Day 79 — Book 1, Chapter 13, §5

Yesterday Calvin spent sixteen sentences proving that the words consubstantial, subsistence, Trinity were forced on the Church. Today, sentence two: **I wish, indeed, that such names were buried**. Read that twice. The man who has just proved the words necessary says he would like them dead and in the ground. Students panic here. Don't. ⚠️⚠️⚠️ This is not a retraction; it is the difference between serviceable and sacred. The words are tools — indispensable against a liar, worthless as objects of loyalty. Hold both ends of that and the whole section falls into place.

The section is three paragraphs, three moves, and you must keep them apart. Paragraph 1 (S1–S15): the humility argument — the Fathers themselves neither agreed with each other, nor were always consistent with themselves, and the proof is one fault line, the Latin word Substance: Jerome calls three substances in God profane, Hilary affirms them more than a hundred times, and both are orthodox. Paragraph 2 (S16–S22): the modesty argument — Augustine tolerates, Hilary apologises, Augustine apologises; the men who coined the terms flinched while coining them. Paragraph 3 (S23–S33): the application — therefore (a) don't dip our pen in gall against the honest hesitator; (b) but the terms still do their job in three words (Say, he is consubstantial); and (c) the man who fights about words is tainted with some hidden poison — so provoke him on purpose. That last turn is the sting. Calvin ends the "we don't fight about words" section by explaining exactly when he will.

Grammatically, today is the day of the conditional in disguise. Wishes with were. provided doing the work of if. Imperatives doing the work of if (Say, he is consubstantial, **and** you…). Inverted Should any be… with a jussive parenthesis jammed in the middle (still do their worst). And a so far from V-ing … that … that turns a negative into a positive. Four ways of saying if without saying if, and an exam-setter's paradise.

Two warnings about the page. S28 prints a sentence that cannot mean what it says — a textual crux with internal evidence from yesterday's §4, exactly like S15 yesterday. And the Greek is again printed with its breathings detached (ο μοου σιος, ου σι α). Details in the text note. Quote as printed; read correctly.

Today's 3 Big Points

1. The counterfactual wish with a condition bolted on: I wish … that such names were buried, provided all would concur… (S2). wish that + past subjunctive (were, not are) marks the wish as unreal now — the names are not going to be buried. Then **provided** (= on condition that) attaches the price: universal agreement in the doctrine. Two subjunctives, two directions: were looks at a state that does not obtain; would concur at a condition that has not been met. ⚠️ Read provided as because and the sentence collapses into a retraction. Formula 1. And its cousin in S1: beware **lest** we become chargeable — the lest + subjunctive of apprehension, ⚠️ never lest … not.
2. The so far from V-ing … that … reversal, with its family so … as (not) to: S16, S3, S31. is still **so far from** objecting to the ordinary use … **that** he is even tolerant of the Latins. ⚠️⚠️ far from V-ing is a negative: he does not object — and not by a little. The that-clause then gives the positive extreme. Beginners read so far … that as to such an extent that he objected. Exact opposite. Same family: not **so** minutely precise **as to** fight (S3), **so** superstitiously precise **as not to** tolerate (S31). Formula 2.
3. Conditionals without if — three shapes in one paragraph. (a) Imperative + and = if-clause: **Say**, he is consubstantial, **and** you immediately pluck the mask from this chameleon (S27, S29) — and in S30 Calvin drops even the and: Say, that there is a Trinity…, you will only express…. (b) Inverted Should + a jussive interrupter: **Should** any be so superstitiously precise as not to tolerate these terms, **still do their worst**, they will not be able to deny… (S31) — Should any be = if any should be, and do their worst is a third-person jussive (let them do their worst) parked between protasis and apodosis. ⚠️ Read do their worst as the main verb and the sentence has no subject for it. Formula 3.

Trap words I will test. candour (S15) ⚠️⚠️ = fairness, freedom from malice (candidus, white) — not "frankness"; you had uncandid two days ago, same word, same sense. trite (S15) ⚠️⚠️⚠️ = worn smooth by use, everyday (terere, to rub) — trite and common use = ordinary usage, and it is a compliment to the evidence, not "banal". apologises / apology (S19, S22) ⚠️⚠️ — S19 really is excuses himself (Hilary asks pardon for presuming), but the apology of Augustine (S22) is ἀπολογία, a defence with a reason — the reason follows in the that-clause. improper (S14, S17) ⚠️⚠️⚠️ = not the proper (own, exact) term (proprius) — never "indecent". petulance (S23) ⚠️⚠️ = insolent aggressiveness (petere, to attack) — not sulkiness. heat (S23) = anger. handle (S24) ⚠️ = a pretext to grip (Lat. ansa). cavil (S24) = frivolous objection (cavilla, jeering). purport (S17) = the gist. unskilful (S17) = the untrained, a noun. designedly (S14) = on purpose. odium (S14) = hatred directed at someone. disguise (S14, S18) = conceal — does not disguise his belief = says openly. wrung (S22) = extorted by force (wring). swear to (S23) = subscribe on oath. pertinaciously (S33) ⚠️ = stubbornly holding on (per-tenax). expedient (S33) ⚠️ = advantageous, no moral shade. court (S33) = woo. minutely (S3) ⚠️ = in tiny particulars (minutus), pronounced my-NEWT-ly. formula (S5) = a set form of words, a creed. ineffable (S18) = unsayable (in- + effari). equivocations (S32) = double-meanings (aequus + vox, one voice, two senses). prattle (S30) = childish chatter.

