labels §7 as the section where the second class of works—viz. those above the ordinary course of nature, afford clear evidence of the perfections of God, especially his goodness, justice, and mercy. So §7 is a turn of the camera. §§1–6 read God off nature (the heavens, the body, the soul, the aseity ascent); §§7–10 read God off history — his providence over human affairs (§7: justice and mercy; §8: providence, power, wisdom, with the Psalm 107 rescues; §9: the use of it all, divine knowledge in combination with true piety; §10: the hope it gives the righteous and the warning it gives the wicked). Calvin's claim in S1 is bold and easy to miss: the second class is in every respect equally clear. History is as legible a revelation as the cosmos — God's fingerprints are on the rise and fall of men no less than on the storm and the sea.

The problem of the prosperous wicked (S4–6) — Calvin's compressed theodicy. This is the theological centre of the section, and it has a long pedigree. The complaint — why do the wicked prosper and the innocent suffer? — runs through Psalm 73 (Asaph nearly slips, until I went into the sanctuary … then understood I their end), Jeremiah 12:1 (wherefore doth the way of the wicked prosper?), Job, and Habakkuk 1. Calvin's answer is not a denial of the appearance but a doctrine of deferred judgment: he grants that God often permits the guilty to exult … with impunity (S4), then turns the very fact into evidence. Two proofs (S6): (a) when God visibly punishes one crime, it must be because he hates all crime — a single judgment reveals the principle; (b) his leaving many crimes unpunished only proves a Judgment in reserve — delay is not acquittal but postponement. The biblical engine here is Romans 2:4–5 (God's forbearance is meant to lead to repentance, but the impenitent are treasuring up wrath against the day of wrath), Ecclesiastes 8:11 (because sentence … is not executed speedily, therefore the heart … is fully set … to do evil), and 2 Peter 3:9 (the Lord is not slack … but longsuffering). Notice the pastoral payoff: the believer watching the wicked flourish is not told to deny what he sees but to re-read it — present impunity is bail, not a verdict.

Justice and mercy, read off the same providence (S3, S7). The section is deliberately two-handed. S3 shows the courtroom — God protector and avenger of innocence, the punisher of crimes. S7 shows the hospital — God visiting miserable sinners with unwearied kindness … wooing them back with more than a parent's fondness. This pairing is no accident: it previews the duplex cognitio Dei that organizes the whole Institutes (God the Creator/Lawgiver, God the Redeemer/Father). And the wooing language of S7 — pursuing the wretched, subduing their depravity (grace that conquers, not merely invites) — is an early, unmistakable note of the efficacious grace Calvin will develop in Book II–III. Trace the line from Isa 49:15 (can a woman forget her sucking child?), Hosea 11 (how shall I give thee up, Ephraim?), and Luke 15 (the father who runs to the prodigal). The God who avenges innocence in S3 is the same God who woos the guilty in S7 — and that, for Calvin, is the clear evidence the second class of works affords.

Guardrail. As with §6, don't over-read S1's confidence. Calvin says the evidence of providence is equally clear, but the chapter's whole second half (§§11ff, starting tomorrow's neighbourhood) is about how men misread it — ascribing the order of things to fortune rather than God. So the clarity of providence, like the clarity of nature, is objective and universal yet subjectively suppressed. Hold the same both-halves balance you held in §6: the revelation is genuinely there; fallen perception genuinely botches it.

§7 cites no verse by chapter-and-number, but it is saturated with the Bible's providence-theology. Track the threads:

1. Matthew 5:45 (behind S2 — "all are partakers of his bounty"). Though all are in innumerable ways the partakers of his bounty is the doctrine of common grace: God maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. Calvin grants universal bounty before distinguishing the special favour and special severity — exactly Jesus' point that general kindness does not erase moral discrimination.

