Day 88 — Book 1, Chapter 13, §14

Three days running I have made you write the same pair of words at the top of the page: inherent and derived. §12 ran it on forgiveness — not the **ministry** of forgiving sins, but the **inherent power**. §13 ran it on miracles — they **dispensed** the gifts of God as his ministers, **whereas** he exerted his **own inherent might**. ⚠️⚠️⚠️ Today it runs on being, and that is the whole difference between yesterday and today. For it is said **not that he received, but that he himself is** salvation. Yesterday the question was whose power did the work. Today the question is whose life it is that he has. Write across the top of the page: WORKING → BEING. Then keep reading, because that one step is the reason §14 exists.

Now the opening, and notice what it is not. §11 opened with a thesis. §12 opened with a thesis. §13 opened with a shout. §14 opens with a reset button. **Again**, if out of God there is no salvation, no righteousness, no life … ⚠️⚠️ **Again** here does not mean once more, as before in the sense of another example of the same thing. It means: new argument, fresh start, back to the ground. The three-rung ladder of §§11–13 (prophecy → works → miracles, each still more evident than the last) has finished climbing. Calvin does not build a fourth rung on it. He steps off and starts a second staircase. ⚠️ Proof that I am right: the very next section (§15 in our numbering) also opens Again, the prayer of faith is addressed to him. Two Agains in a row = two independent proofs, not a sequence. Mark Again in both places and write beside it: RESET, NOT MOREOVER.

And then the sentence itself, which is one of the tightest things in the chapter. **if out of God there is no salvation, no righteousness, no life, Christ, having all these in himself, is certainly God** ⚠️⚠️ Two traps in nine words of protasis. (i) **out of God** does not mean proceeding from God. It means outside of God, apart from God, anywhere but in God — Latin extra Deum. If you read it as from God, the sentence says the opposite of what it says, and the whole section collapses. (ii) The three negatives are not three examples; they are the three things the New Testament says Christ is: I am the resurrection and the **life** (John 11:25), made unto us … **righteousness** (1 Cor 1:30), neither is there **salvation** in any other (Acts 4:12). Calvin has chosen exactly the three predicates that are simultaneously (a) God's exclusive property and (b) Christ's stated identity. The argument is over before the main clause arrives.

Then the move that makes this a real argument instead of a slogan. Calvin names his opponent's escape route and blocks it before the opponent reaches it. **Let no one object that** life or salvation is **transfused** into him by God. ⚠️⚠️⚠️ Stop. transfused is not Calvin's word for what is true. It is Calvin's word for what someone else will say. The objection is exactly the reasonable one: of course Christ has life — God poured it into him, as God pours grace into any saint. And Calvin's reply is one sentence long and it is a sentence about grammar: For it is said **not that he received, but that he himself is** salvation. ⚠️ The refutation is a verb. Not a better proof text — the same texts, read for their verb. **received** (transitive, past, something passes) versus **is** (copular, present, nothing passes). Underline both verbs and draw a line between them. That line is §14.

Today's 3 Big Points

1. Stacked negatives in a conditional, and a participle doing the work of a whole clause. **if out of God there is no salvation, no righteousness, no life**, Christ, (**having all these in himself**), is certainly God. ⚠️ Two things to name. ① there is no A, no B, no C — one existential there is governing three asyndetic negative noun phrases (no and, no repeated there is). Modern English wants there is no A, no B, and no C; period English drops the conjunction to make the list feel exhaustive rather than enumerated. ② **having all these in himself** is a reduced clause in apposition to the subject, set off by two commas: restore it as Christ, **who has** all these in himself, is certainly God, or causally as **since he has** all these in himself. ⚠️⚠️ Trap: it is not a dangling participle and it is not attached to God. The comma pair tells you it modifies Christ, the subject on its left. And note all these — an anaphor reaching back over the comma to the three negatives. Three nouns, negated in the if-clause, affirmed in the participle. Formula 1.
2. The pre-emptive objection, and the not that … but that … that kills it. **Let no one object that** life or salvation is transfused into him by God. For **it is said not that he received, but that he himself is** salvation. ⚠️⚠️ Three constructions stacked. ① Jussive let = third-person imperative, let + bare infinitive (object, never to object, never objects). ② Impersonal passive it is said that … — it is a dummy subject, the real content is the that-clause; the agent is suppressed on purpose (Scripture says, but Calvin will not put a subject there). ③ not that A, but that B — two that-clauses in balanced contrast under one governing verb, with A denied. ⚠️⚠️⚠️ This is the single most testable item in the section, because A is a perfectly orthodox-sounding statement and the sentence rejects it. not that he received — CROSS IT OUT ON YOUR PAGE. Calvin is denying it. Formula 2.
3. Praeteritio: naming a thing in the act of refusing to say it — and the upgrade from adjective to abstract noun. how could he be, **I say not** good and just, **but** goodness and justice? ⚠️⚠️ I say not A but B does not mean he is not A. It means A is too weak; I will not stop there; I say B. The figure is praeteritio (paraleipsis) — you deliver the content by declining to deliver it. ⚠️ And notice what the upgrade is: good → goodness, just → justice. Adjective → abstract noun. Attribute → essence. A creature can have a quality; only God is one. That is the same inherent/derived axis one more time, now in the difference between two parts of speech. ⚠️ Trap option waiting to be written: "Calvin denies that Christ is good and just." Direction-flip. Formula 3.

