Day 77 — Book 1, Chapter 13, §3

Yesterday Calvin built the doctrine out of one genitive in Hebrews 1:3. Today he does something a lawyer does, not a metaphysician: he splits a word in half and hands one half back to his opponents.

Look at the shape of the section before you read a syllable of it. S1 is the verdict — it is most uncandid to attack the terms. S2–S3 is the objection in the objectors' own voice, quoted at length, unedited, and — this is the part students never notice — rather well put. Then S4 and S5 are a matched pair, and they are the whole day:

• **If** they call it a foreign term, **because it cannot be pointed out in Scripture in so many syllables** … → then you have imposed an unjust law.
• **But if by foreign they mean** that which, after being idly devised, is superstitiously defended … → I embrace their soberness with all my heart.

That is the classical distinguo. One word, foreign, two senses. In sense one the objection is fatal to itself. In sense two Calvin agrees, and says so as warmly as he says anything in Book 1. ⚠️⚠️ If you walk out of today thinking Calvin crushed the objectors, you have read half the section. He crushed one of their two arguments and joined the other.

Then watch the rest: he lays down a principle (S6–S8), names the norm (S9), grants a licence with four locks on it (S10), points at precedent (S11), and closes by turning the table — the man who is still complaining about new words at that point is not defending Scripture, he is taking offence at the light of truth (S12).

Grammatically, today is periodic-sentence day. S1 makes you hold a concessive clause and a causal clause in the air for forty-four words before the main verb arrives. S5 does the same trick with four stacked relative clauses inside a conditional. If you read these left to right hoping the sentence will resolve itself, you will drown. There is a technique, it is mechanical, and you will drill it three times today.

And one warning about the printed page: two of today's sentences contain typographical slips — real ones, in S9. Do not "fix" them in the quotation; do read them correctly. Details in the text note.

Today's 3 Big Points

1. The periodic front-load: Though A, since B, it is ADJ to V — plus modal ellipsis in the concessive (S1). The main clause of S1 is five words long (it is most uncandid to attack…) and it arrives at word 45. In front of it sit two subordinate clauses of different type: concessive **though** heretics may snarl and the excessively fastidious carp… and causal **since** they cannot displace us from our position…. ⚠️ Inside the concessive, the second verb has no modal of its own: heretics **may** snarl and the excessively fastidious ⌀ **carp**. Carp is a bare infinitive still governed by may, not a present-tense finite verb. Write carps and you have broken the coordination. Technique: find the finite main verb first, then read the front matter as one lump. Formula 1.
2. It were better to V1 …, and not V2 … — the irrealis were again, now with coordinated bare infinitives (S2). Two things in one clause. First, **It were better** = It would be better — the bare past subjunctive you met twice yesterday (S7, S14), here in the objectors' mouth, which tells you they are educated men, not cranks. Second, the coordination: to confine … , and **not scatter** about foreign terms. The second infinitive keeps the single to from the first and takes not before the bare verb. ⚠️ and not scattering is wrong; and to not scatter is a modern split; Beveridge's and not scatter is the period-correct form and it is today's grammar exam item. Formula 2.
3. The distinguo: If they call it X because P, they impose … / But if by X they mean Q, I embrace … (S4–S5). The frame is **If by** ‹term› **they mean** ‹sense A›, …; **but if by** ‹term› **they mean** ‹sense B›, …. ⚠️ Notice the tell in S5: **if by foreign they mean** that which… — the preposition by fronted before the subject, which is the signature of a definitional conditional, not a factual one. And that which = the sort of thing which, a headless relative that then takes four which-clauses hung off it. Formula 3.

