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SCM Press, and Philadelphia, Westminster Press, 1960) has become the standard one in general use, and unlikely to be superseded in a hurry.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 18 September 2022)

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'รขme est de ressembler ร  Dieu, quand aprรจs l'avoir cogneu elle est du tout transformรฉe 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 "๐˜ค๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฅ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฅ๐˜ช ๐˜ง๐˜ข๐˜ค๐˜ช๐˜ญ๐˜ช๐˜ต๐˜ข๐˜ต๐˜ฆ๐˜ฎ." 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 ๐˜›๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ ๐˜œ๐˜ด๐˜ฆ๐˜ง๐˜ถ๐˜ญ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฆ๐˜ด๐˜ด ๐˜ฐ๐˜ง ๐˜‰๐˜ฆ๐˜ญ๐˜ช๐˜ฆ๐˜ง] he will find that the author recommends no other *inducement* to believe except...." But ๐˜ง๐˜ข๐˜ค๐˜ช๐˜ญ๐˜ช๐˜ต๐˜ข๐˜ด 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 crรฉdules, ou aisez ร  recevoir ce qui nous est enseignรฉ 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 ๐˜ฑ๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ๐˜ด๐˜ฆ๐˜ท๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ in learning faith in Christ..." I think this is wrong. ๐˜š๐˜ถ๐˜ด๐˜ต๐˜ช๐˜ฏ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฐ 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 (๐˜ฅ๐˜ฐ๐˜ค๐˜ช๐˜ญ๐˜ช๐˜ต๐˜ข๐˜ด) 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. ๐˜š๐˜ช ๐˜ฉ๐˜ถ๐˜ฏ๐˜ค ๐˜ช๐˜ฏ๐˜ต๐˜ฆ๐˜ญ๐˜ญ๐˜ช๐˜จ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ต๐˜ช๐˜ข๐˜ฆ ๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ๐˜ด๐˜ข๐˜ถ๐˜ณ๐˜ถ๐˜ฎ ๐˜ง๐˜ช๐˜ญ๐˜ช๐˜ช๐˜ด ๐˜ด๐˜ถ๐˜ช๐˜ด ๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ๐˜ค๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฅ๐˜ช๐˜ต๐˜ถ๐˜ฎ ๐˜ฆ๐˜ด๐˜ด๐˜ฆ ๐˜‹๐˜ฆ๐˜ถ๐˜ด ๐˜ท๐˜ฐ๐˜ญ๐˜ถ๐˜ช๐˜ต... Battles has: "If God has willed this treasure of understanding to be hidden from his children..." Battles misunderstands ๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ๐˜ค๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฅ๐˜ช๐˜ต๐˜ถ๐˜ฎ here. It does not mean "hidden from," but "reserved for." Cf. the French: Si Dieu a voulu rรฉserver ร  ses enfans ce thrรฉsor d'intelligence comme cachรฉ... The French has the idea of hiddenness (comme cachรฉ), 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 ๐™˜๐™ค๐™ฃ๐™ฉ๐™š๐™ญ๐™ž๐™ฉ... Battles translates it: "What of Daniel? Did he not so clothe his prophecies of future events..." Battles takes ๐˜ค๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ๐˜ต๐˜ฆ๐˜น๐˜ช๐˜ต as the perfect active indicative of ๐˜ค๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ๐˜ต๐˜ฆ๐˜จ๐˜ฐ, to cover, hide, clothe, etc. Rather, I think it is the present active indicative of ๐˜ค๐˜ฐ๐˜ฏ๐˜ต๐˜ฆ๐˜น๐˜ฐ, to weave, compose. The French has the verb ๐˜ต๐˜ณ๐˜ข๐˜ช๐˜ต๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ, 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 ๐™ฉ๐™๐™š ๐™ฅ๐™š๐™ง๐™›๐™š๐™˜๐™ฉ ๐™ง๐™š๐™ก๐™ž๐™œ๐™ž๐™ค๐™ฃ ๐™ค๐™› ๐™ฉ๐™๐™š ๐™’๐™ค๐™ง๐™™ may abide in our minds etc." We suggest there is a theological presupposition or ๐˜›๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฅ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ป affecting the translation. The phrase in question = ๐˜ด๐˜ฐ๐˜ญ๐˜ช๐˜ฅ๐˜ข ๐˜ท๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ๐˜ฃ๐˜ช ๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ๐˜ญ๐˜ช๐˜จ๐˜ช๐˜ฐ. 