Day 95 — Book 1, Chapter 13, §21

Yesterday Calvin said: distinct. Today he asks the dangerous follow-up: distinct in WHAT way? And his first sentence is a brake, not an accelerator: I am not sure whether it is expedient to borrow analogies from human affairs. The sun, its ray and its heat. The root, the trunk and the fruit. Memory, understanding and will. Every Sunday-school teacher reaches for one of these. Calvin says: careful. The fathers used them — and in the same breath confessed they limp. This is yesterday's soberness (Day 94 S1) turned into a working rule. Watch the grammar of caution: whether it is expedient, lest … may, It were unbecoming. Formula 2.

Second — the centre of the section is ONE sentence (S5), and it is built backwards. to the Father is attributed the beginning of action …; to the Son, wisdom, counsel, and arrangement … ⚠️⚠️ The prepositional phrase comes FIRST, the verb jumps in front of the subject, and in the second half the verb vanishes altogether. Students read to the Son, wisdom as a list. It is a clause with its verb deleted: to the Son ‹is attributed› wisdom. And the tail — the energy and efficacy of action IS assigned — two nouns, one singular verb. Error? No. One notion. Formula 1.

Third — the most delicate move of the chapter. Calvin must say two things that sound contradictory: (a) in eternity there can be no room for first or last — the Son and Spirit are as eternal as the Father; (b) still the distinction of order is not unmeaning. ⚠️⚠️⚠️ Order without sequence. First without earlier. He does it with a concession ladder — though …, since …; and though …, still … — and a floating participle clause: the Father being considered first, next the Son from him, and then the Spirit from both. from both — two words, and you have just walked into the thousand-year quarrel between Rome and Constantinople (the Filioque). Formula 3.

Today's 3 Big Points

1. Fronted phrase + inversion + gapping + notional agreement: to the Father is attributed the beginning of action · to the Son, ‹is attributed› wisdom · the energy and efficacy of action is assigned · the Spirit ‹is said to be› of both. ⚠️ Find the real subject AFTER the verb; restore the deleted verb; a pair that forms one idea can take a singular verb. (S5, S8.) Formula 1.
2. The grammar of caution: whether it is expedient to V · hence it is that (cleft) · lest … may · It were unbecoming … to say nothing of. ⚠️ lest already carries the negative — never add not. It were = it would be (old subjunctive). say nothing of = be silent about — NOT not to mention. (S1, S3, S4.) Formula 2.
3. The concession ladder + absolute clause: though …, since …; and though …, still … · the Father being considered first, next the Son from him, and then the Spirit from both. ⚠️ still is the main-clause signal (= nevertheless, not yet/until now); the absolute clause has its own subject (the Father), and its participle is gapped twice. (S6.) Formula 3.

I am not sure whether it is expedient to borrow analogies from human affairs to express the nature of this distinction. The ancient fathers sometimes do so, but they at the same time admits that what they bring forward as analogous is very widely different. And hence it is that I have a great dread of any thing like presumption here, lest some rash saying may furnish an occasion of calumny to the malicious, or of delusion to the unlearned. It were unbecoming, however, to say nothing of a distinction which we observe that the Scriptures have pointed out. This distinction is, that to the Father is attributed the beginning of action, the fountain and source of all things; to the Son, wisdom, counsel, and arrangement in action, while the energy and efficacy of action is assigned to the Spirit. Moreover, though the eternity of the Father is also the eternity of the Son and Spirit, since God never could be without his own wisdom and energy; and though in eternity there can be no room for first or last, still the distinction of order is not unmeaning or superfluous, the Father being considered first, next the Son from him, and then the Spirit from both. For the mind of every man naturally inclines to consider, first, God, secondly, the wisdom emerging from him, and, lastly, the energy by which he executes the purposes of his counsel. For this reason, the Son is said to be of the Father only; the Spirit of both the Father and the Son. This is done in many passages, but in none more clearly than in the eighth chapter to the Romans, where the same Spirit is called indiscriminately the Spirit of Christ, and the Spirit of him who raised up Christ from the dead. And not improperly. For Peter also testifies (1 Pet. 1:21), that it was the Spirit of Christ which inspired the prophets, though the Scriptures so often say that it was the Spirit of God the Father.