Trap words I will test. uncandid (S1) ⚠️⚠️ = unfair, disingenuous (candidus, white → candour = fair dealing) — not "not open about one's feelings". sanction (S1) ⚠️⚠️⚠️ = to authorise, to give warrant to — the exact opposite of the modern newspaper sense (sanctions = penalties). Today's #1 register trap. charity (S3) ⚠️⚠️ = love (caritas / ἀγάπη) — not almsgiving. medium (S8) ⚠️⚠️⚠️ = a middle course, a mean (medium, the middle thing) — not a means, a channel, or a medium of communication. Miss this and S8 becomes gibberish. capacities (S10) ⚠️⚠️ = our powers of understanding — to our capacities … dark = dark as far as our understanding goes. dark (S10) ⚠️ = obscure — a standing sense in this period. carp at (S1) ⚠️ = to find fault captiously (carpere, to pluck, to pick at). in so many syllables (S4) ⚠️⚠️ = in those very words — the sibling of the surviving idiom in so many words. soberness (S5) ⚠️ = restraint, moderation (sobrius) — not "not drunk". edification (S5) = building up (aedificare; Paul's οἰκοδομή) — a technical Pauline criterion, not "moral improvement" generally. novelty (S12) ⚠️ = newness (the quality), not "a novel thing". invective (S12) ⚠️ = a verbal attack — and note it is the same root as inveighs four words earlier (in-vehere, to be carried against). Calvin puts the noun and the verb in one sentence on purpose. impelled (S12) = driven, forced (in-pellere). altercation (S3) = wrangling (altercari < alter — speaking by turns). brawls (S2) = quarrels. seed-beds (S2) = seminaria, nurseries — where a thing is grown on purpose. displace (S1) = dislodge (from a position in argument). not without (S11) ⚠️ = litotes = we have plenty of.

3. Now, then, though heretics may snarl and the excessively fastidious carp at the word Person as inadmissible, in consequence of its human origin, since they cannot displace us from our position that three are named, each of whom is perfect God, and yet that there is no plurality of gods, it is most uncandid to attack the terms which do nothing more than explain what the Scriptures declare and sanction. “It were better,” they say, “to confine not only our meanings but our words within the bounds of Scripture, and not scatter about foreign terms to become the future seed-beds of brawls and dissensions. In this way, men grow tired of quarrels about words; the truth is lost in altercation, and charity melts away amid hateful strife.” If they call it a foreign term, because it cannot be pointed out in Scripture in so many syllables, they certainly impose an unjust law—a law which would condemn every interpretation of Scripture that is not composed of other words of Scripture. But if by foreign they mean that which, after being idly devised, is superstitiously defended,—which tends more to strife than edification,—which is used either out of place, or with no benefit which offends pious ears by its harshness, and leads them away from the simplicity of God’s Word, I embrace their soberness with all my heart. For I think we are bound to speak of God as reverently as we are bound to think of him. As our own thoughts respecting him are foolish, so our own language respecting him is absurd. Still, however, some medium must be observed. The unerring standard both of thinking and speaking must be derived from the Scriptures: by it all the thoughts of ours minds, and the words of our mouths, should he tested. But in regard to those parts of Scripture which, to our capacities, are dark and intricate, what forbids us to explain them in clearer terms—terms, however, kept in reverent and faithful subordination to Scripture truth, used sparingly and modestly, and not without occasion? Of this we are not without many examples. When it has been proved that the Church was impelled, by the strongest necessity, to use the words Trinity and Person, will not he who still inveighs against novelty of terms be deservedly suspected of taking offence at the light of truth, and of having no other ground for his invective, than that the truth is made plain and transparent?

Sentence count: 12 (S1–S12). One paragraph. Two of the twelve (S2, S3) are inside quotation marks — they are the objectors speaking, not Calvin.

Text note (not a correction to the quotation). Six features of the printed page, all left exactly as they stand. (i) ⚠️⚠️ S9 prints the thoughts of ours minds where the sense is our minds. A compositor's slip — the s of the following word has been attracted forward. Read our; quote ours. (ii) ⚠️⚠️ S9 prints should he tested where the sense is should **be** tested. A b/h substitution — either a metal-type pick in 1845 or an OCR read of a broken sort. Read be; quote he. Two slips in one sentence is unusual; that sentence sits at a page break in this printing, which is exactly where compositors' errors cluster. (iii) S5 has no comma after benefit — used either out of place, or with no benefit which offends pious ears by its harshness. As printed, which offends looks like a relative on benefit, which yields nonsense (a benefit that offends pious ears). The sense requires it to be the fourth in the series of which-clauses hanging off that which. Parse it as the fourth; do not insert the comma. (iv) S5 uses ,—which twice — comma plus em-dash as a single, stronger break. Standard 1845 pointing for a list of parallel relative clauses. Leave it. (v) seed-beds is hyphenated (S2) and amid has no -st (S3). Both are period forms, both correct as printed. (vi) S12's than that is preceded by a comma — no other ground for his invective, than that the truth is made plain. Modern editing deletes the comma before than. Leave it; the comma is doing the work of a breath after a long noun phrase.