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 "reรงoive icelle parolle en obรฉissance," receives this word in obedience. There's nothing about a "religion of the Word" there. Rather, ๐˜ท๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ๐˜ฃ๐˜ช is a genetive of the object, and ๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ๐˜ญ๐˜ช๐˜จ๐˜ช๐˜ฐ 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 ๐–†๐–“ ๐–˜๐–Ž๐–ˆ๐–, 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 ‘ฮตฮน̓ฮบฮฟฮฝฮนฮบฯ‰͂ฯ‚’ 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: ๐˜ข๐˜ฆ๐˜จ๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ, ๐˜จ๐˜ณ๐˜ข๐˜ท๐˜ช๐˜ต๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ, ๐˜ฎ๐˜ฐ๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ๐˜ด๐˜ต๐˜ฆ, ๐˜ช๐˜ฏ๐˜ฅ๐˜ช๐˜จ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ง๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ข๐˜ญ๐˜ช๐˜ฒ๐˜ถ๐˜ช๐˜ฅ = "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): "๐™ฆ๐™ช๐™ž ๐™ซ๐™š๐™ง๐™š ๐™ฃ๐™ค๐™ฃ ๐™จ๐™ž๐™ฉ ๐˜ฟ๐™š๐™ช๐™จ." Should read: "...that one who is not truly God is not called ๐˜๐˜ข๐˜ต๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ in an enigmatic and metaphorical sense." Reference is to Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 2.27.2, ๐˜—๐˜ข๐˜ต๐˜ณ๐˜ฐ๐˜ญ๐˜ฐ๐˜จ๐˜ช๐˜ข ๐˜Ž๐˜ณ๐˜ข๐˜ฆ๐˜ค๐˜ข 7.1:803: ๐˜๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ช๐˜ถ๐˜ฏ๐˜ต ๐˜ข๐˜ถ๐˜ต๐˜ฆ๐˜ฎ ๐˜ข๐˜ฅ ๐˜ฉ๐˜ฐ๐˜ค, ๐˜ถ๐˜ต ๐˜ฅ๐˜ช๐˜ค๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ต ๐˜ข๐˜ญ๐˜ช๐˜ถ๐˜ฎ ๐˜ฒ๐˜ถ๐˜ช๐˜ฅ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฎ ๐˜ฆ๐˜ด๐˜ด๐˜ฆ ๐˜ฒ๐˜ถ๐˜ช ๐˜ฑ๐˜ณ๐˜ข๐˜ฆ๐˜ฅ๐˜ช๐˜ค๐˜ข๐˜ต๐˜ถ๐˜ณ ๐˜‹๐˜ฆ๐˜ถ๐˜ด, ๐˜ฆ๐˜ต ๐˜ข๐˜ญ๐˜ช๐˜ถ๐˜ฎ ๐˜—๐˜ข๐˜ต๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฎ, ๐˜ฒ๐˜ถ๐˜ช ๐˜ฑ๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ ๐˜ฑ๐˜ข๐˜ณ๐˜ข๐˜ฃ๐˜ฐ๐˜ญ๐˜ข๐˜ด ๐˜ฆ๐˜ต ๐˜ข๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ช๐˜จ๐˜ฎ๐˜ข๐˜ต๐˜ข ๐˜ด๐˜ช๐˜จ๐˜ฏ๐˜ช๐˜ง๐˜ช๐˜ค๐˜ข๐˜ต๐˜ถ๐˜ณ ๐˜—๐˜ข๐˜ต๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ. 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 ๐˜ด๐˜ถ๐˜ด๐˜ค๐˜ช๐˜ฑ๐˜ช๐˜ฐ for ๐˜ด๐˜ถ๐˜ด๐˜ฑ๐˜ช๐˜ค๐˜ช๐˜ฐ. 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 ๐—ฑ๐—ผ๐—ฐ๐˜‚๐—บ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐˜๐˜‚๐—บ, quaquaversum oculos circunferamus‚ omnia quae occurrunt, meminisse Dei esse opera ..." Battles: “For, as I have elsewhere said, although it is not the chief ๐—ฒ๐˜ƒ๐—ถ๐—ฑ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐—ฐ๐—ฒ for faith, yet it is the first ๐—ฒ๐˜ƒ๐—ถ๐—ฑ๐—ฒ๐—ป๐—ฐ๐—ฒ in the order of nature, to be mindful that wherever we cast our eyes, all things they meet are works of God..." The Latin ๐˜ฅ๐˜ฐ๐˜ค๐˜ถ๐˜ฎ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ต๐˜ถ๐˜ฎ 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 premiรจre 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: "๐˜ท๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฒ๐˜ถ๐˜ฆ ๐˜ฆ๐˜น๐˜ช๐˜ฎ๐˜ช๐˜ช๐˜ด ๐˜ฅ๐˜ฐ๐˜ต๐˜ช๐˜ฃ๐˜ถ๐˜ด ๐˜ฐ๐˜ฑ๐˜ช๐˜ง๐˜ช๐˜ค๐˜ช๐˜ด ๐˜ด๐˜ถ๐˜ช ๐˜ฆ๐˜น๐˜ค๐˜ฆ๐˜ญ๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ต๐˜ช๐˜ข๐˜ฎ ๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ๐˜ง๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ๐˜ต." 