Ford Lewis Battles’ translation of Calvin’s Institutes of the Christian Religion, ed. John T. McNeill (2 vols; Library of Christian Classics 20-21; London, SCM Press, and Philadelphia, Westminster Press, 1960) has become the standard one in general use, and unlikely to be superseded in a hurry. Yet it is far from perfect. The aim of this web-site is to collect and list errors in Battles’ translation, for the benefit of users (and perhaps in the longer term as one preparation for a new translation).

Contributions are invited, and should be submitted to Jon Balserak. A few simple guidelines will be helpful.

*This exercise relates only to the text, including Calvin’s opening address to the reader and his preface, and not to the annotations.

* Errors should be clearly identified by a reference to Battles – always page number (and preferably line number also) and book/chapter/section (e.g. Inst. 3:6:10). The identification must enable Balserak to track the Latin source in the Opera Selecta or Calvini Opera, if contributors cannot provide this.

* Balserak will receive all submissions and add them to the web-site according to their order in the Institutes in a uniform style.

*We retain a modicum of editorial discretion in cases which may reflect matters more of interpretation than translation.

*We are open to refining these guidelines in response to suggestions.

CURRENT LIST OF CORRECTIONS TO FORD LEWIS BATTLES'
ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF CALVIN'S INSTITUTES (last updated December 18, 2024)

Section headings: users of Battles’ translations should be aware that the section headings are his work and do not derive from Calvin’s text. For example, Battles 464: the title to Book 2, chapter 12 is Calvin’s own, but not the summary of sections 1-3 in italics in brackets nor the heading for section 1, similarly in italics.

Lectori; Battles, 5; OS III, 6, 30-31: instead of Battles’ ‘approach Scripture’ T.H.L. Parker, Calvin’s NT Commentaries, 53, proposes ‘approaches the commentaries’, which the context undoubtedly confirms. The Latin has no object to the verb accedat.

Lectori; Battles, 5; OS III, 6, 32: huius instituti should be ‘intention’ or ‘aim’, not ‘instruction’ (Parker, ibid.). Battles is wrong. A better translation would be design, as per Allen. The Latin phrase is huius instituti ratio, and ‘the reason for this purpose’ or ‘aim’ would not make any sense (Blacketer).

Praefatio; Battles, 23; CO 2, 34: Battles omits a phrase, specifically: hoc est, ne in sceleratum populi consensum una ipsi conspirarent.

1:3:3; Battles 1: 47; Calvin is speaking of Plato's teaching re: the soul being transformed by the knowledge of God. Battles has: "the soul...is wholly transformed into his likeness." He translates "ipsum" as "likeness"; but "similitudo" is feminine and thus cannot be the referent of "ipsum." The correct meaning is: "the soul ... is wholly transformed into God." Norton and Beveridge agree; Allen is also in error here. The French for comparison: ...car c'est ce qu'a entendu Platon, disant que le souverain bien de l'âme est de ressembler à Dieu, quand après l'avoir cogneu elle est du tout transformée en luy. (Blacketer)

1:6:1; Battles 1: 70, line 17, misses a line in 1.6.1, OS 3:61 lines 1-3; directly after "lips." Battles misses the phrase "neque tantum promulgat colendum esse ailquem Deum, sed eum se esse simul pronuntiat qui colendus sit." "He not only makes it known that some god ought to be worshipped, but at the same time also declares that he is the one who is to be worshipped." (Blacketer)

1:6:2; Battles 1: 72, line 11, In translating Inst. 1.6.2, Battles seems to miss the word praecipue, "especially," losing the contrast and emphasis in the sentence, namely, that while it is appropriate to see creation as the theatre of God's glory, it is especially important for people to pay attention to God's Word. (Blacketer)

1.7.3; Battles, 1:77; OS 3:68.24. An odd error. The phrase is "𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘪 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘮." The context is Calvin's polemic against the argument that the church lends scripture its authority, and which later theologians supported by appeal to Augustine's comment that he would not have believed apart from the authority of the church. At the end of 1.7.3, Calvin argues that there is a kind of faith without evidence, a kind of testing trust, one might say, by which one preliminarily accepts the faith based on the testimony of others while testing it out. This is a preliminary faith that could lead to full faith. Battles inexplicably translates the line: "There [in 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘜𝘴𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘉𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘦𝘧] he will find that the author recommends no other *inducement* to believe except...." But 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘴 is not "inducement." Here it has to do with believing something "easily" or "readily" in the sense that one has not yet done the work of examining the claims. Cf. the French: "il ne nous commande pas d'estre crédules, ou aisez à recevoir ce qui nous est enseigné des hommes..." "he does not command us to be gullible, or easy to receive that which is taught by men." We might say, "quick to believe," or "to believe easily." (Blacketer)

1.7.3; Battles, 1:78; OS 3:68.9: This seems to be an odd translation. The Latin has: ...ut Christi fidem ex Evangelio discere sustineant... Battles: "so that they may 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘦 in learning faith in Christ..." I think this is wrong. 𝘚𝘶𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘦𝘰 here means "to tolerate, to put up with, to submit to, etc." The context is that one has been brought to a state of being teachable (𝘥𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘵𝘢𝘴) by the Holy Spirit. Confirmed by the French: "pour souffrir que" Ergo, something like: "so that they acquiesce to learning faith in Christ from the gospel." (Blacketer)

1.7.5; Battles 1:81, line 16; OS 3:71, lines 25-26. 𝘚𝘪 𝘩𝘶𝘯𝘤 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘴𝘢𝘶𝘳𝘶𝘮 𝘧𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘶𝘪𝘴 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘮 𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦 𝘋𝘦𝘶𝘴 𝘷𝘰𝘭𝘶𝘪𝘵... Battles has: "If God has willed this treasure of understanding to be hidden from his children..." Battles misunderstands 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘮 here. It does not mean "hidden from," but "reserved for." Cf. the French: Si Dieu a voulu réserver à ses enfans ce thrésor d'intelligence comme caché... The French has the idea of hiddenness (comme caché), but the meaning is that this knowledge is reserved for the children of God and thus is like a hidden treasure of knowledge, hidden from the common lot. (Blacketer)

1.8.8; Battles 1:88, near the end of the section. OS 3:77, 20-21: Quid Daniel? annon usque ad annum fere sexcentesimum de rebus futuris prophetias ita 𝙘𝙤𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙭𝙞𝙩... Battles translates it: "What of Daniel? Did he not so clothe his prophecies of future events..." Battles takes 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘵 as the perfect active indicative of 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘨𝘰, to cover, hide, clothe, etc. Rather, I think it is the present active indicative of 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘹𝘰, to weave, compose. The French has the verb 𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘳, simply, "to treat." Thus, rather than "clothing" prophecies, we should read "composing" prophecies. (Blacketer)

1:9:3; Battles, 95; CO 2, 71: Battles translates translates ‘verbi religio’ as ‘religion of the Word’ though within the sentence it seems more appropriately translated as ‘reverence for the word’ (as per Norton, Allen, Beveridge). Secondly Battles ignores the word ‘illic.’ The Holy Spirit shines ‘there’ namely, in the Scripture (Blacketer).

1.9.3, Battles p. 95; 0S 3:84, 16: "For by a kind of mutual bond the Lord has joined together the certainty of his Word and of his Spirit so that 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙥𝙚𝙧𝙛𝙚𝙘𝙩 𝙧𝙚𝙡𝙞𝙜𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙤𝙛 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙒𝙤𝙧𝙙 may abide in our minds etc." We suggest there is a theological presupposition or 𝘛𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘯𝘻 affecting the translation. The phrase in question = 𝘴𝘰𝘭𝘪𝘥𝘢 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘣𝘪 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘰. This translation makes Calvin appear to back some very modern idea of the religion of the incarnate Word, when in fact he is talking about devotion to scripture, in contrast to Anabaptist claims to direct revelations from the Spirit. In fact, I found a few books on Barth citing this translation, making a lovely connection between Calvin and Barth's theology. But it's misleading; i.e. the phrase ought surely to be translated with the Anabaptists in mind. The meaning of that phrase in context is: robust or genuine reverence for the word, i.e. scripture. The French is a little different, which says that our understanding "reçoive icelle parolle en obéissance," receives this word in obedience. There's nothing about a "religion of the Word" there. Rather, 𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘣𝘪 is a genetive of the object, and 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘰 here means devotion (to) or reverence (for). There may be a bit of irony to this in that the title of chapter 9 is: "Having Demoted the Scripture, the Fanatics who Fly over to Revelation Overturn Every Principle of Godliness." Barth, of course, wants to emphasize revelation over scripture in his own post-Kantian way, so that Scripture cannot ever be revelation 𝖆𝖓 𝖘𝖎𝖈𝖍, but only a witness to revelation, or whatever. Such an idea would be incomprehensible to Calvin. The French title is even more fun, by the way: "Some hairbrained spirits pervert all the principles of religion by leaving the Scripture to flit after their fantasies, under the pretext of revelations from the Holy Spirit.” (Blacketer)

1:10:2; Battles, 97; CO 2, 72: Battles translates ‘eam’ in the phrase ‘Nam quum eam describeret Moses, ...’ as ‘image.’ Yet ‘eam’ surely refers back to the last word in the previous sentence ‘facies’ rather than to the word ‘εἰκονικῶς’ which appears in the middle of the previous sentence. Hence Allen: ‘... an exact representation of his genuine countenance. For Moses, in the description which he gives of it ...’ (Blacketer).

1.11.9; OS 3:97 line 28; Battles, 109. "Tandem, toti et animis et oculis illic affixi..." Battles translates this: "Finally, all men, having fixed their minds and yes upon them [idols]..." But "toti" is not "all men." Calvin would have used "omnes." Norton, Allen, and Beveridge correctly connect "toti" with "affixi," and interpret it adverbially, as wholly or completely fixed. (Blacketer)

1.12.1, Battles p. 117, OS 3:105 line 33–34. While discussing idolatry, Calvin complains that people neither cling to the one God “neque delectum adhibent in eius cultu.” Battles: “nor manifest any delight in honoring him.” Forget, for the moment, that “cultu” means worship here and that “honoring” is just a strange choice. Battles more seriously errs in that “delectus” (choice, selection, discretion) is not the same word as “delectatio” (delight), and in that “adhibeo” does not mean “to manifest,” but to bring, summon, employ, exercise, etc. Cf. the French: “et n’ont nulle eslite en son service” And they have no discretion in his worship.” The correct meaning is: “they neither cling to the one God nor exercise discretion in his worship...” (Blacketer)

1.13.2, OS 3:110, 8-11. Battles, p. 122. The Latin is: "Nam quum simplex et individua sit essentia Dei, qui totam in se continet, neque ortione aut defluxu, sed integra perfectione, improprie, imo inepte dicetur eius character." Battles has translated it: “For since the essence of God is simple and undivided, and he contains all in himself, without portion or derivation, but in integral perfection, the Son will be improperly, even foolishly, called his ‘stamp.’” This may not be so much an error as a very confusing and terribly unclear translation, as long as we assume that the first use of "he" refers to the Son and not God. But that is not at all clear. My attempt to clarify this: "For, because the essence of God is simple and indivisible, it would be inappropriate —no, even foolish—to say that the one who contains that entire essence in himself, not partially or by derivation but in integral perfection, is the express image of it. " I could clarify further by putting "the Son" or "Christ" before "the one who." (Another issue is the nuance of meaning of the term defluxus, French defluxion, the latter which may have been coined by Calvin, cf. the OED. Here I'm following the lead of Norton.). Then, in the next sentence: Sed quia Pater, quanvis sua proprietate distinctus… Battles: "But because the Father, although distinct in his proper nature…" Incorrect. "But because the Father, distinct by his own [personal] property..." The referent is the Father's incommunicable personal property, the personal relation to the other persons of the Trinity. See Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms, s.v. proprietas and relatio personalis. (Blacketer)

1.13.3 ad fin. OS 3:112; "...siquis verborum novitatem tum reprehendat, nonne merito iudicetur lucem veritatis indigne ferre?" Battles (124): "If anyone, then, finds fault with the novelty of the words, does he not deserve to be judged as bearing the light of truth unworthily..." The other translators, who were all had something rather different, which lead me to discover this idiom: 𝘢𝘦𝘨𝘳𝘦, 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘳, 𝘮𝘰𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘦, 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘦 𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘥 = "to be discontented, vexed at a thing; to chafe." Hence, Calvin's text can be translated: "If someone then finds fault with the novelty of the words, are they not deservedly judged to be irritated by the light of truth..." (Blacketer)