[CONCESSION]   S1a  heretics SNARL · the fastidious CARP → "Person" inadmissible (human origin)
[GROUND]       S1b  BUT they cannot displace us: three named · each perfect God · no plurality
[VERDICT]      S1c  → attacking the terms is MOST UNCANDID (they only explain what Scripture says)
[THEIR CASE]   S2-3 (their own voice) keep words inside Scripture · foreign terms = SEED-BEDS of brawls
               ─────── Calvin's answer: SPLIT THE WORD "FOREIGN" INTO TWO SENSES ───────
[SENSE 1]      S4   foreign = "not in Scripture in so many syllables" → AN UNJUST LAW (self-abolishing)
[SENSE 2]      S5   foreign = idly devised · strife-breeding · harsh · un-simple → I AGREE, WHOLLY
[PRINCIPLE]    S6-7 speak of God as reverently as we think of him; thoughts foolish → language absurd
[BUT]          S8   still, some MEDIUM (= middle course) must be observed
[NORM]         S9   the unerring standard = THE SCRIPTURES — thoughts AND words tested by it
[LICENCE]      S10  dark/intricate parts MAY be explained in clearer terms — under FOUR restraints
[PRECEDENT]    S11  examples: "not without many" (litotes)
[TABLE TURNED] S12  once necessity is PROVED (→ §4): the objector = one who hates the light

The engine, in one line: the objection says use only Scripture's words. Calvin answers that a rule requiring every interpretation to be composed only of Scripture's own words would abolish interpretation itself — including sermons, catechisms, and translation into any language whatever. The rule eats itself. What survives of the objection is a rule of manner, not of vocabulary: sparingly, modestly, reverently, and only when there is occasion. Calvin signs that one.

Examiner's Eye — five traps, and four of them are scope traps.

1. ⚠️⚠️⚠️ S5 is the sentence they will hide from you. I embrace their soberness with all my heart. Calvin agrees with half the objection — the half about idle, harsh, strife-breeding coinages. An option reading "Calvin dismisses the objectors' concern about verbal disputes" is false, and it is the single most missable point in the section, because the surrounding tone (snarl, carp, uncandid) primes you to expect total rejection.
2. ⚠️⚠️ The word foreign has two senses and the answer depends on which. S4 takes sense one (not verbatim in Scripture) → rejected. S5 takes sense two (idly devised and superstitiously defended) → accepted. Any option that treats foreign as one thing has already lost. Formula 3 is not decoration; it is the argument.
3. ⚠️⚠️ S10 is a licence with four locks on it. explain them in clearer terms—terms, however, ① kept in reverent and faithful subordination to Scripture truth, ② used sparingly and ③ modestly, and ④ not without occasion. An option reading "Calvin permits us to explain Scripture in whatever terms are clearest" is a scope-overreach: it takes the licence and drops every lock.
4. ⚠️⚠️ S12 does not prove; it presupposes a proof not yet given. **When it has been proved** that the Church was impelled, by the strongest necessity, to use the words Trinity and Person… — a conditional forward reference. The necessity is argued in §4 (Arius, Sabellius), not here. Exactly the same trap as yesterday's S13 (we will immediately prove). Calvin's IOUs are a testable habit.
5. ⚠️ S2–S3 are not Calvin. They are inside quotation marks and introduced by they say. An option quoting the truth is lost in altercation as Calvin's view is a voice-attribution trap — though note the sting: he half-endorses it four sentences later. The precise answer is the objectors say it; Calvin grants the concern but denies the inference.

Formula 1 — The periodic front-load, and modal ellipsis inside it

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  ( Though  S₁ MAY V₁  and  S₂ ⌀MAY⌀ V₂ … ) ,                             │
│  ( Since   S₃ cannot V₃ … ) ,                                            │
│      IT IS  ADJ  TO V.                    ← the ONLY finite main clause   │
│                                                                          │
│  S1  Though heretics MAY SNARL and the excessively fastidious ⌀ CARP …,  │
│      since they cannot displace us …,  IT IS most uncandid TO ATTACK …   │
│                                                                          │
│  TECHNIQUE (use it every time):                                          │
│    1. Scan for a clause with NO subordinator → that is the main clause.  │
│    2. Bracket everything before it as one lump.                          │
│    3. Read the main clause. THEN unpack the lump.                        │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

⚠️ Trap 1 — modal ellipsis. In S₁ may V₁ and S₂ V₂, the second verb is a bare infinitive still under may. carp, not carps. Writing carps breaks the coordination and turns a hypothetical into a report. ⚠️ Trap 2 — do not mistake the first finite verb you meet for the main verb. heretics may snarl sits inside though. If your translation has no main clause, you fell in. ⚠️ Trap 3 — the + adjective = a class of people, plural in agreement: the excessively fastidious carp, not carps, on either analysis.

