Day 78 — Book 1, Chapter 13, §4

Yesterday Calvin booked a debt and told you so: **When it has been proved** that the Church was impelled, by the strongest necessity, to use the words Trinity and Person… (§3 S12). Today he pays it. And notice how he pays it — not with a syllogism, not with a proof-text, but with two case histories. Arius. Sabellius. Two men, two evasions, two coined words. That is the whole section.

Now the thing that makes this section great, and the thing students get backwards every single time. ⚠️⚠️⚠️ Both heretics confess. Look:

• **Arius confessed that Christ was God, and the Son of God** (S5).
• **he acknowledged his belief that the Father was God, the Son God, the Spirit God** (S13) — that is Sabellius.

Neither man denies anything you would find in a Bible verse. That is the point. Calvin's argument is not heretics contradict Scripture; it is heretics repeat Scripture and mean something else by it. Which yields the conclusion the whole chapter needs: if a heresy can say every biblical sentence, then the only defence left is a word the heretic cannot say. ὁμοούσιος. Three subsistences. Trinity. The new term is not a decoration on the doctrine — it is a test, and its entire value is that the evasive man chokes on it.

Watch the imagery, because Calvin builds it deliberately and it runs the length of the section. Yesterday his opponents were dogs (snarl, carp). Today they are snakes — These slippery snakes escape by their swift and tortuous windings (S3) — and the hunt goes on for sixteen sentences: hiding-place (S4) → lurking-places (S7) → disclosed, literally un-shut (S8) → the simple open truth (S16). Concealment against exposure. That is the same argument as yesterday's light-chain (uncandid → the light of truth → transparent), rerun in a different metaphor. Two sections, one accusation: bad faith.

Grammatically today is ellipsis-and-inversion day. S3 deletes a subject, a verb, and a negative, and if you do not restore all three the sentence means the opposite of what it says. S9 deletes if, fronts the auxiliary, and then shoves a viz.-clause between the subject and its participle. S10 uses dare as a modal. These are not curiosities; two of them are on every exam that has ever been set on Elizabethan-to-Victorian prose.

And one warning about the printed page: S15 contains a genuine textual crux — two of them, in one line. Details in the text note. Do not "fix" them in the quotation; do read them correctly.

Today's 3 Big Points

1. Object-fronting + the putative should: if novelty it should be called (S1). Six words, two constructions. First, **novelty** is the object of called, dragged in front of its own subject it — if [novelty]ᴼᴮᴶ [it]ˢᵁᴮᴶ should be called. Restore the flat order and you get if it should be called novelty. ⚠️ Read novelty as the subject and you produce "if novelty should be called it", which is gibberish. Second, **should** here is not obligation and not the future-in-the-past. It is the putative should — the one that marks a clause as entertained rather than asserted (cf. it is strange that he should say so). Together they make the parenthesis a concession with a doubt built into it: Calvin uses the word novelty and questions the label in the same breath. Formula 1.
2. Reduced adverbial clauses with a carried-over negative: if not strenuously pursued, and when caught, firmly held (S3). ⚠️⚠️ This is today's hardest reading and the most dangerous. In if/when/though + past participle, English deletes subject + be. Fine — you know that. But here the not is stated once and has to be carried into the second arm as well, and the when-clause is nested inside the second condition rather than coordinate with it. Full restoration: …if [they are] not strenuously pursued, and if, when [they are] caught, [they are] not firmly held. Read the second arm as a positive and Calvin is saying snakes escape when you hold them tight. Exact opposite of the sentence. Formula 2.
3. The inverted counterfactual, with an interrupter jammed inside it: Had their first confession—viz. that Christ was God, been sincere…, they would not have denied… (S9). Delete if, front the auxiliary: **Had** S … **been** …, S **would not have** V-ed. ⚠️ Then the trap: —viz. that Christ was God, sits between the subject and its participle, and the interrupter has an opening dash but no closing dash — the comma after God does the closing. Bracket it out and the skeleton appears. ⚠️⚠️ And learn the logic, because it is the engine of the whole section: from they refused the word Calvin infers the confession was insincere. Modus tollens on a counterfactual. Formula 3.

Trap words I will test. confessed (S5) ⚠️⚠️⚠️ = professed, openly declared (con-fateri; Gk ὁμολογέω, to say the same thing) — not "admitted a fault". If you read the modern sense, S5 becomes Arius owned up that Christ was God, and the entire argument evaporates. Today's #1 lexical trap. sound (S2) ⚠️⚠️ = healthy — the Pastorals' ὑγιαίνουσα διδασκαλία (1 Tim. 1:10), the root of hygiene. A medical word, not an acoustic one. dare (S10) ⚠️⚠️⚠️ = a modal auxiliary — no -s, no to, no do-support. tortuous (S3) ⚠️⚠️ = full of twists (torquere) — not torturous. detestation (S8) ⚠️⚠️ = abhorrence sworn out loud (de-testari, to curse by calling the gods to witness — testis, a witness) — nothing to do with taste. disclosed (S8) ⚠️ = un-shut (dis-claudere) — the deliberate counter-move to hiding-place. quibbling (S1) ⚠️ = hair-splitting evasion. calumniators (S1) ⚠️⚠️ = false accusers (calumnia, malicious prosecution in Roman law) — not merely "critics"; the charge is bad faith. subterfuges (S4) ⚠️⚠️ = escapes by going under (subter + fugere). give out (S6) ⚠️ = to put about, proclaim — not "run out of". wiles (S7) ⚠️ = stratagems (versutus, turned) — the same picture as tortuous. nonentities (S12) ⚠️ = non-beings, nothings (non + ens). sung another note (S14) ⚠️ = changed his tune — and sung for sang is period-normal, not a slip. quiet (S10) ⚠️ = a noun, tranquillity. viz. (S9, S14) ⚠️ = namely (videlicet; the z is a scribal contraction mark, not a letter). simple (S16) ⚠️⚠️ = unguarded, straightforward — the third distinct sense in three days. piety (S15) = pietas, due reverence, a Roman virtue word, not modern sanctimony.