1.13.27; OS 3:148 line 14-15. Battles, 156. Battles omits the final phrase of the paragraph (as he divides it): "𝙦𝙪𝙞 𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙚 𝙣𝙤𝙣 𝙨𝙞𝙩 𝘿𝙚𝙪𝙨." Should read: "...that one who is not truly God is not called 𝘍𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 in an enigmatic and metaphorical sense." Reference is to Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 2.27.2, 𝘗𝘢𝘵𝘳𝘰𝘭𝘰𝘨𝘪𝘢 𝘎𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘤𝘢 7.1:803: 𝘝𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘶𝘯𝘵 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘦𝘮 𝘢𝘥 𝘩𝘰𝘤, 𝘶𝘵 𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘶𝘮 𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘮 𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦 𝘲𝘶𝘪 𝘱𝘳𝘢𝘦𝘥𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳 𝘋𝘦𝘶𝘴, 𝘦𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘶𝘮 𝘗𝘢𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘮, 𝘲𝘶𝘪 𝘱𝘦𝘳 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘭𝘢𝘴 𝘦𝘵 𝘢𝘦𝘯𝘪𝘨𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘢 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘵𝘶𝘳 𝘗𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳. But they [the Valentinian Gnostics] come down to this: they say that there is, in fact, one who is proclaimed God, and another who is proclaimed Father, who is signified as Father through parables and enigmas. (Blacketer)

1.13.29. OS 3:151 lines 12-13. "Nam quos oblectat speculandi intemperies, minime placandos suscipio." Battles has: "For I suspect that those who intemperately delight in speculation will not be at all satisfied." But Battles has mistaken 𝘴𝘶𝘴𝘤𝘪𝘱𝘪𝘰 for 𝘴𝘶𝘴𝘱𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘰. It would be better to translated this portion as: "For I make no effort at all to appease those who delight in speculative excess." (Blacketer)

1.14.6; Battles, 166; OS 3:158 line 37-38. "Pollicetur Abraham servo suo Angelum fore ducem itineris ipsius." On p. 166, Battles writes: "He [God] promises to Abraham his servant an angel to be his guide for the journey." The Latin is ambiguous, and the Biblical reference, Gen 24:7, records Abraham speaking to his servant about God's promise. Norton translates it like Battles does; Beveridge and Allen make Abraham the subject who makes a promise to his servant. They are correct, as the French makes clear: "Semblablement Abraham promettoit a son serviteur que l' Ange de Dieu luy seroit pour guide au chemin." (Blacketer).

1.14.20; Battles, 180; OS 3: 170 line 26ff. Calvin is talking about the creation again as the theater of God's glory. ⁸Est enim hoc (ut alibi diximus) etsi non praecipuum, naturae tamen ordine primum fidei 𝗱𝗼𝗰𝘂𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘂𝗺, quaquaversum oculos circunferamus‚ omnia quae occurrunt, meminisse Dei esse opera ..." Battles: “For, as I have elsewhere said, although it is not the chief 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 for faith, yet it is the first 𝗲𝘃𝗶𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 in the order of nature, to be mindful that wherever we cast our eyes, all things they meet are works of God..." The Latin 𝘥𝘰𝘤𝘶𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘶𝘮 here certainly should not be translated as evidence. It is, rather, a lesson, the result of which we are mindful of the works of God in creation. Note the French: "ceste est la première instruction de nostre foy, selon l'ordre de nature, combien que ce ne soit point la principale..."

1.15.3; Battles, 190; OS 3:178, 29-30. The context is the creation of Adam and his original state of integrity, when Adam possessed right reason and control over his affections, and also the following: "𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘴 𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘪𝘴 𝘴𝘶𝘪 𝘦𝘹𝘤𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘢𝘮 𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘵." What we read in Battles: "and he truly referred his excellence to exceptional gifts bestowed upon him by his Maker." Here it seems Battles follows Beveridge: "...and when he truly ascribed all his excellence to the admirable gifts of his Maker." In contrast, Norton has: "...and when in excellent giftes he did truly resemble the excellencie of his Creator." Similarly Allen: "...and when in the excellency of his nature he truly resembled the excellence of his Creator." The crux is the translation of the Latin 𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘰. Does it mean 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘳? It can also mean 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘳 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘮𝘣𝘭𝘦. This decision, in turn, affects whether one takes 𝘦𝘹𝘪𝘮𝘪𝘪𝘴 𝘥𝘰𝘵𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘴 as a dative (Battles, Beveridge) or an ablative (Norton, Allen). In short, one either has: "and [Adam] truly referred [his] excellence to the outstanding gifts of his Creator"; or, alternatively: "and by [these/his] outstanding gifts he truly resembled the excellence of his Creator." We might turn to Calvin's own French which reads: "et tout bien ordonné en soy pour représenter par tels ornemens la gloire de son créateur." "...and all well-ordered in him so as to represent by these adornments the glory of his Creator." Intriguingly Battles / Beveridge seem to diverge from Calvin's French whereas Norton / Allen is much closer to Calvin's French. (Blacketer)

1.15.4; Battles, 191; OS 3:181, 2. Battles translates 𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘶𝘴 𝘢𝘤 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘰𝘳 as "heir and possessor." Herus does not mean "heir." It means "master, lord, owner, proprietor." (Blacketer)

1:15:6; Battles, 193; CO 2, 141: Battles wrongly translates vim concupiscendi as ‘the capacity to desire inordinately’ instead of simply as ‘the power of desiring.’ Additionally (as David Sytsma notes) Battles omits this reference to Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics [who distinguishes between irascible (vim irascendi) and concupiscible (vim concupiscendi) appetites, as Calvin does here]. Battles also inaccurately cites Themistius, whom Calvin does cite but not until later in this section.

1.16.1; Battles, 197-98; CO 2, 144: Battles fails to translate singulari quadam providentia ('by a certain remarkable providence') (Blacketer). Battles, in fact, confuses Calvin's thought. Battles has '... not only in that he drives the celestial frame ... but also in that he sustains, nourishes, and cares for, everything he has made, even to the least sparrow.' But this is not a 'non solum ... sed etiam ...' construction. Calvin's construction is: 'neque id universali quadam motione ... sed singulari quadam providentia ...' So we find Allen: '... not by a certain universal motion, actuating the whole machine of the world, and all its respective parts, but by a particular providence sustaining, nourishing, and providing for every thing which he has made.' So Calvin seems to be eschewing a kind of mechanical conception of divine governance preferring instead a specific parental care.

1.16.3; Battles, 201 about line 9/10; OS 3:191 line 21. Battles omits 𝙣𝙤𝙣 𝙨𝙚𝙘𝙪𝙨 𝙖𝙘 𝙛𝙧𝙚𝙣𝙤 - "and indeed just as with a bridle" (Blacketer).

1.16.4; OS 3:192 line 15; speaking of providence, Calvin says God does not merely watch the world in idleness, but 𝙫𝙚𝙡𝙪𝙩𝙞 𝙘𝙡𝙖𝙫𝙪𝙢 𝙩𝙚𝙣𝙚𝙣𝙨 governs all things. Battles translates that phrase "as keeper of the keys." This is incorrect. It is not a hotel concierge, but the captain or pilot of a ship that Calvin has in mind. All the other translators get this right, e.g. Norton: "guiding the sterne"; Allen: "holding the helm"; Beveridge: "holds the helms." And Calvin's French is even clearer: 𝙘𝙤𝙢𝙢𝙚 𝙪𝙣 𝙥𝙖𝙩𝙧𝙤𝙣 𝙙𝙚 𝙣𝙖𝙫𝙞𝙧𝙚 𝙦𝙪𝙞 𝙩𝙞𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙡𝙚 𝙜𝙤𝙪𝙫𝙚𝙧𝙣𝙖𝙞𝙡, "like a pilot / captain of a ship who holds the rudder." (Blacketer)"

1.16.4; OS 3:193 lines 8-10. Battles, 202. Atque ita inter Deum et hominem partiuntur: ut ille motionem huic sua virtute inspiret qua agere possit pro naturae sibi inditae ratione: hic autem actiones suas voluntario consilio moderetur. Battles has: "And they so apportion things between God and man that God by His power inspires in man a movement by which he can act in accordance with the nature implanted in him, but He regulates His own actions by the plan of His will." The problem is in the final phrase. There is a contrast between ille and hic. Ille in the first phrase is God; hic in the second phrase is homo / human being. Battles, however, interprets God as the subject of the second phrase which is clearly incorrect. The two parts are not apportioned between God and God, but between God and human beings. Note the French: "et 𝗹'𝗵𝗼𝗺𝗺𝗲, ayant telle faculté, gouverne par son propre conseil et volonté tout ce qu'il fait." (Blacketer)

1.16.7; OS 3:198 line 15. Battles, 207. The subject of the verb aptari is ambiguous; it could either be God's providence is adapted to a definite and proper end (Battles, Norton) or that creatures are adapted to their definite and proper end (Allan; Beveridge). But the French: "...une providence généralle de Dieu pour continuer l'ordre naturel en ses créatures, mais qu'elles sont toutes dressées par son conseil admirable, et appropriées à leurs fins." Moreover, creatures as subject makes more sense in the context, in which they stand ready for God to put them to any use he chooses. Allen and Beveridge make the right call here, not Battles and (rather uncharacteristically) Norton.

1.16.8; OS 3:200 lines 1-3. Battles, 208. Calvin's Latin is quite difficult here. He is discussing divine providence, and here he is speaking of Augustine and what he means by permission. Latina: "Certe non fingit Deum in otiosa specula cessantem, dum aliquid vult permittere, ubi actualis (ut ita loquar) voluntas intercedit, quae alioqui non posset censeri causa." Battles produces it: "Surely he does not conjure up a God who reposes idly in a watchtower, willing the while to permit something or other, when an actual will not his own, so to speak, intervenes, which otherwise could not be deemed a cause." First, Battles' phrase "not his own" is inexplicable. Second, he just doesn't understand the second phrase at all. The result is pure nonsense. Calvin means that Augustine does not invent a God who sits around in a tower merely observing things and permitting whatever. Instead, there is an active will of God whereby he intervenes in all things, because mere permission is not a cause, and God is definitely a cause. The French clarifies things a bit: "Il ne forge pas un Dieu qui se repose en quelque haute tour pour spéculer, en voulant permettre cecy ou cela, veu qu’il luy attribue une volonté actuelle laquelle ne pourroit estre réputée cause, sinon qu’il décretast ce qu’il veut." (Blacketer)

1.16.9; OS 3:201 line 24. Battles, 210. Battles translates fragilia as "fragile" at the end of section 9. Here Calvin is talking about necessitas consequentis vs necessitas consequentiae, and illustrating it with the example of the bones of Christ, which both could (by nature) and could not be (by God's decree) broken. The proper way to translate it in this context (as all the others do) is "capable of being broken." (Blacketer)

1.17.8; OS 3:212 line 17-18. Battles, 221. Battles translates Calvin's citation of the Bible verse (Lev. 26:23-24) quite oddly. The Latin: "Si temere inceditis contra me, ego quoque temere incedam contra vos." Battles's version is: "If you happen to walk contrary to me, I will also happen to walk contrary to you." There is a notation in the Battles edition: "cf. Comm." In the comm., Calvin explains the verse as walking 𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙩𝙪𝙞𝙩𝙤, randomly or casually, or as Calvin explains it: "is equivalent to passing by His judgments with their eyes shut; and even so to stupify themselves as to ascribe their adversities to fortune, and thus not to be humbled beneath His mighty hand." But Calvin does not render the verse with 𝙛𝙤𝙧𝙩𝙪𝙞𝙩𝙤 in the Institutes. He uses "temere." But the meaning is quite similar. It means: heedlessly. The French confirms this, rendering it "à l'estourdie," without paying attention. Thus Battles' translation is odd. The meaning is clear. “If you heedlessly walk contrary to me, then I will also heedlessly walk contrary to you.” (Blacketer)

1.17.11; OS 3:215. Battles, 224. Calvin is speaking of believers finding comfort and strength in the doctrine of providence. "Verum ubi in memoriam revocant...". Battles translates: "But let them recall..." But "revocant" is in the indicative, not subjunctive. Thus, the correct translation: "But when they recall..." This is arguably not an error on Battles part but nonetheless a discernibly different choice of translation. (Blacketer)

1.18.1; CO 2, 169; Battles, 230. Battles' translation reads: 'Satan desperately tries to drive the holy man insane...' But the reference is to Satan's strategy with Job. The Latin: 'Molitur Satan sanctum virum desperatione adigere in furorem.' It might be rendered as: 'Satan works to drive the holy man, by way of despair, into a frenzy' (Blacketer) The French: 'd'inciter Iob par désespoir etc.' Beveridge has: 'Satan's aim is to drive the saint to madness by despair.' One could also turn desperatione into a verb: Satan strives to dishearten the holy man and drive him to folly. (Blacketer)