Transformation drill. Build a periodic sentence with a concessive (two verbs under one modal), a causal, and an it-extraposition. - Some object to the term. They cannot overturn the doctrine. Attacking the word is unfair. → Though some may object to the term and even revile it, since they cannot overturn the doctrine, it is most unfair to attack the word.

Formula 2 — It were better to V₁ …, and not V₂ … (irrealis + coordinated bare infinitive)

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│   IT  WERE  ADJ-comparative   TO V₁ … ,  AND  NOT  ⌀to⌀ V₂ …             │
│   └── dummy    └── IRREALIS = "would be"        └── bare inf., NOT before │
│                                                                          │
│   S2  "IT WERE better TO CONFINE … , AND NOT SCATTER about foreign terms"│
│                                                                          │
│   RUNNING TALLY of the bare past subjunctive:                            │
│     §2 S7   to hold … WERE not only harsh but absurd    = would be       │
│     §2 S14  which it WERE impious to multiply           = would be       │
│     §3 S2   It WERE better to confine …                 = would be       │
│     (§5 will do it again. It is a Beveridge habit, not a one-off.)       │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

⚠️ Trap 1 — were is NEVER past here. An infinitive or dummy-it subject is singular; a plural past is impossible. Read would be. ⚠️ Trap 2 — the second infinitive. and not **scatter** is correct. ✗ and not scattering (participle cannot coordinate with an infinitive). ✗ and to not scatter (modern split). ○ and not to scatter (acceptable, not printed). ⚠️ Trap 3 — not only A but B marks B as the contested member. not only our meanings **but our words** — the second is the claim under dispute. Do not flatten it into a list.

Transformation drill. 1. It would be safer to keep silent and not to multiply distinctions. → It were safer to keep silence, and not multiply distinctions. 2. It would be more reverent to receive the mystery and not to define it. → It were more reverent to receive the mystery, and not define it.

Formula 3 — The distinguo: If by X they mean A, …; but if by X they mean B, …

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│   IF they call it X, BECAUSE ‹sense A›,   → they impose an unjust law    │
│   BUT IF  BY X  they mean ‹sense B›,      → I embrace it with all my     │
│        └── preposition FRONTED before the subject = DEFINITIONAL, not     │
│            factual. The disputed TERM goes first, on purpose.            │
│                                                                          │
│   S4  If they call it A FOREIGN TERM, because it cannot be pointed out   │
│       in Scripture in so many syllables → AN UNJUST LAW                  │
│   S5  But IF BY FOREIGN THEY MEAN that which … → I EMBRACE their         │
│       soberness with all my heart                                        │
│                                                                          │
│   The head of the second arm may carry a chain of relatives:             │
│       that which ① … , —which ② … , —which ③ … , ⌀which⌀ ④ …            │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

⚠️ Trap 1 — But at the head of the second arm is NOT adversative. It means on the other alternative. Read it as a pivot between senses, not between verdicts, or I embrace will make no sense. ⚠️ Trap 2 — count the relative series before you parse. In S5 the fourth which has no comma in front of it and looks like a relative on benefit. It is not. Count first, parse second. ⚠️ Trap 3 — find the half he keeps. A distinguo is not a refutation; it is a split. On any comprehension question, ask: which sense did he grant? Today: he granted sense B — wholly.

Transformation drill. 1. If by "tradition" they mean what is added to Scripture, I reject it; if they mean what the Church has faithfully handed down from Scripture, I receive it. → If by tradition they mean that which is superadded to the Word, I reject it without hesitation; but if by tradition they mean that which the Church has faithfully delivered out of the Scriptures, I receive it with all my heart. 2. Now with a relative chain: But if by novelty they mean that which, after being idly coined, is obstinately urged,—which serves rather to contention than to edifying,—which is pressed without occasion, I condemn it as heartily as they.

What §3 actually is, in the architecture. The chapter synopsis calls it Answer 1: That it is not a foreign term, but is employed for the explanation of sacred mysteries. There are four answers in all — §3 (the term is not foreign in any damning sense), §4 (the orthodox were compelled by heresy), §5 (the ancient Church varied in words but agreed in substance; and, provided the meaning is kept, terms are not worth a fight). Today is only the first, and every over-reading of §3 comes from forgetting that.

