Day 55 — Book 1, Chapter 10, §3

Chapter 10 ends here — and it ends with a hammer.

Yesterday was the sweet section: Exodus 34, Psalm 145, Jeremiah 9, God naming himself in relation to us. Today Calvin turns around and says: now let me tell you what that self-naming rules OUT. S2:

the Scripture, in order to direct us to the true God, distinctly excludes and rejects all the gods of the heathen

That is the chapter title cashed out. Exclusively — the word in the chapter head — is not decoration. Scripture does not add the true God to the pantheon. It evicts the pantheon.

But watch what Calvin does next, because it is the most interesting move in the section and it is very easy to misread. He concedes something big (S3–S6): the pagans knew the name of one God. Justin Martyr wrote a whole treatise on it. Tertullian proved it from the way people talk. The unity of God is engraven on the hearts of all. That is Chapter 3's sensus divinitatis coming back — as a patristic argument, with two Church Fathers in the witness box.

And then S7 detonates it:

these impressions, as to the unity of God, whatever they may have naturally been, have had **no further effect than to render men inexcusable**

⚠️ Underline no further effect than. This is the single most-tested formula in Book 1 and Calvin has been building it since Day 6. Real knowledge. Real content. Zero salvific effect. The knowledge functions as evidence at a trial, not as a road to God. Every time you see Calvin concede something to the heathen, look immediately for this clause. It is always there, and it always says inexcusable.

Then three exhibits of the damage — the wisest praying to unknown gods (S8, and yes, that is Acts 17 knocking), the philosophers' pantheon being less absurd but no less devilish (S9), the professional evaders still on the hook for the charge of rebellion (S10) — and one closing verse, Habakkuk 2:20: seek God in his temple (S11). Which, in Calvin's hands, means: seek him where he has spoken.

The shape in one breath:

   S1        FRAME        ── "let me give a summary of the general doctrine"
   S2        THESIS ⭐     ── Scripture, to direct us to the true God,
                             EXCLUDES + REJECTS all gods of the heathen
                             (reason: religion universally adulterated)
   S3        CONCESSION   ── "It is true, indeed" — the name of one God
                             was everywhere known and celebrated
   S4        EVIDENCE ⭐   ── polytheists, speaking nature's own language,
                             said "god" — as if one had been enough
   S5        WITNESS 1    ── Justin Martyr, On the Monarchy of God:
                             unity of God ENGRAVEN on the hearts of all
   S6        WITNESS 2    ── Tertullian: same thing, from common speech
   S7        HAMMER ⭐⭐    ── BUT all rushed or were dragged into lying
                             fictions → those impressions had NO FURTHER
                             EFFECT THAN to render men INEXCUSABLE
   S8        EXHIBIT A ⭐  ── the wisest DISCLOSE their wandering by
                             wishing for "any kind of Deity" → unknown gods
   S9        EXHIBIT B ⭐  ── Jupiter/Mercury/Venus/Minerva: less absurd
                             than the vulgar's, BUT by no means free from
                             the delusions of the devil
   S10       EXHIBIT C ⭐  ── however subtle the philosophers' evasions,
                             the charge of REBELLION stands
   S11       CLOSE        ── Hab. 2:20 — seek God in his temple, acknowledge
                             NONE BUT Him who has manifested himself
                             IN HIS WORD

Today's 3 Big Points — write them down now:

1. One auxiliary, two participles — and one of them is passive. S7: all ... **have** in the vanity of their minds **rushed** or **been dragged** into lying fictions. The single have governs both rushed (active) and been dragged (passive). ⚠️ Two traps stacked: (a) an adverbial phrase is wedged between the auxiliary and its participle (have in the vanity of their minds rushed) — strip it before you parse; (b) the coordination is active + passive, which is legal only because have serves both. Restore it: have rushed / have been dragged. And the meaning of the pair is the whole doctrine of sin in four words — some ran, some were hauled.
2. Verbless concessives — however + ADJ + S ‹be› and whatever + S + may + have been. S10: **however subtle** the evasions devised by philosophers ‹**are**›, they cannot do away with the charge. The copula is deleted. S7 runs the sibling: **whatever** they may have naturally been. ⚠️ The exam will offer however subtle **are** the evasions or **how** subtle the evasions as "corrections." Know why both are wrong: however = no matter how, and the fronted adjective pulls however with it, no inversion, copula optional.
3. as if + past perfect subjunctive, sitting on top of a five-pattern. S4: **as if** they **had thought** one god **sufficient**. Two things in one clause — as if + had p.p. = counterfactual anterior to the main verb; and underneath it think + O + ADJ (S+V+O+C), no to be. ⚠️ sufficient is an object complement, not an adverb, not a second object. And the comparative family for today: **not so** absurd **as** those of the rude vulgar (S9), **no further** effect **than** to render (S7).