2. Psalm 73 / Jeremiah 12:1 / Job (behind S4). The objection — he permits the guilty to exult … the innocent to be driven to and fro — is the lament of Asaph (I was envious at the foolish, when I saw the prosperity of the wicked, Ps 73:3) and Jeremiah (wherefore doth the way of the wicked prosper?, Jer 12:1). Calvin is consciously answering the canonical wisdom-crisis.

3. Romans 2:4–5 / Ecclesiastes 8:11 / 2 Peter 3:9 (behind S6 — "a Judgment in reserve"). His leaving many crimes unpunished only proves that there is a Judgment in reserve is Paul's treasurest up unto thyself wrath against the day of wrath (Rom 2:5), Qoheleth's warning that delayed sentence emboldens evil (Eccl 8:11), and Peter's longsuffering that defers but does not cancel (2 Pet 3:9). The shall be inflicted is the promissory future of the Last Judgment.

4. Isaiah 49:15 / Hosea 11 / Luke 15 (behind S7 — "woos them back with more than a parent's fondness"). The pursuing, unwearied mercy that woos back miserable sinners with more than a parent's fondness echoes the mother who cannot forget her child (Isa 49:15), the Father agonizing over Ephraim (Hos 11:8), and the prodigal's father (Luke 15:20). Note how Calvin uses the family image: human parental love is the floor, not the ceiling — God's wooing exceeds it.

5. Psalm 107 (just ahead, S-cluster of §8). Calvin is about to quote Psalm 107 explicitly in §8 (the Psalmist mentioning how God … often brings sudden and unexpected succour to the miserable). S7's visiting miserable sinners with unwearied kindness is the overture to that Psalm of rescues — file it for tomorrow's neighbour.

문제 ① 어법 — 밑줄 친 부분 중 틀린 것은?

He (A) so arranges his providence (B) as daily to declare that, though all share his bounty, the righteous (C) are his favour and the wicked his severity; and his (D) leaving many crimes unpunished only proves a Judgment in reserve.

✨ 답안 보기 (클릭)정답: 없음(전부 올바름) — 단, 출제형으로는 (B)를 "as → so"로 바꾼 변형을 오답으로 낸다. 표준판에서는 (B)를 so daily to declare로 비틀어 제시하면 그것이 정답(오류). 이유: 결과 구문은 so … as to V이지 so … so to V가 아니다(Formula 1). 확인: (A) so는 결과를 예고하는 부사로 올바름. (C) are는 첫 한정동사로 올바르며, 둘째 절 the wicked ‹are› his severity에서 동일동사가 생략(ellipsis)된 것이 정상. (D) leaving은 소유격 주어(his)를 가진 동명사 주어로 올바름. 출제 의도: 결과 구문의 상관어 as(↔so) 자리를 핵심 함정으로 깔고, 동사 생략·동명사 주어를 정답 분산용으로 배치.

문제 ② 내용일치 — §7과 일치하는 것은?

(A) Calvin concedes that the prosperity of the wicked makes the justice of God's dealings genuinely uncertain. (B) Calvin teaches that crimes God leaves unpunished are crimes he has overlooked, so that some wrongdoing escapes judgment altogether. (C) Calvin holds that God's providence in human affairs declares his perfections as clearly as the ordinary course of nature does, displaying both justice (toward crime and innocence) and mercy (toward miserable sinners). (D) Calvin argues that, because all men share equally in God's bounty, God shows no special favour to the righteous or special severity to the wicked.

✨ 답안 보기 (클릭)정답: (C) — S1 직역(the evidence … in every respect equally clear) + S3(justice: protector … avenger) + S7(mercy: woos them back). (A)는 S4 정면 뒤집기 — 칼빈은 this ought not to produce any uncertainty라 명시. (B)는 S6 왜곡 — 미처벌 범죄는 간과가 아니라 유보된 심판(a Judgment in reserve), 즉 지연일 뿐 탈출이 아니다. (D)는 S2 왜곡 — all share his bounty(공통 은혜)는 인정하되, 그 위에 special favour/severity의 차별을 명시(though 양보절의 핵심). 출제 의도: 정의의 확실성(S4), 미처벌의 의미(S6: 유보 vs. 면죄), 공통 은혜와 특별 섭리의 양립(S2)을 삼중 함정으로 검증.