1. Who is snarling, and who is carping. Calvin's two nouns in S1 are two different parties, and he treats them differently for the rest of the section. - The heretics. By 1559 this means, above all, Michael Servetus (burned at Geneva in 1553, whom Calvin names in §22), and behind and after him the Italian radicals who passed through Geneva in the 1550s — Matteo Gribaldi, Giorgio Blandrata, Giovanni Valentino Gentile — and eventually the Polish Brethren. Their programme was explicitly verbal: strike Trinitas, persona, essentia, homoousios from theology and speak "only Bible." Servetus's very first book (1531) was titled De Trinitatis Erroribus, and its argument was substantially that the vocabulary was a philosophical importation. - The excessively fastidious. These are orthodox people with a scruple: they believe the doctrine and dislike the words. Calvin was one of them once — see below — and S5 is addressed almost entirely to them.

⚠️ This is why the tone shifts mid-section. He does not argue with dogs; he argues with the scrupulous.

2. Calvin's own history in this argument — and it explains everything about S5. In 1537 Pierre Caroli publicly accused Calvin, Farel and Viret of Arianism, on the ground that Calvin's Genevan Confession expounded the Trinity without using Trinity, person or substance, and that Calvin refused to subscribe the Athanasian Creed on demand. Calvin's position then was: the terms are not sacred; I use them when they clarify and decline to swear by them. ⚠️ Twenty-two years later he has not changed it. That is precisely why §3 both defends the terms and concedes so much to those who dislike them, and why §5 will say, astonishingly for a man supposedly defending the words: I wish, indeed, that such names were buried, provided all would concur in the belief that the Father, Son, and Spirit, are one God… — read S5 of today against §5 of the chapter and you have Calvin's real position: the words are serviceable, not sacred.

3. Sola Scriptura vs. what its critics call nuda Scriptura — the distinction S4 and S9 draw. This is the durable philosophical content of the section, and it outlives the sixteenth century entirely. - Bare Scripture (the objectors): Scripture is the sole vocabulary. Only biblical words may be used. Scripture as a fence. - Scripture alone (Calvin): Scripture is the sole norm. Any word may be used, and must be measured by Scripture. Scripture as a ruler.

⚠️ S4's reductio is the standard argument against the first, and it has never been improved on: a rule forbidding non-scriptural words in the explanation of Scripture forbids explanation as such — and therefore forbids preaching, catechesis, commentary, and translation into any language on earth. Protestant orthodoxy carried this argument forward: it is the ancestor of the Westminster Confession's principle that Scripture's teaching includes what may be deduced from it "by good and necessary consequence" (WCF 1.6), and Turretin restates §3's distinguo almost verbatim a century later. ⚠️ And the objection keeps coming back: the American Restorationists' "speak where the Bible speaks, be silent where the Bible is silent" (Campbell, 1809), various anti-creedal movements, and every generation's "no creed but the Bible." Calvin's answer of 1559 is still the answer.

4. Offensive to pious ears is a technical term, and Calvin is using it as one. Piarum aurium offensiva was a recognised grade of theological censure in the medieval and post-Tridentine faculties — a scale running roughly heretical → erroneous → rash → scandalous → offensive to pious ears. ⚠️ In S5 Calvin picks up the censors' own least-severe category and says he endorses it. That is a small, sharp act of ecumenical courtesy in the middle of a polemic, and it is more evidence that the concession is real.

5. The method: concede the fact, deny the inference. Watch how many times Calvin does this in two days. - §2 S5: how far they have any ground — not whether. Concedes there may be some. - §3 S4: he never disputes that persona is absent from Scripture in so many syllables. Concedes the fact. - §3 S12 → §4 opening: novelty of terms; Such novelty (if novelty it should be called). Concedes the newness.

⚠️ In each case the attack falls on what is supposed to follow. Name this habit and you can predict him: Calvin almost never denies his opponent's data. That is a rhetorical strength and, for you, a reading shortcut.

Over-reading guard-rail. ⚠️ Four limits. (a) §3 does not prove that the terms were necessary — it proves only that the foreignness objection fails. Necessity is §4. (b) §3 does not license free theological coinage. S10 attaches four restraints, and they are the negation of S5's four faults. (c) §3 does not claim the terms are ideal. §2 S17 already conceded The most literal translation would be subsistence, and §5 will wish the names buried. (d) §3 is not an argument for creeds in general, or for the authority of tradition. The argument is strictly about explanatory vocabulary subordinated to Scripture (S10). Anyone who quotes S4 as a general defence of church tradition has taken a locksmith's argument and used it to justify burglary.