Sentence count: 11 (S1–S11). One paragraph, four movements: the brake — analogies and their danger (S1–S3) · the duty to speak — the threefold attribution (S4–S5) · order without sequence (S6–S7) · the Spirit "of both", proved from Romans 8 and 1 Peter 1 (S8–S11).

⚠️ Day 94: 15 sentences. Today: 11 (PROGRESS estimated "about 12"). Seven ★★★, three ★★, one ★. And not improperly. (S10) is a verbless fragment — but Beveridge punctuates it as a sentence, and so do we.

Text note (not a correction to the quotation). Seven features of the printed page, all handled as follows. (i) Section marker 18. removed at the head of the paragraph (source line 5607). (ii) Margin page number 126 removed — printed at the far right of line 5609, after And; the next line in the file is blank. Rejoined: … very widely different. And hence it is that … ⚠️ The page break falls inside the S2/S3 boundary — And opens S3; it does not close S2. (iii) Line-end hyphen joined: con- | sidered → considered (S6). (iv) ⚠️ they at the same time admits (S2) — agreement slip (plural subject, singular verb). Quoted as printed. Read: they … admit. Do not copy admits into your own writing. (v) ⚠️ (1 Pet. 1:21) (S11) — almost certainly a misprint for 1 Peter 1:11 (the Spirit of Christ which was in them — the prophets). 1 Peter 1:21 is about faith and hope in God; 2 Peter 1:21 is holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost — a likely source of the slip. Quoted as printed; correction flagged in Period 7. (vi) Kept as printed: any thing (two words, older spelling); This distinction is, that (comma before the that-clause — old heavy pointing); the energy and efficacy of action is assigned (singular verb — see S5, not an error). (vii) ⚠️ Section numbering. Our §21 = Beveridge printed §18, entire (source lines 5607–5629). The page number 130 and the two-line running head (CHAPTER 13. - THE UNITY OF THE DIVINE ESSENCE IN THREE PERSONS TAUGHT, / IN…) stand AFTER the section's last sentence — not inside it. The printed marker 19. follows. Label offset still +3. BH's decision remains open (A: keep our labels / B: re-map SCHEDULE.md). Reading order is unbroken.

                 ─── I. THE BRAKE (S1–S3) ───
[DOUBT]          S1    not sure WHETHER it is EXPEDIENT to borrow ANALOGIES
                        from human affairs
[PRECEDENT]      S2    fathers DO SO — but ADMIT the likeness is VERY WIDELY DIFFERENT
[DANGER]         S3    HENCE IT IS THAT I dread presumption,
                        LEST a rash saying → calumny (malicious) / delusion (unlearned)
                 ─── II. THE DUTY TO SPEAK (S4–S5) ───
[BUT]            S4    IT WERE UNBECOMING to SAY NOTHING of what SCRIPTURE points out
[THE TRIAD]      S5    Father → BEGINNING of action, FOUNTAIN and SOURCE
                        Son    → WISDOM, COUNSEL, ARRANGEMENT in action
                        Spirit → ENERGY and EFFICACY of action
                 ─── III. ORDER WITHOUT SEQUENCE (S6–S7) ───
[CONCESSIONS]    S6    THOUGH co-eternal (SINCE God never without wisdom/energy)
                        THOUGH no first or last in eternity
                        STILL order ≠ unmeaning:
                        Father FIRST → Son FROM HIM → Spirit FROM BOTH
[WHY ORDER]      S7    FOR the mind naturally considers: God → wisdom → energy
                 ─── IV. "OF BOTH" — THE PROOF (S8–S11) ───
[THESIS]         S8    Son OF the Father ONLY; Spirit OF BOTH
[ROMANS 8]       S9    NONE MORE CLEARLY: Spirit of CHRIST = Spirit of HIM WHO RAISED CHRIST
[VERDICT]        S10   And NOT IMPROPERLY
[1 PETER 1]      S11   Spirit of CHRIST in the prophets — though usually "Spirit of God the Father"

The spine in one line: Analogies are risky — the fathers admit they limp, and a rash word hurts → but Scripture itself distinguishes, so I must speak → Father = source, Son = wisdom, Spirit = energy → no first or last in eternity, yet a real order: Father, Son from him, Spirit from both → so the Spirit is called the Spirit of the Father AND of Christ (Rom 8; 1 Pet 1).

