Day 100 — Book 1, Chapter 13, §26

Yesterday: Servetus, the heretic who dissolved the Persons into appearances. Today: the heretic who keeps the Persons and quietly demotes two of them. Look at the opening sentence — Calvin calls this a monster that crawled out of the same pool. Same swamp, opposite species. Servetus said: no real Three. These men say: three, yes — but only One of them is really God. That is the oldest trick in the book (Arius, 4th century) in new dress: grant the word Trinity, deny the equality.

The enemy word is essentiator — one who gives essence. In their system the Father hands over Godhead to the Son and Spirit "when he formed them." Underline the verb transfused (poured across). Calvin's whole answer is one question: if the Godhead is poured over from Father to Son, what exactly did the Son have before it arrived? Watch him close every exit: the essence is cut in pieces → impious; given whole → no distinction left; withheld → a God in name only.

Second — it is a LOGIC lesson, and the logic runs on modal verbs. ⚠️ must be deemed · must be conceded · cannot differ … unless he have · it were impious · there would be a rending. Each one is a trap door in the opponent's floor. If you read must as duty instead of deduction, you lose the argument.

Third — printing traps. ⚠️ the Fathers (S9: a stray s before a line break — sense: the Father), essences (S23: should be essence,), abstracte (S25: should be abstracted), and Ex. 3:4 (S39: Exodus 3:14 — "I AM hath sent me unto you"). We quote what is printed and flag each.

Today's 3 Big Points

1. Reporting the opponent + concession: Nor do they refrain from expressing themselves in such shocking terms as these: that …; that … (S3) · although the name of God is common also to the Son, yet it is sometimes, by way of excellence, ascribed to the Father (S6) · They object, that … I answer, that both are true; namely … (S7–S8). ⚠️ Nor do they = inversion after a fronted negative; such … as these: introduces two that-clauses that are THEIR words; although … yet is a correlative pair — the yet clause is Calvin's point. Formula 1.
2. Logical modals in a reductio: must be deemed (S7) · must also be conceded (S26) · there must be some mark (S31) · cannot differ … unless he have (S33) · he could not do (S36) · it were impious (S36) · there would be a rending (S37) · must therefore be common (S38). ⚠️ Here must = the only conclusion that logic allows, cannot = it is impossible that, unless he have = old subjunctive, it were = it would be. Formula 2.
3. The "it follows" proof frames: Since the name of Jehovah is everywhere applied to Christ, it follows that … (S17) · whence it follows conversely, that … (S19) · Whosoever says that …, denies … (S21) · On the supposition, then, that …, the essence becomes divisible, or is denied … (S23) · If they reply that …, then Christ will be … (S39). ⚠️ Find the premise (Since / if / supposition), find the conclusion (it follows / then), and never confuse the opponent's premise with Calvin's own. Formula 3.