1. Psalm 19:14 — the doublet in S9, unquoted. all the thoughts of our minds, and the words of our mouths, should be tested ← Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. ⚠️ How Calvin uses it: he takes the Psalm's inward/outward pair (heart + mouth) and re-labels the inward half to fit his thinking/speaking argument, and he inherits the Psalm's verb of submission for approval. So should be tested is not laboratory language; it is liturgical. Calvin quotes without citing constantly — this is the single most valuable habit to develop as a reader of him.

2. John 3:20 — the accusation in S12, unquoted. taking offence at **the light of truth** ← every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. ⚠️ In Johannine grammar, being offended by light is the mark of a man with something to hide. Calvin's closing sentence therefore charges more than fussiness; it charges bad faith — the same charge as uncandid in S1. The section is framed by one accusation stated twice, once in Latin etymology and once in Johannine idiom.

3. Ephesians 4:29 / 1 Corinthians 14:26 — the criterion in S5. tends more to strife than **edification** ← that which is good to the use of edifying (πρὸς οἰκοδομήν), that it may minister grace unto the hearers; Let all things be done unto edifying. ⚠️ Note the direction of the borrowing: the objectors are quoting Paul at Calvin, and Calvin says they are right. The Pauline criterion of edification is one Calvin accepts as binding on theological language. That is why S5 can be a real concession rather than a debating feint.

4. 1 Timothy 6:4 / 2 Timothy 2:14 — the objectors' whole speech (S2–S3). doting about questions and strifes of words (λογομαχίας), whereof cometh envy, strife, railings; charging them before the Lord that they strive not about words (μὴ λογομαχεῖν) to no profit, but to the subverting of the hearers. ⚠️ S2–S3 are essentially a paraphrase of these two texts. That is exactly why Calvin cannot simply dismiss the objection — it has apostolic backing. His answer is not Paul is wrong but Paul forbids λογομαχία, quarrelling about words, not the use of clarifying words — and the four locks of S10 are his attempt to draw that line.

5. 2 Corinthians 11:3 — behind the simplicity of God's Word (S5). lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity (τῆς ἁπλότητος) that is in Christ. ⚠️ Two things. First, the verb matches: Paul's minds corrupted from simplicity, Calvin's leads them away from the simplicity. Second, the trap: ἁπλότης and simplex share the "one-fold" root, but Paul's word means single-hearted plainness, not the metaphysical non-composition of yesterday's simple essence. Same root, different field. Flag it.

6. Isaiah 8:20 — the norm of S9, in the background. To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them. ⚠️ The classic Reformation proof-text for Scripture as norm rather than boundary — and note that its closing clause supplies the light metaphor Calvin will detonate in S12. Whether or not Calvin had it consciously in mind here, it is the verse that stands behind the whole standard … tested … light of truth chain of S9–S12.

① Grammar — which underlined part is wrong?

ⓐ “It were better,” they say, “to confine not only our meanings but our words within the bounds of Scripture, and not scattering about foreign terms to become the future seed-beds of brawls and dissensions.” ⓑ Though heretics may snarl and the excessively fastidious carp at the word Person as inadmissible, it is most uncandid to attack the terms. ⓒ They certainly impose an unjust law—a law which would condemn every interpretation of Scripture that is not composed of other words of Scripture. ⓓ Of this we are not without many examples.

Answer: ⓐ.

출제 의도. Formula 2. After a first to-infinitive, a coordinated second infinitive goes bare, with not standing immediately before the bare verb: Beveridge writes to confine …, and **not scatter** about foreign terms. A participle (scattering) cannot coordinate with an infinitive across and here — the two members would no longer share the single governing to. ⚠️ Note the acceptable near-misses that are not the answer: and not to scatter would be fine (just not what is printed), and and to not scatter would be modern rather than wrong-in-kind. Only ⓐ breaks the construction. Now check why the others stand, because each is a separate formula: ⓑ is Formula 1 — modal ellipsis in a coordinated concessive, so the second verb is a bare infinitive still governed by may; carp is correct and carps would be the error (and note that the excessively fastidious is a plural substantival adjective, so carps fails on either analysis). ⓒ is the conditional would proper to a hypothetical law that nobody has adopted; a present condemns would falsely report the rule as in force. ⓓ is litotes plus a fronted prepositional phrase — and ⚠️ the bait is inversion: a fronted PP does not invert (Of this we are…), unlike the fronted negative you had yesterday (Nor, indeed, **was** the use…). Two frontings, two different rules, one day apart.