4. 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. Of this, we of the present day have too much experience in being constantly called upon to attack the enemies of pure and sound doctrine. These slippery snakes escape by their swift and tortuous windings, if not strenuously pursued, and when caught, firmly held. Thus the early Christians, when harassed with the disputes which heresies produced, were forced to declare their sentiments in terms most scrupulously exact in order that no indirect subterfuges might remain to ungodly men, to whom ambiguity of expression was a kind of hiding-place. Arius confessed that Christ was God, and the Son of God; because the passages of Scripture to this effect were too clear to be resisted, and then, as if he had done well, pretended to concur with others. But, meanwhile, he ceased not to give out that Christ was created, and had a beginning like other creatures. To drag this man of wiles out of his lurking-places, the ancient Church took a further step, and declared that Christ is the eternal Son of the Father, and consubstantial with the Father. The impiety was fully disclosed when the Arians began to declare their hatred and utter detestation of the term ο μοου σιος. Had their first confession—viz. that Christ was God, been sincere and from the heart, they would not have denied that he was consubstantial with the Father. Who dare charge those ancient writers as men of strife and contention, for having debated so warmly, and disturbed the quiet of the Church for a single word? That little word distinguished between Christians of pure faith and the blasphemous Arians. Next Sabellius arose, who counted the names of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, as almost nonentities; maintaining that they were not used to mark out some distinction, but that they were different attributes of God, like many others of a similar kind. When the matter was debated, he acknowledged his belief that the Father was God, the Son God, the Spirit God; but then he had the evasion ready, that he had said nothing more than if he had called God powerful, and just, and wise. Accordingly, he sung another note—viz. that the Father was the Son, and the Holy Spirit the Father, without order or distinction. The worthy doctors who then had the interests of piety at heart, in order to defeat it is man’s dishonesty, proclaimed that three subsistence were to be truly acknowledged in the one God. That they might protect themselves against tortuous craftiness by the simple open truth, they affirmed that a Trinity of Persons subsisted in the one God, or (which is the same thing) in the unity of God.

Sentence count: 16 (S1–S16). One paragraph. Two case histories inside it: Arius = S5–S11, Sabellius = S12–S16.

Text note (not a correction to the quotation). Six features of the printed page, all left exactly as they stand. (i) ⚠️⚠️⚠️ S15 prints in order to defeat it is man’s dishonesty. As it stands this is not English. The sense requires **this** man’s dishonesty — the referent being Sabellius, just named. it is is a misreading of this. The internal evidence is strong: S7 has the exactly parallel To drag **this man** of wiles out of his lurking-places for Arius. Calvin gives each heretic the same contemptuous demonstrative at the same point in each case history. Read this man’s; quote it is man’s. (ii) ⚠️⚠️ S15 prints three subsistence were to be truly acknowledged where the plural is required by both three and were. The same printing has the plural three sections later — §6: each of the three subsistences while related to the others is distinguished… Read subsistences; quote subsistence. ⚠️ Two slips in one sentence, and this sentence sits directly on a page break in this printing — exactly where compositors’ errors cluster. You saw the identical phenomenon yesterday at §3 S9. (iii) The Greek is printed with its breathing and accent detached: ο μοου σιος = ὁμοούσιος. The rough breathing and the acute have been split off in scanning; the spaces are artifacts, not word divisions. The same thing happens at §5 (ο μοου σιος again) and at §7 (λο γος for λόγος). Quote as printed; read ὁμοούσιος. (iv) S9’s interrupter opens with a dash and closes with a comma — Had their first confession—viz. that Christ was God, been sincere and from the heart. There is no second dash. Period pointing; leave it. Bracketing it correctly is half the sentence. (v) sung for sang (S14) is period-normal strong-verb morphology, not an error. Likewise ceased not to give out (S6) — the negative after the lexical verb, without do-support. (vi) hiding-place and lurking-places are hyphenated; nonentities is not. All period forms, correct as printed.