Again, if out of God there is no salvation, no righteousness, no life, Christ, having all these in himself, is certainly God. Let no one object that life or salvation is transfused into him by God. For it is said not that he received, but that he himself is salvation. And if there is none good but God, how could a mere man be pure, how could he be, I say not good and just, but goodness and justice? Then what shall we say to the testimony of the Evangelist, that from the very beginning of the creation “in him was life, and this life was the light of men?” Trusting to such proofs, we can boldly put our hope and faith in him, though we know it is blasphemous impiety to confide in any creature. “Ye believe in God,” says he, “believe also in me,” (John 14:1). And so Paul (Rom. 10:11, and 15:12) interprets two passages of Isaiah “Whose believeth in him shall not be confounded,” (Isa. 28:16); and, “In that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for an ensign of the people; to it shall the Gentiles seek,” (Isa. 11:10). But why adduce more passages of Scripture on this head, when we so often meet with the expression, “He that believeth in me has eternal life?”

Sentence count: 9 (S1–S9). One paragraph, three movements: the thesis from exclusive possession and the objection blocked before it is raised — if out of God there is no salvation, no righteousness, no life, Christ, having all these in himself, is certainly God … Let no one object that life or salvation is transfused into him by God … it is said not that he received, but that he himself is salvation (S1–S3) · the same argument run twice more, once on goodness with a self-correction inside a rhetorical question (I say not good and just, but goodness and justice) and once on life, from John's prologue (in him was life, and this life was the light of men) (S4–S5) · the turn from what he is to what we may therefore do — the faith argument, with its own built-in danger flag (though we know it is blasphemous impiety to confide in any creature), sealed by Christ's own command (John 14:1), by Paul's two Isaiah citations, and by a rhetorical dismissal of further proof (S6–S9).

Text note (not a correction to the quotation). Six features of the printed page, all left exactly as they stand. (i) ⚠️⚠️⚠️ The section number is absent, and the reason matters more than last night's preview allowed. Between §13's last words (bore the most ample testimony to his divinity) and this paragraph the file prints a page number (125) and a two-line running header (CHAPTER 13. - THE UNITY OF THE DIVINE ESSENCE IN THREE PERSONS TAUGHT, / IN…); the paragraph then simply begins Again, …. Day 87's preview inferred from this that the marker 14. had been lost in the seam. That inference was wrong, and the correction belongs here. The marker 14. is in the file — at line 5458, standing in front of In asserting the divinity of the Spirit, the proof must be derived from the same sources. ⚠️ So in Beveridge's own numbering, today's paragraph is not §14 at all: it is the second of the three paragraphs that make up printed §13, and printed §14 begins the treatment of the Spirit. Nothing is missing from the file, and nothing is out of order in our reading — we are simply taking a long printed section in daily portions, and our day-labels have therefore run ahead of the printed numbers from today. Reading order is unbroken; only the label is ours rather than Beveridge's. Flagged here for BH to decide: either keep our labels (and expect Ch. 13 to end at our §31 rather than Beveridge's §29) or re-map SCHEDULE.md. (ii) Two line-break hyphens, neither of them spelling. es- / sential in the §13 material just above, and nothing inside today's paragraph itself — today's nine sentences carry no split words. Checked line by line against the file. (iii) ⚠️ Two footnote markers stand inside the text and have been removed from the quotation. …to confide in any creature.**40** and “Ye believe in God,”**41**. Their content is not decoration and will be used in Period 6 and Period 7: 40 = The French adds, “Et ne faisons point cela témérairement, mais selon sa parole.”—And let us not do this rashly, but in accordance with his Word. 41 = Calvin translates interrogatively, “Do ye believe in God?” (iv) ⚠️⚠️ Whose believeth in him shall not be confounded is printed exactly so. Not Whosoever, not Whoso. Whose here is the period/compositor's form of Whoso (= whosoever), the older indefinite pronoun — the same word that survives in whosoever and in the legal whoso. It is not the possessive whose and it is not a relative clause. Left as printed. If you "correct" it you will destroy the evidence of how the edition sets its proof texts. (v) The Isaiah 28:16 quotation is punctuated with a comma before the closing quotation mark and the reference after it — …shall not be confounded,” (Isa. 28:16); — whereas the John 14:1 quotation is split around the speech tag (“Ye believe in God,” says he, “believe also in me,” (John 14:1)). ⚠️ Same page, two patterns, exactly as in §13. The edition's inconsistency is kept. ⚠️ Note also that interprets two passages of Isaiah is followed by no colon and no comma before the first quotation. Left as printed. (vi) Typography kept: the question marks closing S4, S5 and S9 (all three rhetorical); the curly quotation marks throughout; the comma pair isolating having all these in himself in S1 and says he in S7; the semicolon separating the two Isaiah citations in S8; and — ⚠️ — the quotation mark placement in S5 and S9, where the closing ” falls after the question mark (the light of men?”, has eternal life?”) because the question is Calvin's, not the Evangelist's. That is not a slip. It is a decision about whose question it is, and it is worth a moment.

