Day 102 — Book 1, Chapter 13, §28

Yesterday: "wherever God stands alone, the Father is meant" — dismantled. Today Calvin cleans up the positive statement: how can the Father be "fountain of the Godhead" without being the only God, and how can the Persons be distinct without slicing the essence? Look at S2: one sentence, three claims. Count them. The pivots are the double use of unbegotten (S2–S3) and the double viewpoint regarded as God / regarded as Son (S11).

Second — denial by as if. Watch S5 (as if we virtually held …), S7 (as if we imagined …), S9 (as if it were a part or member). Each as if marks a picture Calvin REJECTS. Quote it as his thesis and you lose the point.

Third — a run of counterfactuals. S6 (If the persons were separated …, there might be …), S9 (if he were not God, could not be the Father), S14 (To have included …, would … have been), S16 (if God and Father were synonymous …, the Father would be …).

Fourth — text traps. ⚠️ Hyphenated line-ends (plausib-ility, com-prehended, syn-onymous) are joined; footnote markers 52–54 and the French glosses ("like three streams"; "as if the essence were in place of the person of the Father"; "the Son has some being or none…") are not part of the text. The printed section is one long paragraph of 16 sentences.

Today's 3 Big Points

1. Unreal conditionals — inserted and perfect-infinitive forms: If the persons were separated …, there might be … (S6) · the Father, if he were not God, could not be the Father; nor could the Son possibly be Son unless he were God (S9) · To have included the essence …, would … have been … (S14) · if God and Father were synonymous terms, the Father would be deifier (S16). ⚠️ Restore if and the base tense before translating. Formula 1.
2. as if = a REJECTED picture; whereas/but = reality: S5, S7, S9. ⚠️ The as if clause is the opponent's (or hypothetical) view; the whereas/but clause is Calvin's. Formula 2.
3. Two-viewpoint predication and not only … but escalation: regarded as God … regarded as Son (S11) · his essence is without beginning, while his person has its beginning in God (S12) · not only … an absurd error, but gross impiety (S14). ⚠️ Same subject, different respects — never drop the qualifier. Formula 3.

The hallucination consists in dreaming of individuals, each of whom possesses a part of the essence. The Scriptures teach that there is essentially but one God, and, therefore, that the essence both of the Son and Spirit is unbegotten; but inasmuch as the Father is first in order, and of himself begat his own Wisdom, he, as we lately observed, is justly regarded as the principle and fountain of all the Godhead. Thus God, taken indefinitely, is unbegotten, and the Father, in respect of his person, is unbegotten. For it is absurd to imagine that our doctrine gives any ground for alleging that we establish a quaternion of gods. They falsely and calumniously ascribe to us the figment of their own brain, as if we virtually held that three persons emanate from one essence, whereas it is plain, from our writings, that we do not disjoin the persons from the essence, but interpose a distinction between the persons residing in it. If the persons were separated from the essence, there might be some plausibility in their argument; as in this way there would be a trinity of Gods, not of persons comprehended in one God. This affords an answer to their futile question—whether or not the essence concurs in forming the Trinity; as if we imagined that three Gods were derived from it. Their objection, that there would thus be a Trinity without a God, originates in the same absurdity. Although the essence does not contribute to the distinction, as if it were a part or member, the persons are not without it, or external to it; for the Father, if he were not God, could not be the Father; nor could the Son possibly be Son unless he were God. We say, then, that the Godhead is absolutely of itself. And hence also we hold that the Son, regarded as God, and without reference to person, is also of himself; though we also say that, regarded as Son, he is of the Father. Thus his essence is without beginning, while his person has its beginning in God. And, indeed, the orthodox writers who in former times spoke of the Trinity, used this term only with reference to the Persons. To have included the essence in the distinction, would not only have been an absurd error, but gross impiety. For those who class the three thus—Essence, Son, and Spirit—plainly do away with the essence of the Son and Spirit; otherwise the parts being intermingled would merge into each other—a circumstance which would vitiate any distinction. In short, if God and Father were synonymous terms, the Father would be deifier in a sense which would leave the Son nothing but a shadow; and the Trinity would be nothing more than the union of one God with two creatures.