[THESIS]      S1     novelty is MOST REQUISITE when truth is held against QUIBBLERS
[PRESENT]     S2     "we of the present day have TOO MUCH EXPERIENCE" ← 1559, not 325
[IMAGE]       S3     heresy = SLIPPERY SNAKES → must be (a) pursued (b) HELD FAST
[PRINCIPLE]   S4     ∴ early Christians FORCED to exact terms — to close the HIDING-PLACES
              ─────────── CASE 1 · ARIUS — too much distinction ───────────
[CONCESSION]  S5     Arius CONFESSED: Christ is God, Son of God (Scripture too clear to resist)
[EVASION]     S6     BUT ceased not to give out: created · had a beginning like other creatures
[REMEDY]      S7     Church's FURTHER STEP: the ETERNAL Son + CONSUBSTANTIAL
[DIAGNOSIS]   S8     the ο μοου σιος test → their HATRED disclosed the impiety
[INFERENCE]   S9     Had the confession been sincere → they would NOT have denied the word
[DEFENCE]     S10-11 not "strife over a single word": that word DIVIDED faith from blasphemy
              ─────────── CASE 2 · SABELLIUS — too much unity ───────────
[EVASION]     S12    the names = almost NONENTITIES → mere attributes, not distinctions
[CONCESSION]  S13    Father God, Son God, Spirit God — "no more than powerful, just, wise"
[COLLAPSE]    S14    ∴ Father IS the Son, Spirit IS the Father — no order, no distinction
[REMEDY]      S15    THREE SUBSISTENCE(S) truly acknowledged in the one God
[FORMULA]     S16    → a TRINITY OF PERSONS subsisting in the one God = in the unity of God

The engine, in one line: each heretic passes the verbal test and fails the real one — so the Church must coin a word the heretic cannot say. The new term has no independent content (that was yesterday's §3 S1: the terms do nothing more than explain what the Scriptures declare and sanction); its function is diagnostic. It is a shibboleth. And notice the symmetry Calvin builds: opposite errors get opposite words. Arius keeps the distinction and loses the unity → answer: **consubstantial**, a unity word. Sabellius keeps the unity and loses the distinction → answer: **three subsistences**, a distinction word. S16 then bolts the two halves together in one clause: a **Trinity of Persons** subsisted in **the one God**, or (which is the same thing) **in the unity of God**. That final sentence is the chapter title in miniature.

Examiner's Eye — five traps, and the first one catches nearly everybody.

1. ⚠️⚠️⚠️ Both heretics confess. Arius **confessed** that Christ was God, and the Son of God (S5). he **acknowledged his belief** that the Father was God, the Son God, the Spirit God (S13). An option reading "Arius denied the deity of Christ" is false as this passage states the case — and it is exactly what your church-history memory will supply. ⚠️ Calvin's whole argument depends on the heretic being able to say the orthodox sentence. Read what is on the page.
2. ⚠️⚠️ Opposite errors, opposite remedies. consubstantial (S7) answers Arius; three subsistence[s] (S15) answers Sabellius. Any option that swaps them, or that treats both as the same move, has lost the structure of the section. This is the commonest structural trap here.
3. ⚠️⚠️ S1's parenthesis is a doubt, not an admission. (if novelty it should be called) = supposing it ought to be called novelty at all. An option reading "Calvin concedes that the terms are novelties" over-reads a putative should into an assertion. ⚠️ Yesterday he conceded a great deal; today he is withdrawing the word itself.
4. ⚠️⚠️ S10 is a rhetorical question and the expected answer is nobody. Who dare charge those ancient writers as men of strife and contention…? An option that converts it into a report — "Calvin notes that the ancient writers were blamed for contentiousness", or worse, "Calvin agrees they were" — inverts the voice. And S11 supplies the reason the answer is nobody: That little word distinguished between Christians of pure faith and the blasphemous Arians.
5. ⚠️ Who acts? Not Calvin, not "the Church" as an abstraction: **the ancient Church** took a further step (S7) and **The worthy doctors** who then had the interests of piety at heart (S15). The necessity Calvin is proving is historical — something that happened to people under attack — not a speculative principle. ⚠️ And note S2: **we of the present day** have too much experience. The claim is that it is happening again, in Geneva, now.

Formula 1 — Object-fronting + the putative should

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│   ( IF  ‹NOUN›ᴼᴮᴶ   it ˢᵁᴮᴶ   SHOULD BE CALLED )                         │
│          └ fronted object      └ PUTATIVE should = "is to be / ought      │
│                                   to be", NOT obligation                  │
│                                                                          │
│   S1   Such novelty ( IF NOVELTY IT SHOULD BE CALLED ) becomes most       │
│        requisite …                                                       │
│        = "if it ought to be called novelty at all"                       │
│                                                                          │
│   RESTORE IN ONE MOVE:  put the fronted noun back AFTER the verb.        │
│        if novelty it should be called  →  if it should be called novelty │
│                                                                          │
│   FAMILY:  if such it be · if so it be · if such it may be called ·      │
│            call it what you will · if a heresy it should be called      │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

⚠️ Trap 1 — which noun is the subject? it. The bare it late in a finite clause is almost always the subject, because English will not leave a finite clause subjectless. Take novelty for the subject and you produce "if novelty should be called it" — nonsense. ⚠️ Trap 2 — should is not obligation and not future-in-the-past. It is the putative should, which marks a clause as entertained rather than asserted. Family: It is strange that he should say so; Lest any man should boast; If any should object. ⚠️ Trap 3 — this is a concession that withdraws itself. Calvin repeats the objectors' word from §3 S12 (novelty of terms) and questions the label in the same breath. Do not report the parenthesis as an admission.