Examiner's Eye. ⚠️⚠️⚠️ Five traps. (1) S1–S3 — does Calvin reject analogies? ⚠️ No. I am not sure whether it is expedient = hesitation, not prohibition. He grants the precedent — The ancient fathers sometimes do so and then gives his own account (S5). An option saying Calvin condemns all use of analogy as heretical is scope overreach. An option saying Calvin holds that the fathers' analogies are close likenesses is a direction flip — they themselves say very widely different. (2) S4 — to say nothing of. ⚠️⚠️ = to be silent about. NOT the modern idiom not to mention (= and also). It were unbecoming … to say nothing = it would be wrong to keep silent. (3) S5 — who does what? ⚠️ Father: beginning, fountain, source. Son: wisdom, counsel, arrangement. Spirit: energy, efficacy. Swapping any two (e.g. wisdom to the Spirit) is the classic distractor. (4) S6 — does order mean time or rank? ⚠️⚠️⚠️ Neither. in eternity there can be no room for first or last and the eternity of the Father is also the eternity of the Son and Spirit. An option saying the Father existed before the Son is a direction flip. An option saying because there is no first or last, the order is meaningless denies S6's main clause (not unmeaning or superfluous). (5) S8 — "of both". ⚠️ The Son is of the Father ONLY; the Spirit is of both the Father and the Son. Options that make the Son "of the Spirit", or the Spirit "of the Father only", flip the text.

Formula 1 — Fronting + inversion + gapping (+ notional singular)

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  (A) PP  +  BE/AUX  +  p.p.  +  REAL SUBJECT                          │
│      TO THE FATHER  is attributed  THE BEGINNING OF ACTION      (S5) │
│        base: The beginning of action is attributed to the Father     │
│        TEST: "what is attributed?" → the subject. A PP is never it. │
│                                                                       │
│  (B) GAPPING after ; or ,   → restore the verb of the parallel clause │
│      to the Son, ‹is attributed› wisdom, counsel …              (S5) │
│      the Spirit ‹is said to be› of both the Father and the Son  (S8) │
│      in none ‹is it done› more clearly than in Romans 8         (S9) │
│                                                                       │
│  (C) A and B  +  SINGULAR verb   = one notion                         │
│      the energy and efficacy of action IS assigned              (S5) │
│      what they bring forward as analogous IS …   (what-clause) (S2) │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

⚠️ Trap. In (A), the verb agrees with the REAL subject that comes after it: To the Son ARE attributed wisdom, counsel, and arrangement would also be correct in modern English (three plural nouns) — Beveridge's gapping hides the choice. In (B), never read a gapped clause as a list or a heading. A semicolon + noun phrase = a clause missing its verb.

Transformation drill. Rewrite with fronting-inversion and gapping: The beginning is ascribed to the Father; wisdom is ascribed to the Son; power is ascribed to the Spirit.

Model: To the Father is ascribed the beginning; to the Son, wisdom; to the Spirit, power. (✓ first clause inverted; ⚠️ second and third clauses gapped — restore is ascribed in each.)

Formula 2 — The grammar of caution

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  (A) WHETHER it is EXPEDIENT to V₁ … to V₂                            │
│      I am not sure WHETHER it is expedient TO BORROW …          (S1) │
│        TO BORROW = real subject ; TO EXPRESS = purpose               │
│                                                                       │
│  (B) HENCE/THUS/THEREFORE  IT IS THAT  S V      (cleft on the cause)  │
│      hence it is that I have a great dread …                    (S3) │
│                                                                       │
│  (C) LEST + S + may/should/bare V      = so that … NOT                │
│      lest some rash saying MAY furnish an occasion …            (S3) │
│        ✗ lest … may NOT …  (negative already inside LEST)            │
│                                                                       │
│  (D) IT WERE + ADJ + TO V               = it would be ADJ to V        │
│      It were unbecoming … to say nothing of …                   (S4) │
│        say nothing of (here) = keep silent about ≠ not to mention    │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

⚠️ Trap. (C) is the exam-setter's favourite: add not after lest and see who notices. (D): It were is not a mistake for it was; and to say nothing of must be read literally here.