Eleven sentences. Two Church Fathers. One prophet. Let's go.

3. Here it may be proper to give a summary of the general doctrine. First, then, let the reader observe that the Scripture, in order to direct us to the true God, distinctly excludes and rejects all the gods of the heathen, because religion was universally adulterated in almost every age. It is true, indeed, that the name of one God was everywhere known and celebrated. For those who worshipped a multitude of gods, whenever they spoke the genuine language of nature, simply used the name god, as if they had thought one god sufficient. And this is shrewdly noticed by Justin Martyr, who, to the same effect, wrote a treatise, entitled, On the Monarchy of God, in which he shows, by a great variety of evidence, that the unity of God is engraven on the hearts of all. Tertullian also proves the same thing from the common forms of speech. But as all, without exception, have in the vanity of their minds rushed or been dragged into lying fictions, these impressions, as to the unity of God, whatever they may have naturally been, have had no further effect than to render men inexcusable. The wisest plainly discover the vague wanderings of their minds when they express a wish for any kind of Deity, and thus offer up their prayers to unknown gods. And then, in imagining a manifold nature in God, though their ideas concerning Jupiter, Mercury, Venus, Minerva, and others, were not so absurd as those of the rude vulgar, they were by no means free from the delusions of the devil. We have elsewhere observed, that however subtle the evasions devised by philosophers, they cannot do away with the charge of rebellion, in that all of them have corrupted the truth of God. For this reason, Habakkuk (2:20), after condemning all idols, orders men to seek God in his temple, that the faithful may acknowledge none but Him, who has manifested himself in his word. ✅ Text note. Our source file source/Institutes_Beveridge_FULL.txt carries §3 at lines 4036–4063. Page furniture removed and nothing else: the page-89 marker (end of the first line, after let the), the page-93 marker, a form-feed, and the two-line running header CHAPTER 10. - IN SCRIPTURE, THE TRUE GOD OPPOSED, EXCLUSIVELY, TO ALL / THE… — all of which fall inside S5, between entitled, On the and Monarchy of God, and have been lifted out. Also removed: the footnote marker 25 printed immediately after forms of speech. in S6 (see Period 6 §2 for what that footnote actually says — it is worth knowing, but it is apparatus, not text). No hyphenation repairs were needed in this section. ⚠️ worshipped with the doubled p (S4), lowercase god in simply used the name god (S4 — deliberate: it is the word, not the Deity), engraven as the archaic past participle (S5), and the capitalized Him in S11 are all exactly as printed. Left verbatim. Not our typos. The parenthetical (2:20) in S11 is the source's own, as is the comma-heavy pointing of wrote a treatise, entitled, On the Monarchy of God (S5) — Beveridge's period punctuation, not an error. The section is a single paragraph in the source — kept as one block above. ⚠️ Now run the standing Day 42 checks. Every stranded comparative, every so/too/such without a partner, every pronoun without an antecedent. Today's answers: not so absurd → partner is as those of the rude vulgar (S9). no further effect → partner is than to render men inexcusable (S7). And the pronoun to worry about is they in S10 — it is the philosophers, not the evasions. Two candidates, one right. We will get there.

Thesis, concession, hammer, three exhibits, one verse:

   S1        HOUSEKEEPING ── "a summary of the general doctrine" (§§1-2 recap
                             + Ch. 3-9 gathered up)
   S2        THESIS ⭐⭐    ── let the reader observe THAT
                             Scripture, [in order to direct us to the true God],
                             distinctly EXCLUDES and REJECTS all gods of the
                             heathen, BECAUSE religion universally adulterated
   ─────────── CONCESSION BLOCK (S3-S6): "yes, they knew" ────────────
   S3        GRANT        ── "It is true, indeed, that ..." the name of ONE God
                             everywhere known + celebrated
   S4        PROOF ⭐⭐⭐   ── polytheists, when speaking nature's language,
                             said the name `god` — AS IF they HAD THOUGHT
                             one god sufficient  (5-pattern under a
                             counterfactual)
   S5        FATHER 1     ── Justin Martyr, On the Monarchy of God:
                             unity of God ENGRAVEN on the hearts of all
                             (= Ch. 3 sensus divinitatis, patristic version)
   S6        FATHER 2     ── Tertullian: same, from the common forms of speech
   ─────────── THE HAMMER (S7) ────────────────────────────────────────
   S7        REVERSAL ⭐⭐⭐ ── BUT: all (without exception) have
                             [in the vanity of their minds]
                             RUSHED  or  BEEN DRAGGED  into lying fictions
                             → these impressions, whatever they may naturally
                             have been, had NO FURTHER EFFECT THAN
                             to render men INEXCUSABLE
   ─────────── THREE EXHIBITS OF DAMAGE (S8-S10) ──────────────────────
   S8        (A) the wise ⭐ ── they DISCLOSE their wandering by wishing for
                             "any kind of Deity" → prayers to UNKNOWN gods
   S9        (B) the poets ⭐ ── Jupiter/Mercury/Venus/Minerva:
                             NOT SO absurd AS the rude vulgar's — BUT
                             by no means free from the DELUSIONS OF THE DEVIL
   S10       (C) the phil. ⭐ ── HOWEVER SUBTLE the evasions ‹are›,
                             they cannot do away with the CHARGE OF REBELLION,
                             IN THAT all have corrupted the truth of God
   ─────────── THE REMEDY (S11) ───────────────────────────────────────
   S11       CLOSE        ── Hab. 2:20: after condemning all idols, seek God
                             IN HIS TEMPLE → acknowledge NONE BUT Him
                             who has manifested himself IN HIS WORD
                             (→ Ch. 11 opens tomorrow: no visible form)

Examiner's Eye — five traps live in this section:

1. The "pagans really knew God" overreach. A comprehension option will read: "Calvin concedes that the heathen possessed a true knowledge of the one God." ✗ Scope overreach — the classic. Yes, S3–S6 concede the impression. But S7 fixes its exact value: **no further effect than** to render men inexcusable. Knowledge sufficient to convict, insufficient to save. This is the load-bearing distinction of Book 1 (Day 6 §1, Day 9 §1, Day 24 §12 — same clause, five times), and it is the item most likely to be set.
2. The "less absurd = acceptable" flip. An option will read: "Because the philosophers' conception of the gods was less crude than the common people's, Calvin excuses it." ✗ Direction flip. S9 grants the comparative (not so absurd as) and then, in the same sentence, denies the conclusion: they were **by no means free** from the delusions of the devil. ⚠️ Whenever Calvin grants a comparative, read to the end of the sentence for the but. He is not being generous; he is closing an escape route.
3. discover (S8). An option will read: "the wisest men found out that their minds were wandering." ✗ Vocabulary trap. Archaic discover = dis-cover, uncover, reveal, betray — not "find out." They do not notice their wandering; they expose it. The subject reveals its own condition to us, unwittingly. Substitute disclose and the sentence snaps into place.
4. they in S10. A grammar or comprehension item will attach they cannot do away with the charge to the evasions. ✗ The referent is the philosophers — proof: **in that all of them** have corrupted the truth of God. Evasions do not corrupt truth; people do. And it is people who face a charge.
5. The "temple" trap (S11). An option will read: "Calvin directs the faithful to worship God in a physical sanctuary." ✗ Read the relative clause: none but Him, **who has manifested himself in his word**. The temple in Hab. 2:20 is, for Calvin, the place where God has spoken — the appositive redefines the noun. And this is the pivot into Chapter 11, which spends fourteen sections denying that God may be sought under any visible form at all. Note the direction of travel: word, not image.

Formula ① — One auxiliary, two participles: active + passive coordinated, with a wedge (S7)

   ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
   │   S  +  HAVE  ( ADVERBIAL WEDGE )  +  V-ed₁  or  BEEN V-ed₂  │
   │                                        ↑ active   ↑ passive  │
   │                                                              │
   │   all have (in the vanity of their minds) rushed             │
   │            or been dragged  into lying fictions              │
   │                                                              │
   │   RESTORE:  have rushed  /  have been dragged                │
   │                                                              │
   │   ⚠ the wedge sits BETWEEN aux and its own participle        │
   │   ⚠ `been` is NOT deletable — it carries the passive         │
   │   ⚠ subject may also be split from V by parentheticals:      │
   │      these impressions, (as to X), (whatever ...), HAVE HAD  │
   └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

⚠️ Trap 1: you read have in the vanity... and stall. Strip the wedge, find have + rushed, then restore. ⚠️ Trap 2: have been rushed or dragged — ✗ flips the first verb passive and destroys the voluntary/involuntary contrast. ⚠️ Trap 3: agreement. these impressions ... **have** had — plural, despite the singular unity of God wedged in between.