5. Where names have not been invented rashly, we must beware lest we become chargeable with arrogance and rashness in rejecting them. I wish, indeed, that such names were buried, provided all would concur in the belief that the Father, Son, and Spirit, are one God, and yet that the Son is not the Father, nor the Spirit the Son, but that each has his peculiar subsistence. I am not so minutely precise as to fight furiously for mere words. For I observe, that the writers of the ancient Church, while they uniformly spoke with great reverence on these matters, neither agreed with each other, nor were always consistent with themselves. How strange the formula used by Councils, and defended by Hilary! How extravagant the view which Augustine sometimes takes! How unlike the Greeks are to the Latins! But let one example of variance suffice. The Latins, in translating ο μοου σιος used consubstantialis (consubstantial), intimating that there was one substance of the Father and the Son, and thus using the word Substance for Essence. Hence Jerome, in his Letter to Damasus, says it is profane to affirm that there are three substances in God. But in Hilary you will find it said more than a hundred times that there are three substances in God. Then how greatly is Jerome perplexed with the word Hypostasis! He suspects some lurking poison, when it is said that there are three Hypostases in God. And he does not disguise his belief that the expression, though used in a pious sense, is improper; if, indeed, he was sincere in saying this, and did not rather designedly endeavour, by an unfounded calumny, to throw odium on the Eastern bishops whom he hated. He certainly shows little candour in asserting, that in all heathen schools ου σι α is equivalent to Hypostasis—an assertion completely refuted by trite and common use. More courtesy and moderation is shown by Augustine (De Trinit. lib. 5 c. 8 and 9), who, although he says that Hypostasis in this sense is new to Latin ears, is still so far from objecting to the ordinary use of the term by the Greeks, that he is even tolerant of the Latins, who had imitated the Greek phraseology. The purport of what Socrates says of the term, in the Sixth Book of the Tripartite History, is, that it had been improperly applied to this purpose by the unskilful. Hilary (De Trinitat. lib. 2) charges it upon the heretics as a great crime, that their misconduct had rendered it necessary to subject to the peril of human utterance things which ought to have been reverently confined within the mind, not disguising his opinion that those who do so, do what is unlawful, speak what is ineffable, and pry into what is forbidden. Shortly after, he apologises at great length for presuming to introduce new terms. For, after putting down the natural names of Father, Son, and Spirit, he adds, that all further inquiry transcends the significance of words, the discernment of sense, and the apprehension of intellect. And in another place (De Conciliis), he congratulates the Bishops of France in not having framed any other confession, but received, without alteration, the ancient and most simple confession received by all Churches from the days of the Apostles. Not unlike this is the apology of Augustine, that the term had been wrung from him by necessity from the poverty of human language in so high a matter: not that the reality could be thereby expressed, but that he might not pass on in silence without attempting to show how the Father, Son, and Spirit, are three. The modesty of these holy men should be an admonition to us not instantly to dip our pen in gall, and sternly denounce those who may be unwilling to swear to the terms which we have devised, provided they do not in this betray pride, or petulance, or unbecoming heat, but are willing to ponder the necessity which compels us so to speak, and may thus become gradually accustomed to a useful form of expression. Let men also studiously beware, that in opposing the Arians on the one hand, and the Sabellians on the other, and eagerly endeavouring to deprive both of any handle for cavil, they do not bring themselves under some suspicion of being the disciples of either Arius or Sabellius. Arius says that Christ is God, and then mutters that he was made and had a beginning. He says, that he is one with the Father; but secretly whispers in the ears of his party, made one, like other believers, though with special privilege. Say, he is consubstantial, and you immediately pluck the mask from this chameleon, though you add nothing to Scripture. Sabellius says that the Father, Son, and Spirit, indicate some distinction in God. Say, they are three, and he will bawl out that you are making three Gods. Say, that there is a Trinity of Persons in one Divine essence, you will only express in one word what the Scriptures say, and stop his empty prattle. Should any be so superstitiously precise as not to tolerate these terms, still do their worst, they will not be able to deny that when one is spoken of, a unity of substance must be understood, and when three in one essence, the persons in this Trinity are denoted. When this is confessed without equivocations we dwell not on words. But I was long ago made aware, and, indeed, on more than one occasion, that those who contend pertinaciously about words are tainted with some hidden poison; and, therefore, that it is more expedient to provoke them purposely, than to court their favour by speaking obscurely.

Sentence count: 33 (S1–S33). Three paragraphs: humility (S1–S15) · modesty (S16–S22) · application (S23–S33).