1.18.1; OS 3:220 lines 17ff; (two sentences after the last correction); Battles p. 230. The Latin is: "Ergo quicquid agitent homines, vel Satan ipse, Deus tamen clavum tenet, ut ad exequendasua iudicia convertat eorum conatus." Battles doesn't understand the metaphor in the phrase clavum tenere. It is not holding the key to a lock, but holding the helm/rudder of a ship. Battles' translation reads: "Therefore, whatever men or Satan himself may instigate, God nevertheless holds the key, so that he turns their efforts to carry out his judgments." The basic idea is intact, but the metaphor is lost. A better translation might be: "Therefore, whatever human beings or even Satan himself may be plotting, still God is at the helm so that he steers their efforts to accomplish his judgments." (Blacketer)

1.18.2; OS 3:222 lines 15-17; Battles, p. 231. Calvin is talking about providence and human choices, and using the classic example of Pharoah's heart being hardened. "Eludunt insulso cavillo quidam has loquendi formas: quia dum alibi dicitur Pharao ipse aggravasse cor suum, indurationis causa ponitur eius voluntas." Battles: "By this foolish cavil certain ones get around these expressions, for while it is said elsewhere that Pharaoh himself made heavy his own heart, 𝙂𝙤𝙙’𝙨 𝙬𝙞𝙡𝙡 is posited as the cause of hardening." But, in fact, these "certain persons," who want to affirm free will and deny providence, are saying the opposite. Certain persons dodge these expressions with the stupid evasion that, since it is said in other passages that Pharaoh himself made his own heart heavy, his own will is advanced as the cause of his stubbornness. Cf. Norton, Allen, Beveridge. (Blacketer)

2.1.5; Battles, 247; CO 2, 180: Battles has: 'But no man will wonder at the temerity of the Pelagians and Coelestians when he perceived from that holy man's warnings...' Battles incorrectly translates 'monumenta' as 'warnings,' which here clearly means writings or works. The Latin is: '... qui ex illius sancti viri monumentis perspexerit ...'. He also should have written: 'when he has perceived...' (Blacketer)

2.2.4; Battles, 259; OS 3:245 line 18-20. The Latin is: "Porro tametsi Graeci prae aliis, atque inter eos singulariter Chrysostomus, in extollenda humanae voluntatis facultate modum excesserunt...". Battles translates this: "Further, even though the Greeks above the rest--and Chrystostom especially among them--extol the ability of the human will..." Battles treats "extollenda" as the main verb here, and ignores "modum excesserunt." Instead, it might be rendered: "Further, although the Greeks more than others—and among them Chrysostom especially—have gone too far [exceeded the boundary] in extolling the capability of the human will..." (Blacketer)

2.2.4; Battles 261; OS 3:246 lines 24-26. The Latin is: "Nec satis popularis Anselmi definitio, qui tradit esse potestatem servandi rectitudinem propter seipsam." Battles seems to translate popularis both as modifying definitio (as "well-known") and as a predicate adjective (as "plain" enough): "And Anselm's well-known definition is not plain enough, that it is the power of maintaining rectitude for its own sake." It's a predicate adjective, as indicated by the French (n'est guères plus claire, "which is hardly any clearer"). The sense is likely: "Anselm’s definition is not sufficiently accessible, who claims it is the power to maintain rectitude for its own sake." (Blacketer)

2.2.5; Battles, 262; OS 3:247, lines 20-23. The Latin: "Hinc fit ut quum de libero arbitrio agunt scriptores, non quid ad civiles seu externas actiones, sed quid ad divinae Legis obedientiam valeat, in primis requirant." Battles has translated this: "Hence, it happens that when the church fathers are discussing free will, they first inquire, not into its importance for civil or external actions, but into what promotes obedience to the divine law." He has misunderstood valeat. One might translate this sentence: "Accordingly, when the authors take up the matter of free choice, they do not first enquire about its capacities with respect to civil or external actions, but about its ability to be obedient to the divine Law." (Blacketer)

2.2.6; Battles, 263; OS 3:248, lines 26-29. “Liberum esseiis qui rationis iudicio utuntur, a gratia discedere: ut non discessisse sit praemium, et ut quod non potest nisi spiritu cooperante fieri, eorum meritis deputetur quorum id potuit voluntate non fieri.” Calvin cites Prosper of Aquitaine; Battles cites a translation but mangles his own translation of the Latin. Battles' translation is: “Those who employ the judgment of reason are free to forsake grace, so that not to have forsaken it is a meritorious act; and what could not be done without the co-operation of the Spirit is counted meritorious for those whose own will could not have accomplished it.” Battles is wrong, particular concerning the end of the sentence. The sentence might be translated better as: "Those who use the judgment of reason are free to depart from grace so that not having departed from it is owed a reward, and so that what cannot be done without the cooperation of the Spirit may be assigned to the merits of those who could have voluntarily refrained from doing it.” For reference, the translation in the Ancient Christian Writers series: "Rather, many who have attained the use of reason are left capable of turning away from Him that they may be rewarded for not having done so, and that the merit of a behaviour which is not possible without the of the help Spirit of God, may yet belong to man by whose will it could have been absent." (Blacketer)

2.2.20; OS 3:262 line 35: "sed nihil efficitur eius predicatione, nisi...". Battles has: "But nothing is accomplished by preaching him." No; Calvin means that nothing is accomplished by Christ's preaching (unless the HS illumines people's minds). He is making the point that even Christ's own preaching depends on the HS to make it effective. French: "Mais sa prédication ne pouvait de rien profiter..." (Blacketer)

2.2.22; OS 3:264 line 24: "in superioribus." Battles translates this: "in higher things." This is not outside the realm of possibility, except that in the context, Calvin is speaking of three aspects of human capacity for spiritual insight, and here suprioribus refers to the previously mentioned aspects. Cf. French: "choses dessus récitées." (Blacketer)

2.2.22; OS 3:265 line 8ff. "Quod sit conscientiae agnitio inter iustum et iniustum sufficienter discernentis: ad tollendum hominibus ignorantiae praetextum..." Of concern here is merely the preposition "ad," which Battles translates as "and which deprives men of the excuse of ignorance," which is an obvious mistake, and changes the meaning. Ad here has the idea of purpose or result: in order to deprive etc. (Blacketer)

2:2:26; Battles, 286; CO 2, 207: Battles misunderstands the sentence beginning Nihil ergo…. Battles’ rendering is: ‘Therefore whether or not man is impelled to seek after the good by an impulse of nature has no bearing upon the freedom of the will.’ But as Calvin refers in the preceding sentence to a natural inclination which both animals and humans possess, it is clear that in the sentence beginning Nihil ergo, Calvin is drawing the conclusion that this natural inclination towards good cannot possibly be used as an argument for free will, since humans possess it in common with animals (Richard Muller, The Unaccommodated Calvin, 259 n.60). Beveridge comes closer to the sense of the text: ‘The question of freedom, therefore, has nothing to do with the fact of man’s being led by natural instinct to desire good.’

2.3.10; Battles, 303; OS III, 285, 22. Battles translates the phrase 'sed ipsum velle in nobis efficere' as: 'but that He wills to work in us.' But Calvin seems to be asserting he [God] himself brings about the willing in us, or brings it about in us to will. Calvin has been paraphrasing or alluding to Phil. 2:13, which in the Vulgate reads: Deus est enim qui operatur in vobis et velle et perficere… Cf. the French: 'mais que Dieu fait et forme en nous le vouloir,' Battles’ error may reveal some dependence on Beveridge, who makes a similar error: 'but that God himself is pleased so to work in us.' Allen comes closer, but (as is his wont) he just inserts the text of Phil. 2:13, which Calvin probably does have in mind, but is not citing verbatim here: 'but that he "worketh in us to will;"' Norton, uncharacteristically, is not that clear or accurate: 'but that he will performe it in us.' Meanwhile, Otto Weber seems to get it right: 'Er bringe in uns das Wollen hervor!' (Blacketer)

2.3.10; Battles, 304; OS III: 286, 21–24. Calvin says that we see that some kind of intermediate impulse, asserted by the Sophists, which persons are free to accept or reject, is obviously excluded 'ubi asseritur efficax ad perseverandum constantia." Battles: "when it is asserted that constancy is efficacious for perseverance.' Battles' translation is grammatically possible from Calvin's laconic Latin, but contextually quite wrong. It makes it seem that if one is constant, one will persevere, which is precisely the argument of Calvin's opponents. Rather, this constancy comes from God: a constancy is affirmed that is efficacious for perseverance. Calvin's French translation is much more expansive (see Benoit’s French ed., 2: 70): 'We see that this impulse without efficacy that the sophists imagine is excluded. I mean when they say this, that God only offers his grace on such a condition that each person may refuse or accept it as they see fit. Such absurdity, I say, which is neither flesh nor fish, is excluded when it says that God makes us persevere in such a way that we are in no danger of falling away.' (Blacketer)

2.8.15 in fine; OS 3:357 lines 7-9. The Latin is: "...ad cuius observanda mandata peculiariter se delectum esse docetur." Battles translates this as: "...in the observance of whose commandments he is taught to take especial delight." But he mistakes delectum for dilectum. "...whose commandments, he is taught, he is specially chosen to obey." (Blacketer)

2.8.48; Battles, 412; OS 3:388.9-10. "Quin huc quoque extenditur mandatum istud, ne scurrilem urbanitatem affectamus, ne amaris loedoriis [= Greek λοιδορία] intinctam, quibus aliorum vitia, sub imagine lusus, mordaciter perstringantur…" Battles translates this as: "Indeed, this precept even extends to forbidding us to affect a fawning politeness barbed with bitter taunts under the guise of joking." He omits "quibus aliorum vitia ... mordaciter perstringantur…" i.e. "by which the faults of others are scathingly called out / censured." (Blacketer)

2.8.59; Battles, 401; CO 2, 309. Battles obscures Calvin's meaning by translating 'venialia' as 'pardonable' rather than simply as 'venial,' as Beveridge does.

2.10.6; Battles, 433; OS 3:407.11. Battles translation is: '…Christ says: “Your fathers ate the manna in the wilderness, and they died" [John 6:49]. “He who eats my flesh, shall not die forever” [John 6:54]. Because the Lord was then talking to hearers who were trying only to fill their bellies with food, but were not concerned about the true food of the soul, he accommodated his language somewhat to their capacity; especially making the comparison of manna and 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗶𝗿 𝗯𝗼𝗱𝗶𝗲𝘀 in accordance with their understanding.' However, this is not accurate. The comparison is between the manna and his (Christ's) body (corporis sui). (Blacketer)

2.10.13, Battles, 440; OS 3:414, 25-26. Battles translates the verb "urget" as "Paul insists." But the (non-specified) subject of "urget" is the author of Hebrews, and Calvin does not accept Pauline authorship of the epistle. In the French the subject is specified as l'Apostre. (Blacketer)

2.10.17, Battles, 444, OS 3:417 line 29-30. The Latin is: "...nisi ubi mundi huius facies regni Dei manifestione inversa fuerit." Battles translates this as: "save when this world of appearances is overturned" etc. Calvin does not think the world is one of mere Platonic or gnostic appearance. facies is the subject of inversa fuerit, and mundi huius is in the genitive case. The correct reading is: "if not when the appearance of this world is overturned/turned upside down." French: sinon quand l'apparence de ce monde sera renversée par la manifestation du royaume de Dieu. (Blacketer)

2.10.18, Battles p. 445, OS 3:418 line 27. The Latin is: "Quomodo afflictiones momento terminabant qui per totam fere vitam affligebantur?" Battles translates it: "How could they end their afflictions in a moment when they were afflicted almost throughout life?" But Battles mistranslates terminibant. How did they *limit* their afflictions to a moment etc. (Blacketer)

2.11.3, Battles, 452, OS 3:425, lines 25-29. The Latin: "quia tamen recognoscebant, quae illic ad eos pro teneritudinis ipsorum modulo exercendus, gratiae suae lineamenta Dominus impresserat, maiori eius suavitate afficiebantur quam si ipsam per se considerassent..." Battles translates it: "Even though they well knew they were not to stop there as at the end of their race, yet because they recognized what the Lord had imprinted on them to be marks of divine grace to train them according to the measure of their weakness, they were attracted by its sweetness more than if they had contemplated his grace directly." It is a complicated sentence, to be sure. But "marks ... imprinted" should be outlines sketched; "weakness" should be "tenderness of youth," a different contrast here than Calvin's usual "imbecilities," and finally, the direct object of contemplated is not God's grace, but the temporal life that they esteemed highly. (Blacketer)

2:14:1; Battles, 482; OS 3:458, 18-19: "e Virginis utero templum sibi delegit" should be "he chose for himself from the Virgin’s womb a temple."