Transformation drill. Rewrite using Formula ①:

Every one of them, with an empty mind, either ran into superstition or was pulled into it, and their natural knowledge accomplished only one thing: it left them without a defence.

Model answer: All, without exception, have in the emptiness of their minds rushed or been dragged into superstition; and their natural knowledge, whatever it may have been, has had no further effect than to render them inexcusable.

Formula ② — Verbless concessives: however/whatever + copula deletion (S10, S7)

   ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
   │  (a)  HOWEVER + ADJ  +  S  ‹ BE ›  ,  S + V ...              │
   │       = no matter how ADJ S is                                │
   │                                                              │
   │       however subtle the evasions ‹are›, they cannot ...  ✓  │
   │       however subtle ARE the evasions, ...                ✗  │
   │       HOW subtle the evasions, ...                        ✗  │
   │       however the evasions are subtle, ...                ✗  │
   │                                                              │
   │  (b)  WHATEVER + S + MAY (HAVE) BEEN  ,  ...                 │
   │       whatever they may have naturally been, ...          ✓  │
   │                                                              │
   │   ⚠ the ADJECTIVE fronts WITH `however` — they are one unit  │
   │   ⚠ NO auxiliary inversion; copula OPTIONAL                  │
   │   family: however / whatever / whenever / whichever / wherever│
   └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

⚠️ Trap 1: however ≠ but. Test by substituting no matter how. ⚠️ Trap 2: don't invert. however subtle are the evasions is the single most common wrong "correction." ⚠️ Trap 3: however the evasions are subtle — the adjective must come immediately after however.

Transformation drill. Combine into one sentence using both halves of Formula ②:

The excuses of the wise may be very refined. Their impressions of God may have been anything at all by nature. Neither fact removes their guilt.

Model answer: However refined the excuses devised by the wise, and whatever their impressions of God may naturally have been, they cannot do away with the charge of rebellion.

Formula ③ — as if + past perfect subjunctive over a five-pattern; and the comparative family (S4, S9, S7)

   ┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
   │   AS IF  +  S  +  HAD  p.p.   =  counterfactual, ANTERIOR    │
   │   AS IF  +  S  +  past simple =  counterfactual, SIMULTANEOUS│
   │                                                              │
   │      as if they HAD THOUGHT one god sufficient      (S4)     │
   │                     V         O          C  ← 5-pattern,     │
   │                                              `to be` omitted │
   │      cf. as if his countenance WERE portrayed    (§2, S1)    │
   │                                                              │
   │   COMPARATIVE FAMILY, all under negation:                    │
   │      not so  ADJ  as   NP        = less ADJ than NP     (S9) │
   │      no further  N  than  to V   = nothing beyond V-ing (S7) │
   │      by no means  ADJ/V          = not at all           (S9) │
   │                                                              │
   │   ⚠ `so ... as`, NEVER `so ... than`                        │
   │   ⚠ `those of X` = the [head noun] of X, not X itself       │
   └──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

⚠️ Trap 1: sufficient in S4 is an object complement (one god ‹to be› sufficient), not an adverb. sufficiently would be wrong and meaningless. ⚠️ Trap 2: had thought vs thought after as if — the past perfect makes the conviction earlier than the speaking. That timing is the argument. ⚠️ Trap 3: not so absurd as **those** of the rude vulgar — those = the ideas. Comparing ideas with ideas, never ideas with people.

Transformation drill. Rewrite using Formula ③, both halves:

When the pagans slipped and said "god," it sounded as though they had already decided one was enough. Their notions were less crude than the crowd's, but they achieved nothing except to leave them guilty.

Model answer: Whenever they spoke the genuine language of nature, they simply used the name god, as if they had thought one god sufficient; and though their notions were not so absurd as those of the rude vulgar, they had no further effect than to render them inexcusable.