                 ─── I. THE THESIS, AND THE OBJECTION KILLED IN ADVANCE (S1–S3) ───
[RESET]          S1a    "AGAIN, IF OUT OF GOD there is NO SALVATION, NO RIGHTEOUSNESS,
                        NO LIFE"                     ⚠ "out of" = OUTSIDE of, extra Deum
[THESIS]         S1b    "CHRIST, (HAVING ALL THESE IN HIMSELF), IS CERTAINLY GOD"
                        ⚠ participle in apposition to CHRIST, not a dangler
[BLOCK]          S2     "LET NO ONE OBJECT THAT life or salvation is TRANSFUSED
                        into him BY GOD"             ← the opponent's word, NOT Calvin's
[THE VERB]       S3     "it is said NOT THAT HE RECEIVED, BUT THAT HE HIMSELF IS
                        salvation"                   ← received ↔ is : the whole section
                 ─── II. THE SAME ARGUMENT, TWICE MORE (S4–S5) ───
[ON GOODNESS]    S4     "if there is NONE GOOD BUT GOD, how could a MERE MAN be pure,
                        how could he be, I SAY NOT good and just, BUT GOODNESS AND
                        JUSTICE?"                    ⚠ praeteritio · adj → abstract NOUN
[ON LIFE]        S5     "the testimony of the Evangelist, that FROM THE VERY BEGINNING
                        OF THE CREATION 'IN HIM WAS LIFE, and this life was THE LIGHT
                        OF MEN?'"                    ← John 1:4 · possession, not receipt
                 ─── III. THEREFORE WE MAY BELIEVE IN HIM (S6–S9) ───
[THE TURN]       S6     "TRUSTING TO SUCH PROOFS, we can BOLDLY put our HOPE AND FAITH
                        in him, THOUGH WE KNOW it is BLASPHEMOUS IMPIETY to CONFIDE
                        IN ANY CREATURE"             ⚠ the danger flag is Calvin's own
[HIS COMMAND]    S7     "'Ye believe in God,' … 'BELIEVE ALSO IN ME' (John 14:1)"
[PAUL'S USE]     S8     Rom 10:11 ← Isa 28:16  ·  Rom 15:12 ← Isa 11:10
                        "WHOSE BELIEVETH IN HIM shall not be confounded"
[DISMISSAL]      S9     "BUT WHY ADDUCE MORE PASSAGES …, WHEN we so often meet with
                        'He that believeth in me has eternal life?'"

The spine in one line: no salvation/righteousness/life outside God + Christ is these, not has been given these → he is God → therefore faith in him, which would otherwise be blasphemy, is commanded.

Examiner's Eye. ⚠️⚠️⚠️ Three traps, and the first one will catch most of the room. (1) transfused (S2). It is in the section, it is a real word, and it is the position Calvin refuses. Any option reading Calvin teaches that life and salvation were transfused into Christ by God is a direction-flip built out of a genuine quotation. The signal is Let no one object that — everything after it is the objection. (2) I say not good and just (S4). Any option reading Calvin denies that Christ is good and just has mistaken praeteritio for negation. Calvin is raising the bar, not lowering it. (3) it is blasphemous impiety to confide in any creature (S6). Any option that makes this a warning against trusting Christ has read the though-clause as the main clause. ⚠️ The main clause is we can boldly put our hope and faith in him; the though-clause is the reason the main clause proves divinity. The danger is the evidence. That inversion — the objection is the proof — is the section's whole rhetorical method, and it is worth a fourth line in your notes.

Formula 1 — The stacked-negative conditional, and the participle in apposition

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  IF (out of X) THERE IS  no A,  no B,  no C ,                            │
│       Y , (having all these in himself) , IS CERTAINLY X .               │
│                                                                          │
│  · "out of X"  = OUTSIDE X, apart from X  (extra X)  ⚠ NOT "from X"      │
│  · "there is"  governs ALL THREE negatives — asyndeton, no "and"         │
│  · the participle is APPOSITIVE to the SUBJECT on its left,              │
│    fenced by TWO commas; restore as WHO HAS … or SINCE HE HAS …          │
│  · "all these" is an ANAPHOR reaching back into the if-clause            │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

⚠️ Trap 1: reading out of as from. It reverses the sentence. Diagnostic: before an existential there is no …, out of is locative-exclusive. ⚠️ Trap 2: treating the participle as a dangler or an absolute. It is neither — the subject is one comma to the left, and an absolute would carry its own subject (all these being in him, …). ⚠️ Trap 3: adding and to the list "for clarity." The asyndeton is the rhetoric. An and closes the list; its absence keeps it total.

Transformation drill. Render into the formula: 만일 하나님 밖에 지혜도, 능력도, 진리도 없다면, 이것들을 자기 안에 가지신 그리스도는 분명히 하나님이시다. Target: If out of God there is no wisdom, no power, no truth, Christ, having all these in himself, is certainly God. ⚠️ Check yourself on four points: out of (not from); no and before no truth; two commas around the participle; certainly as the inference-marker, not a filler.