② Comprehension — which statement is TRUE according to the passage?

ⓐ Calvin dismisses the objectors' concern about verbal disputes as wholly misguided. ⓑ Calvin holds that every interpretation of Scripture must be composed of Scripture's own words. ⓒ Calvin allows obscure parts of Scripture to be explained in clearer terms, provided those terms are kept subordinate to Scripture truth and used sparingly, modestly, and only when there is occasion. ⓓ Calvin proves in this section that the Church was compelled by the strongest necessity to use the words Trinity and Person.

Answer: ⓒ. (S10 — what forbids us to explain them in clearer terms—terms, however, kept in reverent and faithful subordination to Scripture truth, used sparingly and modestly, and not without occasion?)

출제 의도. Four options, four distinct failure modes, and you should be able to name each. - ⓐ is a direction-flip, and it is the one that separates careful readers from the rest. S5: **I embrace their soberness with all my heart.** Calvin agrees with the objectors' concern in its second sense. ⚠️ The option is seductive because S1's vocabulary (snarl, carp, uncandid) primes total rejection, and because a distinguo is easy to mistake for a refutation. Whenever an author splits a term, ask which half he kept. - ⓑ is the exact rule Calvin calls unjust. S4: they certainly impose an unjust law—a law which would condemn every interpretation of Scripture that is not composed of other words of Scripture. The option has taken the content of the reductio and attributed it to the author. ⚠️ A standard trick: quote the position being demolished. - ⓒ is true — and note it is true only with all four qualifiers. A version reading "Calvin allows obscure parts of Scripture to be explained in whatever terms are clearest" would be false, because it strips the locks. The qualifiers are the claim. - ⓓ is a range-overreach. S12 says **When it has been proved** that the Church was impelled… — a conditional pointing forward. The proof is §4 (Arius, Sabellius). ⚠️ Identical in kind to yesterday's trap on §2 S13 (we **will** immediately prove). Calvin closes sections by naming debts; do not book them as paid.

③ Composition — apply Formulas 1, 2 and 3

Render into Beveridge-style English, using all three of today's formulas:

"비록 어떤 이들이 그 용어를 트집 잡고 심지어 그것을 헐뜯을지라도, 그들이 우리를 우리의 자리에서 밀어낼 수 없으므로, 그 말을 공격하는 것은 심히 불공정한 일이다. 그들은 '차라리 성경의 말 안에 머물고 새 용어를 뿌리지 않는 편이 나을 것'이라고 말한다. 만일 '새롭다'는 말로 그들이 성경에 글자 그대로 나오지 않는 것을 뜻한다면, 그들은 부당한 법을 부과하는 것이다. 그러나 만일 그 말로 헛되이 고안되어 다툼만 키우는 것을 뜻한다면, 나는 그들의 절제를 온 마음으로 받아들인다."

Model answer:

Though some may carp at the term and even revile it, since they cannot displace us from our position, it is most uncandid to attack the word. “It were better,” they say, “to abide within the words of Scripture, and not sow new terms abroad.” If they call it new, because it cannot be pointed out in Scripture in so many syllables, they impose an unjust law. But if by new they mean that which, after being idly devised, is superstitiously defended,—which tends more to strife than edification,—I embrace their soberness with all my heart.

출제 의도 및 채점 기준. Six things are being checked. 1. Formula 1 — periodic front-load with modal ellipsis. Though some **may carp** … and even ⌀ **revile** it, since they cannot displace us …, **it is** most uncandid **to attack** …. ⚠️ The second verb must be bare (revile), sharing may. reviles forfeits the point. The main clause must be an it-extraposition, and it must come last. 2. Formula 2 — irrealis + coordinated bare infinitive. **It were** better **to abide** …, **and not sow** …. ⚠️ were, not was, not would be (the question asks for the period register). ⚠️ and not sow, not and not sowing. 3. Formula 3 — the distinguo, both arms, with the fronted by. Arm one: **If they call it new, because** …. Arm two: **But if by new they mean** that which …. ⚠️ The fronted by before the subject is what marks the second arm as definitional; writing if they mean by new loses the emphasis the construction exists to create. 4. The relative chain. At least one —which … clause hung on that which. ⚠️ that which, not the thing that, and not what — that which is what carries a chain. 5. Vocabulary control. carp at (nitpick), displace (dislodge), uncandid (unfair), in so many syllables (verbatim), impose (lay upon), idly (to no purpose), superstitiously (over-scrupulously), edification (building up), soberness (restraint), embrace (take gladly). ⚠️ Uncandid must not be used in the "not open about feelings" sense; soberness must not be used of drink. 6. Argumentative accuracy — the heaviest criterion. The first arm must be rejected and the second accepted. ⚠️ Reverse them and your English may be flawless while your Calvin is exactly backwards — which is the entire point of drilling a distinguo rather than a refutation.