1. The doctrine at stake: how much can you concede to paganism?

This section is Calvin's most careful piece of book-keeping on exactly that question, and it comes in two columns.

Credit column (S3–S6): the pagans had the name of one God; their unguarded speech was monotheistic; the unity of God is engraven on the hearts of all. That is a real concession with real patristic backing, and Calvin does not hedge it.

Debit column (S7–S10): all, without exception fell into lying fictions; the impressions had no further effect than to render men inexcusable; the wisest pray to unknown gods; the philosophers' evasions cannot lift the charge of rebellion.

⚠️ The formula that balances the two is no further effect than. Do not soften it and do not sharpen it. Calvin is neither an inclusivist (the pagans had saving knowledge) nor a total-blindness theorist (they had none at all). His position is forensic: they had enough to be convicted, never enough to be saved. Everything in Chapters 3–5 was building this, and today the ledger is closed with a bang.

2. The two witnesses — and an honest note about one of them.

Justin Martyr, ... On the Monarchy of God (S5). The treatise De monarchia (Περὶ μοναρχίας) is transmitted among Justin's works, and it argues monotheism out of quotations from Greek poets and dramatists — exactly a great variety of evidence. ⚠️ Modern scholarship classes it among the pseudo-Justinian writings (as it does the Cohortatio ad Graecos and De resurrectione): the florilegium of pagan quotations it depends on is later than Justin. Calvin, and every reader before the nineteenth century, took it as genuine. This does not damage Calvin's argument — the treatise exists and makes the case regardless of its author — but state the attribution honestly and don't cite "Justin" for it without the qualifier.

Tertullian ... from the common forms of speech (S6). This is solid ground. Tertullian's Apologeticum 17 and the short De testimonio animae make precisely the argument: pagans, off guard, say Deus magnus est, Deus videt, quod Deus dederit — singular, spontaneous, unprompted. Tertullian's phrase for it is that the soul is naturaliter christiana. ⚠️ Note what our source's apparatus adds. Beveridge's footnote 25 (attached to S6, and stripped from Period 1 as apparatus) reads: "In his book, De Idolatria. See also in Augustine, a letter by one Maximus, a grammarian of Medaura, jesting at his gods, and scoffing at the true religion. See, at the same time, Augustine's grave and admirable reply. Ep. 42. 43." Two notes on that: the Tertullian reference to De idololatria is the editor's, and the testimonium animae argument is better located in the Apologeticum; and the Maximus of Madauros exchange is Augustine Ep. 16 (Maximus) and Ep. 17 (Augustine's reply) in the modern numbering — Beveridge's Ep. 42. 43. follows an older ordering. Worth knowing if you ever chase the citation.

3. Acts 17 as the recurring terminus.

unknown gods (S8) is Acts 17:23, and this is now the second time Calvin has used it to end an argument — I.5.12 closed with pagans forced to worship an unknown God (Day 24). ⚠️ Notice that Calvin pluralizes Paul's singular inscription. That is not error: Roman practice really did address dis ignotis and hedged vows with the formula sive deus sive dea — "whether god or goddess" — precisely because the worshipper did not know whom he was addressing. Calvin's express a wish for **any kind of** Deity is a fair description of that liturgical hedging. The learned pagan's own caution is Calvin's Exhibit A.

4. Editions and place in the argument.

Chapter 10 is short, stable, and structural. The 1536 Institutio had nothing like the Chapters 1–10 architecture; it grew in the 1539 expansion and reached this shape in the 1559 final reorganization, where Calvin split cognitio Dei Creatoris (Book 1) from cognitio Dei Redemptoris (Book 2). §3 is the join: it closes the "Scripture presents the same God as creation" argument (§§1–2) and swings the door open to Chapter 11's assault on images. ⚠️ The Sections. 1. ... 2. ... 3. ... headings are Beveridge's editorial summary, not Calvin's own text.

5. Lineage and later reception.

The concession-plus-inexcusability structure is Augustinian in temper — Augustine's Platonists in Confessions VII genuinely see something and genuinely cannot get home on it. The specific use of pagan monotheistic residue as prosecution evidence is Romans 1:19–23 worked out at length; Calvin's whole Chapters 3–10 can be read as a commentary on those five verses.