Formula 2 — Blocking an objection: jussive let, impersonal passive, and not that A, but that B

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  LET  + no one / none  + V(BARE INFINITIVE) + [ that + OBJECTION ] .     │
│  FOR  IT IS SAID   NOT THAT [ S + V-ed ] ,                               │
│                    BUT THAT [ S + himself + IS + N ] .                   │
│                                                                          │
│  · "let" NEVER takes "to"; NEVER a finite verb                           │
│  · the NEGATION sits in the SUBJECT ("no one"), so no "do", no "not"     │
│  · "it is said" = dummy "it" + SUPPRESSED AGENT (generalising)           │
│  · "not that A, but that B": A is DENIED, B asserted, one governing verb │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

⚠️ Trap 1 — the quotable objection. Everything after Let no one object that is the opponent's. Lift it out of the frame and you have the author saying the reverse. Always read the frame before the content. ⚠️ Trap 2 — the grammar of let. Let no one **to** object ✗ · Let no one **objects** ✗ · Let no one **object** ✓. ⚠️ Trap 3 — the contrast pair. not that he **received** (transitive, past, something passes) vs that he himself **is** (copular, present, nothing passes). Do not paraphrase is as possesses — that surrenders the argument.

Transformation drill. Render into the formula: 아무도 그 능력이 하나님에 의해 그에게 주입되었다고 반박하지 말라. 그가 능력을 받았다고 하지 않고, 그 자신이 능력이라고 말씀하기 때문이다. Target: Let no one object that power is transfused into him by God. For it is said not that he received power, but that he himself is power. ⚠️ Check: bare object; by God as the passive agent; not that … but that … with both thats present — dropping the second that breaks the parallel and is a favourite test item.

Formula 3 — Praeteritio, and the concessive that carries the premise

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  A.  how could he be ,  I SAY NOT  A(adj) and B(adj) ,                   │
│                         BUT        A'(ABSTRACT NOUN) and B'(NOUN) ?      │
│      = "I will not stop at A and B — I say A' and B'."                   │
│      ⚠ A is NOT denied.  The figure UPGRADES.                            │
│      ⚠ adj → -ness/-ity noun  =  ATTRIBUTE → ESSENCE                     │
│                                                                          │
│  B.  (V-ing + object) ,  S + can boldly + V ,                            │
│      THOUGH + S + know + IT IS + N + to-INF .                            │
│      ⚠ the THOUGH-clause is not a caveat; it is the MAJOR PREMISE,       │
│        conceded because it is undisputed:                                │
│           command toward X  +  that act toward a creature = impiety      │
│           ───────────────────────────────────────────────────────       │
│                          ∴  X is not a creature                          │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

⚠️ Trap 1 — praeteritio as negation. "Calvin denies that Christ is good and just." No. He refuses to stop there. Diagnostic: the not is governed by I say, so it negates the saying, not the predication. ⚠️ Trap 2 — the concessive as a warning. "Calvin cautions against trusting Christ." No. The main clause is the permission; the though-clause is the general truth that makes the permission diagnostic. The danger is the evidence. ⚠️ Trap 3 — the register of boldly. It is παρρησία, licence, not recklessness — and Calvin's own French edition adds a clause to say so (not rashly, but in accordance with his Word).

Transformation drill. Render into the formula: 만일 하나님 외에 아무도 지혜롭지 않다면, 한낱 사람이 어찌 지혜로울 수 있으며, 어찌 — 지혜롭다고는 말하지 않겠고 — 지혜 자체일 수 있겠는가? 이러한 증거들을 신뢰하여, 우리는 담대히 그를 부를 수 있다. 피조물을 부르는 것이 불경임을 알면서도 그러하다. Target: And if there is none wise but God, how could a mere man be wise, how could he be, I say not wise and true, but wisdom and truth? Trusting to such proofs, we can boldly call upon him, though we know it is blasphemous impiety to call upon any creature. ⚠️ Check: exceptive but in none wise but God; I say not … but … with the adjective→noun jump (wise → wisdom); the participle's subject = we; anticipatory it + noun predicate + to-infinitive.

1. Where §14 sits, and why Again is a structural signal rather than a connective. §§11–13 were one graded series with one thesis: the New Testament ascribes to Christ what belongs to God alone. Proof 1 (§11): the prophecies of Jehovah applied to him. Proof 2 (§12): the works ascribed to him — forgiving sins, reading hearts. Proof 3 (§13): the mode of his miracles — inherent, not delegated. ⚠️ Today Calvin does not add proof 4 to that list. He starts a second list, and the second list is about what he is rather than what he does. Two more members of it follow immediately: §15 in our numbering (Again, the prayer of faith is addressed to him) and the argument from Paul's salutations and 1 Cor 2:2. ⚠️⚠️ So the chapter's shape at this point is: [three proofs from action] + [several proofs from being and from cult]. And notice the direction of travel — from what can be observed (miracles) to what can only be confessed (identity) to what is practised (faith and prayer). That last step is not a descent into piety; for Calvin the practice is evidence, and he says so at the end of this stretch: This practical knowledge is doubtless surer and more solid than any idle speculation.