Text note (not a correction to the quotation). Five features of the printed page, all left exactly as they stand. (i) ⚠️⚠️⚠️ S28 prints Sabellius says that the Father, Son, and Spirit, indicate some distinction in God. As printed, the sentence contradicts the argument: if Sabellius admits a distinction, S29 — where he will bawl out that you are making three Gods the moment you say three — makes no sense, and the symmetry with S25 (Arius says the orthodox thing, then mutters the heretical one) is broken. The internal evidence is yesterday's S12: maintaining that they were **not** used to mark out some distinction, but that they were different attributes of God. The sense required is indicate no distinction — Sabellius' whole position is that the names are almost nonentities. The 1960 Battles rendering reads the negation ("signify no distinctions"). Either Beveridge dropped the negative or the compositor did. Read no distinction; quote some distinction. ⚠️ And notice the shape of the error: the same some distinction phrase appears in §4 S12 under a negative — a copyist's eye carried the phrase and lost the not. (ii) The Greek is printed with its breathing and accent detached: ο μοου σιος = ὁμοούσιος; ου σι α = οὐσία. Scan artifacts, not word divisions. Quote as printed; read the Greek. (iii) Two page-break seams fall inside sentences: S9 (consub- | stantialis, with the running number 113) and S24 (after Let men also studiously beware,, running number 114). Both are joined silently; nothing else in either sentence is disturbed. (iv) apologises (S19) is British -ise; endeavour, odium, candour, unskilful likewise period-standard. Not slips. (v) S26 prints made one, like other believers with no verb before made — that is not a printing error but direct speech in compressed form: the whisper itself is "made one — like other believers — though with special privilege." Restore [that he is] or [he was] to read it; do not add it to the quotation.

              ═══════ PARAGRAPH 1 · HUMILITY — the Fathers disagreed ═══════
[THESIS]      S1     names not rashly invented → don't rashly REJECT them (lest…)
[REAL VIEW]   S2     "I WISH such names were BURIED" — PROVIDED the doctrine is confessed
[LIMIT]       S3     not so precise AS TO fight for MERE WORDS
[REASON]      S4     the Fathers: reverent, but NOT agreed / NOT self-consistent
[THREE !]     S5-7   Councils+Hilary (strange) · Augustine (extravagant) · Greeks≠Latins
[ONE CASE]    S8-9   ὁμοούσιος → consubstantialis → "SUBSTANCE" used FOR "ESSENCE"
[FAULT LINE]  S10-11 Jerome: 3 substances = PROFANE  ‖  Hilary: 3 substances ×100+
[JEROME]      S12-15 perplexed by Hypostasis · "lurking poison" · improper (if sincere…)
                     · "little candour": οὐσία = hypostasis? — refuted by ordinary use
              ═══════ PARAGRAPH 2 · MODESTY — the coiners flinched ═══════
[AUGUSTINE]   S16    so far from objecting to the Greeks THAT he tolerates the Latins
[SOCRATES]    S17    the term "improperly applied … by the unskilful"
[HILARY]      S18-21 the heretics' CRIME = forcing utterance of the ineffable · apologises
                     · Father/Son/Spirit: all beyond words, sense, intellect · De Conciliis:
                     praises Gaul for keeping the SIMPLE apostolic confession
[AUGUSTINE]   S22    the term "WRUNG from him" — NOT that it expresses, BUT lest silence
              ═══════ PARAGRAPH 3 · APPLICATION ═══════
[RULE A]      S23    ∴ no pen-in-gall against the honest hesitator — PROVIDED no pride/heat
[RULE B]      S24    beware lest, fighting both heresies, you look like a disciple of one
[ARIUS]       S25-27 says God → MUTTERS made · one with Father → WHISPERS "like believers"
                     → SAY "consubstantial" → mask off the CHAMELEON, nothing added
[SABELLIUS]   S28-30 says [no] distinction → SAY "three" → he BAWLS "three Gods"
                     → SAY "Trinity of Persons in one essence" → Scripture in one word
[FLOOR]       S31    SHOULD any refuse the terms — still do their worst — they cannot deny
                     ONE ⇒ unity of substance · THREE in one essence ⇒ the persons
[RULE C]      S32-33 confessed without equivocation → "we dwell not on words"
                     BUT word-fighters carry HIDDEN POISON → PROVOKE THEM ON PURPOSE

The engine, in one line: the terms are a scaffold, not a shrine. Yesterday: they are necessary against evasion. Today: they are not worth a fight among the honest — proved by the Fathers, who could not even agree on what Substance meant and were orthodox all the same. ⚠️ But watch the last two sentences, because they take back half of what the paragraph seemed to give. we dwell not on words (S32) is conditional on **When** this is confessed without equivocations. Where it is not — where a man contend[s] pertinaciously about words — that very contention is a symptom (tainted with some hidden poison), and the remedy is to press the word harder (provoke them purposely). The chapter's two sections say the same thing from opposite sides: the word's only job is to make the evader show himself.

Examiner's Eye — five traps.

1. ⚠️⚠️⚠️ S2 is not a retraction. I wish … that such names were buried is a counterfactual wish with a condition: provided all would concur in the belief that…. The condition is not met — that is the whole point of §4. An option reading "Calvin regrets the introduction of the terms" or "Calvin would abandon the terms" has read provided as because and were as are. The correct paraphrase: I would gladly drop the words if everyone held the doctrine — but they don't.
2. ⚠️⚠️ The Fathers disagreed about words, not about the faith. S4 says they neither agreed with each other, nor were always consistent with themselves — but S4 also says they uniformly spoke with great reverence, and the entire example (S9–S11) is about the lexical accident of Substance standing in for Essence. An option reading "the ancient Church was divided on the doctrine of the Trinity" over-reaches the scope. ⚠️ Jerome and Hilary contradict each other verbally and are both orthodox — that is the demonstration.
3. ⚠️⚠️ Calvin criticises Jerome — and hedges. S14–S15: Jerome's objection to three Hypostases is improper only if, indeed, he was sincere; Calvin suspects he designedly endeavour[ed] … to throw odium on the Eastern bishops whom he hated, and S15 says flatly he shows little candour. An option reading "Calvin defends Jerome's caution" has the direction wrong; one reading "Calvin accuses Jerome of heresy" has the scope wrong — the charge is bad faith in a quarrel, not false doctrine.
4. ⚠️⚠️ S23's protection has a condition. We are not to dip our pen in gall against those unwilling to swear to the terms — **provided** they do not in this betray pride, or petulance, or unbecoming heat, **but** are willing to ponder the necessity. An option reading "Calvin says those who reject the terms should not be censured" has dropped the provided. Honest hesitation is spared; proud refusal is not — and S33 says what happens to the proud.
5. ⚠️⚠️⚠️ S33 is the sting, and it reverses the naïve reading of the whole section. it is more expedient to **provoke them purposely**, than to court their favour by speaking obscurely. An option reading "Calvin concludes that one should avoid the disputed terms in order to keep the peace" is the exact opposite of the last sentence. Calvin's policy with the word-fighter is to use the word more, deliberately, to make the poison show. Read to the end.