Later: this is one of the sharpest texts for the Barth–Brunner quarrel of 1934, and ⚠️ both sides can quote it, which is why you must read it slowly. Brunner's Anknüpfungspunkt has real purchase in S3–S6 (there is a point of contact; the Fathers documented it). Barth's Nein! has real purchase in S7 (its only effect is condemnation). Calvin holds both because for him the point of contact is a point of accusation, not a point of departure — a distinction that neither 1934 slogan captures cleanly. Plantinga and Reformed epistemology take the engraven on the hearts of all of S5 as the sensus divinitatis, properly basic but damaged; today's S7–S10 is Calvin's account of the damage.

6. Over-reading guardrail.

⚠️ Four things this section does not say:

• It does not say paganism was implicitly Christian, or that pagan monotheism was saving. no further effect than to render men inexcusable (S7). Full stop.
• It does not say the pagans knew nothing. S3–S6 exist to deny exactly that, and Calvin brings two Fathers to prove it.
• It does not claim a historical primal monotheism from which paganism declined. ⚠️ This is a real temptation, because the section reads a little like Andrew Lang's or Wilhelm Schmidt's Urmonotheismus. Calvin's claim is about the engraven sense in every person now (S5), not about a reconstructible primitive revelation. Different argument, different century, different evidence.
• It does not despise philosophy as such. The target is the **evasions** devised by philosophers (S10). ⚠️ Calvin says so explicitly at II.2.15 — the pagan philosophers' insight into earthly things is a real gift of the Spirit and must not be scorned. Today he is prosecuting a manoeuvre, not a discipline.

1. Romans 1:20 → inexcusable (S7). Gk. ἀναπολογήτους — without an apologia, i.e. with no defence-speech to make. Calvin's single most-repeated word in Book 1 (Days 6, 9, 13, 14, 24, and today). ⚠️ What is new here: he applies it not to the raw sensus divinitatis but to the specifically monotheistic residue that Justin and Tertullian documented. The better the pagan evidence, the heavier the verdict. That is how Calvin uses a proof text — he keeps raising the standard of the concession so the conclusion gets harder, not softer.

2. Ephesians 4:17 → in the vanity of their minds (S7). AV: walk not as other Gentiles walk, in the vanity of their mind. Gk. ἐν ματαιότητι τοῦ νοὸς αὐτῶν. ⚠️ Beveridge's phrase is a near-verbatim lift, which is Calvin quoting rather than describing. And the same root drives Romans 1:21 ἐματαιώθησαν (they were made empty/futile) — the verb behind Days 9 and 23. vanity = emptiness**, never conceit.

3. Romans 1:21–23 → the whole shape of S7 (S7). When they knew God, they glorified him not ... but became vain in their imaginations ... and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image. ⚠️ That is Calvin's S3→S7 sequence exactly: real knowledge → vain imagination → fictions. He is not building an argument alongside Paul; he is paraphrasing Paul's sequence and adding two Fathers as documentation.

4. Romans 2:15 → engraven on the hearts of all (S5). AV: the work of the law written in their hearts; Gk. γραπτόν. The engraving metaphor Calvin has used since I.3.1. ⚠️ Note that here he routes it through Justin rather than through Paul directly — a rhetorical choice: he is proving the point from the Fathers' reading of the pagans, which is harder to dismiss than a bare citation.

5. Acts 17:23 → unknown gods (S8). Gk. ἀγνώστῳ θεῷ — to an unknown god, Paul's Athenian altar. ⚠️ Calvin pluralizes it (see Period 6 §3): the Athenian inscription is singular, but pagan practice at large addressed dis ignotis. The verse is Calvin's standing terminus for natural religion: this is where the road ends. Cf. I.5.12 (Day 24), which closed on the same phrase.

6. Acts 17:28 (background to S4). For in him we live, and move, and have our being — and Paul's quotation of Aratus, We are his offspring, which Calvin discussed at I.5.3 (Day 15). ⚠️ Same evidentiary logic as today's S4: a pagan's own words used against him. The genuine language of nature leaks.

7. 1 Corinthians 8:4–6 (background to S3). We know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. ⚠️ Note the same none ... but exclusive construction that closes today's S11. Paul's but and Calvin's but are doing identical work: except**.