Transformation drill. 1. Some call this an innovation; I doubt the name. It is forced on us by our adversaries. → Such innovation (if innovation it should be called) is forced upon us by our adversaries. 2. If it deserves to be called a heresy at all, it is at least an old one. → If a heresy it should be called, it is at least an ancient one.

Formula 2 — Reduced adverbial clauses with a carried-over negative

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│   S  V … ,   IF  ⌀S + be⌀  NOT  V-ed ,                                   │
│              AND ⌀IF⌀ , ( WHEN ⌀S + be⌀ V-ed ) , ⌀S + be + NOT⌀  V-ed   │
│                                                                          │
│   S3   These slippery snakes ESCAPE by their swift and tortuous          │
│        windings,                                                         │
│            if  ⌀they are⌀  NOT  strenuously pursued,                     │
│        and ⌀if⌀ , ( when ⌀they are⌀ caught ) , ⌀they are NOT⌀            │
│                                            firmly held.                  │
│                                                                          │
│   RESTORE IN THREE MOVES:                                                │
│     1. Put back  SUBJECT + BE  in every reduced clause. Ask WHOSE.       │
│     2. Carry the NOT forward into the second arm.                        │
│     3. Check the NESTING: `when caught` sits INSIDE the second `if`.     │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

⚠️ Trap 1 — the negative is stated once and governs twice. Read and when caught, firmly held as a positive and Calvin is saying snakes escape when you grip them tight. The exact opposite of the sentence. ⚠️ Trap 2 — whose subject are you restoring? The snakes', not the hunter's — even though pursued and held are things a hunter does. Deletion always recovers the subject from the main clause. ⚠️ Trap 3 — two levels, not one. when caught is subordinate to the second if, not coordinate with the first. Lay it out vertically before you translate.

Transformation drill. 1. Error slips away unless it is closely pressed, and unless, once it is exposed, it is plainly named. → Error slips away, if not closely pressed, and when exposed, plainly named. 2. A quibble survives unless it is precisely defined, and unless, when it is defined, it is firmly held to that definition. → A quibble survives, if not precisely defined, and when defined, firmly held to that definition.

Formula 3 — The inverted counterfactual (with an interrupter inside it)

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│   HAD  S  ( —viz. …, )  BEEN / V-ed  … ,                                 │
│        S  WOULD (NOT) HAVE  V-ed …                                       │
│   └── `if` DELETED, auxiliary FRONTED. Past-unreal subjunctive.          │
│                                                                          │
│   S9   HAD their first confession —viz. that Christ was God,             │
│                                    BEEN sincere and from the heart,      │
│        they WOULD NOT HAVE DENIED that he was consubstantial …           │
│                                                                          │
│   ONLY THREE AUXILIARIES INVERT FOR `if`:                                │
│        If S HAD been …    → HAD S been …                                 │
│        If it WERE so …    → WERE it so …                                 │
│        If any SHOULD …    → SHOULD any object …                          │
│        (✗ *Did he come* ≠ If he came.)                                   │
│                                                                          │
│   THE LOGIC IT CARRIES (modus tollens on a counterfactual):              │
│        P1  IF sincere, THEN they would not have refused the word.        │
│        P2  They DID refuse it.            (S8)                           │
│        ∴   NOT sincere.                                                  │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

⚠️ Trap 1 — the inversion is not a question. No ?, and the second clause carries would. The apodosis is what tells you the mood; check it first. ⚠️ Trap 2 — bracket the interrupter before parsing. —viz. that Christ was God, sits between the subject and its participle, and it opens with a dash but closes with a comma — there is no second dash. Take the comma for the end of the subject and you will hunt for a main verb that is not there. ⚠️ Trap 3 — the inference is only as good as its premise. It works because the term is stipulated to add nothing to what they already confessed (§3 S1: the terms do nothing more than explain). Against a term that adds content, the argument would not run. Know the limit of the tool you are being handed.

Transformation drill. 1. If his profession had been honest, he would not have shrunk from the word. → Had his profession been honest, he would not have shrunk from the word. 2. Now with the interrupter in Beveridge's position: → Had their confession—viz. that the Spirit is God, been made in earnest, they would not have quarrelled with the term.

What §4 is, in the architecture. The chapter synopsis calls it Answer 2: The orthodox compelled to use the terms, Trinity, Subsistence, and Person. Examples from the case of the Arians and Sabellians. Four answers in all: §3 = the term is not foreign in any damning sense; §4 = the orthodox were compelled; §5 = the ancient Church varied in words but agreed in substance, and, the meaning being kept, terms are not worth a fight. ⚠️ Today proves necessity, not adequacy. Every over-reading of §4 comes from forgetting that §5 is coming.