Formula 1 — The counterfactual wish + provided

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│   S  WISH  ( THAT )  S'  WERE / V-ed(past subj.) … ,                     │
│        PROVIDED  ( THAT )  S''  WOULD V / V(pres.) …                     │
│        └ unreal NOW                └ the CONDITION (= only if)           │
│                                                                          │
│   S2   I WISH, indeed, THAT such names WERE buried,                      │
│        PROVIDED all WOULD CONCUR in the belief that …                    │
│        = "I would gladly drop the words — IF everyone held the doctrine" │
│                                                                          │
│   THE FOUR FACES OF `were`  (Days 76–79):                                │
│        which it WERE impious to multiply     = would be   (Day 76)       │
│        It WERE better to …                   = would be   (Day 77)       │
│        Were I not …                          = if I were  (Day 69)       │
│        I wish that such names WERE buried    = unreal now (Day 79)       │
│                                                                          │
│   COUSIN:  BEWARE  LEST  S  V(subj.)      (S1)                           │
│            BEWARE  THAT  S  DO NOT  V     (S24)     ✗ lest … not         │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

⚠️ Trap 1 — provided is not because. It is on condition that. Read it causally and S2 becomes a retraction; read it conditionally and S2 is §4's corollary. ⚠️ Trap 2 — were is unreal. I wish that such names are buried is ungrammatical; were tells you the names are not going to be buried, before you read the condition. ⚠️ Trap 3 — lest contains its own negative. beware lest we become (S1). Never lest we do not become. With beware that, the not is explicit (S24): beware, that … they do not bring themselves.

Transformation drill. 1. I would be happy to see the word "person" retired — but only if everyone confessed three who are one God. → I wish, indeed, that the word Person were retired, provided all would confess that three subsist in the one God. 2. We must take care not to seem to reject the faith itself when we reject a word. → We must beware lest, in rejecting a word, we seem to reject the faith itself.

Formula 2 — so far from V-ing … that … and the so … as (not) to family

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│   S  BE  SO FAR FROM  V₁-ing … ,  THAT  S  (even)  V₂ …                  │
│        └ = NOT V₁-ing at all         └ the POSITIVE extreme              │
│                                                                          │
│   S16  he is SO FAR FROM objecting to the ordinary use … by the Greeks,  │
│        THAT he is EVEN tolerant of the Latins …                          │
│        = "he not only doesn't object; he goes further and tolerates"     │
│                                                                          │
│   THE FAMILY (degree → result):                                          │
│        NOT so X AS TO V         S3   not so precise as to fight          │
│            = not X enough to V                                           │
│        so X AS NOT TO V         S31  so precise as not to tolerate       │
│            = X to the point of not V-ing                                 │
│        so X THAT S V            (plain result)                           │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

⚠️ Trap 1 — far from is a negative. so far from objecting … that he tolerates ≠ he objected so much that…. The that-clause is the result of not objecting. ⚠️ Trap 2 — where the not sits changes the meaning. **not** so X as to V (S3) negates the degree; so X **as not to** V (S31) puts the negative inside the result. Both today; do not merge them. ⚠️ Trap 3 — even is the tell. In so far from … that … even …, the even marks the second clause as a further step in the same direction as not V₁-ing.

Transformation drill. 1. Augustine did not merely refrain from condemning the Greek usage; he went so far as to excuse the Latins who copied it. → Augustine was so far from condemning the Greek usage, that he even excused the Latins who had copied it. 2. I am not such a stickler that I would quarrel over a syllable. → I am not so minutely precise as to quarrel over a syllable.

Formula 3 — Conditionals without if: the imperative-conditional and inverted Should with a jussive aside

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│   (a)  IMPERATIVE , (content) ,  AND   S  V / WILL V                     │
│          = IF you V (content), (then) S V / will V                       │
│                                                                          │
│        S27  SAY, he is consubstantial, AND you immediately PLUCK …       │
│        S29  SAY, they are three, AND he WILL BAWL OUT …                  │
│        S30  SAY, that there is a Trinity …, ⌀AND⌀ you WILL only EXPRESS  │
│             └ asyndeton: the `and` may drop; the logic stays             │
│                                                                          │
│   (b)  SHOULD  any  BE … ,  ( still ⌀let them⌀ DO their worst ) ,       │
│        they  WILL NOT BE ABLE TO  V …                                    │
│          └ inverted `if`      └ bare JUSSIVE aside     └ open apodosis   │
│                                                                          │
│        Compare  LET one example SUFFICE   (S8, jussive WITH `let`)       │
│                 LET men beware            (S24)                          │
│                 still DO their worst      (S31, jussive WITHOUT `let`)   │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

⚠️ Trap 1 — the imperative is not an order. Say, he is consubstantial does not tell you to say it; it supposes you do. Translate with if. ⚠️ Trap 2 — do their worst has no subject and is not the main verb. Bracket it as [let them] do their worst; the main verb is will not be able to deny. ⚠️ Trap 3 — Should any be is open, not counterfactual. Apodosis will (future) — contrast yesterday's Had … been …, they would not have.