2. The doctrine actually at stake: autotheos, and why this paragraph is a seed of the most controversial thing Calvin ever taught about the Trinity. ⚠️⚠️⚠️ not that he received, but that he himself is is, in three verbs, the germ of Calvin's doctrine that the Son is αὐτόθεος — God of himself as to his essence. The received Nicene grammar said: the Son is God from God, Light from Light — his deity, like his person, is from the Father (ἐκ τοῦ πατρός). Calvin accepts that of the person (the Son is eternally begotten) but refuses it of the essence: the divine essence is not begotten, not derived, not communicated — the Son has it of himself, because it is one and simple. ⚠️ This cost him. Pierre Caroli accused him of Arianism at Lausanne in 1537 — the irony of which never wore off — and the Italian anti-Trinitarians Gentile and Blandrata attacked the autotheos teaching directly; Calvin answers them later in this very chapter (our §§26–31, his §§24–29). Guardrail, and it is strict: §14 does not contain the word autotheos, does not distinguish person from essence, and does not discuss eternal generation. It supplies the intuition — received vs. is — that the later sections will turn into a technical distinction. Write that Calvin here anticipates it; do not write that he states it.

3. Why the argument from faith (S6–S9) is stronger than it looks, and what its ancestry is. The move — we are commanded to render X to Christ; X rendered to a creature is impiety; therefore Christ is not a creature — is the standard fourth-century argument, and it was originally deployed for the Spirit, not the Son. ⚠️ Athanasius (Letters to Serapion) and Basil (On the Holy Spirit) argue the Spirit's deity from the fact that the Church baptises into his name and glorifies him — lex orandi, lex credendi, the rule of prayer is the rule of belief. Calvin runs the same engine here on faith, and will run it on prayer in the next section. ⚠️⚠️ And that is why §14 and §15 are twinned: faith and invocation are the two acts that cannot be transferred to a creature without idolatry, and both are commanded toward Christ. Guardrail: Calvin names none of these fathers in §14. As in §§11–13, he runs a patristic argument in purely biblical dress. Do not write that he cites Athanasius or Basil here — he does not cite anyone but Paul and John.

4. Edition history, and the one footnote that shows the Institutes changing register. ⚠️ The French translation (1541, and revised down to 1560) is not a mechanical rendering of the Latin; Calvin rewrote as he went, and the additions are almost always pastoral. Today's footnote 40 preserves one: after we can boldly put our hope and faith in him, the French adds “Et ne faisons point cela témérairement, mais selon sa parole” — and let us not do this rashly, but in accordance with his Word. ⚠️⚠️ Read the addition as a piece of evidence about the two audiences. The Latin Institutio argues with scholars, and to a scholar boldly is obviously παρρησία, a licence founded on texts. The French Institution is read by people who may hear boldly as do what you feel. So Calvin fences it — and the fence is characteristic: confidence is never left to float free of Scripture. Exam use: this is the cleanest one-line illustration available of the Latin/French difference, and it is right here in a footnote rather than in a secondary source.

5. A guardrail against the over-reading this section most often invites. ⚠️⚠️⚠️ he himself is salvation is a statement about what Scripture predicates, not a licence to collapse the persons. Calvin is not saying that the Son is the Father, and he is not saying the incarnate Christ received nothing from the Father in his humanity — his own later exposition is emphatic that as Mediator the Son receives, obeys, is given a name, is glorified. What S3 denies is the transfusion account applied to his deity: that he is God by having had godhood poured into him. Two sentences you can safely write; one you cannot:

   ✓  "Calvin argues that Scripture's own idiom for Christ is 'is', not 'received'."
   ✓  "Calvin here anticipates the distinction he will later draw between the
       Son's person (begotten) and his essence (underived)."
   ✗  "Calvin denies that the Son receives anything from the Father."   ← over-read