8. Habakkuk 2:18–20 → after condemning all idols ... seek God in his temple (S11). AV 2:19: Woe unto him that saith to the wood, Awake; to the dumb stone, Arise, it shall teach! ... and there is no breath in it. Then 2:20: But the LORD is in his holy temple: let all the earth keep silence before him. ⚠️ The contrast in Habakkuk is speech. The idol is dumb and has no breath; the LORD is in his temple and the earth falls silent to listen. Which is precisely why Calvin's appositive gloss is who has manifested himself **in his word** — he is not adding a Reformation slogan to the verse, he is reading the verse's own antithesis. ⭐ This is the model of Calvin exegesis to remember from today: the proof text is chosen because its internal logic already runs the argument.

9. Psalm 115:4–8 / Isaiah 44:9–20 (behind S9 and S11). The classic idol-polemics — makers become like what they make. ⚠️ Not quoted, but they are the reservoir behind the delusions of the devil and after condemning all idols, and they are the texts Chapter 11 will draw on from tomorrow.

① Grammar — one of the four underlined items is wrong. Find it.

But as all, without exception, ⓐhave in the vanity of their minds rushed or ⓑbeen dragged into lying fictions, these impressions, as to the unity of God, whatever they may have naturally been, ⓒhas had no further effect than to render men inexcusable. And however subtle the evasions devised by philosophers, they cannot ⓓdo away with the charge of rebellion.

Answer: ⓒ

Exam-setter's rationale. Formula ①, agreement half. Bracket out both parentheticals — as to the unity of God and whatever they may have naturally been — and the spine is these impressions ... **have** had no further effect. Plural subject, plural auxiliary. The bait is the singular unity (and, for the careless, the singular-looking God) sitting in the wedge immediately before the verb. ⓐ is correct: the adverbial in the vanity of their minds may legally sit between the auxiliary and its participle, and have ... rushed is a normal perfect. ⓑ is correct: been dragged shares the single have and carries the passive — deleting been would flip the voice and destroy the voluntary/involuntary pair. ⓓ is correct: do away with is an inseparable three-part phrasal verb taking the charge as its object. ⚠️ If you picked ⓐ you were disoriented by the wedge; if you picked ⓑ you missed that one auxiliary can govern an active and a passive participle at once. Both are the intended distractors.

② Comprehension — which one agrees with the section?

ⓐ Calvin denies that the heathen had any notion whatever of one God, and cites Justin Martyr and Tertullian to prove it. ⓑ Calvin holds that because the philosophers' conceptions of the gods were less absurd than those of the uneducated, they escaped the delusions of the devil. ⓒ Calvin grants that the name of one God was everywhere known, but holds that this impression accomplished nothing beyond making men inexcusable. ⓓ Calvin teaches that the wisest men, realizing how far their minds had wandered, ceased to pray to unknown gods.

Answer: ⓒ

Exam-setter's rationale. - ⓐ — direction flip, and it flips the witnesses too. S3 says the opposite (It is true, indeed, that the name of one God was everywhere known and celebrated), and S5–S6 bring Justin and Tertullian in to support the concession, not to deny it. ⚠️ A double error in one option: the claim is reversed and the function of the citations is reversed. Cheap to write, easy to catch if you tracked the It is true, indeed → But pair. - ⓑ — the comparative-to-conclusion slide. S9 grants not so absurd as those of the rude vulgar and then, in the same sentence, refuses the inference: they were **by no means free** from the delusions of the devil. ⚠️ Whenever Calvin grants a comparative, read to the period. This is the section's second-most-tested item. - ⓒ — correct. First half from S3 (the name of one God was everywhere known and celebrated); second half from S7 (no further effect than to render men inexcusable). Two sentences, four sentences apart, and the option is correct only because it keeps the concession and the limit. That is what the section is. - ⓓ — the discover trap, weaponized. The wisest plainly **discover** the vague wanderings of their minds = they lay bare, they expose — not "realize." And the sentence continues **and thus** offer up their prayers to unknown gods: they go on praying. ⚠️ This option depends entirely on the archaic verb. If you glossed discover as find out in Period 3, you would pick it.

③ Composition — apply today's formulas.

Translate into Beveridge-style English, using Formula ② (however + ADJ, copula deleted) and Formula ① (no further effect than to V). "철학자들이 고안한 회피가 아무리 정교하더라도, 그리고 그들의 하나님에 대한 인상이 본성상 무엇이었든, 그것들은 사람을 변명할 수 없게 만드는 것 외에는 아무런 효과도 없었다."

Model answer:

However subtle the evasions devised by philosophers, and whatever their impressions of God may naturally have been, these have had no further effect than to render men inexcusable.