1. Arius, and why Calvin's account is historically right. Arius (c. 256–336), a presbyter of Alexandria; the quarrel with his bishop Alexander breaks out around 318–320. ⚠️ The crucial point for today: Arius used the biblical vocabulary and meant something else by it. In his letter to Eusebius of Nicomedia and in the Thalia he calls the Son God, only-begotten, a perfect creature of God — but not as one of the creatures. His slogan is ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, there was when he was not — which is exactly Calvin's had a beginning (S6). So S5–S6 is not caricature. Nicaea (325) answered not with a better proof-text but with ὁμοούσιος plus a set of anathemas that shut the verbal exits one by one (from another hypostasis or ousia; there was when he was not; created; changeable).

⚠️⚠️ And Calvin's argument has an ancient source, which is worth knowing. Athanasius, De Decretis 19–20, tells exactly this story: the council first tried purely scriptural formulas — of God, true power, image of the Father, unalterable — and at every one of them the Eusebians nodded and winked at one another, because each phrase could be twisted. Only then did the fathers reach for the non-scriptural word. §4 is Athanasius' argument, in French-Latin dress, applied to 1559. If you want one paragraph of patristics behind today's section, that is it.

2. Sabellius, and why he is the mirror image. Sabellius (fl. c. 215–220 at Rome), condemned under Callistus around 220. The position — modalist monarchianism — holds that Father, Son and Spirit are modes or faces (πρόσωπα) of one single subject, successive or aspectual rather than really distinct. Tertullian's Adversus Praxean gives the Latin West's version and coins the jibe that such a view makes the Father suffer (patripassianism). ⚠️ Calvin's summary — the names as different attributes of God, like many others of a similar kind, on a level with powerful, just, wise (S13) — is precisely the reduction of persons to predicates, and it is why the answer must be a word for real standing in being: subsistence / ὑπόστασις.

⚠️⚠️ Now the symmetry, which is the thing to carry away:

                  KEEPS                LOSES              REMEDY
ARIUS       the distinction      the unity of essence   CONSUBSTANTIAL   (ὁμοούσιος)
SABELLIUS   the unity            the distinction        THREE SUBSISTENCES (ὑποστάσεις)
                                                        └ and S16 welds both:
                                                          "a Trinity of Persons … in the one God"

3. One honest caveat about the chronology — Calvin is telescoping. ⚠️⚠️ The settled formula μία οὐσία, τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις (one essence, three subsistences) is Cappadocian — Basil and the two Gregories, 360s–380s, ratified at Constantinople in 381. That is roughly 150 years after Sabellius, and at Nicaea itself ousia and hypostasis were still being used as near-synonyms (the anathema condemns those who say the Son is from another hypostasis or ousia). So The worthy doctors who then had the interests of piety at heart (S15) is not a datable body of men responding to Sabellius in the 220s. Calvin is giving the logic of the case, not a chronicle. Say so if asked; it costs him nothing, because his claim is about why such terms arise, not about the minutes of a particular synod.

4. We of the present day — the sentence with a Geneva address. S2 is not throat-clearing. Behind it: Michael Servetus, whose De Trinitatis Erroribus (1531) argued that the whole vocabulary was a philosophical importation, burned at Geneva in 1553; and the Italian radicals who passed through Geneva in the 1550s — Matteo Gribaldi, Giorgio Blandrata, and Valentino Gentile. ⚠️ Gentile ran the Arian play exactly: he confessed the Son to be God while reserving true self-existent deity (autotheos) to the Father alone. In 1558 Calvin drafted a confession expressly to close Gentile's escape routes and required him to subscribe it. So when Calvin writes we of the present day have too much experience, he is describing something he did the year before. §4 is autobiography wearing a fourth-century coat.

5. The idea's afterlife, and its proper name. The claim that doctrinal language is reactive — that creeds are forced into existence by evasion and are therefore mostly negative, fencing off errors rather than exhausting a mystery — is one of the durable ideas in Christian thought. Newman's The Arians of the Fourth Century (1833) makes essentially this argument at length, from the other side of the Reformation. ⚠️ And its practical form is the shibboleth: a term whose value lies not in what it adds but in who will not say it. That is a tool with obvious dangers — it works only where the term genuinely adds nothing to what is already professed, which is exactly the condition §3 laboured to establish and which S9's inference silently depends on.

Over-reading guard-rail. ⚠️ Five limits, and they matter more here than usual because §4 is the section people quote. (a) §4 proves necessity, not adequacy. Tomorrow Calvin writes **I wish, indeed, that such names were buried**, provided all would concur in the belief…. Hold today's conclusion loosely enough to survive that. (b) took a further step (S7) is a step in language, not in doctrine. For Calvin the doctrine stands in Scripture from the first; the word is a guard placed around it. Quoting S7 as a doctrine-of-development text is exactly the misuse that §3's four locks were built to prevent. (c) §4 does not license coining terms at will. It licenses coining under attack, to close a specific evasion — which is why both halves of the section are case histories rather than principles. (d) The chronology is telescoped (see 3 above). Do not defend §4 as history of the councils; defend it as an account of why councils talk the way they do. (e) S9's inference — they refused the word, therefore the confession was insincere — is valid only where the word adds nothing. Generalised into "anyone who declines our formula is dishonest," it becomes a machine for manufacturing heretics. ⚠️ Calvin himself is the proof that he knew this: in 1537 Pierre Caroli demanded he subscribe the Athanasian Creed on the spot, and Calvin refused — while holding the doctrine entire.