2.15.5, Battles, 499; OS 3:477, lines 3-4. Latin: "Ideo regia eius unctio non ex oleo vel aromaticis unguentis confecta nobis proponitur..." Battles leaves out the last three words: "confecta nobis proponitur" in his translation: "Therefore the anointing of the king is not with oil or aromatic unguents." A better translation: "His kingly anointing, then, is not presented to us as performed with oil and aromatic perfumes." (Blacketer)

2.15.5, Battles, 500, OS 3:478.15ff. Latin: "Ita quantisper a Deo peregrinamur, Christus intercedit medius, qui nos paulatim ad solidam cum Deo coniunctionem perducat." Battles translates it: "Thus, while for the short time we wander away from God, Christ stands in our midst, to lead us little by little to a firm union with God." But 1. Quantisper does not mean "a short time"; here: as long as 2. "wander away from God" is misleading. The sense is not that we are erring, but rather making our pilgrimage on the earth while not in God's direct presence. The context is the contrast between the present life and the future life, in which Christ turns over the kingdom to the Father. 3. "stands in our midst" fails to capture the idea of Christ standing as mediator between God and humanity here. Cf. the French: "Parquoy cependant que nous sommes comme élongnez de Dieu, estans pèlerins au monde, Iesus Christ est entre deux pour nous mener petit à petit à une pleine conionction." New translation: "So, as long as we live as pilgrims, at a distance from God, Christ intervenes between us and God, to gradually lead us to complete union with God." (Blacketer)

2.16.2, Battles, p. 505; OS 3:484, lines 11-18. The Latin: "In summa, quoniam non potest animus noster vitam 𝗶𝗻 𝗗𝗲𝗶 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗮 vel satis cupide apprehendere vel qua decet gratitudine excipere, nisi formidine irae Dei et aeternae mortis horrore ante perculsus et consternatus: sic instituimur 𝘀𝗮𝗰𝗿𝗮 𝗱𝗼𝗰𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗮, ut sine Christo Deum nobis quodammodo infestum cernamus et eius manum in exitium nostrum armatam, benevolentiam eius paternamque charitatem nonnisi in Christo amplexemur." Battles translation: "To sum up: since our hearts cannot, in God's mercy, either seize upon life ardently enough or accept it with the gratefulness we owe, unless our minds are first struck and overwhelmed by fear of God's wrath and by dread of eternal death, we are taught by Scripture to perceive that apart from Christ, God is, so to speak, hostile to us, and his hand is armed for our destruction; to embrace his benevolence and fatherly love in Christ alone." The problems: First, the phrase 𝗶𝗻 𝗗𝗲𝗶 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗰𝗼𝗿𝗱𝗶𝗮 /in God's mercy as translated by Battles is off, though Calvin's Latin is not clear. The French reads: le salut qui nous est offert en la miséricorde de Dieu, "the salvation that is offered to us in the mercy of God." Perhaps the translation "our mind(s) cannot grasp life in God's mercy" makes more sense. Second, Battles translates "sacra doctrina" as "by Scripture." The French does read "la saincte Escriture," "the holy Scripture." But even if Calvin has Scripture in mind in the Latin, his wording should be preserved. (Blacketer)

2.16.14, Battles, p. 523 n. 36; OS 3:502 n. 2. Battles follows OS in claiming that Calvin's quotation of Augustine, Tractates on John, is not found; both are incorrect. Calvin's citation (Tract. in Evang. Iohan. 109) is incorrect; it is actually 106[.2]. Migne PL 35:1909, NPNF1: 7:399; Fathers of the Church 90:266. (Blacketer)

2.16.17, Battles, p. 526, OS 3:505 lines 8-9. Once again, Battles translates "quod apostolus asserit" as "Paul's statement" when the reference is to the Epistle to the Hebrews (9:27). (Blacketer)

3.2.11, Battles, p. 556, end of section; OS 4:21 line 32-35. Latin: "Ita diluitur obiectio illa, si vere gratiam suam demonstrat Deus, hoc perpetuo fixum esse: quia nihil obstat quominus praesenti gratiae suae sensu, qui postea evanescit, Deus aliquos illustret." Battles' translation: "Thus is that objection answered: if God truly shows his grace, 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝗮𝗰𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗶𝘀𝗵𝗲𝗱. For nothing prevents God from illumining some with a momentary awareness of his grace, which afterward vanishes." Battles misinterprets hoc perpetuo fixum esse. Perhaps it's neuter because Calvin does mean something like: "this fact or state of affairs of God's grace being shown", and perhaps Battles even means that; but it is too ambiguous in the way he words it. The French: "si Dieu leur monstre sa grâce, cela devroit estre arresté et permanent." Revised translation: "This is how we refute that objection that if God truly shows his grace, it is permanently established; because nothing prevents God from illuminating some with a momentary feeling of his grace that afterward fades away." (Blacketer)

3.2.12, Battles, p. 557, OS 4:22 lines 1-2. The Latin: "...non mirum tamen est divini amoris sensum in temporariis evanescere..." Battles: "there is no wonder that the awareness of divine love vanishes in temporary things." This is a poor translation. The context is temporary faith, temporary believers. Calvin means: in temporary believers. (Blacketer)

3.2.15 OS 4:25 line 31f. The context is the assurance that faith provides. Latin: "Praesertim ubi ad rem ventum est, omnium vacillatio detegit vitium quod latebat." Battles, p. 560, has it as: "Especially when it comes to reality itself, every man's wavering uncovers hidden weakness." This is wrong. The French is: "quand les tentations nous pressent;" that is, “when temptations overwhelm us.” Thus, the Latin would seem to mean: "Especially when things come to a head..." (Blacketer)

3.2.16, Battles, p. 562, OS 4:27 line 8f. The Latin: "Fidelis (inquam) non est nisi qui suae salutis securitati innixus, Diabolo et morti confidenter insultet..." Battles translates it: "No man is a believer, I say, except him who, leaning upon the assurance of his salvation, confidently triumphs over the devil and death...". While insulto can mean, "to triumph over" this seems open to question. Originally, a triumph was not the victory itself, but the celebration of a victory. Insulto came to mean taunting a defeated enemy. Calvin translates it with the Middle French cognate "insulter," which Randle Cotgrave in his 1611 Dictionarie of the French and English Tongues translates as: "To insult, crow, vaunt, or triumph over; to wrong, reproach, affront; contemne; also, to rebound, rejoice in, leape for joy." Thus, given the modern meaning of the term "triumph," Battles's translation gives the mistaken impression that Calvin thinks true believers are only those who win the victory over the Devil; rather, Calvin thinks true believers boast in, maybe even taunt death and the devil BECAUSE the victory has been won by Christ, not by the believer. (Blacketer)

3.2.16, Battles, p. 562, OS 4:27. Battles translates "Confisus sum" as "I have confessed." This is simply an error. It is from confido, "to be assured or confident of," not confiteor. (Blacketer)

3.2.29, Battles, p. 575, OS 4:39, 14-16. Latin: "Quare Apostolus hoc Evangelio testimonium defert, quod sit verbum fideiː Legis tum praeceptis, tum promissionibus adimit..." Battles: "The apostle, therefore, bears this witness to the gospel: that it is the word of faith [Rom. 10:8]. He distinguishes the gospel both from the precepts of the law and from the promises ..." The translation of the term adimit seems a bit muddled here. I think meaning is more like: "He deprives both the precepts of the law and its promises of this title..." Cf. the French: "lequel il ne concède point ny aux commandemens ny aux promesses de la Loy" (Blacketer)

3.2.36, Battles, p. 583-84, OS 4:46 lines 6-8. Latin: "Ubi fidem vocans opus Dei, et loco epitheti insigniens, appositive vocans beneplacitum, negat esse ex proprio hominis motu." Battles has: “…and instead of distinguishing it by an adjective, appropriately calls it ‘good pleasure.’” This is an incorrect interpretation of loco epitheti. “By way of attribution” is the meaning. Calvin is just trying to say the one word is in apposition to the other. The French has: "Or en nommant la foy Œuvre de Dieu, et l'intitulant de ce mot de Bon plaisir, ou faveur gratuite, il déclaire qu'elle n'est point du propre mouvement de l'homme." (Blacketer)

3.2.41, Battles, p. 588, OS 4:51 line 18. Battles once again supplies "Paul" where Calvin does not identify Paul as the author of Hebrews. Calvin uses the term "apostolus" here for the author of Hebrews and a few lines later he adds a reference to Rom. 8:24 and writes "ut Paulus scribit." And Battles adds "Paul" again on p. 589 (OS 4:51 line 25). There the implied subject is the author of Hebrews. (Blacketer)

3:3:1; Battles, 593; OS IV, 55, 16: continuo means ‘immediately, promptly’, not ‘constantly.’

3.3.9; Battles, 601; OS 4:63 lines 15-16. Calvin cites 2 Cor 3:18 - "Nos autem revelata facie gloriam Domini repraesentantes...". The vulgate is: "nos vero omnes revelata facie gloriam Domini speculantes..." Calvin translates the verse in his commentary as: "Nos autem omnes retecta facie gloriam Domini in speculo conspicientes..." Battles seems to ignore Calvin's use of repraesentantes (which is what Erasmus has in his 1516 Novum Instrumentum): "Now we, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of the Lord..." I don't think repraesento can mean "behold." Erasmus seems to have translated κατοπτριζόμενοι in the active sense rather than the middle or passive sense. Calvin may have followed Erasmus, and it may also reflect Calvin’s application in his commentary on 2 Cor. 3:18, where Calvin draws three points from this verse, that God clearly reveals his face in the gospel, that by contemplating God’s face in the gospel we should be transformed into the image of God, and that we must constantly make progress in our knowledge of God and in conforming to his image. See Comm. 1 Cor. 3:18, CTS Corinthians 2:187; COR 2/15:66, 60 n. 44; CO 50:47, and cf. Erasmus, Novum Instrumentum, ad loc., 60. (Blacketer)

3.3.10; Battles, 603; OS 4:66 lines 15-16; OS note b observes that Calvin makes an error when citing Augustine, in the phrase "in carnalem concupiscentiam." He means "ex carnali concupiscentia," as shown by Augustine's actual words and even Calvin's own French translation, where he does not make this error. Battles, however, ignores or overlooks this note and translates the erroneous Latin with results that make no sense. Calvin imperfect citation from Augustine reads: "Hoc peccati nomine appellat Paulus unde oriuntur cuncta peccata in [should be ex] carnalem concupiscentiam." Battles translates the faulty version thus: "Paul calls by the name 'sin,' the source from which all sins rise up into carnal desire." Rather, it should be something like: “Paul uses the term ‘sin’ to refer to the source from which all sins originate, from disordered carnal desire." (Blacketer)

3.3.12; Battles, 604; OS 4:67 line 37. Latin: "...ut in omnibus actionibus 𝗲𝗺𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗮𝘁 perpetua ἀταξία et intemperies...". Battles translates this as "that in all his actions persistent disorder and intemperance 𝘁𝗵𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗻...". Battles seems to have confused the verbs imminere (threaten) and eminere (to stand out, be conspicuous). It ought to be translated as: "...that continual disorder (ἀταξία) and lack of moderation are conspicuous in all of their actions..." (Blacketer)

3.3.13; Battles, 605-606; OS 4:69 lines 5-10. Battles fails to put quotation marks around a direct quotation from Augustine's In Iohannis Evangelium tractatus 41.12, and then he puts the footnote reference to that work at the end of the next sentence (n. 29 in Battles), which is not Augustine's words, but Calvin's, leading to great confusion. (Blacketer)

3.3.16, Battles, 610; OS 4:73 lines 8-12. Battles has: “Both of these exhortations also are briefly expressed in these words of James, ‘Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you men of double mind’ [James 4:8], where there is indeed an addition in the first clause; yet the source and origin is then shown: namely, that men must cleanse away secret filth in order that an altar may be erected to God in the heart itself.” Battles misinterprets accessio. It is not just some "addition." Calvin had earlier stated: "external integrity of life is not the chief matter of repentance because God looks at the heart." Battles, Allen, and Norton seem to miss the sense. What is added to James's first clause? Accessio [French: l'accessoire] here seems to mean not some vague "addition," but some external "accessory" that goes along with purity of heart, which is necessary but not sufficient to demonstrate the latter. It is the external act. Washing the hands is a ritual or ceremony that should reflect a deeper meaning: purity of heart. Calvin's section is all about the signa poenitentiae, the (external) signs of (internal) repentance. Beveridge seems to get it: "Here, indeed, the accessory is set down first; but the source and principle is afterwards pointed out, viz., that hidden defilements must be wiped away, and an altar erected to God in the very heart." (Blacketer)

3.3.18, Battles, 612; OS 4:76 lines 1-3. The Latin: "Qua ratione Paulus luctum peccatoribus denuntiat, qui poenitentiam non egerunt super lasciviis, scortatione et impudicitia...". Battles: "For this reason, Paul declares that he will mourn for those sinners who have not repented of" etc. 2 Cor. 2:21. But Calvin means that Paul demands sorrow/mourning from sinners. Cf. Calvin's French: "Pour ceste raison sainct Paul commande à ceux qui n'ont point fait pénitence de leurs dissolutions, paillardises et immondicitez, de mener le dueil [=deuil] à cause d'une telle dureté." So: "For this reason St. Paul commands those who have not repented for their dissolution, lewdness, and filthiness, to mourn because of such obstinacy." (Blacketer)

3:3:19; Battles, 614; OS IV, 77, 15. Battles’ ‘both kinds of grace’ too loosely translates utraque gratia, which carries no implication of different kinds. In the context, ‘each grace’ would sufficiently point to the ‘each of two’ which utraque conveys. An earlier translator (Beveridge) gives ‘both graces’. See also on 3:11:1.