This pool has bred another monster not unlike the former. For certain restless spirits, unwilling to share the disgrace and obloquy of the impiety of Servetus, have confessed that there were indeed three Persons, but added, as a reason, that the Father, who alone is truly and properly God, transfused his Divinity into the Son and Spirit when he formed them. Nor do they refrain from expressing themselves in such shocking terms as these: that the Father is essentially distinguished from the Son and Spirit by this; that he is the only essentiator. Their first pretext for this is, that Christ is uniformly called the Son of God. From this they infer, that there is no proper God but the Father. But they forget, that although the name of God is common also to the Son, yet it is sometimes, by way of excellence, ascribed to the Father, as being the source and principle of Divinity; and this is done in order to mark the simple unity of essence. They object, that if the Son is truly God, he must be deemed the Son of a person: which is absurd. I answer, that both are true; namely, that he is the Son of God, because he is the Word, begotten of the Father before all ages; (for we are not now speaking of the Person of the Mediator), and yet, that for the purpose of explanation, regard must be had to the Person, so that the name God may not be understood in its absolute sense, but as equivalent to Father. For if we hold that there is no other God than the Fathers this rank is clearly denied to the Son. In every case where the Godhead is mentioned, we are by no means to admit that there is an antithesis between the Father and the Son, as if to the former only the name of God could competently be applied. For assuredly, the God who appeared to Isaiah was the one true God, and yet John declares that he was Christ (Isa. 6; John 12:41). He who declared, by the mouth of Isaiah, that he was to be “for a stone of stumbling” to the Jews, was the one God; and yet Paul declares that he was Christ (Isa. 8:14; Rom. 9:33). He who proclaims by Isaiah, “Unto me every knee shall bow,” is the one God; yet Paul again explains that he is Christ (Isa. 45:23; Rom. 14:11). To this we may add the passages quoted by an Apostle, “Thou, Lord, hast laid the foundations of the earth;” “Let all the angels of God worship him,” (Heb. 1:10; 10:6; Ps. 102:26; 97:7). All these apply to the one God; and yet the Apostle contends that they are the proper attributes of Christ. There is nothing in the cavil, that what properly applies to God is transferred to Christ, because he is the brightness of his glory. Since the name of Jehovah is everywhere applied to Christ, it follows that, in regard to Deity, he is of himself. For if he is Jehovah, it is impossible to deny that he is the same God who elsewhere proclaims by Isaiah, “I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God,” (Is. 44:6). We would also do well to ponder the words of Jeremiah, “The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth and from under these heavens,” (Jer. 10:11); whence it follows conversely, that He whose divinity Isaiah repeatedly proves from the creation of the world, is none other than the Son of God. And how is it possible that the Creator, who gives to all should not be of himself, but should borrow his essence from another? Whosoever says that the Son was essentiated by the Father, denies his selfexistence. Against this, however, the Holy Spirit protests, when he calls him Jehovah. On the supposition, then, that the whole essence is in the Father only, the essence becomes divisible, or is denied to the Son, who, being thus robbed of his essences will be only a titular God. If we are to believe these triflers, divine essence belongs to the Father only, on the ground that he is sole God, and essentiator of the Son. In this way, the divinity of the Son will be something abstracte from the essence of God, or the derivation of a part from the whole. On the same principle it must also be conceded, that the Spirit belongs to the Father only. For if the derivation is from the primary essence which is proper to none but the Father, the Spirit cannot justly be deemed the Spirit of the Son. This view, however, is refuted by the testimony of Paul, when he makes the Spirit common both to Christ and the Father. Moreover, if the Person of the Father is expunged from the Trinity, in what will he differ from the Son and Spirit, except in being the only God? They confess that Christ is God, and that he differs from the Father. If he differs, there must be some mark of distinction between them. Those who place it in the essence, manifestly reduce the true divinity of Christ to nothing, since divinity cannot exist without essence, and indeed without entire essence. The Father certainly cannot differ from the Son, unless he have something peculiar to himself, and not common to him with the Son. What, then, do these men show as the mark of distinction? If it is in the essence, let them tell whether or not he communicated essence to the Son. This he could not do in part merely, for it were impious to think of a divided God. And besides, on this supposition, there would be a rending of the Divine essence. The whole entire essence must therefore be common to the Father and the Son; and if so, in respect of essence there is no distinction between them. If they reply that the Father, while essentiating, still remains the only God, being the possessor of the essence, then Christ will be a figurative God, one in name or semblance only, and not in reality, because no property can be more peculiar to God than essence, according to the words, “I Am hath sent me unto you,” (Ex. 3:4).

Sentence count: 39 (S1–S39). Two paragraphs: the new monster and Calvin's first answer — "Father" as source, not as sole God (S1–S9) · the long refutation — Scripture's one God is Christ; "of himself"; the dilemma on essence; the dilemma on distinction (S10–S39).

⚠️ PROGRESS estimated "about 30+". Today: 39. Seven ★★★, fifteen ★★, seventeen ★ — see the next line. (Distribution: ★★★ S6, S8, S17, S21, S33, S38, S39 · ★★ S2, S3, S7, S9, S10, S11, S16, S19, S20, S23, S25, S27, S29, S32, S36 · ★ S1, S4, S5, S12, S13, S14, S15, S18, S22, S24, S26, S28, S30, S31, S34, S35, S37.)