Transformation drill. 1. If you say "three subsistences," you will have said in two words what John says in a chapter. → Say, there are three subsistences, and you will express in two words what John says in a chapter. 2. If anyone is so fastidious that he will not bear the word, let him rage as he likes; he cannot deny the thing. → Should any be so fastidious as not to bear the word, still rage as he may, he will not be able to deny the thing.

What §5 is, in the architecture. The synopsis gives it two numbers: Answer 3 — the ancient Church, though differing somewhat in the explanation of these terms, agree in substance (S1–S22) — and Answer 4 — provided the orthodox meaning is retained, there should be no dispute about mere terms (S23–S33). §3 said the terms are not "foreign"; §4 that they were forced; §5 that they are not worth fighting over — except with the man whose fighting is a symptom. Tomorrow, §6, Calvin finally defines Person: the IOU from §2 S4, paid on the fourth day.

1. The Latin fault line is real, and Calvin has it right. The Greek East settled by the 380s on μία οὐσία, τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις. Latin had, in effect, one word — substantia — for both Greek nouns: etymologically it calques ὑπόστασις (sub-stare = ὑπο-ίστημι), but Nicaea's consubstantialis fixed it as the rendering of οὐσία. So tres substantiae was heresy in one dictionary and orthodoxy in the other. ⚠️ Jerome, Ep. 15 to Damasus (c. 376–377), from the desert of Chalcis, writing amid the Antiochene schism: he refuses three hypostases, says it is profane to preach three substances, and claims the whole school of secular letters knows no hypostasis but ousia. ⚠️ Hilary of Poitiers does use substantia of the persons (e.g. in De Synodis, defending the Eastern formulae to his Gallic colleagues) — more than a hundred times is Calvin's rhetoric, not a count. Augustine, De Trin. 5.8.9–5.9.10, states the two usages side by side without condemning either, and gives the sentence Calvin quotes at S22: non ut illud diceretur, sed ne taceretur. Socrates, HE 3.7, on the term's philosophical history, reached Calvin through Cassiodorus' Historia Tripartita (book 6) — hence the odd citation.

2. Hilary's apology. De Trinitate 2.2: compellimur haereticorum et blasphemantium vitiis illicita agere, ardua scandere, ineffabilia eloqui, inconcessa praesumere — "we are compelled by the faults of heretics and blasphemers to do what is unlawful, to climb what is steep, to speak what is ineffable, to presume on what is not granted." S18 is a condensation of that sentence. And 2.5: the three names are set down; beyond them, beyond the signification of speech, the reach of sense, the grasp of understanding. S20. De Synodis 91 closes with the congratulation to the bishops of Gaul (S21). ⚠️ Calvin is quoting from the texts, and accurately. When he says the coiners flinched, he can show you where.

3. The Caroli affair, and why S2 and S23 are personal. In 1537 Pierre Caroli accused Calvin, Farel and Viret of Arianism at Lausanne and demanded they sign the three ancient creeds on the spot. Calvin refused — not because he doubted the doctrine but because he would not let subscription to a formula be made the test of faith by a hostile man. He was, for a season, under some suspicion of being the disciples of … Arius (S24) by his own countrymen. S2 (I wish … were buried), S23 (not instantly to dip our pen in gall), and S24 are all Calvin describing what was done to him. And S33's long ago … on more than one occasion covers the other side: Servetus (1553), Gentile (1558) — men who fought the words and turned out to mean something else.

4. What Calvin is actually arguing, and it is subtler than "don't fight about words". Three positions are on the table. (a) Rome / the confessional reflex: the terms are sacred; refuse them and you are out. (b) The anti-trinitarians / the biblicist reflex: the terms are human; use them and you have left Scripture. (c) Calvin: the terms are human, necessary, and diagnostic — necessary against evasion (§4), not sacred (S2), spared to the honest (S23), pressed on the evasive (S33). ⚠️ His model for (c) is the Fathers' own attitude to their coinages: Hilary and Augustine apologised for the words while using them. That is the whole point of paragraph 2 — it is not antiquarian; it is precedent for a posture.

5. Afterlife. The distinction between the faith and the formula — between res and verba, which you have now seen four days running — becomes a Reformed commonplace: the confessions of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries routinely say they bind as to the doctrine, not as to the words. And the diagnostic use of a term — a word whose value is that the evader will not say it — is what later theology calls a theological shibboleth; its dangers are the ones Calvin himself names at S24.

Over-reading guard-rail. ⚠️ Five limits. (a) S2 does not say Calvin would abandon the terms. It says he would if the doctrine were universally confessed — and §4 has just shown it is not. Quote S2 without provided and you have misquoted him. (b) S4 does not say the Fathers were divided on the Trinity. uniformly … great reverence is the constant; the variance is in words, and the one example (S9–S11) is lexical. (c) S14–S15 accuse Jerome of bad faith in a quarrel, not of heresy. Calvin has just used him as an orthodox witness (S10). (d) S23 protects the honest hesitator, under conditions. It does not protect the man of pride, or petulance, or unbecoming heat; and S33 tells you what happens to him. (e) S33's provoke them purposely is a policy toward pertinacious word-fighters, not toward everyone who dislikes a term. Generalise it and you have re-created (a) above — exactly the reflex S23 was written against.