3.3.21; Battles, 616; OS 4:79 line 24. Battles once again supplies "Paul" as the author of Hebrews where Calvin does not identify the author as Paul. (Blacketer)

3.3.21; Battles, 616; OS 4:79 line 30. Battles translates "ab integro" as "on their own account." Inexplicable. It means afresh, anew, over again. Context is Hebrews 6:4-6, where apostates crucify the Son of God over again. (Blacketer)

3.3.22; Battles, 617; OS 4:81 lines 2–5. Latin: "Dico igitur in Spiritum sanctum peccarequi divinae veritati, cuius fulgore sic perstringuntur ut ignorantiam causari nequeant, tamen destinata malitia resistunt, in hoc tantum ut resistant." Battles: “I say, therefore, that they sin against the Holy Spirit who, with evil intention, resist God’s truth, although by its brightness they are so touched that they cannot claim ignorance. Such resistance alone constitutes this sin.” Battles mistranslates the phrase “in hoc tantum ut resistant.” It means: simply for the sake of resisting it. Proposed translation: “I say, then, they sin against the Holy Spirit who, although they are so grazed by the radiance of the divine truth that they cannot claim ignorance as an excuse, nevertheless resist it with deliberate malice, simply for the sake of resisting it.” (Blacketer)

3.3.23; Battles, 619; OS 4:82, lines 3-5. "Eos autem implacabilem Deum sentire mirum non est, quos Iohannes in sua Canonica affirmat fuisse ex electis a quibus exierunt." Battles has: "No wonder, then, God is implacable toward those of whom John, in his canonical letter, asserts that they were not of the elect, from whom they went out." But Battles seems to ignore "sentire," which is crucial his argument, which is that the reprobate *feel* or *sense* God's state of implacability toward them, not just that God *is* implacable toward them. It is also no wonder that those whom John, in his canonical epistle, declares were not among the elect, from whom they went out, felt God to be implacable toward them. (Blacketer)

3.3.24; Battles, 620; OS 4:83 lines 24–27. “…sed conversio et precatio improprie vocatur caecum illud tormentum quo distrahuntur reprobi, quum Deum sibi quaerendumesse vident ut inveniant malis suis remedium, et tamen eius accessum refugiunt.”. Battles: “But it is improper to designate as ‘conversion’ and ‘prayer’ the blind torment that distracts the reprobate when they see that they must seek God in order to find a remedy for their misfortunes and yet flee at his approach.” But Battles misunderstands Calvin’s intention by the word vocatur. He does not intend a general recommendation against using these terms to describe the torment of the reprobate, or a general observation that these terms are inappropriate to describe that torment. Rather, he is referring specifically to how these concepts are used in the previously mentioned texts (Zechariah 7:13 and Hebrews [definitely not written by Paul] 12:16–17) in which the prophet and the apostle (lines 16–17) use these terms “improprie,” which Battles misinterprets here. Here “improprie” means in an imprecise or figurative way or as a form κατάχρησις / catachresis. The French makes this clearer: mais aux passages que nous avons alléguez, tant la conversion que la prière se prennent pour un torment confus et aveugle; “but in the passages we have cited, both ‘conversion’ and ‘prayer’ are used to mean a confused and blind torment.” Battles seems to follow Allen closely here, who also gets it wrong. The other two translators are fairly literal, which leads to a vagueness of meaning, e.g. Beveridge: “but the names of conversion and prayer are improperly given to that blind torment by which the reprobate are distracted …” In addition, the translation of “distraho” with its cognate “distracted” is inadequate (Allen, Beveridge, Battles). Norton is closer with “diversly drawen,” i.e. pulled in different directions. Both Allen and Beveridge were correct to use it, however, as the Oxford English Dictionary indicates in its definition: “To draw in different directions; to draw asunder or apart; to draw away; to separate, divide (literal and figurative). Obsolete.” Today, "distract" is too mild a term that no longer has that obsolete meaning. This is what Calvin means: they are torn between wanting a cure but fleeing from the God who can provide it. (Blacketer)

3.3.25; Battles, 621; OS 4:84 line 11-12: "...solatium hoc quasi homini belluino fuit residuum..." Battles: "yet this solace remained to him as an animal man, to become fat with the fatness of the earth and dew of heaven." The context is Esau, who lost the blessing of his birthright but received a temporal, earthly blessing of sorts. Battles's translation implies that Esau was blessed insofar as he was a living creature. I think Calvin means something less neutral. This consolation was given to him as if he were a beastly man, caring only about his physical and temporal needs with no thought of the spiritual or eternal. (Blacketer)

3.4.1; Battles, 624. OS 4:87 lines 2-5, 13: "...sed mihi religio esset fatigare talibus ineptiis lectores absque fructu. Certe de rebus ignotis eos garrire, ex quaestionibus quas movent et agitant, et quibus misere se impediunt, cognitu facile est..." But it would be mere meticulousness for me to tire my readers with such trifles to no avail. Surely, it is easy to recognize from the questions that move and excite them, and which miserably encumber them, that they are chattering about unknown things. Issue 1: "mihi religio esset" does not mean "it would be mere meticulousness," but rather, "it would bother my conscience." Religio here means a sense of moral obligation. Issue 2: The subject of movent et agitant is not quaestionibus, but Calvin's opponents, who pose and spend their time on these questions. Issue 3: Battles mistranslates "vel procul" as "even less" when it should be translated as "even from afar." (Blacketer)

3:4:2; Battles, 625; OS IV, 87, 20. Perhaps the fault of McNeill’s editing error, Battles’ translates the phrase ut quisque amare deflendo sua peccata se ... magis acuat in such a way that the verb acuat is left out entirely. His reading ‘what his displeasure and hatred’ should be ‘whet’ or ‘incite his displeasure ...’. Beveridge gives ‘stimulate himself more and more to dislike and hate.’

3.4.2; Battles, 625; OS 4:88 lines 2-4. "Equidem sedulo et acriter instandum esse fateor, ut quisque amare deflendo sua peccata, se ad eorum displicentiam et odium magis acuat." Battles produces: "We must, I admit, carefully and sharply urge every man, by weeping bitterly for his sins, to what his displeasure and hatred toward them." This sentence does not make grammatical sense. I supposed this clearly to be a 𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘶𝘮 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘱𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘶𝘮. Except that he meant "whet," not what. I don't think instandum esse here refers to urging, but has more the meaning of "to devote oneself constantly (to), to persevere (in activity); ...to work on (an object).... to strive for." (DMLBS). Cf. with Calvin's French: Je confesse bien qu’il nous faut estre vigilans, et donner soin, et mesme nous aiguyser à plourer amèrement nos fautes, pour nous inciter tant mieux à nous y desplaire et les hair. "I do confess that we must be vigilant, and be careful, and even sharpen ourselves to bitterly mourn our faults, to incite us all the more to dislike and hate them." To be vigilant (estre vigilans) accords much more with the sense of insto as "to devote oneself to" or "to strive for." (Blacketer)

3.4.4; Battles, 628; OS 4:90 lines 23–27: "Ite, inquit, ostendite vos Sacerdotibus: et offerte munus quod praecepit Moses in Lege, ut sit in testimonium ipsis. Et vere futurum erat illis in testimonium miraculum hoc: pronuntiaverant eos leprosos, nunc curatos pronuntiant." Battles produces: "Go," he says, "show yourselves to the priests" [Luke 17:14]; "and offer the gift that Moses prescribes in the law, for a proof to the people" [Matt. 8:4 p.]. Truly, this miracle was to be a proof for them. They had declared them lepers; now they declare them cured. Battles misidentifies the referent of ipsis. It is the priests, not the people; in fact, in the gospel texts (which Calvin conflates), Jesus instructs the leper not to tell anyone. Moreover, the next line makes it clear that Calvin has the priests in mind: those who had declared them unclean would now declare them cured. See also Calvin's gospels commentary: "For a testimony to them." Some consider testimony to mean here a law or statute, as it is said in the Book of Psalms, God laid down this “for a testimony to Israel,” (Psalm 122:4.) But this appears to me to be a poor exposition: for I have no doubt that the pronoun to them refers to the priests. (Blacketer)

3.4.23; Battles, 650; OS 4:112 line 28-113 line 3. "Perinde enim valet acsi sacerdos, tribuni personam sustinens, Deo intercederet nec vellet Deum pati mera sua liberalitate in gratiam recipere..." Battles: "For this has the same force as though the priest, taking on the role of tribune, should make intercession to God, and should not suffer God of his mere generosity to receive into grace ... " But "make intercession" is incorrect in this context, since the reference is to the tribunes in ancient Rome who had veto power over proposals in the senate. Curiously, McNeill (I presume) points out this meaning in footnote 49, but the translation itself is inadequate and the meaning is quite obscured. (Blacketer)

3.4.29; Battles, 656; OS 4:119 lines 5–10. "Atque in hunc modum interpretatur Augustinus claris verbis, Si texit peccata Deus, noluit advertere: 𝘀𝗶 𝗻𝗼𝗹𝘂𝗶𝘁 𝗮𝗱𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗲, 𝗻𝗼𝗹𝘂𝗶𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗱𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗲: si noluit animadvertere, noluit punire: noluit agnoscere, maluit ignoscere. Tecta ergo peccata quare dixit? Ut non viderentur. Quid erat, Deum videre peccata, nisi punire?" Augustine explains it in clear words as follows: “If God has covered sins, he has willed not to look upon them; if he has willed not to pay attention to them, he has willed not to punish them; he has willed not to recognize them, and he has preferred to overlook them.” Curious, Battles omits "si noluit advertere, noluit animadvertere:" Battles also translates "in hunc modum" as "as follows," which is inadequate. Calvin means: in the same way that I just described. This is also the way Augustine explains the matter in clear words: “If God has covered sins, he has willed not to notice them. If he has willed not to notice them, he has willed not to pay attention to them. If he has willed not to pay attention to them, he has willed not to punish them. He has willed not to acknowledge them; he has willed rather to forgive them. … Why, then, does he say the sins have been covered? So that they will not be seen. What does it mean that God sees sins but that he punishes them?” (Blacketer)

3.4.33; Battles, 662, n. 70. In the note on p. 662 n. 70, we read: "Augustine, Psalms, Ps. 102 (Latin, Ps. 101). 20 (MPL 37. 1332; tr. NPNF VIII. 500)" (cf. OS 4:124 n. 3: Aug. in Ps. 102, 20 ...). M-B goes backwards and cites the English translation of Augustine on Psalm 101:13 when in fact it's Psalm 103:13. Correct NPNF citation is 8:508. So it is Psalm 103, section 17, in which Augustine interprets verse 13. (Blacketer)

3.5.1; Battles, 670-671, OS 4:133 4-7; the Latin is: “Excipiebant tamen summa veneratione indulgentias, adorabant, redimebant: et qui cernebant inter alios acutius, existimabant tamen pias esse fraudes, quibus cum fructu aliquo falli possent.” Battles' translation: “Yet with the highest veneration they received indulgences, worshiped them as pious frauds by which men could with some profit be deceived.” Battles skips over line 6 and omits it from his translation, skipping these words: “redimebant: et qui cernebant inter alios acutius, existimabant tamen.” Restored: “Nonetheless, people accepted indulgences with the utmost reverence, venerated them, and bought them up. And even those among them who were more shrewdly discerning nevertheless considered them to be pious frauds that could deceive people with a certain amount of profit.” By the way, the assertion that indulgences were a pious fraud originated with Johann Ruchrat von Wesel (†1481), a critic of the system of indulgences. Von Wesel claimed that indulgences were frauds because they had no scriptural support, yet they were pious in the sense that they encouraged people toward good works. (Blacketer)