Transformation drill. Combine with lest … should: Calvin avoids speculation. He does not want to give the malicious a pretext.

Model: Calvin avoids speculation, lest he should give the malicious a pretext. (✓ lest carries the negative; ⚠️ lest he should not give ✗.)

Formula 3 — The concession ladder + absolute clause with gapping

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  THOUGH A, (SINCE B); AND THOUGH C, STILL D,  [N + being p.p. …]     │
│                                                                       │
│   though  the eternity of the Father is also that of the Son (S6)   │
│   since   God never could be without his wisdom and energy          │
│   though  in eternity there can be no room for first or last        │
│   STILL   the distinction of order is not unmeaning      ← MAIN     │
│   [the Father being considered first,                    ← ABSOLUTE │
│    next the Son ‹being considered› from him,             ← gapped   │
│    and then the Spirit ‹being considered› from both]     ← gapped   │
│                                                                       │
│   STILL = nevertheless (≠ yet, until now)                            │
│   absolute clause: own subject + participle; NO finite verb          │
│     ✗ …superfluous, the Father IS considered first  (comma splice)  │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

⚠️ Trap. Find the main clause by looking for still (or yet, nevertheless) after a though-chain. Everything before it is subordinate — no matter how long. And in the absolute clause, don't turn being into is.

Transformation drill. One sentence with though … still + absolute clause: The Son is co-eternal with the Father. Nevertheless, he is rightly called "from the Father". The Father is the source.

Model: Though the Son is co-eternal with the Father, still he is rightly called "from the Father", the Father being the source. (✓ concessive though, main clause after still, absolute clause with its own subject.)

Where we are. Chapter 13's second pole began yesterday: the Persons are REALLY distinct (Day 94 = printed §17). Today (printed §18) asks: distinct in what way and in what order? Tomorrow (printed §19) will add: this order does not harm the unity — distinction is by relation, not essence (Augustine). Then printed §20 (our §23) sums up for "those who love soberness". So §§17–20 (our §§20–23) form one block: distinction → order → relation → summary.

The analogy question. The fathers did reach for analogies: Tertullian — root, tree, fruit; spring, river, stream; sun, ray, point of light (Against Praxeas 8). Augustine — the long search for the image of the Trinity in the human mind: mens, notitia, amor (mind, its knowledge, its love, De Trin. IX) and memoria, intelligentia, voluntas (memory, understanding, will, De Trin. X). And Augustine himself, at the end (De Trin. XV), stresses how great the unlikeness is — exactly what Calvin reports in S2 (very widely different). Calvin's caution is not anti-patristic; it is patristic caution taken seriously. Why? Every analogy breaks somewhere: the sun–ray image slides toward modalism (rays are effects, not persons); the three-men image toward tritheism.

Appropriation — the doctrine behind S5. ⚠️ The rule: opera Trinitatis ad extra indivisa sunt — the outward works of the Trinity are undivided. Creation, providence, redemption: all three Persons act in every work. Yet theology appropriates — assigns by fittingness — certain features to one Person: power to the Father, wisdom to the Son, goodness/love to the Spirit (Augustine; later formalised by Aquinas, ST I q.39 a.7–8). Calvin's triad — beginning / wisdom-counsel-arrangement / energy-efficacy — follows the Greek pattern of Basil and Gregory of Nyssa: every divine act comes from the Father, through the Son, in (or by) the Spirit (1 Cor 8:6). So attributed and assigned are technical words — not monopolised.