              ─── I. THE POSITIVE STATEMENT (S1–S3) ───
[ERROR]       S1     "hallucination": individuals, each with a PART of the essence
[THESIS]      S2     one God in essence ⇒ essence of Son & Spirit unbegotten;
                     Father first IN ORDER ⇒ principle & fountain of the Godhead
[CLARIFY]     S3     God (indefinitely) unbegotten; Father (as person) unbegotten
              ─── II. THE CHARGES ANSWERED (S4–S9) ───
[CHARGE 1]    S4-6   "quaternion" / "three from one essence" — a FIGMENT; we do not disjoin
                     persons from essence; if we did, tritheism
[CHARGE 2]    S7-8   "does the essence form the Trinity?" / "Trinity without a God" — same absurdity
[ANSWER]      S9     essence not a part or member; persons not without it;
                     Father not Father unless God; Son not Son unless God
              ─── III. OF HIMSELF / OF THE FATHER (S10–S12) ───
[ASEITY]      S10-11 Godhead of itself; Son as God of himself, as Son of the Father
[SUM]         S12    essence without beginning; person has its beginning in God
              ─── IV. THE FATHERS AND THE REDUCTIO (S13–S16) ───
[USAGE]       S13-14 "Trinity" = Persons only; including the essence = absurd and impious
[REDUCTIO]    S15-16 Essence/Son/Spirit list ⇒ Son & Spirit lose essence; God = Father only
                     ⇒ Son a shadow; Trinity = one God + two creatures

Examiner's Eye.

① ⚠️ Rejected-picture trap. "Calvin holds that three persons emanate from one essence." ✗ S5: that is the figment they ascribe to us (as if we virtually held).

② ⚠️ Direction-flip trap. "Calvin denies that the Father is the fountain of the Godhead." ✗ S2: justly regarded as the principle and fountain of all the Godhead — by order. What he denies is that this makes the Son's essence derived (S11–S12).

③ ⚠️ Dropped-qualifier trap. "The Son is of the Father." / "The Son is of himself." Each is true only with its regarded as … (S11).

④ ⚠️ Whose horn? S6 (there would be a trinity of Gods) is the consequence of a view Calvin REJECTS; S16 is a reductio of their equation.

Formula 1 — Unreal conditionals (inserted, inverted, infinitival-subject).

If S were V-pp / Adj, S would/might V                 (S6, S16)
S, (if S were not X,) could not be Y; nor could S … unless S were X   (S9)
To have V-pp X, would (not only) have been Y          (S14: infinitive = the condition)

⚠️ Traps. (a) Restore if and the base tense first. (b) An inserted if-clause sits between subject and verb. (c) A perfect infinitive as subject (To have included …) = If they had included …. (d) nor could triggers inversion. Drill: "그들이 위격을 본질에서 분리한다면, 거기에는 삼신론이 있을 것이다." → If the persons were separated from the essence, there would be a trinity of Gods. · "본질을 구별 안에 넣었다면 가증한 오류였을 것이다." → To have included the essence in the distinction would have been an absurd error.

Formula 2 — as if (rejected picture) vs whereas / but (reality).

They ascribe to us X, as if we held Y, whereas it is plain that we do not A, but B
Although [concession: not a part], S is not without it

⚠️ Traps. (a) as if = as though — a picture NOT held. (b) whereas = when in fact, introduces Calvin's view. (c) ascribe X to Y = attribute. (d) not … but pairs a denial with its replacement. Drill: "그들은 우리가 본질을 넷째로 센다는 듯이 우리에게 그 허구를 돌린다." → They ascribe to us a figment, as if we counted the essence as a fourth, whereas it is plain from our writings that we do not.

Formula 3 — Two respects, and not only … but escalation.