3.5.8; Battles, p. 679 n. 19; OS 4:140 n. 7. McNeill/Battles misidentifies the reference to Jerome, identifying it as Jerome's preface to the books of Samuel and Malachi, Migne PL 28:556-557. OS (correctly) refers to the prologue to the books of Solomon, and cites PL 28:1308. But there are different editions of Migne, and in my version (used in the Patrologia Database) the correct column number is 1242-1243. I presume McNeill/Battles were confused by this discrepancy and tried (unsuccessfully) to find the correct reference. Their reference mentions the book of Maccabees, but not Calvin's and Jerome's point, which is that deuterocanonical books cannot be the basis for establishing doctrines. (Blacketer)

3.6.5; Battles, p. 688; OS 4:150 lines 12-13. Latin: "Quid ergo? scopus ille ante oculos praefigatur, ad quem solum dirigatur studium nostrum. Praestituatur meta illa, ad quam et enitamur et contendamus." Battles translates it: “What then? Let that target be set before our eyes at which we are earnestly to aim.” Earnestly? The phrase “ad quem solum” refers to the exclusivity of the goal toward which we should direct our efforts. What should we do, then? Let us set that target before our eyes as the only one to which we direct our efforts. (Blacketer)

3.7.6; Battles, p. 696; OS 4:156 line 29f. Latin: "Omnibus in universum benefacere Dominus praecipit, quorum magna pars indignissimi sunt, si proprio merito aestimentur." Battles: "The Lord commands all men without exception 'to do good' [Heb. 13:16]. First, there is no reference in Calvin to Heb. 13:16. Maybe he was thinking of Gal. 6:10. "Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers." Maybe he was not thinking of one specific verse. He did not cite any text. Worse, however, is Battles reversal of the meaning of the Latin, completely missing Calvin's point. The object of doing good, not subject, is "all people without exception." The Lord commands that we do good to all people without exception, the majority of whom are utterly undeserving if judged by their own merit. The French for comparison: Le Seigneur commande sans exception de bien faire à tous, desquels la pluspart sont indignes, s1 nous les estimons selon leur propre mérite. Edit: I just noticed that Calvin explicitly cites Gal. 6:10 a few lines later. (Blacketer)

3.8.2; Battles, p. 703; OS 4:162 33-36. Latin: "Quinetiam sanctissimi, utcunque Dei gratia non propriis viribus stare se noverint, de sua tamen fortitudine et constantia plus iusto securi sunt, nisi eos crucis probatione penitiorem sui notitiam adducat." Battles misinterprets "sui," rendering it as referring to God: "unless by the testing of the cross he [God] bring them into a deeper knowledge of himself." sui here is reflexive and refers to the plural subject: sanctissimi. Cf. the French: un plus certaine cognoissance d'eux-mesmes. Thus: ...unless God leads them to a deeper knowledge of themselves through the trial of the cross. (Blacketer)

3.9.6; Battles, p. 719; OS 4: 177 line 1. Latin: "...neque potuisse aliter consistere quam dum sanctuarium Dei ingressus ad novissimum piorum et malorum finem convertit oculos (Ps. 73:2)." Battles translates it: "and he could not understand it until he entered God's sanctuary..." Mistranslation of consistere, which in this context seems to mean to stand firmly or to be at rest; cf. Beveridge: "he found no resting place until..." Perhaps Battles read it as concipere? (Blacketer)

3:11:1; Battles, 725; OS IV, 182, 9. Battles seems to avoid the clear meaning of the Latin in writing ‘the second of these gifts’. It should be simply ‘the second grace’ (quae secunda est gratia). Earlier in this section Battles rightly translates Calvin’s duplicem gratiam as ‘a double grace’ – although most Calvin scholars prefer ‘twofold grace’. See also on 3:3:19.

3.11.5; Battles, p. 730 n. 7; OS 4:186 n. 1. The title of the (as yet untranslated) work of Augustine, De agone Christiano, is translated as "On Christ's Agony." The title actually translates to: (On) Christian conflict, and the subject is the Christian life portrayed as a struggle. (Blacketer)

3:11:6; Battles, 732; OS IV, 187, 21-22: percipimus – ‘receive’, not ‘perceive.’

3.11.8; Battles, p. 734; OS 4:189 lines 10-14. Latin: "In Christi receptione longius provehitur: nempe verbi externi ministerio verbum internum recipi, quo nos a sacerdotio Christi et Mediatoris persona ad 𝗲𝘅𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻𝗮𝗺 eius divinitatem traducat." Battles renders "externum eius divinitatem" as "his outward deity" and ignores the OS note which points out that externum is an obvious error that should read as aeternum. Both John Allen and Henry Beveridge made the same judgment, though not Norton. After all, what is external or outward deity, anyway? (Blacketer)

3.11.11, Battles, 738; OS 4:192.33-193.2. Latin: "Verum haec minime tolerabilis est impietas, praetextu duplicis iustitiae labefactare salutis fiduciam et nos raptare supra nubes, ne gratiam expiationis fide amplexi, Deum quietis animis invocemus." Battles translates it: "To enfeeble our assurance of salvation, to waft us above the clouds in order to prevent our calling upon God with quiet hearts after we, assured of expiation, have laid hold upon grace—to do all this under pretense of a twofold righteousness is an utterly intolerable impiety." Battles mistranslates ne gratiam expiationis fide amplexi. Not: assured of expiation we have laid hold upon grace, but: after we have embraced by faith the grace of expiation. (Blacketer)

3.11.19, Battles, 749; OS 4:202, lines 25-26. The context: Calvin is defending the protestant doctrine of justification by faith *alone* against charges by Roman Catholic opponents who pointed out that the term "alone" is not explicitly in the text and who condemned Luther for adding it to his translation of Rom. 3:28. The Latin reads: "Nec falsa modo, sed plane ridicula tergiversatione in exclusiva particula consistunt." Battles has: "Not only by a false but by an obviously ridiculous shift they insist upon excluding this adjective." exclusiva is the problem. It's not a verb, but an adjective modifying particula, which here seems to mean a little part of speech. Also, the "alone" in "by faith alone" functions as an adverb, not an adjective. Allen's translation is similar in sense to both Norton and Beveridge: "And respecting this exclusive particle, 'only,' they rest on an evasion which is not only false, but glaringly ridiculous." Also, "glaringly ridiculous" is a nice touch. (Blacketer)

3.13.2, Battles, 764; OS 4:216 line 26-27. The Latin: "Qualiter autem laudari nos in Domino conveniat, proximo versu docuerat…" Battles has: "But he had taught in the previous verse how we ought to glory in the Lord…" Battles seems to follow both Allen and Beveridge here, respectively: "But how we should glory in the Lord, he had stated in the preceding verse…" and "The way in which we are to glory in the Lord he had explained in the preceding verse…" But laudari does not mean “to glory,” i.e. “to boast.” It means to be praised or commended. Note Norton: "But how we ought to be praised in the Lord, he had taught in the verse next before…" Compare the French: "Or la manière d’avoir nostre louange en Dieu, il l’avoit enseignée en la sentence prochaine…" For in the previous sentence he taught the way to have our praise in God… (Blacketer)

3.13.5, Battles, 771 note 4, "tr. LF Psalms 1, 253f." is an error. McNeill-Battles did not bother to read the text and gave the reference for Psalm 31, and forgot that it's Psalm 32 in our versions. The correct page is 282.(Blacketer)

3/16/4, Battles, 802; OS 4:252 lines 23-25 "Haec quum docentur homines, admonentur per ipsos non stare quominus toties sacratissimus ille sanguis effundatur quoties peccant." Battles: "When men are taught this, they are made aware that they cannot do anything to prevent the shedding of his most sacred blood as often as they sin." Battles misses the meaning of stare per + quominus or quod, with the meaning that something is due to or the fault of something or someone. Calvin means people can't take credit for the fact that Christ's blood is not shed all over again every time they commit a sin. Cf. Norton: "When men are taught these things, they are put in minde that it is no thanke to them that the same most holy blood is not shed so oft as they sinne." Thus: When people are taught these doctrines, they are reminded that it is no thanks to them that Christ’s most sacred blood is not shed every time they sin. (Blacketer)

3.16.4, Battles, 802; OS 4:252.1 - 253.2. "Illi Deum frivolis suis satisfactionibus, hoc est stercoribus, placari nugantur..." Battles: "They make believe God is appeased by their wretched satisfactions, which are but dung [Phil. 3:8]." Here Battles softens and sanctifies Calvin's meaning with with a Bible reference. In fact, Calvin is simply comparing works of satisaction to turds, as is clearer in the French: fiente et estrons; “manure and turds.” Sometimes it is not clear how to translate stercus in Calvin: shit or dregs or something in between. He certainly wasn't as scatalogical as Luther, but he could at times go there in his own, more restrained manner. Battles's rendering obscures the fact that this is not a pious reference to Scripture but an earthy insult to the Roman Catholic system of merits and satisfactions. (Blacketer)

3.17.5, Battles, 807; OS 4:257.24–26. "Verum id semper memoria repetendum est, non aliter operum ratione illos esse Deo acceptos nisi quia illorum causa et in gratiam, quicquid bonorum operum contulit, liberalitatem suam augendo, sua quoque acceptione dignatur." Battles: "But we must always remember that God “accepts” believers by reason of works only because he is their source and graciously, by way of adding to his liberality, deigns also to show “acceptance” toward the good works he has himself bestowed." The error regards “illorum causa et in gratiam,” to say nothing of the oddness of putting “accepts” and “acceptance” in quotation marks. He seems to misread the Latin as saying “[Deus] illorum causa est” and then trying to do something with “et in gratiam.” Note that Beveridge, whom Battles often seems to follow, also stumbles here: "But we must always bear in mind, that the only way in which men are accepted of God in respect of works is, that whatever good works he has conferred upon those *whom he admits to favor,* he by an increase of liberality honors with his acceptance." Norton properly translates illorum causa et in gratiam as basically the repetition of the same thing in different words, which Calvin often does: "But this is always to be remembred [sic], that they are none otherwise acceptable to God in respect of workes, but in as much as for their cause and for their sakes, whatsoever good workes he hath given them in encreasing of his liberalitie, he also vouchsafeth to accept." Allen, as he often does, modifies his Latin translation by peeking at the French: "But it must always be remembered, that they are accepted by God in consequence of their works, only because, for their sakes and the favour which he bears to them, he deigns to accept whatever goodness he hath liberally communicated to their works." Cf. the French: "Néantmoins il nous faut tousiours retenir cela, qu’ils ne sont pas autrement agréables à Dieu à raison de leurs œuvres, sinon pourtant que Dieu, à cause de l’amour gratuite qu’il leur porte, en augmentant de plus en plus sa libéralité, accepte leurs œuvres." Nevertheless, we must always remember that believers are not otherwise pleasing to God because of their works, except that God, because of the gratuitous love he bears them, in constantly increasing his liberality, accept their works. (Blacketer)

3.18.7, Battles, 829; OS 4:277 line 3: "Sed magis urgent Apostoli verba...". Battles: "But the apostle's words urge us all the more..." The subject of "urgent" is not verba; rather, Calvin's opponents are pushing the apostle's words as an argument for the merit of works. This is very clear from the context. Not that it needs confirming, but the French does so: "Mais ils pressent plus fort les parolles de l'Apostre...". The sense is: But our opponents contend [even] more forcefully with the words of the apostle... (Blacketer)

3.18.9, Battles, 831; OS 4:280 lines 13-14. "Quasi vero non constet, Christum iis responsa sua attemperasse quibuscum negotium esse sibi videbat." Battles: "As if it were not evident that Christ did not accommodate his replies to those with whom he saw that he had to deal!" But Calvin's point is that he did, in fact, adapt his replies to the person with whom he was interacting, depending on whether they asked their questions in good faith. "As if it were not obvious that Christ adapted his responses to those with whom he saw he had to interact!" Cf. the French: Comme si ce u'estoit point chose notoire, que Christ a tousiours conformé ses responses à ceux ausquels il a voit à faire. (Blacketer)

3.19.1, Battles, 834; OS 4:282 lines 29-31. Latin: "...partim indignantur, putantes omnem moderationem, ordinem, rerumque delectum tolli." Battles has: "Others disdain it, thinking that it takes away all moderation, order, and choice of things." But how would the teaching of Christian liberty deprive someone of choices? Rather, it might have the opposite effect. 'delectum' here, then, means distinction or discrimination. Accordingly, John Allen translates it, loosely, as "moral distinctions." (Blacketer)

3.19.4, Battles, 836; OS 4:285 line 9-10. Latin: "Quid hic faciant, dum sentiunt nihil se minus quam Legem praestare?" Battles: "What are they to do here, while they feel that there is nothing they are less able to do than to fulfill the law?" Both Allen and Beveridge do something similar. Beveridge: "What can they do while they thus feel that there is nothing of which they are less capable than to fulfill the law?" Allen: "What can they do in this case, when they perceive that they are so far from observing the law?" But my sense of the Latin is the same as that of Norton: "What shall they here doe, when they feele that they doe nothing lesse then performe the lawe ?" Also Calvin's French seems to have this meaning as well: "Que feront-ils icy, quand ils voyent qu'ils ne font rien moins que d'accomplir la Loy?" Changing what Calvin says, if that's what 3/4 translators are doing, does make the statement fit better into the context; but it does not seem to me to be what Calvin is saying unless I am missing some nuance. Calvin seems to be saying that even those who feel like they are doing nothing but obeying God still fall short because even their good works and good intentions fall short of perfection. (Blacketer)

3:20:37; Battles, 900; OS IV, 347, 10-12: Battles omits a negative here, and should read ‘his father’s heart cannot pretend not to be moved by such entreaties’ (non enim tum se paterna viscera dissimulare possunt quin ad tales preces commoveantur).