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 ๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ๐˜ง๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ๐˜ฐ. Does it mean ๐˜ต๐˜ฐ ๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ๐˜ง๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ? It can also mean ๐˜ต๐˜ฐ ๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฑ๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ๐˜ด๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ต ๐˜ฐ๐˜ณ ๐˜ณ๐˜ฆ๐˜ด๐˜ฆ๐˜ฎ๐˜ฃ๐˜ญ๐˜ฆ. This decision, in turn, affects whether one takes ๐˜ฆ๐˜น๐˜ช๐˜ฎ๐˜ช๐˜ช๐˜ด ๐˜ฅ๐˜ฐ๐˜ต๐˜ช๐˜ฃ๐˜ถ๐˜ด 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 ordonnรฉ en soy pour reprรฉsenter par tels ornemens la gloire de son crรฉateur." "...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 ๐˜ฉ๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ๐˜ถ๐˜ด ๐˜ข๐˜ค ๐˜ฑ๐˜ฐ๐˜ด๐˜ด๐˜ฆ๐˜ด๐˜ด๐˜ฐ๐˜ณ 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 ๐™ฃ๐™ค๐™ฃ ๐™จ๐™š๐™˜๐™ช๐™จ ๐™–๐™˜ ๐™›๐™ง๐™š๐™ฃ๐™ค - "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 ๐™ซ๐™š๐™ก๐™ช๐™ฉ๐™ž ๐™˜๐™ก๐™–๐™ซ๐™ช๐™ข ๐™ฉ๐™š๐™ฃ๐™š๐™ฃ๐™จ 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: ๐™˜๐™ค๐™ข๐™ข๐™š ๐™ช๐™ฃ ๐™ฅ๐™–๐™ฉ๐™ง๐™ค๐™ฃ ๐™™๐™š ๐™ฃ๐™–๐™ซ๐™ž๐™ง๐™š ๐™ฆ๐™ช๐™ž ๐™ฉ๐™ž๐™š๐™ฃ๐™ฉ ๐™ก๐™š ๐™œ๐™ค๐™ช๐™ซ๐™š๐™ง๐™ฃ๐™–๐™ž๐™ก, "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 ๐—น'๐—ต๐—ผ๐—บ๐—บ๐—ฒ, ayant telle facultรฉ, gouverne par son propre conseil et volontรฉ 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 gรฉnรฉralle de Dieu pour continuer l'ordre naturel en ses crรฉatures, mais qu'elles sont toutes dressรฉes par son conseil admirable, et appropriรฉes ร  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 spรฉculer, en voulant permettre cecy ou cela, veu qu’il luy attribue une volontรฉ actuelle laquelle ne pourroit estre rรฉputรฉe cause, sinon qu’il dรฉcretast 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 ๐™›๐™ค๐™ง๐™ฉ๐™ช๐™ž๐™ฉ๐™ค, 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 ๐™›๐™ค๐™ง๐™ฉ๐™ช๐™ž๐™ฉ๐™ค in the Institutes. He uses "temere." But the meaning is quite similar. It means: heedlessly. The French confirms this, rendering it "ร  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 dรฉsespoir 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, ๐™‚๐™ค๐™™’๐™จ ๐™ฌ๐™ž๐™ก๐™ก 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 guรจres 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 prรฉdication 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 rรฉcitรฉes." (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 ฮปฮฟฮนฮดฮฟฯฮน́ฮฑ] 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 ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฒ๐—ถ๐—ฟ ๐—ฏ๐—ผ๐—ฑ๐—ถ๐—ฒ๐˜€ 