1. Judges 12:5–6 — the shibboleth, behind S8 and S11, unquoted. Then said they unto him, Say now Shibboleth: and he said Sibboleth: for he could not frame to pronounce it right. Hebrew שִׁבֹּלֶת / סִבֹּלֶת. ⚠️ How Calvin uses it: he never cites it, but S8 and S11 are its logic exactly — That little word distinguished between Christians of pure faith and the blasphemous Arians is a shibboleth described without being named. One word, an enemy who cannot say it, a border. The term is diagnostic, not definitional — it adds no content and identifies everything.

2. Genesis 3:1 (and 2 Cor. 11:3) — the serpent, behind S3. Now the serpent was more subtil (LXX φρονιμώτατος) than any beast of the field. ⚠️ Calvin's slippery snakes … swift and tortuous windings is the serpent's subtilty converted into a hunting scene, and 2 Cor. 11:3 — the serpent's πανουργία (craftiness) corrupting minds from the simplicity that is in Christ — was already in the room yesterday, behind §3 S5's the simplicity of God's Word. ⚠️ Two days, one serpent, and today Calvin closes the loop by opposing tortuous craftiness to the simple open truth (S16). The Pauline pair craftiness / simplicity is the frame of the whole section.

3. Jude 4 and 2 Peter 2:1 — stealth, behind S4 and S7. For there are certain men crept in unawares (παρεισέδυσαν, slipped in alongside); *who privily shall bring in damnable heresies* (παρεισάξουσιν). ⚠️ Both Greek verbs carry the para-eis- prefix of sideways entry. Calvin's indirect subterfuges, hiding-place and lurking-places are not his own colour: the vocabulary of stealth is apostolic**, and he is writing inside it.

4. John 1:1–3 — behind S6 and S7, and it is the grammar that matters. In the beginning was (ἦν) the Word … All things were made (ἐγένετο) by him. ⚠️ The contrast of ἦν (imperfect, continuous being) against ἐγένετο (aorist, coming-to-be) is the exact hinge of the Nicene case — and Arius' slogan attacks that ἦν directly: ἦν ποτε ὅτε οὐκ ἦν, there was when he was not. So S6's Christ was created, and had a beginning like other creatures is Arius quoting himself, and S7's the **eternal** Son of the Father is John 1:1's imperfect turned into an adjective. The whole fight is over one Greek tense.

5. Hebrews 1:3 — carried over from §2, and now cashed. the express image of his person (χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ). ⚠️ Day 76 spent a whole lesson on that genitive; today it pays. S7's consubstantial and S15's three subsistence[s] are the Nicene and Cappadocian cash-value of what Calvin read out of Hebrews two days ago — hypostasis is literally the word in the verse. Calvin builds his vocabulary before he needs it. Watch him do this; it is a habit, not an accident.**

6. Deuteronomy 6:4 with James 2:19 — the shape of S13's evasion, an echo rather than a quotation. Hear, O Israel: the LORD our God is one LORD; Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. ⚠️ Sabellius' confession is impeccably monotheistic, and that is the problem. Assent that costs nothing proves nothing — the same structure James uses, though Calvin does not cite it here. Flag it as an echo, not a quotation, if you use it.

7. 1 Timothy 1:10 and 2 Timothy 2:17 — the medicine behind S2's sound doctrine. …if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine (ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ); their word will eat as doth a **canker (γάγγραινα). ⚠️ sound is healthy, and its opposite in the Pastorals is gangrene. Calvin has taken over a medical picture of heresy, which is why the answer is described as something done to a body under attack rather than as an intellectual improvement. Set it beside 2 Tim. 2:14's μὴ λογομαχεῖν (strive not about words) — which was yesterday's objection — and you can see Calvin holding both Pauline commands at once: do not fight about words; do fight for a healthy body.

① Grammar — which underlined part is wrong?

ⓐ 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. ⓑ These slippery snakes escape by their swift and tortuous windings, if not strenuously pursued, and when caught, firmly held. ⓒ Had their first confession—viz. that Christ was God, been sincere and from the heart, they would not have denied that he was consubstantial with the Father. ⓓ Who dares charge those ancient writers as men of strife and contention, for having debated so warmly?

Answer: ⓓ.