Order without subordination (S6). τάξις — order — without temporal priority (no room for first or last) and without inequality of deity (the eternity of the Father is also the eternity of the Son and Spirit). The since God never could be without his own wisdom and energy argument is Athanasian: if the Son (Wisdom) had a beginning, God was once without Wisdom. Later in this chapter (printed §§23–25, our §§26–28) Calvin will fight Valentino Gentile and others who used the Father's "first" place to make the Son a lesser, derived deity; there Calvin insists the Son is autotheos — God of himself as to essence, from the Father as to Person. Today's S6 is the seed of that argument.

from both — the Filioque (S6, S8). The original Creed of 381 says the Spirit proceeds from the Father. The Latin West added and the Son (Filioque) — Council of Toledo (589), spread under Charlemagne, adopted in Rome by the 11th century. Photius of Constantinople (9th c.) attacked it; it became one of the doctrinal fault-lines of the East–West split (1054). Calvin stands with the West (as do the Belgic Confession art. 11 and Westminster 2.3: the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son). ⚠️ But notice his argument's shape: from names — "Spirit of Christ" (Rom 8:9; 1 Pet 1:11; Gal 4:6). The Eastern reply: those genitives show the Spirit's mission through the Son and his belonging to the Son, not eternal origin from him. Fair exam statement: Calvin affirms the Filioque here briefly and biblically, not by a full polemical treatment.

Reception. Karl Barth (CD I/1 §12) defended the Filioque precisely on Calvin's ground: the Spirit in revelation is the Spirit of the Father and of the Son, and God's revelation corresponds to what God is in himself. Modern ecumenical discussions (e.g. the Klingenthal memorandum, 1979) proposed formulas such as from the Father through the Son — closer to the Greek fathers, and not far from Calvin's own "fountain → wisdom → energy".

Over-reading guardrails, all in one place. ⚠️ (1) S1–S3 ≠ a ban on analogy — it's hesitation and a demand for disclaimers. (2) S5 ≠ division of labour — attribution, not exclusive work. (3) S6 ≠ temporal priority or rank — the Persons share ONE eternity. (4) S7 ≠ a psychological proof of the Trinity — it's an accommodation: our minds think in this order, and Scripture's language matches. (5) S8–S11 ≠ a full Filioque treatise — the argument rests on biblical genitives. (6) considered first ≠ existed first.

The one-line takeaway. ⚠️ Speak where Scripture speaks, stop where it stops: the Father is the fountain, the Son the wisdom, the Spirit the power — one eternity, a real order, no before and after.