Exam-setter's rationale. Four things are being marked. (1) **However subtle** the evasions — the adjective fronts with however, there is no inversion, and the copula is dropped. ✗ However subtle are the evasions (illicit inversion), ✗ However the evasions are subtle (adjective stranded), ✗ How subtle the evasions (bare how gives exclamation, not concession). (2) **whatever** ... may naturally have been — the concessive free relative, with the adverb inside the perfect. (3) **no further effect than to** render — the negative-comparative frame completed by a to-infinitive, not a that-clause. ✗ no further effect than that they rendered loses the formula. (4) render + O + **inexcusable** — the five-pattern with an adjectival object complement; ✗ render men **inexcusably** is the classic slip. ✅ Bonus credit for **devised by** rather than "made by" (Beveridge's participle, S10) and for keeping **men** rather than "people" — the source's word.

One-line summary. Chapter 10 closes with the ledger: Scripture, in order to direct us to the true God, distinctly excludes and rejects all the gods of the heathen — and yes, It is true, indeed, the pagans had the name of one God, with Justin and Tertullian to prove that the unity of God is engraven on the hearts of all, but since all have in the vanity of their minds rushed or been dragged into lying fictions, those impressions have had **no further effect than to render men inexcusable**: the wisest discover their own wandering by praying to unknown gods, the poets' pantheon was less absurd yet by no means free from the delusions of the devil, and however subtle the evasions devised by philosophers, the charge of rebellion stands — so Habakkuk's order is to seek God in his temple and acknowledge none but Him, who has manifested himself **in his word**.

The 3 grammar points, restated:

1. One auxiliary, two participles — active + passive, with a wedge. all **have** (in the vanity of their minds) **rushed** or **been dragged** — strip the wedge, restore have rushed / have been dragged, and never delete been. Plus the agreement trap: these impressions, (as to the unity of God), (whatever ...), **have** had.
2. Verbless concessives. **however** + ADJ + S ‹**be**› — the adjective fronts with however, no inversion, copula optional (however subtle the evasions devised by philosophers). Sibling: **whatever** they may have naturally been. Family: however / whatever / whenever / whichever / wherever = no matter how / what / when / which / where.
3. as if + past perfect subjunctive over a five-pattern, and the negative-comparative family. as if they **had thought** one god **sufficient** — counterfactual anterior, with think + O + ADJ underneath and to be deleted. Then: **not so** absurd **as** those of the rude vulgar, **no further** effect **than to** render, **by no means** free from.

Homework (10 minutes).

1. Structure restoration. Take S7 and rewrite it as four short modern sentences, in this order: (i) the causal ground, (ii) the two ways they got in, (iii) what the impressions were, (iv) what they achieved. Then answer in one line: why does Calvin need both rushed and been dragged? (Hint: what plea is he closing off?) ⚠️ Then do the harder half — rewrite S7 back into one Beveridge sentence, and check whether you kept the wedge and the shared auxiliary.

2. Composition. Write two sentences about S8–S9 using Formula ③ twice: once with not so ADJ as those of X, once with as if + had p.p. over a five-pattern. Target something like: Their notions were not so gross as those of the vulgar; yet they spoke as if they had thought a manifold God sufficient. ⚠️ Then check your own work on one point only: is your complement an adjective (sufficient) or did you slip into an adverb (sufficiently)? One is the five-pattern; the other is nonsense.

3. Preview of tomorrow. Chapter 10 is finished. Chapter 11 opens — and Calvin has just handed it its premise. Today's last words were manifested himself **in his word**; tomorrow's §1 is headed "God is opposed to idols, that all may know he is the only fit witness to himself. He expressly forbids any attempt to represent him by a bodily shape." ⚠️ Watch two things from the first sentence: the phrase fit witness to himself (Calvin's whole doctrine of revelation in four words — God is his own testimony, and nothing else qualifies), and the shift in genre — Chapters 1–10 argued; Chapter 11 prosecutes, for fourteen sections, with the Second Commandment as the statute. And keep today's idol etymology in your pocket: Gk. eidōlon < eidos, form — the same root as idea. Calvin is about to make that connection do work.

Where we stopped: Book 1, Ch. 10, §3 끝. Chapter 10 완료. 다음은 Book 1, Ch. 11, §1 — "God is opposed to idols, that all may know he is the only fit witness to himself. He expressly forbids any attempt to represent him by a bodily shape."