1. 2 Timothy 2:14 and 1 Timothy 6:4 — behind S3 and S32–S33, unquoted. …that they strive not about words (μὴ λογομαχεῖν), to no profit; doting about questions and strifes of words (λογομαχίας). ⚠️ How Calvin uses it: I am not so minutely precise as to fight furiously for mere words (S3) and we dwell not on words (S32) are Paul's prohibition owned — but S33 shows the other half of the same Pauline passage: the word-fighters are sick (1 Tim. 6:4, νοσῶν, diseased) — Calvin's tainted with some hidden poison. Two sentences from one Pauline verse: don't fight about words; the man who does is ill.

2. John 10:30 against John 17:21–22 — the whole Arian evasion in S26. I and my Father are one (ἓν ἐσμεν); that they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me… that they may be one, even as we are one. ⚠️ Arius says, that he is one with the Father (10:30) but secretly whispers … made one, like other believers (17:21). The heretic reads the first verse through the second: the Son's oneness = the believers' oneness, granted, not natural. consubstantial (S27) is the word that keeps 10:30 from being dissolved into 17:21. Watch how a single term guards one verse against another.

3. Hebrews 1:3 — carried from §2, and it is the whole of S9–S15. the express image of his person (χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ). ⚠️ Every argument in paragraph 1 is about what to do with ὑπόστασις in Latin. Jerome's lurking poison (S13) is his fear that this word, made plural, gives three essences. Calvin settled the exegesis on Day 76; today he shows the translation history that made the fear possible.

4. Acts 8:23 (Deut. 29:18; Heb. 12:15) — the gall behind S23. thou art in the gall of bitterness (χολὴν πικρίας); lest any root of bitterness springing up trouble you. ⚠️ dip our pen in gall is an idiom, but the biblical gall is always bitterness that poisons others — and Calvin's next paragraph is about poison (S33). The writer who denounces in bitterness is himself in danger of the disease he diagnoses.

5. 2 Corinthians 11:13–14 — the mask and the chameleon, S27. false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves (μετασχηματιζόμενοι) into the apostles of Christ … Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light. ⚠️ Calvin's chameleon is Paul's metaschematizomenos — the self-reshaper. pluck the mask = undo the schema. And note that Paul's cure, like Calvin's, is naming** — the false apostle is exposed by being described exactly.

6. Romans 11:33–34 with 2 Corinthians 12:4 — behind S18, S20, S22. O the depth… how unsearchable are his judgments; unspeakable words (ἄρρητα ῥήματα), which it is not lawful for a man to utter (οὐκ ἐξὸν ἀνθρώπῳ λαλῆσαι). ⚠️ Hilary's triad — do what is unlawful, speak what is ineffable, and pry into what is forbidden — is 2 Cor. 12:4 turned into a complaint: the heretics forced the Church to say ἄρρητα. And Augustine's poverty of human language in so high a matter is Rom. 11:33 as an apology for a word. Both Fathers ground their modesty in Paul's two confessions of the limits of speech.

7. Matthew 28:19 with Deuteronomy 6:4 — the floor of S31. baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (one name, three named); the LORD our God is one LORD (יְהוָה אֶחָד). ⚠️ when **one** is spoken of, a unity of substance must be understood, and when **three** in one essence, the persons … are denoted — S31's two when-clauses are these two texts: one (Deut. 6:4) and three under one name (Matt. 28:19). Calvin's floor is not the Fathers; it is the baptismal formula. Whoever refuses the coined word still has to say these two verses, and cannot say them without meaning what the word means.

8. Romans 10:9–10 — the word behind S32. if thou shalt confess with thy mouth (ὁμολογήσῃς) … with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. ⚠️ When this is **confessed** without equivocations — confess in yesterday's sense (profess openly), now with the biblical condition: without equivocation. The Arian's whisper and the Sabellian's bawl are both failures of ὁμολογία — saying the same thing with the mouth and the heart.

① Grammar — which underlined part is wrong?

ⓐ I wish, indeed, that such names were buried, provided all would concur in the belief that the Father, Son, and Spirit, are one God. ⓑ He is still so far from objecting to the ordinary use of the term by the Greeks, that he is even tolerant of the Latins. ⓒ Say, he is consubstantial, and you immediately pluck the mask from this chameleon. ⓓ Let men also studiously beware, lest they do not bring themselves under some suspicion of being the disciples of either Arius or Sabellius.

Answer: ⓓ.

출제 의도. lest carries its own negative — it means for fear that, in order that … not — so lest they do **not** bring is a double negative that inverts the sense (take care that they DO bring themselves under suspicion). Beveridge's actual construction is beware, **that** … they **do not** bring themselves (S24) — the explicit not belongs with that, never with lest. Correct forms: beware lest they bring themselves… or beware that they do not bring themselves…. ⚠️ Today's S1 has the model: beware **lest** we **become** chargeable — bare subjunctive, no not. Now check why the others stand. ⓐ is Formula 1: wish that + were — the past subjunctive for an unreal present wish; are buried would be ungrammatical and would be buried would shift it toward a future prediction. ⚠️ The bait is the plural-looking were after singular-feeling such names; it is subjunctive, not plural agreement. ⓑ is Formula 2: so far from V-ing … that … — the negative-degree frame; so far as to object would reverse the sense and so far from objecting … as to would mix two frames. ⓒ is Formula 3(a): imperative + and + present = conditional; Say … and you will pluck is also good (S29 has it), and If you say … you pluck is the restored form — but the comma-and-present shape printed is exactly Beveridge's.