Text note (not a correction to the quotation). Seven features of the printed page, all handled as follows. (i) Section marker 23. removed at the head of the paragraph (source line 5799). (ii) Line-end hyphens joined: essen- | tiator (S3), con- | tends (S15), be- | cause (S39) → essentiator, contends, because. (iii) ⚠️ A page break falls INSIDE S6 — after and this is done in order to mark: page number 134, footnote 47 (See Calvin. Defensio Orthodox. Fid. S. Trinit. Adv. Prod. Error. M. Serveti), the running head and blank lines are removed; the sentence is continuous: … in order to mark the simple unity of essence. (iv) ⚠️ Margin number 131 removed MID-SENTENCE — printed at the end of the line For if we hold that there is no other God than the Fathers (S9); the sentence continues on the next line: … than the Fathers this rank is clearly denied to the Son. ⚠️ Fathers is quoted as printed; the sense demands the Father (see S9). (v) ⚠️ Footnote markers 48, 49, 50 removed — after essentiated by the Father, (S21), after abstracte (S25), after without entire essence. (S32). The footnotes themselves (the French glosses, « puisque tels abuseurs forgent des noms contre nature » and « tiré comme par un alambic ») are not part of the text. (vi) ⚠️ A second page break falls INSIDE S25 — after or the derivation: page number 135, running head removed; continuous: … or the derivation of a part from the whole. Margin number 132 (printed mid-line in S28, after common both to) is removed; rejoined: … common both to Christ and the Father. (vii) ⚠️ Printed oddities quoted as printed: the Fathers (S9), selfexistence (S21, one word), essences (S23: read essence,), abstracte (S25: read abstracted), Ex. 3:4 (S39: read 3:14), and Heb. 1:10; 10:6 (S14: the second reference is probably 1:6). Jehovah (S17, S22) is Beveridge's rendering of the Divine Name. ⚠️ Section numbering. Our §26 = Beveridge printed §23, entire (source lines 5799–5882). The printed marker 24. follows next. Label offset still +3. BH's decision remains open (A: keep our labels / B: re-map SCHEDULE.md). Reading order is unbroken.

              ─── I. THE SECOND MONSTER AND THE FIRST ANSWER (S1–S9) ───
[MONSTER]     S1-2  another monster from the same pool: "three Persons — but only the Father is
                    truly God; he TRANSFUSED his Divinity into Son and Spirit"
[THEIR TERMS] S3    the Father is distinguished by being the only ESSENTIATOR
[THEIR PROOF] S4-5  "Christ is called the Son of God" ⇒ "no proper God but the Father"
[ANSWER 1]    S6    "God" is common to the Son, but sometimes ascribed to the Father BY WAY OF
                    EXCELLENCE — as source and principle — to mark the UNITY of essence
              S7-8  objection: if the Son is God he is the Son of a person (absurd?)
                    ⇒ BOTH true: Son as the Word begotten before all ages; and "God" there = Father
              S9    (their view) no other God than the Father ⇒ rank denied to the Son
              ─── II. SCRIPTURE: THE ONE GOD IS CHRIST (S10–S20) ───
[NO ANTITHESIS] S10 do not set Father against Son as if only the Father may be called God
[3 PAIRS]     S11-13 Isaiah 6 / John 12:41 · Isa 8:14 / Rom 9:33 · Isa 45:23 / Rom 14:11
[2 MORE]      S14-15 Heb 1:10, 1:6 (Ps 102, Ps 97) — one God's attributes = Christ's proper ones
[CAVIL]       S16   "transferred to Christ because he is the brightness of his glory" — nothing in it
[JEHOVAH]     S17-19 name Jehovah everywhere applied to Christ ⇒ he is OF HIMSELF (Isa 44:6; Jer 10:11)
[CREATOR]     S20   can the Creator, who gives to all, borrow his own essence?
              ─── III. THE TWO DILEMMAS (S21–S39) ───
[CHARGE]      S21-22 "essentiated by the Father" = denies his self-existence — the Spirit protests
[DILEMMA 1]   S23-28 whole essence in the Father only ⇒ essence divisible OR denied to the Son ⇒
                    "titular God"; same for the Spirit (Paul: Spirit of Christ and Father)
[DILEMMA 2]   S29-39 take the Father out of the Trinity ⇒ how does he differ? In essence?
                    ⇒ either part (impious) or whole (no distinction) ⇒ "figurative God" (Ex 3:14)

Examiner's Eye.