3.21.1; Battles p. 921; OS 4: 369 line 23. Battles: "If—to make it clear that our salvation comes about solely from God's mere generosity—we must be called back to the course of election..." But Battles mistranslates originem (beginning or origin) as "course," perhaps an error for "source." (Blacketer)
3.23.1, Battles p. 947; OS 4:393 line 38-394 line 2. Battles: "Indeed many, as if they wished to avert a reproach from God, accept election in such terms as to deny that anyone is condemned." This does not make sense. The last word in the Latin is reprobari. "...they deny that anyone is reprobated / rejected." There is a crucial distinction between reprobation and condemnation. (Blacketer)

3.23.1, Battles, p. 948; OS 4:394 line 16. Battles again translates "reprobari" as condemned: "Now how will those who do not admit that any are condemned by God..." (Blacketer)

3.23.10, Battles, p 958; OS 4:404 line 22. Battles again translates reprobo (here reprobatis) as condemns rather than rejects or reprobates.(Blacketer)

3.23.11, Battles, p. 959; OS 4:405 line 18-19. The Latin: Quod vero alia fiunt in contumeliam, non iniquitati, sed iudicio deputandum, etc. - "that other vessels are made unto dishonor...is to be laid not to inquiry but to judgment." Battles translates "iniquitati" as "inquiry." The proper meaning is: the fact that other vessels are made for dishonor must not be assigned to injustice but to his judgment. And in line 20 Battles YET AGAIN translates "reprobat" as "condemns." The first error could be attributed to typographical or transcription error, but the second is a deliberate and entirely wrong choice that Battles makes regularly. (Blacketer)

3.23.12, Battles, p. 961; OS 4:406 line 34. again mistranslates reprobatus as "condemned" (Blacketer)

3.24.3, Battles, p. 968; OS 4:413.30. The Latin: Neque interea inficior ut certi de salute nostra simus initium a verbo fieri debere, eoque debere fiduciam nostram esse contentam ut Deum Patrem invocemus. Battles: "...I do not deny that to be assured of our salvation we must begin with the word, and that our confidence ought to be so intent as to call upon God as our Father." Battles translates contentam as "intent." It should be something more like: "In the meantime, I do not deny that, to be certain of our salvation, we should begin with the word and that our assurance should be so satisfied with the word that we call upon God as Father." (Blacketer)

3.24.10, Battles, p. 976; OS 4:421 nn. 3–4. In 3.24.10, Calvin makes this statement: “Now, regarding those who dream that some sort of seed of election was implanted in their hearts from their very birth, by virtue of which they are always inclined toward godliness and the fear of God, they are not supported by the authority of Scripture and experience itself refutes them.” The OS refers this to Martin Bucer, In sacra quatuor evangelia enarrationes, 1530, fol. 122r°, on Matt. 12:25ff., in which Bucer goes on a long digression as is his wont on blasphemy against the Holy Spirit and how the elect and reprobate behave. Here, Bucer writes: “Nevertheless you may always sense a certain seed of God in the elect and a striving for truth” even when they are still fighting against the truth. But this is not what Calvin is refuting. McNeill / Battles provides a confusing reference that confuses that OS reference to Bucer’s 1530 gospel commentary with a citation of an alleged 1543 edition of the same commentary, which does not seem to exist; there are editions printed in 1527, 1530, 1536, 1553, and 1555. Moreover, MB refers to an entirely different passage, Matt. 4:18, where Bucer speaks of seminaria pietatis (seedbeds of piety). Bucer says, “As almost always with the elect, even before their full conversion, and when they are overflowing with shameful acts, sometimes certain seedbeds of piety show themselves.” Importantly, Calvin makes a statement in his commentary on 1 John 3:9 (COR 2/20:193–94; CO 55:337) that is very similar to the one in Institutes 3.24.10: “Some fanatics dream of something I know not what, that is, of an eternal seed in the elect which they always bring from their mother’s womb; but for this purpose, they very outrageously pervert the words of John, for he does not speak of eternal election but begins with regeneration.” It is highly unlikely that Calvin would include Bucer among the fanatics who dream up nonsense. This is what first made me doubt the reference to Bucer. Moreover, Calvin can also speak of a seed, as he does in the commentary here, but he emphasizes that it first appears in regeneration, not from the womb. Rather, Martin Borrhaus, AKA Cellarius (1499–1564), is the more likely culprit, as Willem van ’t Spijker observes. Cellarius writes explicitly of the “seed of God and the sanctification of the elect from the womb,” De operibus Dei (1527), fol. 6r°. van ’t Spijker writes: “Cellarius’s unique teaching was that of the semen electionis in (or ab) utero [the seed of election in or from the womb]. Bucer’s discussion of the semen Dei [seed of God] is actually nothing other than a conservatio electorum ante et post conversionem [the preservation of the elect before and after conversion], such as Calvin could also say about the matter.” Willem van ’t Spijker, “Prädestination bei Bucer und Calvin. Ihr gegenseitige Beeinflussung und Abhängigkeit.” In Martin Bucer (1491–1551): Collected Studies on his Life, Work, Doctrine, and Influence, edited by Christa Boerke and Jan C. Klok, 79–104 (see especially 95, 101). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018. (Blacketer)

3.24.12, Battles, p. 979; OS 4:4424 line 5. Battles: "The supreme Judge, then, makes way for his predestination when he leaves in blindness those whom he has once condemned..." Once again, Battles mistranslates reprobavit as "condemned"; it should be "reprobated." Battles clearly does not understand the term or the theological implications of the term and the very important distinction between reprobation and condemnation. (Blacketer)

3.24.13, Battles p. 979-80; OS 4:424 lines 28-30. Curious translation issue, Latin: Adeo quidem non situm est in proprio hominis motu accedere, ut piis quoque et Deum timentibus singulari adhuc instinctu Spiritus opus sit. Battles skips the word accedere entirely: “Indeed, it does not so stand in man’s own impulse, and consequently even the pious and those who fear God still have need of the especial prompting of the Spirit.” Beveridge does the same: "So far is it, indeed, from being placed in the mere will of man, that we may add, that even the pious, and those who fear God, need this special inspiration of the Spirit." As does Norton: "Truelie it so standeth not in the proper motion of man, that even the godlie and they that feare God have need of a singular instruction of the Spirite." But not Allen: “But 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗮𝗰𝗵 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗶𝗺 is so far from being a mere effort of man, that even pious persons, and such as fear God, still stand in need of the peculiar impulse of the Spirit.” This meaning is confirmed by the French: Bref, tant s’en faut qu’il gise au propre mouvement des hommes d’approcher, que mesme les enfans de Dieu ont besoin d’estre poussez par inspiration singuliere. The failure of Norton, Beveridge, and Battles to translate accedere is significant, because Calvin is talking about who takes the initiative in salvation, God or human beings? Does God approach human beings, or do human beings approach God, or if both, which comes first? The context is Calvin's criticism of John Chrysostom's claim that human beings who are willing and who extend their hand to God are the ones whom God draws to himself. Chrysostom in one place says that human beings make the first move toward God (Hom. Heb. 12.3, Chevallon edition vol. 4: fol. 315r°–v° F–G). I found the sentence rather difficult (I'm currently struggling with a severe upper respiratory infection so that doesn't help. Jon, don't put that on the blog.) But here's what I have so far: In fact, the ability to approach God is so far from being situated in [being a matter of?] a human being’s own instigation that even the devout and those who fear God still need the unique prompting of the Spirit. (Blacketer)

3.24.14, Battles, p. 982; OS 4.426 line 35. In the context of Calvin's discussion of election and reprobation, Battles once again is reluctant to translate reprobi as "the reprobate," here translating it as "the wicked." It is very clear to me that FL Battles had a real problem understanding the concept of reprobation.

3.24.15, Battles, p. 982; OS 4:427, line 5. Latin: At quoniam obiici solent pauci Scripturae loci, quibus videtur negare Deus sua ordinatione fieri ut iniqui pereant, nisi quoad se reclamante ipsi mortem sponte sibi accersunt. Battles: "But our opponents are in the habit of quoting in opposition a few Scripture passages in which God seems to deny that the wicked perish by his ordination, except in so far as by their clamorous protests they of their own accord bring death upon themselves." Battles wrongly applies "se reclamante" to the reprobate, when in fact it applies to God: over God's objections or something to that effect.

3.25.3, Battles, p. 992; OS 4:437 line 5. The context is the rumor that the disciples stole the body of Jesus. Latin: "Quasi vero vel turmae cogendae facultas esset..." Battles: "As if they were capable of overpowering a troop..." Battles misinterprets the verb cogo; here the meaning is forming a group, not overpowering a group. The previous translators get it right; and it's also confirmed by the French: "As if they had the means to amass some large band..." What the name of the disciples' band would be, Calvin does not say. (Blacketer)

3.25.4, Battles, p. 993; OS 4:438 lines 6-10. Latin: Hac fiducia elatus Iesaias exclamat, Vivent mortui tui: cadaver meum resurget. Expergiscimini et laudate habitatores pulveris [Iesa. 26. d. 19]. Rebus desperatis sese attollit ad Deum vitae authorem, penes quem sunt exitus mortis, ut dicitur in Psalmo [Psal. 68. c. 21]. Battles: "Isaiah, lifted up by this assurance, exclaims: “Thy dead men shall live; my body shall rise. O dwellers in the dust, awake and praise” [Isa. 26:19]. In desperate circumstances David raises himself to God, the Author of life, to whom 'belongs the escape from death,' as it is said in the psalm [Ps. 68:20]." Note that “David” does not appear in the Latin (or French), because Calvin is not talking about David; he is still talking about Isaiah, whom he compares to the Psalmist. Battles misinterprets the subject of the second sentence and supplies “David” where he doesn’t belong. In the very next sentence (OS4:438 lines 10-13), Battles makes another error. The Latin reads: Iob etiam cadaveri similior quam homini, fretus Dei potentia, non dubitat quasi integer ad diem illum se attollere... Battles: "Job also, more like a corpse than a man, relying on God's might, doubts not that he will arise as a whole man at that day…" Battles misinterprets "quasi integer." It does not refer to Job's final state, but means that Job, despite being half dead, at that moment regains his strength and vigor in order to put his confidence in the future resurrection. (Blacketer)

3.25.5, Battles, p. 995; OS 4:439 lines 19–21. Latin: Sed ne quem levaret crassa haec ignorantia, ipso naturae instinctu increduli semper effigiem resurrectionis habuerunt ante oculos. Battles: "But in order that this gross ignorance might not excuse anyone, by an unbelievable prompting of nature men always had before their eyes an image of the resurrection." Battles mistranslates “increduli” as if it were an ablative adjective, in which case the form would be “incredulo,” rather than seeing it as a plural nominative noun: unbelievers. Thus: unbelievers have always had before their eyes an image of the resurrection. (Blacketer)

Title of book 4, "The External Means or *Aims*by which God Invites Us into Society with Christ and Holds Us Therein." Clearly a typographical error: Means or *Aids* (adminicula). Also something else that is curious, but not in Battles. Beveridge skips this book title entirely and replaces it with "Of the Holy Catholic Church." (Blacketer)