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

ⓐ Calvin regrets that the Church ever introduced the terms Trinity and Person, and would abandon them in order to keep the peace. ⓑ The writers of the ancient Church were divided over the doctrine of the Trinity, as the disagreement between Jerome and Hilary about "three substances" shows. ⓒ Calvin would gladly see the terms dropped if all confessed one God in three distinct subsistences; he spares those who hesitate over the words without pride or heat, but deliberately presses the words on those who fight stubbornly against them. ⓓ Calvin holds that, since the terms are of human devising, those who refuse to subscribe to them should never be censured.

Answer: ⓒ. (S2 I wish … that such names were buried, **provided** all would concur in the belief that…; S23 not instantly to dip our pen in gall … **provided** they do not in this betray pride, or petulance, or unbecoming heat; S33 those who contend pertinaciously about words are tainted with some hidden poison; and, therefore, that it is more expedient to **provoke them purposely**.)

출제 의도. Four options, four failure modes. - ⓐ is the direction-flip on S2, and it is the one that catches everybody — because the first half of S2 is quotable on its own. ⚠️⚠️⚠️ I wish … were buried is a counterfactual wish, and **provided** all would concur… is its unmet condition. Nothing in §5 says regret, and to keep the peace is the exact opposite of S33's provoke them purposely. Never quote S2 without its provided. - ⓑ is a scope-overreach on S4. The Fathers uniformly spoke with great reverence; the variance is lexical (using the word Substance for Essence, S9). Jerome's profane and Hilary's hundred times are the same six words under two dictionaries — that is the proof that the disagreement is not doctrinal. - ⓒ is true, and note it needs all three clauses: the conditional wish (S2), the conditional charity (S23), and the policy toward the poisoned (S33). Drop any one and you have a half-Calvin. - ⓓ drops the provided of S23 and generalises the charity. those who may be unwilling to swear to the terms are spared only provided they do not in this betray pride, or petulance, or unbecoming heat, but are willing to ponder the necessity. And never contradicts S33 outright. ⚠️ Conditional charity is not unconditional charity.

③ Composition — apply Formulas 1, 2 and 3

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

"나는 진심으로 그 단어가 묻히기를 바란다 — 다만 모든 이가 성자께서 성부와 한 본질이심을 고백한다는 조건에서. 어거스틴은 헬라인들의 어법에 반대하기는커녕, 그것을 모방한 라틴인들까지 관용했다. '그는 동일본질이시다'라고 말해 보라, 그러면 너는 즉시 그 위선자의 가면을 벗긴다. 누군가가 그 단어를 참지 못할 만큼 꼼꼼하다면, 제멋대로 하라지 — 그는 그 사실을 부인하지 못할 것이다."

Model answer:

I wish, indeed, that the word were buried, provided all would confess that the Son is of one essence with the Father. Augustine was so far from objecting to the phraseology of the Greeks, that he even tolerated the Latins who had imitated it. Say, he is consubstantial, and you immediately pluck the mask from this hypocrite. Should any be so precise as not to tolerate the word, still do their worst, they will not be able to deny the thing.

출제 의도 및 채점 기준. Six things are being checked. 1. Formula 1 — wish that + were + provided. **I wish** … **that** the word **were** buried, **provided** all **would confess**. ⚠️ were, not was or is; provided, not because or if only (acceptable but loses the Beveridge mark); would confess, the unreal condition. 2. Formula 2 — so far from V-ing … that … even …. **so far from objecting** … **that** he **even** tolerated. ⚠️ Writing did not object, and even tolerated is correct English and forfeits the point; the frame is the exercise. even must be present — it carries the direction. 3. Formula 3(a) — imperative + and + present. **Say**, he is consubstantial, **and** you immediately **pluck**. ⚠️ Not If you say…; not Say … and you will (fine, but S27's shape is present-tense). The comma after Say marks the content. 4. Formula 3(b) — inverted Should + bare jussive aside. **Should** any **be** so precise **as not to** tolerate…, **still do their worst**, they **will not be able to** deny. ⚠️ Three checks: Should any be (no if); as not to (negative inside the result); still do their worst without let and without a subject, parked before the apodosis. 5. Vocabulary control. buried, provided, confess (profession sense), phraseology, tolerate, pluck the mask from, precise, deny the thing. ⚠️ Res/verba: the last clause must say the thing, not the word. 6. Argumentative accuracy — heaviest. Each sentence must keep its condition: the wish has a provided; the charity/tolerance is Augustine's, not Calvin's unconditional rule; the imperative-conditional must expose (pluck the mask), not merely annoy; and the last sentence must end on the inability to deny the meaning, not on the refuser's defeat in argument. ⚠️ Turn any conditional into an assertion and you have written option ⓐ or ⓓ of Problem ②.