출제 의도. dare in this construction is a modal auxiliary, not a lexical verb, and the two paradigms cannot be mixed. Beveridge prints Who **dare** charge…? — no -s, bare infinitive, no do-support, exactly like he dare not speak, I dare say, how dare you. ⓓ takes the modal's bare infinitive complement (charge) and bolts the lexical verb's -s onto dare. That is ungrammatical on either analysis. ⚠️ Note the near-miss that is not the answer: Who dares to charge…? is perfectly good modern English — the lexical construction, consistently used — merely not what is printed. The -s with a bare infinitive is always the error. Now check why the others stand, because each is a separate formula. ⓐ is Formula 1: novelty is the fronted object of called and it is the subject, so should be called (passive) is right — should call would need an agent and leave novelty stranded; and the should is putative, so must be called would misreport a doubt as an obligation. ⓑ is Formula 2: subject + be deletion in a conditional (if ⌀they are⌀ not strenuously pursued), which is standard and requires no repair — ⚠️ the bait here is that you may feel the missing negative in the following arm and blame this one. ⓒ is Formula 3: inversion for if with had, and the apodosis would not have denied in the past-unreal — ⚠️ the bait is that Had …? looks interrogative; the would have clause proves it is not, and Would their first confession have been… would genuinely turn it into a question.

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

ⓐ Arius denied that Christ was God, and the ancient Church answered by proving his deity from the plain passages of Scripture. ⓑ Sabellius denied that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are each God, and was answered by the term consubstantial. ⓒ Both Arius and Sabellius professed what Scripture says while emptying it by a reserved explanation, and the ancient Church therefore coined exact terms to close the evasions their professions left open. ⓓ Calvin holds that the ancient writers may fairly be blamed for disturbing the peace of the Church over a single word.

Answer: ⓒ. (S5 Arius **confessed** that Christ was God, and the Son of God + S6 he ceased not to give out that Christ was created; S13 he **acknowledged his belief** that the Father was God, the Son God, the Spirit God; but then he had the **evasion ready**; S4 **forced** to declare their sentiments in terms most scrupulously exact **in order that no indirect subterfuges might remain**.)

출제 의도. Four options, four distinct failure modes. Name each. - ⓐ is a direction-flip on the section's key fact, and it is the one that catches nearly everyone — because your church-history memory supplies it. ⚠️⚠️⚠️ S5 says Arius confessed that Christ was God, and S5 even tells you why: the passages of Scripture to this effect were **too clear to be resisted**. The plain passages could not settle it; that is the premise of the whole section. An option that has Scripture doing the work §4 exists to say Scripture could not do by itself has inverted Calvin completely. And note the lexical hinge: confessed = professed, not "admitted." - ⓑ swaps the two remedies, and it also misstates Sabellius. He did not deny that each is God — S13: he acknowledged his belief that the Father was God, the Son God, the Spirit God. He denied that the names mark distinctions. And consubstantial (S7) is the anti-Arian word; Sabellius is met with three subsistence[s] … in the one God (S15). ⚠️ Opposite errors, opposite remedies — the commonest structural trap here. - ⓒ is true, and note it is true only with the second clause. A version reading "both professed what Scripture says, and the Church coined exact terms" without to close the evasions would drop the necessity, which is the entire content of §4. - ⓓ is a valence-flip on a rhetorical question. S10 **Who dare charge** those ancient writers as men of strife and contention…? expects the answer nobody, and S11 gives the ground: That little word distinguished between Christians of pure faith and the blasphemous Arians. ⚠️ Rhetorical questions are propositions with the polarity reversed. Convert before you answer.

③ Composition — apply Formulas 1, 2 and 3

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

"그러한 엄밀함은 — 그것을 엄밀함이라 불러야 한다면 — 진리가 궤변으로 그것을 빠져나가는 자들을 상대로 지켜져야 할 때 가장 필요하다. 이 미끄러운 자들은, 끈질기게 추격당하지 않으면, 또 붙잡혔을 때 단단히 붙들리지 않으면, 빠져나간다. 만일 그들의 고백이 — 곧 그리스도께서 하나님이시라는 그 고백이 — 진심에서 나온 것이었다면, 그들은 그 한 단어를 미워하지 않았을 것이다."

Model answer:

Such exactness (if exactness it should be called) becomes most requisite, when the truth is to be maintained against triflers who evade it by quibbling. These slippery men escape, if not strenuously pursued, and when caught, firmly held. Had their confession—viz. that Christ is God, been sincere and from the heart, they would not have hated that single word.

출제 의도 및 채점 기준. Six things are being checked. 1. Formula 1 — object-fronting + putative should. **if exactness it should be called**, not if it should be called exactness (grammatical, but the fronting is the point) and not if exactness should be called it (nonsense). ⚠️ should, not must — the clause is a doubt, not a duty. 2. Formula 2 — reduced clauses with a carried-over negative. **if not strenuously pursued, and when caught, firmly held**. ⚠️ Three requirements: subject + be deleted in both reduced clauses; the not stated once; when caught nested inside the second condition. Writing and if not firmly held when caught is correct English and forfeits the point — the exercise is the compression. 3. Formula 3 — inverted counterfactual. **Had** their confession … **been** sincere …, they **would not have** hated. ⚠️ No if. Had, not Did, not Would. The apodosis must be would (not) have + past participle; a plain would not hate shifts it to present-unreal and breaks the argument. 4. The interrupter in Beveridge's position. Had their confession**—viz. that Christ is God,** been sincere… — dash in, comma out, sitting between subject and participle. ⚠️ Placing it after been sincere is easier and wrong; the exercise is precisely the hard placement. 5. Vocabulary control. requisite, is to be maintained, evade … by quibbling, strenuously pursued, firmly held, from the heart, viz. ⚠️ Confession must be used in the profession sense, not the admission-of-fault sense. 6. Argumentative accuracy — the heaviest criterion. The inference must run from the refusal of the word back to the insincerity of the confession (S9), not forward from insincerity to refusal. ⚠️ Reverse the arrow and you have written a circular argument and lost the only thing §4 was for.