문제 ③ 영작 — Formula 2 (concessive "though … nay, even … this ought not …") 적용.

"비록 그분이 죄인이 한동안 벌받지 않고 의기양양하도록, 그리고 무죄한 자가 역경 속에 이리저리 내몰리도록, 아니 심지어 부당하게 압제당하도록 자주 허락하실지라도, 이것이 그분의 한결같은 공의에 관하여 어떤 불확실함도 일으켜서는 안 된다." — though + permit X to V (+ nay, even) … this ought not to V 틀을 쓰라.

✨ 답안 보기 (클릭)모범답안: Though he often permits the wicked to exult for a time with impunity, and the innocent to be driven to and fro in adversity, nay, even to be unjustly oppressed, this ought not to produce any uncertainty as to the uniform justice of all his procedure. 출제 의도: 양보절 though + permit X to V(능동), to be driven / to be oppressed(수동 부정사), 상승의 nay, even, 그리고 주절의 this ought not to produce가 모두 들어가야 함. though를 빼고 등위로 이으면 양보 논리 소실, permit의 목적격 보어를 정동사로 쓰면 비문, nay를 "no"로 오역하면 의미 붕괴.

One-line summary: §7 opens the second class of works — God read off providence in human affairs, in every respect equally clear as nature (S1): he so arranges his providence as daily to declare that, though all share his bounty, the righteous are his special favour and the wicked his special severity (S2); his punishment of crime is beyond doubt, and in no unequivocal manner he shows himself protector and avenger of innocence — blessing, helping, soothing, relieving, securing (S3); and though the guilty exult and the innocent suffer, nay, even are oppressed, this ought not to produce any uncertainty about his uniform justice (S4) — nay, draw the opposite inference (S5): visible anger at one crime proves he hates all crime, and his leaving many unpunished only proves a Judgment in reserve (S6); and how richly does he supply means to contemplate his mercy, wooing miserable sinners back with more than a parent's fondness (S7). You now own the day's three engines: the result construction "so … as to …" (+ litotes "in no unequivocal manner"), concessive "though … nay, even … this ought not …" (+ verb gapping), and gerund-subject "his V-ing …" (+ epistemic "it must be because" + exclamatory inversion "how richly does he …?").

Homework (10 min):

1. Structure restoration: Take S6 — When any one crime calls forth visible manifestations of his anger, it must be because he hates all crimes; and … his leaving many crimes unpunished, only proves that there is a Judgment in reserve … — and (a) name the grammatical type of the subject of proves (his leaving …), (b) classify the must in it must be because (epistemic or deontic?), (c) state in one sentence why, for Calvin, unpunished crime is not acquitted crime.
2. Composition: Using Formula 1 (so … as to … + litotes in no unequivocal manner), write one sentence: "그분은 인간사를 다스리시되, 무죄한 자의 보응자이심을 조금도 모호하지 않게 날마다 선언하시도록 그렇게 섭리를 배열하신다." (Hint: He so arranges human affairs as daily to declare, in no unequivocal manner, that he is the avenger of innocence.)
3. Preview: Tomorrow is Book 1, Chapter 5, §8 — Calvin makes the providence-argument concrete with Scripture: "To this purpose the Psalmist (Ps. 107) mentioning how God, in a wondrous manner, often brings sudden and unexpected succour to the miserable …" Watch him move from the principle of providence (§7) to its Psalm-107 case studies — the rescues that display God's providence, power, and wisdom.

Where we stopped: Book 1, Ch. 5, §7 끝. 다음은 Book 1, Ch. 5, §8 (Day 20).