One-line summary. Against those who reject Person as a merely human word, Calvin answers by splitting the word foreign in two: if it means not found in Scripture syllable for syllable, the objection is an unjust law—a law which would condemn every interpretation of Scripture that is not composed of other words of Scripture (S4) and therefore abolishes explanation, preaching and translation together; but if it means idly devised, superstitiously defended, strife-breeding, harsh to pious ears, then I embrace their soberness with all my heart (S5) — because the standard for speech is the standard for thought (S6–S7), and though some medium must be observed (S8), that standard is drawn from Scripture rather than fenced inside it (S9), so obscure passages may be explained in clearer terms under four locks — subordinate, sparing, modest, occasioned (S10) — with the result that anyone still complaining once necessity has been proved (§4, not yet) is fairly suspected of taking offence at the light of truth (S12).

And the three grammar points, once more. ① The periodic front-load — Though A(may V₁ and ⌀V₂), since B, it is ADJ to V (S1) — find the finite main clause first, and remember the second concessive verb stays bare under the shared modal. ② It were better to V₁ …, and not V₂ (S2) — the irrealis were = would be, now three appearances in two days, plus the coordinated bare infinitive with not in front of it. ③ The distinguo — If they call it X because P …; **but if by X they mean** Q … (S4–S5) — the fronted by marks a definitional conditional, But pivots between senses and not verdicts, and the second arm may carry a chain of four which-clauses off a headless that which. Plus two figures to keep: litotes (not without occasion, not without many examples) and the negative rhetorical question (will not he … be deservedly suspected …?), both of which say yes by saying no.

Homework (10 minutes).

1. Structure restoration. Take S1 and rebuild it in plain modern order: main clause first, subordinate clauses after, and no extraposition. Then say out loud what may governs and how far its reach extends. (Target: It is thoroughly unfair to attack terms that do no more than explain what Scripture states and authorises, since the objectors cannot dislodge us from our position — even though heretics may snarl and the over-fussy may pick at the word "Person" as inadmissible because it is of human origin. may governs both snarl and carp.)
2. Composition. One sentence, English, using a full distinguo — both arms, with the fronted by, and one bare past subjunctive somewhere in it: If by "tradition" they mean what is added to Scripture, it would be impious to receive it; but if they mean what the Church has faithfully handed down out of Scripture, I welcome it. (Target shape: If by tradition they mean that which is superadded to the Word, it were impious to receive it; but if by tradition they mean that which the Church has faithfully delivered out of the Scriptures, I embrace it with all my heart.)
3. Preview — §4, one line. Tomorrow Calvin pays the debt S12 just booked: why the terms were necessary. §4 opens **Such novelty (if novelty it should be called) becomes most requisite, when the truth is to be maintained against calumniators who evade it by quibbling.** ⚠️ Watch three things. (i) if novelty it should be called — object fronting (novelty … it should be called) plus the putative should, both drilled yesterday, in six words. (ii) the truth **is to be** maintained — the be + to-infinitive from §2 S3, in a temporal clause. (iii) The argument turns historical: Arius conceding that Christ is God while calling him created, until ὁμοούσιος dragged him out of his lurking-places; then Sabellius conceding Father, Son and Spirit while making them mere attributes, until three subsistences pinned him. Two heretics, two words, and the whole case for necessity. The snakes are coming — These slippery snakes escape by their swift and tortuous windings, if not strenuously pursued, and when caught, firmly held.

Where we stopped: Book 1, Ch. 13, §3 끝. 다음은 Book 1, Ch. 13, §4 — "Answer continued, 2. The orthodox compelled to use the terms, Trinity, Subsistence, and Person. Examples from the case of the Arians and Sabellians."