① ⚠️ Direction-flip trap. "Calvin denies that the Father is ever called God in a special sense." ✗ S6 says the opposite: it is sometimes, by way of excellence, ascribed to the Father — Calvin ALLOWS the special use, as source and principle of Divinity. What he denies is the inference that the Son's Godhead is therefore borrowed.

② ⚠️ Scope trap. "Calvin teaches that the Son is not begotten." ✗ S8 states it: begotten of the Father before all ages. "Of himself" (S17) concerns the Son's DEITY/essence, not his person. Mind the phrase in regard to Deity (S17).

③ ⚠️ Who speaks? S3, S4, S5, S7 (They object) are the opponents' claims; S24 (If we are to believe these triflers …) is Calvin REPORTING their view in order to demolish it. A test item will quote one and attribute it to Calvin.

Formula 1 — Fronted negative + opponent-reporting that-clauses + although … yet.

Nor + AUX + S + V …                       (Nor do they refrain from V-ing)
such N as these: [that …]; [that …]        (colon → the opponent's own words)
They object, that …  /  I answer, that …   (question–answer pair)
although [concession], yet [Calvin's point]   (correlative; yet ≠ however)

⚠️ Traps. (a) Nor do they — after a fronted negative the auxiliary comes BEFORE the subject. Nor they do ✗. (b) Every that-clause after such terms as these: / They object, / they infer, is the OPPONENT's claim. Do not attribute it to Calvin. (c) although … yet is a pair: the second clause is the main point. Drill: Render in Calvin's English: "그들은 아들이 하나님이라고 고백하면서도, 아버지만이 참 하나님이라고 덧붙였다." → They have confessed that the Son is God, but have added, as a reason, that the Father alone is truly God. · "They do not refrain from such terms" → fronted negative: Nor do they refrain from such terms.

Formula 2 — Logical modals in a reductio.

must be + p.p.     = logical necessity (the only conclusion)     (must be deemed / must be conceded)
there must be N    = there has to be … (deduction)                (there must be some mark)
cannot V … unless S + base V (subjunctive)  = only if             (cannot differ … unless he have)
it were + ADJ + to V  = it would be …  (old counterfactual)       (it were impious to think of …)
there would be N   = consequence of a supposition                 (there would be a rending)

⚠️ Traps. (a) must here is deduction, not duty: the Spirit must be conceded to belong to the Father only = it follows that …. (b) unless he have = unless he has — present subjunctive, not an error; modern writers say has. (c) it were impious ≠ it was impious; were = would be. (d) cannot … unless = can only if. Drill: "그 본질이 부분적으로만 나뉜다면 그것은 불경건한 일이다." → It were impious to think that the essence is divided in part. · The Son cannot be God unless he have the whole essence.

Formula 3 — The "it follows" proof frames.

Since P, it follows that Q.                  (Since the name of Jehovah is everywhere applied to Christ, it follows that …)
Whosoever V1 … that …, V2 …                 (Whosoever says that …, denies …)
On the supposition that P, Q becomes R.      (On the supposition … the essence becomes divisible)
If they reply that P, then Q, because R.     (If they reply …, then Christ will be …, because …)
no X can be more ADJ to Y than Z             (negative comparative = superlative)

⚠️ Traps. (a) Whosoever takes a singular verb — Whosoever says, not say. (b) Since = because (causal), not since then. (c) no property can be more peculiar to God than essence = essence is the MOST characteristic of God's attributes. (d) In If they reply that A, then B the then clause is the conclusion Calvin draws; the if clause is the opponents' last move. Drill: "아들의 본질이 아버지에게서 주어졌다고 말하는 자는 누구든 아들의 자존성을 부인하는 것이다." → Whosoever says that the Son received his essence from the Father denies his selfexistence. · No attribute can be more peculiar to God than essence.

⚠️ Trap words: competently, peculiar, by way of excellence, of himself, abstracte (S25 misprint), essences (S23 misprint), Fathers (S9 misprint).