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 renversรฉe 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 รฉlongnez de Dieu, estans pรจlerins au monde, Iesus Christ est entre deux pour nous mener petit ร  petit ร  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 ๐—ถ๐—ป ๐——๐—ฒ๐—ถ ๐—บ๐—ถ๐˜€๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐—ฐ๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐—ฑ๐—ถ๐—ฎ vel satis cupide apprehendere vel qua decet gratitudine excipere, nisi formidine irae Dei et aeternae mortis horrore ante perculsus et consternatus: sic instituimur ๐˜€๐—ฎ๐—ฐ๐—ฟ๐—ฎ ๐—ฑ๐—ผ๐—ฐ๐˜๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ฎ, 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 ๐—ถ๐—ป ๐——๐—ฒ๐—ถ ๐—บ๐—ถ๐˜€๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐—ถ๐—ฐ๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐—ฑ๐—ถ๐—ฎ /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 misรฉricorde 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, ๐˜๐—ต๐—ถ๐˜€ ๐—ณ๐—ฎ๐—ฐ๐˜ ๐—ถ๐˜€ ๐—ณ๐—ผ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐˜ƒ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ ๐—ฒ๐˜€๐˜๐—ฎ๐—ฏ๐—น๐—ถ๐˜€๐—ต๐—ฒ๐—ฑ. 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 grรขce, cela devroit estre arrestรฉ 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 fideiห 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 concรจde 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 ล’uvre de Dieu, et l'intitulant de ce mot de Bon plaisir, ou faveur gratuite, il dรฉclaire 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 ฮบฮฑฯ„ฮฟฯ€ฯ„ฯฮนฮถฯŒฮผฮตฮฝฮฟฮน 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 ๐—ฒ๐—บ๐—ถ๐—ป๐—ฒ๐—ฎ๐˜ perpetua ฮฑ̓ฯ„ฮฑฮพฮน́ฮฑ et intemperies...". Battles translates this as "that in all his actions persistent disorder and intemperance ๐˜๐—ต๐—ฟ๐—ฒ๐—ฎ๐˜๐—ฒ๐—ป...". 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 (ฮฑ̓ฯ„ฮฑฮพฮน́ฮฑ) 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 ร  ceux qui n'ont point fait pรฉnitence de leurs dissolutions, paillardises et immondicitez, de mener le dueil [=deuil] ร  cause d'une telle duretรฉ." 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 ฮบฮฑฯ„ฮฑ́ฯ‡ฯฮทฯƒฮนฯ‚ / catachresis. The French makes this clearer: mais aux passages que nous avons allรฉguez, tant la conversion que la priรจre 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 ๐˜ฎ๐˜ฆ๐˜ฏ๐˜ฅ๐˜ถ๐˜ฎ ๐˜ฑ๐˜ณ๐˜ฐ๐˜ฑ๐˜ต๐˜ฆ๐˜ณ ๐˜ค๐˜ข๐˜ฏ๐˜ฏ๐˜ข๐˜ฃ๐˜ถ๐˜ฎ. 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 ร  plourer amรจrement nos fautes, pour nous inciter tant mieux ร  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: ๐˜€๐—ถ ๐—ป๐—ผ๐—น๐˜‚๐—ถ๐˜ ๐—ฎ๐—ฑ๐˜ƒ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐˜๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ, ๐—ป๐—ผ๐—น๐˜‚๐—ถ๐˜ ๐—ฎ๐—ป๐—ถ๐—บ๐—ฎ๐—ฑ๐˜ƒ๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐˜๐—ฒ๐—ฟ๐—ฒ: 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)

3:11:1; 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.

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

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).

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.