4.1.1, Battles, p. 1012; OS 5:1 lines 18-21. Latin: In primis sacramenta instituit, quae nos experimento sentimus plusquam utilia esse adiumenta ad fovendam et confirmandam fidem. Battles: "First of all, he instituted sacraments, which we who have experienced them feel to be highly useful aids to foster and strengthen faith." experimento does not mean "we who have experienced them;" it means we sense or perceive by experience that they are exceptionally useful helps to nurture and confirm faith. (Blacketer)

4.1.2, Battles, p. 1012; OS 5:2 lines 8-10. Latin: Ideo et credendi verbum ponitur: quia nullum saepe discrimen inter filios Dei et profanos, inter proprium eius gregem et fera animalia notari potest. Battles: the word “believe” is used because often no 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 distinction can be made between God’s children and the ungodly, between his own flock and wild beasts. The problem is that there is no "other" in the Latin, and Battles's rendering changes the meaning entirely. In Battles version, "believing" becomes the distinguishing mark between the children of God and the ungodly etc. Only believing distinguishes them. But Calvin does not say that. Calvin means that the church is a matter of believing rather than seeing, because we cannot see with our eyes the distinction between the elect and reprobate. The context makes this clear; Calvin is not discussing belief in general but believing the church specifically, as an article of the creed. Faith is required to believe in the invisible church, because we cannot discern between elect and reprobate in this life. Norton, uncharacteristically, also makes this error, but not Allen or Beveridge. My translation of the French: However, this word "believe" is included there, because often one cannot observe with the eye the difference that exists between the children of God and profane people, between his holy flock and the wild animals. (Blacketer)

4.1.2, Battles p. 1013 n. 5; OS 5:2 n. 3. Battles error but really an Opera Selecta error. Calvin is discussing the article on the church in the creed(s), and rejects the insertion of the preposition "in" before "ecclesiam." He says that Augustine and Pseudo-Cyprian (Rufinus of Aquileia) both argue against this insertion. But OS, with McNeill-Battles following, refers to Augustine's On Faith and the Creed / De fide et symbolo and a spurious sermon on the creed, neither of which discuss the purported preposition proposition. After doing some fruitless searching, I was about to conclude that Calvin had a memory lapse or was in error. That would have been an error. Searching Migne's Patrologia Latina paid off. Augustine does in fact discuss why "credere in ecclesiam sanctam catholicam" is incorrect, in sermon 242.4, PL 39:2193. "Sciendum est quod Ecclesiam credere, non tamen in Ecclesiam credere debeamus: quia Ecclesia non est Deus; sed domus Dei est." "It should be known that we ought to believe the church but not to believe in the church; because the church is not God, but the house of God." This is the correct reference. (Blacketer)

4.1.2, Battle,s p. 1013; OS 5:3, lines 10-14. Latin: Finis autem est, ut sciamus, quanvis ad diruendam Christi gratiam omnes lapides moveat Diabolus, et eodem etiam ferantur vesano impetu Dei hostes: non posse tamen extingui, nec sterilem posse reddi Christi sanguinem, quin fructum aliquem producat. But the purpose is for us to know that, even though the devil moves every stone to destroy Christ’s grace, and though God’s enemies also rage with the same savage fury, it cannot be extinguished; nor can Christ’s blood be made barren, nay, even some good may come of it. Battles’s strange rendering of the last four words is not right. Rather: the blood of Christ cannot be made barren so that it does not produce some fruit. (Blacketer)

4.1.3, Battles, p. 1015; OS 5:6 lines 1-3. Latin: Hac enim lege credimus Ecclesiam ut certo persuasi simus nos esse eius membra. Battles: "The basis on which we believe the church is that we are fully convinced we are members of it." The problematic part is "Hac... lege." I have only known one translation this phrase: "on this condition" or "on these terms." But Norton, Allen, and Beveridge all translate it with some version of "for this purpose." None of these really make sense. "on this basis," "for this purpose," or "on this condition." The Dictionary of Medieval Latin based on British Sources provides a meaning of lege: way or manner. This is interesting to me because that is how Calvin renders this sentence into French: Car nous croyons l’Eglise tellement [= de telle sorte] que nous devons être assurés d’en être membres. "We believe the church in such a way that we should/must be assured that we are members of it." So, I think it could be: "for we believe the church in such a way that we may be convinced without a doubt that we are members of it." (Blacketer)

4.1.5, Battles, p. 1016-17; OS 5:8 line 2. Battles translates the word "instauratio" as "equipment" in Calvin's rendering of Ephesians 4:11, which is a terribly awkward way of expressing "equipping," but even that would be incorrect here. Calvin follows Erasmus's rendering of the Greek καταρτισμός (restoration or renewal, which is one possible meaning of καταρτισμός but does not fit the context here) rather than the Vulgate's "consummatio," which might mistake καταρτισμός for κατάρτισις, though the meanings are somewhat similar. But in his commentary Calvin lets the reader make their own choice while arguing that it really means "constitutio," proper ordering or arrangement. Battles seems to read a later (and better) understanding of καταρισμός back into Calvin, but it seems like that idea of equipping did not occur to him or Erasmus or the Vulgate translator; I think that idea would have been expressed by terms like armare or instruere. See Calvin, COR 2/16:227 n. 24, 231–32; CO 51:196, 198–99; CTS Galatians and Ephesians, 277, 281. In any case, Calvin uses "instauratio" and it should be translated as restoration or renewal, not retrofitted to modern understandings of the term. Immediately following, he translates "opus administrationis" as "the work of ministry," which also does not seem exactly right to me. Calvin changes this to "opus ministerii" in the commentary, so he interprets it that way there, but I think it should be "work of administration" here (Fr. "l’ouvrage d’administration). (Blacketer)

4.1.12, Battles, p. 1026; OS 5:16, lines 27–31. The Latin: …sed dico, non temere ob quaslibet dissensiunculas deserendam nobis Ecclesiam, in qua duntaxat ea salva et illibata doctrina retineatur qua constat incolumitas pietatis, et sacramentorum usus a Dommo institutus custodiatur. Battles: “But I say we must not thoughtlessly forsake the church because of any petty dissensions. For in it alone is kept safe and uncorrupted that doctrine in which piety stands sound and the use of the sacraments ordained by the Lord is guarded.” Battles fails to see that Calvin is talking about any given congregation and not the church as a whole, and he seems to misinterpret duntaxat; it should be read as: as long as, provided that (Beveridge) or "at least" (Norton). Allen completely ignores the word. Rather, I am saying that we must not, due to any petty disagreement whatsoever, impulsively abandon a church, as long as it maintains (or, in which at least is maintained) that sound and intact doctrine in which the well-being of godliness consists and protects the use of the sacraments as the Lord instituted. The French differs here: Mais je dy qu’il ne faut pas par dissention legierement abandonner une Eglise, en laquelle est gardée en son entier la doctrine principale de nostre salut et les Sacremens comme nostre Seigneur a ordonné. But I say that we must not on the basis of disagreement lightly abandon a Church in which is preserved in its entirety the principal doctrine of our salvation and the Sacraments as our Lord has ordained. (Blacketer)

4.3.1. Rare error in the Opera Selecta, the critical edition of Calvin's Institutes, 4.3.1. Calvin himself errs in identifying material from Augustine, De doctrina Christiana, saying "read book 1," but in fact the material is from the preface, cap. 6 (Patrologia Latina 34:18). Opera Selecta erroneously (though cautiously) identifies the intended reference as 4.27.59, which has virtually nothing to do with Calvin's material. Benoit's French edition correctly identifies this reference to the prologue. Battles, attributing too much authority to the Opera Selecta, includes both references. The reference to book four should be dropped altogether. It's also interesting to note that Thomas Norton's translation *never* checks Calvin's references. John Allen omits the reference entirely. Beveridge reproduces Calvin's reference. (Blacketer)

4.3.15, Battles, p. 1066; OS 5:56. Battles translates "sacerdos" as bishop. (Blacketer)

4.4.2, Battles, p. 1069; OS 5:59 line 8. Latin: Sicut ergo Presbyteri sciunt se, ex Ecclesiae consuetudine, ei qui praeest subiectos: ita Episcopi noverint se magis consuetudine quam Dominicae dispositionis veritate Presbyteris esse maiores, et in commune debere Ecclesiam regere. Battles mistranslates "ita Episcopi noverint" as "so the bishops recognize." But the verb here is subjunctive used in a jussive sense, like an imperative. Thus it should be "let the bishops recognize..." (Blacketer)

4.4.3, Battles, p. 1071, note 8. The Patrologia Latina edition of Cassiodorus' Historia ecclesiastica tripartita, 9.38 (PL 69:1156) has an error, listing its source as Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica, 5.21, which should read 5.22. Battles does not check the content of these chapters in either Schaff's Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers or the Patrologia Graeca and thus reproduces the error. Battles' note: Cassiodorus, Tripartite History IX. 38 (MPL 69. 1156), from Socrates, Ecclesiastical History v.21 (MPG 67 623-626; tr. NPNF 2 ser. II. 129). Correct reference: Cassiodorus, Hist. eccl. 9[.38; PL 69:1156; taken from Socrates, Hist. eccl. 5.22, PG 67:641–42; NPNF2 2:132]. (Blacketer)

4.4.7, Battles, p. 1075; OS 5:64 lines 11-13. Calvin refers to the practice of the ancient church dividing its revenues into four portions: “…una videlicet Episcopo et familiae eius, propter hospitalitatem atque susceptionem…” Battles mistranslates susceptio as "maintenance," but the meaning is entertainment, i.e. entertaining guests, visitors. (Blacketer)

4.4.8, Battles p. 1075, n. 22. Battles (or McNeill) fails to check the references and thus gets the reference in Cassiodorus's Historia tripartita wrong; Cassiodorus refers not to Sozomen 4.24 but to 4.25, and the English trans. is found in NPNF2 2:321, not 319f. (Blacketer)

4.4.11, Battles, p. 1080 n. 33; OS 5:69 lines 8-9 and n. 3. I have observed that Battles has a habit of not checking references for their actual content. Calvin refers to Theodoret's Historia ecclesiastica 4.20, but in Migne's Patrologia Graeca and in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers series 2, 4.20 = 4.17. Battles gives the references to both PG and NPNF2 4.20, which are thus incorrect (PG 82:1181 and NPNF2 3:126). The correct references are PG 82:1163–64; NPNF2 3:120. (Blacketer)

4:8:16; Battles, 1165; OS V, 150, 18-21: Battles misconstrues the construction, and potentially the meaning, of the sentence beginning Nemo excepit…. By omitting his ‘to the notion’ one gets it more or less right: ‘No one objected that the church could add something of its own, that the Spirit had not revealed everything to the apostles, or at least had not transmitted everything to posterity.’ The rendering of the third clause varies among translators, since some (e.g. Beveridge, Allen) assume that ‘the apostles’ must be the subject of prodidisse (‘or at least that the apostles had not transmitted everything to posterity’), but this assumption seems quite insecure.

4:15:22; Battles, 1323; OS V, 303, 19-20: Accedit postea sacramentum sigilli instar should be rendered ‘There is added afterward a/the sacrament like a seal’ (Battles: ‘a sort of seal is added to the sacrament’).

4:16 title; Battles, 1324; OS V, 303, 32-33: optime is probably not so much ‘best’ as ‘very well’, since both comparatives and superlatives were widely used to express emphasis ( and of what could infant baptism be said strictly to be ‘best’?).

4:16:1; Battles, 1324; OS V, 304, 8: Battles omits to translate non parum habitura sit momenti: ‘so to organize this discourse that it will have no little importance for explaining the mystery of baptism more clearly’ [perhaps clarius better ‘very clearly, really clearly’, without strict comparative force].

4:16:5; Battles, 1328; OS V, 309, 9-10: ad infantes destinetur Baptismi verbum, not simplistically ‘the word “baptism”’, but ‘the word of baptism’ in the sense of ‘the promise, meaning, substance of baptism.’

4:16:20; Battles, 1343; OS V, 324, 33: ‘regeneration’ instead of ‘resignation.’

4:16:27; Battles, 1350; OS V, 332, 8-11: Battles’ translation is at best ambiguous: ‘For they make more than a merely childish error when from these passages [i.e. Matt. 28.19, Mark 16.16, Matt. 3.13, Luke 3:21-22] they derive the first institution of baptism which [quem, i.e. baptism] from the beginning of his preaching ….’

4:17: 10; Battles, 1370-71; OS V, 352: in this section Battles translates three times the verb exhibeo and once the noun exhibitio by ‘show, showing’. Without entering into debates about Calvin’s theology of the supper, we can all agree that ‘show’ is an inadequate rendering of exhibeo.