The Italians in Geneva. This paragraph answers a live controversy. In the late 1550s the Italian refugee congregation in Geneva produced anti-Trinitarians — notably Giorgio Biandrata, Giovanni Paolo Alciati and Valentino Gentile — who professed three Persons but taught that the Father alone is the essentiator, who bestows his essence on the Son and Spirit. Calvin names no one in this paragraph (and the 1559 edition appeared as the controversy began), so we read it as an answer to the doctrine, not to a particular man. Later he wrote against Gentile (the Impietas Valentini Gentilis, 1561); Gentile was executed at Bern in 1566. ⚠️ Stay with the argument. Our job is not to judge the persons but to follow the logic Calvin gives.

Footnote 47 and the 1554 Defensio. The printed footnote refers to Calvin's Defensio orthodoxae fidei de sacra Trinitate (1554), his answer to Servetus; it belongs to the previous section's context (the pool) and shows Beveridge's cross-reference habit.

The Nicene shape of the answer. S6's source and principle of Divinity is the classical monarchia of the Father (the Eastern pēgē theotētos; the Creed's "God of God, Light of Light"). The Father is the fons of the Persons — order, not rank of essence. S8's begotten … before all ages is Nicene: begotten, not made. The opponents' transfused … when he formed them (S2) puts the Son on the made side of that line: that is why Calvin's reply is so firm.

The autotheos debate. S17 (he is of himself) and S21 (denies his selfexistence) are the loci for Calvin's doctrine that the Son is autotheos — God of himself — as to Deity. Roman Catholic and later Reformed/Remonstrant discussion has argued over whether this fits the Nicene "God of God." The Reformed answer (Calvin; later Turretin and others): the essence is not derived, the person is begotten. Warfield's 1909 essay on Calvin's doctrine of the Trinity is the standard modern discussion. ⚠️ Don't claim Calvin denies eternal generation; S8 affirms it.

The opponents' best texts (not cited in this paragraph). John 17:3 (the only true God), 1 Cor 8:6 (one God, the Father), John 5:26 (so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself). Calvin answers them in the following section (our §27), where the relative use of God for the Father is developed further; S6 and S8 are the first answer.

Reception. The aseity argument shaped later Reformed Trinitarianism (WCF 2.3: "In the unity of the Godhead there be three persons, of one substance, power, and eternity … the Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternally begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding"). Note the creed's wording: person derived, essence common. Barth (CD I/1 §9) and later social Trinitarians read Calvin's essence-language differently; they are readers, not sources for this paragraph.

⚠️ Over-reading guardrails (5). (1) Calvin does not deny the Father's pre-eminence of order (S6). (2) He does not deny that the Son is begotten (S8). (3) He does not deny that the Father differs from the Son (S31–S33). (4) S17 is not Sabellian; the Persons are distinct. (5) The monster is a doctrine; do not read Calvin's tone as a verdict on every Italian refugee.

1. Isa 6 / John 12:41 — S11. The seraphim vision of the LORD of hosts; John says Isaiah saw his (Christ's) glory. the one true God … John declares that he was Christ. Calvin's use: NT writers identify Jesus with the Isaianic Lord — not a reflection, the Lord himself.
2. Isa 8:14 / Rom 9:33 — S12. a stone of stumbling — Jehovah as a stone of offence; Paul applies it to Christ (with Isa 28:16).
3. Isa 45:23 / Rom 14:11 — S13. Unto me every knee shall bow — Jehovah's oath; Paul places it at the judgment seat of Christ (Rom 14:10; cf. Phil 2:10–11, where it is the name of Jesus).
4. Heb 1:10 / Ps 102:25–27 — S14. Thou, Lord, hast laid the foundations of the earth — creator-language addressed to the Son (κύριε, Heb 1:10).
5. Heb 1:6 / Ps 97:7 (cf. Deut 32:43 LXX) — S14. Let all the angels of God worship him — worship due to God alone, given to the Son. ⚠️ The printed 10:6 is probably 1:6.
6. Heb 1:3 — S16. the brightness of his glory (ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης) — the opponents' proof-text for derivation; Calvin: the context gives Christ the creator-name Lord.
7. Isa 44:6 — S18. I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God — the strongest monotheistic text; cf. Rev 1:17; 22:13 (Christ speaks it).
8. Jer 10:11 — S19. The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish — the one verse of Jeremiah written in Aramaic in the Hebrew Bible; the creation test of deity (cf. Isa 40–48).
9. Rom 8:9; Gal 4:6 — S28. the Spirit of Christ / the Spirit of his Son — Paul's phrase common both to Christ and the Father (Calvin names Paul's testimony in S28).
10. Ex 3:14 — S39 (printed Ex. 3:4). I AM hath sent me unto you — the Divine Name as Being; the title that a "figurative God" cannot bear.
11. John 1:3; Col 1:16 — S19 (implicit). The Son as Creator, which Isaiah's creation argument then makes Jehovah.