One-line summary. Where names have not been invented rashly, rejecting them is itself arrogance and rashness (S1) — yet Calvin wish[es], indeed, that such names were buried, **provided** all would concur in one God and three peculiar subsistences (S2), for he is not so minutely precise as to fight furiously for mere words (S3), the Fathers themselves having neither agreed with each other, nor [been] always consistent with themselves (S4) — witness Councils, Augustine, Greeks against Latins (S5–S7), and above all the one example (S8): the Latins using the word Substance for Essence (S9), so that Jerome calls three substances in God profane (S10) while Hilary says it more than a hundred times (S11), Jerome perplexed with the word Hypostasis (S12), suspecting lurking poison (S13), calling the expression improper — if, indeed, he was sincere and not scheming to throw odium on the Eastern bishops whom he hated (S14) — and showing little candour against trite and common use (S15); then the modest coiners: Augustine so far from objecting … that he is even tolerant of the Latins (S16), Socrates on the unskilful (S17), Hilary charging the heretics with forcing speech of what is ineffable (S18), apologis[ing] at great length (S19), confessing that all beyond the three names transcends … words … sense … intellect (S20), praising Gaul's most simple confession (S21), and Augustine's term wrung from him … not that the reality could be thereby expressed, but that he might not pass on in silence (S22); therefore do not dip our pen in gall against the honest hesitator, **provided** they do not … betray pride, or petulance, or unbecoming heat (S23), and beware of looking like a disciple of the heresy you are fighting (S24) — for Arius says … and then mutters (S25), says … but secretly whispers … made one, like other believers (S26): Say, he is consubstantial, and you immediately pluck the mask from this chameleon, though you add nothing to Scripture (S27); Sabellius says the names mark [no] distinction (S28), bawls three Gods at three (S29), and is silenced by a Trinity of Persons in one Divine essence, which only express[es] in one word what the Scriptures say (S30); **Should** any be so superstitiously precise as not to tolerate these terms, **still do their worst**, they will not be able to deny that one means unity of substance and three in one essence means the persons (S31); When this is confessed without equivocations we dwell not on words (S32) — but the pertinacious word-fighter is tainted with some hidden poison, so it is more expedient to **provoke them purposely**, than to court their favour by speaking obscurely (S33). Scaffold, not shrine; spare the honest, press the poisoned.

And the three grammar points, once more. ① The counterfactual wish + provided — I wish … that such names **were** buried, **provided** all **would concur** (S2): were = unreal now; provided = only if; and the cousin beware **lest** we become (S1) vs. beware **that** … they **do not** bring (S24) — never lest … not. ② so far from V-ing … that … even … (S16) with its family **not** so X **as to** V (S3) and so X **as not to** V (S31): far from is a negative; the that-clause is the result of not V-ing; watch where the not sits. ③ Conditionals without if — imperative + and + present/will (S27, S29), the same with the and dropped (S30), and **Should** any be …, still ⌀let them⌀ **do their worst**, they will not be able to… (S31): translate the imperative as if; bracket the bare jussive; read Should as an open condition. Plus four things to keep: provided twice (S2, S23) as the fence on every concession; the substantia fault line (S9) that makes Jerome and Hilary both right; the S28 crux (read no distinction, quote some distinction); and trite = ordinary, improper = not the proper term, candour = fairness, petulance = insolence, apology = defence (S22).

Homework (10 minutes).

1. Structure restoration. Take S31 and lay it out on four lines: protasis (Should any be…), the jussive aside (restore let them), the apodosis (they will not be able to deny that…), and the two when-clauses with the second one fully restored (subject, verb, and the deleted is spoken of). Then say aloud why Calvin puts the floor of the argument in meanings rather than words. (Target for the second when-clause: and when [it is] three in one essence [that is spoken of], the persons in this Trinity are [what is] denoted.)
2. Composition. One sentence, English, containing (a) a wish that … were with a provided condition, and (b) a so far from V-ing … that … even. I would gladly see the word "hypostasis" retired, on condition that everyone confessed three who subsist in one essence; and Jerome, far from being a heretic for refusing it, was in fact orthodox in the thing itself. (Target shape: I wish that the word Hypostasis were retired, provided all would confess three subsisting in one essence; and Jerome was so far from being a heretic for refusing it, that he was even orthodox in the thing itself.)
3. Preview — §6, one line. Tomorrow the IOU from §2 S4 is finally paid, and it opens by closing today's subject: **But to say nothing more of words, let us now attend to the thing signified.** Then the definition, and it is the most-quoted sentence in the chapter: By person, then, I mean a subsistence in the Divine essence,—a subsistence which, while related to the other two, is distinguished from them by incommunicable properties. ⚠️ Watch three things. (i) **By** person … **I mean** — the definitional frame you met in §3 (if **by** foreign they mean), now in Calvin's own mouth. (ii) **By** subsistence we wish something else to be understood than essence — the wish X to be understood passive-infinitive, and the subsistence ≠ essence line that today's Substance for Essence confusion made necessary. (iii) John 1:1 read as grammar: **if** the Word **were** God simply and **had not** some property peculiar to himself, John **could not have said** correctly that he had always been **with** God — a mixed counterfactual (were … had not / could not have said), and today's word **peculiar** becoming tomorrow's **incommunicable properties**. Today he told you not to fight about words. Tomorrow he tells you exactly what the words mean.

Where we stopped: Book 1, Ch. 13, §5 끝. 다음은 Book 1, Ch. 13, §6 — "After the definition of the term follows a definition and explanation of the thing meant by it. The distinction of Persons."