One-line summary. Paying the debt he booked yesterday, Calvin proves the necessity of non-scriptural terms not by argument but by two case histories in which the heretic says every biblical sentence and means something else: exactness becomes most requisite, when the truth is to be maintained against calumniators who evade it by quibbling (S1) — and these are slippery snakes who get away unless pursued and gripped (S3), for whom ambiguity of expression was a kind of hiding-place (S4); so Arius confessed that Christ was God, and the Son of God because the texts were too clear to be resisted (S5) while meanwhile giving out that he was created, and had a beginning (S6), until the Church added **consubstantial** (S7) and his hatred and utter detestation of that one word fully disclosed the impiety (S8) — for **Had** their first confession … **been** sincere …, they **would not have denied** it (S9), which is why nobody dare charge those ancient writers as men of strife when that little word distinguished between Christians of pure faith and the blasphemous Arians (S10–S11); and then Sabellius, failing in the opposite direction, made the names almost nonentities, mere attributes … like many others of a similar kind (S12), professed the Father was God, the Son God, the Spirit God with the evasion ready that this was nothing more than if he had called God powerful, and just, and wise (S13), and so sung another note — the Father was the Son … without order or distinction (S14) — until the doctors proclaimed three subsistence[s] … **truly** acknowledged in the one God (S15) and, by the simple open truth, a Trinity of Persons subsisted in the one God, or (which is the same thing) in the unity of God (S16). Opposite errors, opposite words, one method: take away the hiding-place.

And the three grammar points, once more. ① Object-fronting + the putative should — if novelty it should be called (S1): put the fronted noun back after the verb, remember it is the subject, and read should as entertained, not obligatory. ② Reduced adverbial clauses with a carried-over negative — if not strenuously pursued, and when caught, firmly held (S3): restore subject + be in both, carry the not into the second arm, and check the nesting. ③ The inverted counterfactual with an interrupter — Had their first confession—viz. that Christ was God, been sincere…, they would not have denied… (S9): only had, were and should invert for if; bracket the interrupter (dash in, comma out) before you parse; and learn the modus tollens the sentence carries, along with the limit that makes it valid. Plus three things to keep: the modal dare (Who dare charge…? — no -s, no to, no do), the rhetorical question as a polarity-flipped proposition (S10, answer = nobody), and nothing more than if …, where a whole clause has been deleted after than.

Homework (10 minutes).

1. Structure restoration. Take S3 and write it out with every deletion filled in — both subjects, both bes, and the second negative — and lay it out on three lines so the nesting is visible. Then say aloud what the two stages of the hunt are, and why Calvin needs both. (Target: These slippery snakes escape by their swift and tortuous windings, if they are not strenuously pursued, and if, when they are caught, they are not firmly held. Two stages: pursue, then grip — argument, then term.)
2. Composition. One sentence, English, containing (a) an inverted counterfactual with an interrupter between the subject and its participle, and (b) a putative should somewhere in it. If their profession — namely, that the Spirit is God — had been honest, they would not have objected to the word; supposing "word" is even the right name for it. (Target shape: Had their profession—viz. that the Spirit is God, been made from the heart, they would not have cavilled at the term; if a term it should be called.)
3. Preview — §5, one line. Tomorrow the argument turns documentary, and it opens with a warning aimed at us: **Where names have not been invented rashly, we must beware lest we become chargeable with arrogance and rashness in rejecting them.** ⚠️ Watch four things. (i) **lest** we become — the lest + subjunctive of apprehension, and chargeable **with** where today gave you charge … **as**. (ii) The bare past subjunctive again — **I wish, indeed, that such names were buried**, provided all would concur in the belief that the Father, Son, and Spirit, are one God — fourth appearance in four days, and ⚠️⚠️ read that sentence twice, because the man who has just spent a section proving the words necessary now says he wishes them buried. That is not a contradiction; it is the difference between serviceable and sacred, and it is Calvin's real position. (iii) The substantia crack you were told to mark in S7 splits wide open: Jerome calls three substantiae in God profane; Hilary affirms them more than a hundred times; both are orthodox. (iv) New names on the board — Hilary, Jerome (Letter to Damasus), Augustine (De Trinitate 5.8–9), Socrates' Tripartite History — and Calvin's verdict that the ancient writers neither agreed with each other, nor were always consistent with themselves. Today he showed you why the words were forced. Tomorrow he shows you how little he thinks they are worth.

Where we stopped: Book 1, Ch. 13, §4 끝. 다음은 Book 1, Ch. 13, §5 — "Answer continued, 3. The ancient Church, though differing somewhat in the explanation of these terms, agree in substance. Proofs from Hilary, Jerome, Augustine, in their use of the words Essence, Substance, Hypostasis. 4. Provided the orthodox meaning is retained, there should be no dispute about mere terms."