1. Romans 8:9 — S9 (cited as "the eighth chapter to the Romans"). But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. Gk. πνεῦμα θεοῦ … πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ. ⚠️ One verse, both genitives, one Spirit. How Calvin uses it: Spirit of God = Spirit of Christ → the Spirit is "of both".
2. Romans 8:11 — S9. But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. How Calvin uses it: the Spirit of him who raised up Christ = the Father's Spirit (cf. Gal 1:1 God the Father, who raised him from the dead) — the same Spirit as in 8:9.
3. 1 Peter 1:11 — S11 (printed "1 Pet. 1:21", almost certainly a misprint). Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ. Gk. τὸ ἐν αὐτοῖς πνεῦμα Χριστοῦ. ⚠️ The Spirit of Christ in the Old Testament prophets — before the incarnation. How Calvin uses it: the prophets' Spirit is "of Christ". (1 Pet 1:21 speaks of faith and hope in God; 2 Pet 1:21 — holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost — is the likely source of the slip.)
4. 2 Samuel 23:2; Nehemiah 9:30; Zechariah 7:12 — S11 (the Scriptures so often say). The Spirit of the LORD spake by me / testifiedst against them by thy spirit in thy prophets / the words which the LORD of hosts hath sent in his spirit by the former prophets. How it fits: the usual OT formula — the Spirit of God (the Father) speaks by the prophets. Peter's "Spirit of Christ" names the same Spirit.
5. Galatians 4:6 — behind S8. God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father. How it fits: "Spirit of his Son", sent by God (the Father) — the "of both" pattern in one verse.
6. John 15:26; 14:26 — behind S6 and S8 (cited yesterday). the Comforter, whom I will send unto you from the Father, … which proceedeth from the Father / whom the Father will send in my name. ⚠️ The Son sends; the Father sends — the Western reading of "from both" leans on this double sending; the East separates sending (mission) from proceeding (origin).
7. 1 Corinthians 1:24, 30; Proverbs 8:22–31 — behind S5 and S6 (wisdom). Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God / The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way … I was by him, as one brought up with him. How it fits: the Son = Wisdom; and S6's God never could be without his own wisdom = the fathers' reading of Prov 8 (Wisdom eternally with God).
8. 1 Corinthians 8:6; Romans 11:36 — behind S5's triad. one God, the Father, of whom are all things …; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things / For of him, and through him, and to him, are all things. Gk. ἐξ οὗ … δι᾽ οὗ. How it fits: from the Father (fountain and source), through the Son (wisdom … arrangement) — the prepositional grammar of appropriation.
9. Acts 1:8; Luke 1:35; Micah 3:8 — behind S5's energy and efficacy. ye shall receive power (δύναμιν), after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you / The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee / I am full of power by the spirit of the LORD. How it fits: the Spirit as God's effective power in action.
10. Ephesians 1:11 — behind S5 and S7 (counsel, executes the purposes of his counsel). who worketh all things after the counsel of his own will. Gk. κατὰ τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ θελήματος αὐτοῦ. How it fits: purpose → counsel → working — S7's sequence in Paul's words.
11. 2 Corinthians 11:12 — behind S3 (furnish an occasion). that I may cut off occasion from them which desire occasion. Gk. ἀφορμή (a base of operations). How it fits: Calvin, like Paul, refuses to hand opponents a foothold.
12. Deuteronomy 29:29 — behind S1–S4 (the rule of speech and silence). The secret things belong unto the LORD our God: but those things which are revealed belong unto us. How it fits: Calvin's stance in miniature — silence on the secret (S1–S3), speech on the revealed (S4). (Not cited by Calvin here; a thematic echo he uses elsewhere, e.g. III.21.3.)

① 어법 — 밑줄 넷 중 어색한 것 하나

To the Father (A) is attributed the beginning of action, the fountain and source of all things. And hence it is (B) what I have a great dread of any thing like presumption here, lest some rash saying (C) may furnish an occasion of calumny to the malicious. Still the distinction of order is not unmeaning or superfluous, the Father (D) being considered first, next the Son from him, and then the Spirit from both.

✨ 답안 보기 (클릭)정답: (B).

출제 의도. ⚠️ Formula 2(B) — cleft hence it is THAT S V. The cleft frame takes that; what would need a gap inside its clause (what I have ∅) — but I have a great dread is already complete.* hence it is what I have ✗. Why the others are sound. (A) fronting + inversion — the real subject is the beginning of action (Formula 1A). (C) lest … may — negative purpose, no not needed (Formula 2C). (D) ⚠️ the "feels wrong, is right" option: absolute clause — own subject the Father + participle; is considered* would create a comma splice (Formula 3).

② 내용일치 — 다음 중 §21의 내용과 일치하는 것은?

(1) Calvin freely uses analogies from human affairs, since the fathers found them close likenesses of the Trinity. (2) Because the Father is first in order, Calvin teaches that he existed before the Son and the Spirit. (3) Calvin attributes wisdom, counsel and arrangement in action to the Son, and says the Spirit is of both the Father and the Son. (4) Since there is no first or last in eternity, Calvin concludes that the distinction of order is superfluous.

✨ 답안 보기 (클릭)정답: (3).

출제 의도. (1) ✗ Direction flip ×2. Calvin is not sure whether it is expedient (S1), and the fathers admit the likeness is very widely different (S2). (2) ✗ Direction flip. the eternity of the Father is also the eternity of the Son and Spirit and in eternity there can be no room for first or last (S6). Order ≠ time. (3) ✓ S5 + S8 — to the Son, wisdom, counsel, and arrangement in action … the Spirit of both the Father and the Son. (4) ✗ Concession read as conclusion. The though-clause grants no first/last; the main clause says still the distinction of order is not unmeaning or superfluous (S6).