1. John 14:1 (S7) — “Ye believe in God … believe also in me.” ⚠️ The only text Calvin references by chapter and verse in his own voice. Gk πιστεύετε εἰς τὸν θεόν, καὶ εἰς ἐμὲ πιστεύετε — ⚠️⚠️ both verbs are ambiguous between indicative and imperative, and the printed footnote 41 records that Calvin took the first interrogatively: Do ye believe in God? Calvin's use: Christ himself places faith in God and faith in him on one level, and the hinge is also (καί) — the same act, a second object.
2. John 1:4 (S5) — “in him was life, and this life was the light of men.” Gk ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων. ⚠️ Two points. (i) ἐν αὐτῷ … ἦν is locative inversion — in him is fronted and carries the weight; Beveridge preserves the order. (ii) **this** life renders the anaphoric article ἡ ζωή (that same life, just named) — more exact than AV's the life, not looser. Calvin's use: from the very beginning of the creation (his own addition, licensed by John 1:1) makes the possession timeless, which blocks S2's transfusion chronologically as S3 blocked it grammatically.
3. Mark 10:18 / Luke 18:19 (S4, unquoted and unmarked) — Why callest thou me good? **none is good, save one, that is, God.** ⚠️⚠️⚠️ This is the century's principal anti-Trinitarian proof text, and Calvin makes it a premise for the opposite conclusion. He concedes it without qualification — exactly as he conceded similar and equal miracles in §13 — and then observes that Scripture predicates of Christ not goodness had but goodness itself. ⚠️ Guardrail: he does not exegete the verse here. He uses it.
4. Acts 4:12 (behind S1, unquoted) — neither is there **salvation in any other**: for there is none other name under heaven … whereby we must be saved. ⚠️ This is if out of God there is no salvation and he himself is salvation in one verse. Note Peter says salvation is in him, not he brings salvation.
5. 1 Corinthians 1:30 / Jeremiah 23:6 (behind S1 and S3, unquoted) — Christ Jesus, who of God **is made unto us** wisdom, and **righteousness**, and sanctification, and redemption; this is his name whereby he shall be called, **THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS**. ⚠️⚠️ Jer 23:6 is the strongest: the Messiah's name is Jehovah our righteousness — righteousness predicated as identity, and predicated with the divine name attached. Calvin's no righteousness in S1 is chosen because of texts like this one.
6. Luke 2:30 (behind S3, unquoted) — mine eyes have seen **thy salvation**. ⚠️ Simeon, holding a six-week-old child, says he has seen salvation — not the bringer of salvation. he himself is salvation, dramatised.
7. John 11:25 / 14:6 (behind S1 and S3, unquoted) — I **am** the resurrection and **the life**; I **am** the way, the truth, and **the life**. ⚠️ The ἐγώ εἰμι sayings are the copular grammar S3 appeals to. Calvin does not need to quote them; the argument is that Scripture talks like this, and any reader can supply a dozen.
8. Jeremiah 17:5 / Psalm 146:3 / Isaiah 2:22 (behind S6, unquoted) — **Cursed be the man that trusteth in man**, and maketh flesh his arm; **Put not your trust in princes**, nor in the son of man; **Cease ye from man**, whose breath is in his nostrils. ⚠️ Jer 17:5 supplies the word cursed, which is what licenses blasphemous impiety rather than merely ill-advised. Calvin's use: the premise is left unreferenced because no reader of his would dispute it — and a conceded premise is the strongest kind.
9. Romans 10:11 ← Isaiah 28:16 (S8) — Whosoever believeth on him shall not be **ashamed** ← he that believeth shall not **make haste** (Heb. לֹא יָחִישׁ, lo yaḥish), LXX οὐ μὴ καταισχυνθῇ (shall not be put to shame). ⚠️⚠️ Paul follows the LXX, and Beveridge's confounded renders that. Calvin's use: the point is not Isaiah's Hebrew but Paul's transfer of reference — Isaiah's him is Jehovah; Paul's him is Christ. ⚠️ Guardrail: do not write that Calvin translates the Hebrew here, and do not "restore" make haste in an answer.
10. Romans 15:12 ← Isaiah 11:10 (S8) — there shall be a **root of Jesse** … in him shall the **Gentiles hope** (ἐλπιοῦσιν) ← to it shall the Gentiles **seek** (Heb. darash, = resort to, enquire of). ⚠️⚠️⚠️ The sharpest item in the section. Beveridge prints Isaiah's seek; Paul's citation reads hope — and hope is precisely the word S6 used of our posture toward Christ (put our **hope** and faith in him). Calvin's argument runs on Paul's wording. If an examiner sets the two side by side, say so.
11. John 6:47 (loosely) (S9) — He that believeth **in me** has eternal life. ⚠️ Chosen as the closer because it does both jobs at once: the act (believeth in me) that S6 called blasphemy toward a creature, and the reward (eternal life) that only God can attach to it. Note that Calvin introduces it as the expression we so often meet with — i.e. he is citing a habit of the New Testament, not a single verse, which is why the wording is loose and why no reference is printed.

① 어법 (Grammar) — one of the four underlined items is wrong

Again, if out of God there is no salvation, no righteousness, no life, Christ, ⓐhaving all these in himself, is certainly God. ⓑLet no one to object that life or salvation is transfused into him by God. For it is said not that he received, but that he himself is salvation. And if there is none good but God, how could a mere man be pure, how could he be, ⓒI say not good and just, but goodness and justice? ⓓTrusting to such proofs, we can boldly put our hope and faith in him, though we know it is blasphemous impiety to confide in any creature.

Answer: ⓑ.

출제 의도. ⚠️⚠️ Jussive let takes a BARE infinitive: Let no one **object**, never to object, never objects. English has no third-person imperative inflection, so it builds one with let + NP + bare infinitive — and the negation is carried by the subject no one, which is why there is no do and no not in the clause either. Let no one **to** object is ungrammatical in any century of English; this is the only item of the four that is actually broken. (Formula 2.)

⚠️ The other three all look suspicious and are all correct — and each one is suspicious for a different reason. ⓐ having all these in himself — a reader trained to hunt danglers will flag it. ⚠️ Do not. A dangling participle needs no available subject; here the subject Christ sits one comma to the left, and the two commas mark the clause as appositive to the subject. Restore it as who has … or since he has … and nothing changes. (Formula 1.) ⓒ I say not good and just — this one feels like a missing auxiliary (I do not say). ⚠️⚠️ Period English negates a lexical verb directly, without do-support, and Beveridge keeps it. More importantly: "correcting" it to I do not say good and just would preserve the grammar but tempt you to read the figure as a denial. It is praeteritio — the negation is on the saying, not on the predication. (Formula 3A.) ⓓ Trusting to such proofs — flagged by the same dangler reflex as ⓐ, and wrongly. ⚠️ The subject of the participle is the subject of the main clause, we, and we is exactly who does the trusting. Note also that trust **to** (+ grounds) is the period government; "correcting" it to trust in would collide with confide **in** later in the same sentence and flatten a distinction Calvin is making on purpose. (Formula 3B.)