Calvin's method: he sets the Isaiah text and the NT text side by side and lets the apostle supply the identification. He does not argue from a philosophical definition of Godhead until S29 onward.

① Grammar. Choose the INCORRECT sentence (in Calvin's English).

① Nor do they refrain from expressing themselves in such shocking terms. ② Whosoever say that the Son was essentiated by the Father denies his selfexistence. ③ If he differs, there must be some mark of distinction between them. ④ It were impious to think of a divided God.

Answer: ②. Whosoever takes a singular verb: says. ① correct fronted-negative inversion (Nor do they); ③ logical must; ④ it were = it would be (old counterfactual). Examiner's intent: Formula 3 (agreement with Whosoever) while ①④ test whether the student panics at archaic-looking but correct grammar.

② Comprehension. Which best states Calvin's answer in S6–S8 to the claim that, because Christ is called the Son of God, there is no proper God but the Father?

① Calvin denies that the name "God" is ever applied to the Father in a special sense. ② "God" is sometimes ascribed to the Father pre-eminently as the source and principle of Divinity, to mark the unity of essence; the Son is nevertheless God, begotten before all ages. ③ Calvin teaches that the Son is not begotten but exists of himself in every respect. ④ Calvin concedes that only the Father is God in the strict sense and the Son is God in a lesser sense.

Answer: ②. ① direction-flip: S6 says it is sometimes, by way of excellence, ascribed to the Father — Calvin allows the special use. ③ scope-overreach: S17's of himself is limited by in regard to Deity, and S8 affirms begotten of the Father before all ages. ④ reversal: the opponents' thesis, attributed to Calvin. Examiner's intent: reading although … yet (S6) and the scope phrase in regard to Deity (S17).

③ Composition. Using Formula 3, render into Calvin's English: "예수의 이름에 여호와가 사용된다면, 그는 신성에 있어서 스스로 존재한다는 결론이 따른다."

Model answer: Since the name of Jehovah is applied to Christ, it follows that, in regard to Deity, he is of himself. (Alternative: If the name Jehovah is everywhere applied to Christ, it follows that he is of himself in regard to Deity.) Examiner's intent: Since P, it follows that Q + the limiting phrase in regard to Deity + of himself.

One-line summary. Calvin answers the second monster by letting Scripture identify Christ with Isaiah's one Lord (Jehovah), concluding the Son is "of himself" as to Deity — and by running the opponents' "Father alone is God" through two dilemmas (essence divided, or denied; distinction gone, or a titular God) that leave only a figurative God. Grammar: ① fronted negative + opponent that-clauses + although/yet (S3, S6); ② logical modals in a reductio (must be, cannot … unless he have, it were); ③ the Since … it follows that / Whosoever … denies / If they reply … then frames.

Homework (10 minutes). 1. Structure restoration: Rewrite S39 as four short sentences: (a) their premise, (b) their qualification, (c) Calvin's verdict, (d) the reason. Then mark each If … then … because. 2. Composition: Render in Calvin's English: "아버지에게서 본질이 나뉘어 아들에게 주어졌다고 한다면, 하나님은 쪼개진 분이 되고 말 것이다." (Use On the supposition that … and there would be ….) 3. Preview: Tomorrow Calvin continues the answer in the next printed section — he argues that where Scripture says God absolutely it does not always mean the Father alone, and the order of the Persons (Father … Son … Spirit) is not a ranking of essence.

Where we stopped: Book 1, Ch. 13, §26 끝. 다음은 Book 1, Ch. 13, §27 (인쇄 §24).