③ 영작 — 다음을 오늘의 공식을 적용해 영어로

성부께는 행동의 시작이 돌려지고, 성자께는 지혜가 (돌려진다). 경솔한 말이 무지한 자들에게 미혹의 기회를 주지 않도록 나는 조심한다. 영원에는 처음과 나중이 없지만, 그럼에도 순서의 구별은 무의미하지 않다.

Model answer:

To the Father is attributed the beginning of action; to the Son, wisdom. I am cautious, lest some rash saying should furnish an occasion of delusion to the unlearned. Though in eternity there is no first or last, still the distinction of order is not unmeaning.

출제 의도. Three checks. ① Formula 1(A)+(B) — fronting + inversion in the first clause, gapping in the second (to the Son, wisdom). ⚠️ To the Father the beginning of action is attributed is grammatical but loses the inversion the task targets. ② Formula 2(C) — lest … should/may furnish — ⚠️ lest … should not furnish ✗ (double negative). ③ Formula 3 — Though …, still … — ⚠️ still = nevertheless; though … but is non-standard in formal English.

One-line summary. I am not sure whether it is expedient to borrow analogies* — the fathers used them but admitted they are very widely different, and a rash saying gives calumny to the malicious or delusion to the unlearned; yet It were unbecoming … to say nothing of what Scripture points out: to the Father is attributed the beginning of action, to the Son, wisdom, counsel, and arrangement, to the Spirit the energy and efficacy of action; though co-eternal and with no room for first or last, still the distinction of order is not unmeaning — the Father being considered first, next the Son from him, and then the Spirit from both; so the Spirit is of both the Father and the Son, called indiscriminately the Spirit of Christ and of him who raised Christ (Rom 8), And not improperly* (1 Pet 1:11).

The three grammar points, once more. ① Fronting + inversion + gapping + notional singular — to the Father is attributed the beginning (S5), to the Son, ‹is attributed› wisdom (S5), the Spirit ‹is said to be› of both (S8), the energy and efficacy … is assigned (S5). ② Caution grammar — whether it is expedient to borrow … to express (S1: subject vs purpose), hence it is that (S3), lest … may (S3), It were unbecoming … to say nothing of (S4: = keep silent about). ③ Concession ladder + absolute — though …, since …; and though …, still … (S6), the Father being considered first, next the Son ‹…› from him, and then the Spirit ‹…› from both (S6).

And the structural fact you now own: ⚠️ S1–S3 brake, S4 releases, S5 gives the triad, S6 protects it from time and rank, S7 explains why the mind needs order, S8–S11 prove "of both" from the names in Scripture.

Homework (10 minutes).

1. Structure restoration (4 min). Rewrite S5 in base order with every gapped verb restored: The beginning of action … is attributed to the Father; wisdom, counsel, and arrangement in action ‹are attributed› to the Son; while the energy and efficacy of action is assigned to the Spirit. Circle the real subject of each clause.
2. Composition (4 min). Write one sentence with Formula 3 (though …, still … + absolute clause) about the Son: Though the Son is … , still … , the Father being … Check: still opens the main clause; the absolute clause has no finite verb.
3. Preview (2 min). Tomorrow (our §22 = printed §19): Moreover, this distinction is so far from interfering with the most perfect unity of God, that the Son may thereby be proved to be one God with the Father. Expect: (a) so far from V-ing … that — the paradox construction (the distinction, far from harming unity, proves it); (b) In each hypostasis the whole nature is understood — distinction by relation, not essence; (c) Augustine: Christ, as to himself, is called God, as to the Father he is called Son — the as to formula; (d) the Son of himself vs the Father as the beginning of the Son — seed of autotheos. Today: the order. Tomorrow: why the order doesn't split the One.

Where we stopped: Book 1, Ch. 13, §21 끝. 다음은 Book 1, Ch. 13, §22 (= Beveridge 인쇄 §19, 구별은 통일성을 해치지 않는다 — 관계에 의한 구별 · 아우구스티누스 as to himself … as to the Father — Moreover, this distinction is so far from interfering with the most perfect unity of God, that the Son may thereby be proved to be one God with the Father, …).