⚠️ The lesson of the item, and it is the same as §13's: three of the four underlines test whether you will "fix" good period English. Only one is broken.

② 내용일치 (Comprehension) — which of the following best represents Calvin's argument in §14?

1. Calvin teaches that life and salvation were transfused into Christ by God, and that this is what makes him divine.
2. Calvin denies that Christ can properly be called good and just, since Scripture says that none is good but God; he therefore locates Christ's divinity in his works rather than in his attributes.
3. Calvin argues that because salvation, righteousness and life exist nowhere outside God, and because Scripture says not that Christ received them but that he is them, Christ is God; and he confirms this from the fact that we are commanded to believe in him, though trusting any creature would be blasphemy.
4. Calvin warns that believing in Christ must be done cautiously, since it is blasphemous impiety to confide in any creature, and he adduces Isaiah to show that such faith is permitted only to the Gentiles.

Answer: 3.

출제 의도. ⚠️ Option 3 is the section's own chain: exclusive possession (S1) → the copula rather than the transitive verb (S3) → the argument from commanded faith (S6–S9). Nothing added, nothing reversed.

⚠️⚠️ Option 1 is the direction-flip, and it is built out of an accurate quotation. life or salvation is transfused into him by God is verbatim from S2 — with the frame Let no one object that removed. This is the single most likely wrong answer in the room, because the sentence is in the text. Defence: read the governing frame before the clause. ⚠️⚠️ Option 2 is the praeteritio trap, with a second error stacked on it. I say not good and just is not a denial (Formula 3A), and §14 explicitly moves away from the argument from works — that was §§12–13; Again announces the change of ground. Two errors, either one fatal. ⚠️⚠️ Option 4 is the concessive-as-caveat trap, plus a scope error. The though-clause is the major premise, not a warning about Christ (S6); and the Isaiah citations show that the Gentiles too are included in the faith commanded — not that faith is restricted to them. ⚠️ Note how the option is built: it takes two real features of the text (blasphemous impiety, the Gentiles) and gets the logical role of each one wrong. That is the standard construction of a hard distractor, and recognising the construction is half the defence.

③ 영작 (Composition) — apply today's formulas

Render into English using Formula 1, Formula 2 and Formula 3A:

다시, 만일 하나님 밖에 참된 지혜도, 참된 권능도 없다면, 이것들을 자기 안에 가지신 그리스도는 분명히 하나님이시다. 아무도 지혜가 하나님에 의해 그에게 주입되었다고 반박하지 말라. 그가 지혜를 받았다고 하지 않고, 그 자신이 지혜라고 말씀하기 때문이다. 그리고 만일 하나님 외에 아무도 지혜롭지 않다면, 한낱 사람이 어찌 — 지혜롭다고는 말하지 않겠고 — 지혜 자체일 수 있겠는가?

Target:

Again, if out of God there is no true wisdom, no true power, Christ, having all these in himself, is certainly God. Let no one object that wisdom is transfused into him by God. For it is said not that he received wisdom, but that he himself is wisdom. And if there is none wise but God, how could a mere man be, I say not wise, but wisdom itself?

출제 의도 — the six checkpoints, in order of how often they are missed. ① ⚠️⚠️ out of God — not from God. The commonest single error, and it inverts the theology. (Formula 1) ② ⚠️ No and in the negative list. no true wisdom, no true power — asyndeton. Adding and is not wrong English; it is wrong rhetoric, and it is what the drill is testing. ③ ⚠️⚠️ Two commas around having all these in himself. One comma turns an appositive into a dangler. ④ ⚠️⚠️⚠️ Let no one **object** — bare infinitive. (Formula 2) ⑤ ⚠️⚠️ Both thats present in not that he received …, but that he himself is …. Dropping the second that breaks the parallel and changes what the verb governs. ⑥ ⚠️⚠️ I say not wise, but wisdom — adjective to abstract noun. If you write I say not wise, but he is wise indeed, you have kept the words and lost the figure. The upgrade is the argument. (Formula 3A)

One-line summary. **Again** is a reset, not a rung: the graded series of §§11–13 (prophecy → works → miracles) is finished, and Calvin begins a second proof from being rather than working — if **out of God** (= outside God) there is **no salvation, no righteousness, no life**, Christ, **having all these in himself**, is **certainly** God (S1), where three asyndetic negatives are affirmed back onto him by a participle in apposition and a demonstrative (all these). The objection is named and killed before it can be raised — **Let no one object that** life or salvation is **transfused** into him by God (S2, ⚠️ the opponent's word, not Calvin's) — and the refutation is a verb: it is said **not that he received, but that he himself is** salvation (S3), transitive-past-with-a-giver against copular-present-with-nothing-passing. The same claim is then run twice more: on goodness, by praeteritio and an upgrade from adjective to abstract noun — how could he be, **I say not good and just, but goodness and justice**? (S4, on the premise none good but God, ⚠️ the century's chief anti-Trinitarian proof text, turned) — and on life, by John's prologue with a temporal block added — **from the very beginning of the creation** “in him was life, and this life was the light of men” (S5). Then the gear change: from what he is to what we may do — **Trusting to such proofs**, we can **boldly** put our hope and faith in him, **though we know it is blasphemous impiety to confide in any creature** (S6), where ⚠️⚠️ the concessive is not a caveat but the major premise (commanded faith + faith in a creature is impiety ∴ he is no creature), sealed by Christ's own “Ye believe in God … **believe also in me**” (S7, the hinge is also), by Paul's transfer of two Isaiah texts to Christ (S8, Rom 10:11 ← Isa 28:16; Rom 15:12 ← Isa 11:10), and by a closing praeteritio that cites one more text in the act of refusing to cite more (S9). Grammar: ① stacked negatives in a conditional + appositive participle (there is no A, no B, no C · Christ, having all these in himself, is), with out of locative-exclusive; ② jussive let + bare infinitive, impersonal passive it is said with suppressed agent, and not that A, but that B with A denied; ③ praeteritio (I say not A but B — ⚠️ A is not denied; the bar is raised) and the conceded-premise concessive (though we know it is N to V). Vocabulary spine: ⚠️ trans-fused (S2) and con-founded (S8) are one Latin verb, fundere, at the two ends of the section; and creation (S5) / creature (S6) are one Latin verb, creāre, on the two sides of the line the whole paragraph is drawing.

Homework (10 minutes).

1. Structure restoration. Take S1 and write it on three lines: line 1 the if-clause with out of circled and OUTSIDE — extra Deum written beside it, and the three negatives in a vertical column with their New Testament identity-texts opposite (salvation — Acts 4:12; righteousness — 1 Cor 1:30 / Jer 23:6; life — John 11:25); line 2 the main clause with both commas of , having all these in himself, marked in a second colour and the word WHO HAS / SINCE HE HAS written above the participle; line 3 an arrow from all these backwards into the if-clause. Then take S3 and draw the two-branch tree from Period 3 Step 3 — it is said on top, NOT THAT he received and BUT THAT he himself is salvation beneath — and label four contrasts under the branches (transitive/copular · past/present · agent implied/no agent · creature/God). Finally, list in one column every occurrence of the preposition in in the section (in himself S1 · into him S2 · in him was life S5 · in him S6 · believe in me S7 · believeth in him S8 · believeth in me S9) and write beside each whether it marks location or destination. ⚠️ Exactly one of them marks destination. Find it and you have found the objection.
2. Composition. One short paragraph, English, containing (a) a stacked-negative conditional with out of used locative-exclusively and no and in the list, (b) an appositive participle correctly fenced by two commas, (c) a jussive Let no one … with a bare infinitive, (d) a not that A, but that B pair with both thats present, and (e) a praeteritio that upgrades an adjective to an abstract noun. 다시, 만일 하나님 밖에 진리도, 빛도 없다면, 이것들을 자기 안에 가지신 그리스도는 분명히 하나님이시다. 아무도 그 빛이 하나님에 의해 그에게 주입되었다고 반박하지 말라. 그가 빛을 받았다고 하지 않고, 그 자신이 빛이라고 말씀하기 때문이다. 한낱 사람이 어찌 — 참되고 밝다고는 말하지 않겠고 — 진리요 빛 자체일 수 있겠는가? Target: Again, if out of God there is no truth, no light, Christ, having all these in himself, is certainly God. Let no one object that light is transfused into him by God. For it is said not that he received light, but that he himself is light. How could a mere man be, I say not true and bright, but truth and light?
3. Preview — §15, one line. Tomorrow Calvin resets again — the section opens with the very same word: **Again**, the prayer of faith is addressed to him—prayer, **which specially belongs to the divine majesty, if anything so belongs**. ⚠️ Two Agains back to back confirms today's reading of the word: each one starts an independent proof, and tomorrow's is the twin of today's — faith today, invocation tomorrow. Watch three things. (i) The dash-apposition with a self-qualifying relative: prayer, which specially belongs to the divine majesty, **if anything so belongs** — ⚠️ that trailing conditional is a rhetorical concession-clause (if anything at all belongs to God alone, this does), and it is doing the same job as today's though we know — it looks like a hedge and is actually a strengthener. (ii) The syllogism run openly this time, with its middle term stated: whosoever shall **call on the name of the LORD (Jehovah)** shall be delivered (Joel 2:32) · **the name of the LORD (Jehovah)** is a strong tower (Prov 18:10) · **But the name of Christ is invoked for salvation, and therefore it follows that he is Jehovah** — ⚠️ note therefore it follows: today the conclusion arrived as certainly; tomorrow it arrives as a stated inference, and the two examples are Stephen (Lord Jesus, receive my spirit) and Ananias. (iii) The grammar to expect: whosoever + shall in prophetic quotation (⚠️ compare today's printed Whose believeth), the parenthetical gloss (Jehovah) inserted into the quotations — Beveridge marking where the English LORD stands for the divine name, which is the hinge of the entire argument — and a closing comparative that you should be ready to quote: This **practical knowledge** is doubtless **surer and more solid** than any **idle speculation**. ⚠️ Today the question was whether he is what God alone is; tomorrow it is whether we may call on him as God alone is called on.

Where we stopped: Book 1, Ch. 13, §14 끝. 다음은 Book 1, Ch. 13, §15.