S, regarded as A, is X; though regarded as B, he is Y
his essence is X, while his person is Y
not only an absurd error, but gross impiety

⚠️ Traps. (a) Never drop regarded as …. (b) while here = contrast. (c) In not only A but B, B is the heavier item. Drill: "아들은 하나님으로서는 스스로 계시나, 아들로서는 아버지에게서 났다." → The Son, regarded as God, is of himself; though regarded as Son, he is of the Father.

What is at stake. This section completes Calvin's answer to the "essentiator" party (Days 99–101): affirm three Persons yet teach that only the Father is truly God and "essentiates" Son and Spirit. Calvin names no persons here — read it as an answer to a doctrine. ⚠️ Do not attribute positions to named individuals on this section alone.

"Fountain of the Godhead" (S2). The phrase echoes the Greek pēgē tēs theotētos tradition (the Father as source, monarchia), yet Calvin guards it: the Father is source in order; the essence is not begotten. This is his reply to the charge that the Father alone is "deifier" (S16).

Autotheos (S11). The claim that the Son, as God, is a se — of himself — was already disputed in Calvin's own day (his Trinity controversies with Gentile and others) and later by Roman Catholic and Reformed readers. Read it with its qualifier: as Son, he is of the Father (S11b). ⚠️ Not a denial of eternal generation.

Essence and Persons (S5–S9). The Western tradition (Augustine, De Trinitate) insists the Persons are in the essence and not outside it, and equally that the essence is not a fourth item. Calvin's formula — not disjoin, but distinguish — is the same grammar. The French gloss "like three streams" (fn. 52) shows the emanation picture he rejects.

Reception. WCF 2.3 (Father "of none"; Son "eternally begotten"; Spirit "eternally proceeding", in one "substance, power, and eternity") shows the shape Reformed confessions took.

⚠️ Over-reading guardrails (4). (1) S5's three persons emanate from one essence is the opponents' charge, not Calvin's thesis. (2) S6's trinity of Gods is a rejected consequence. (3) S11 does not deny the Son's generation. (4) S16 is a reductio, not an affirmation that God and Father are synonyms.

1. Deut 6:4 / 1 Cor 8:6 — S2. essentially but one God — the Shema as the base of Calvin's one essence.
2. Prov 8:22–31; 1 Cor 1:24 — S2. begat his own Wisdom — the Son as the Father's Wisdom (Gk Sophia; Prov 8:22 LXX ektisen debated — Calvin takes it as generation).
3. Col 1:15–17; Heb 1:3 — S2–S3. principle and fountain — the Father as source; the Son as image and radiance.
4. John 5:26 — S11. As the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself — the Son has life "in himself" (aseity) while receiving it as Son.
5. John 1:1–2 — S9. the Word was with God, and the Word was God — Father and Son distinct, both God; the logic of Father … could not be Father if he were not God.
6. Matt 28:19 — S13–S15. The Trinitarian formula names Persons (Father, Son, Spirit), not essence — the patristic usage Calvin cites.
7. Isa 40:25 / Phil 2:6 — S14–S16. Equality with God vs. "union of one God with two creatures".

Calvin's method: he works at the level of logic and grammar of divine names (Father/Son/God), checking each deduction against Scripture's pattern of use; the biblical echoes here are structural, not proof-text citations.

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

① If the persons were separated from the essence, there might be some plausibility in their argument. ② The Father, if he were not God, could not be the Father; nor could the Son possibly be Son unless he were God. ③ To have included the essence in the distinction would have been not only an absurd error, but gross impiety. ④ If God and Father were synonymous terms, the Father would been deifier in a sense which would leave the Son nothing but a shadow.

Answer: ④. would been → would be (a modal takes the bare infinitive; would been is ungrammatical). ① unreal present conditional; ② inserted if-clause + nor could inversion; ③ infinitival subject + not only … but. Examiner's intent: Formula 1; ④ hides a modal-verb error inside an archaic-looking sentence.

② Comprehension. Which best states Calvin's position in S9–S12?

① The essence is a fourth member beside the three Persons. ② The persons are in the essence, not outside it; the Father could not be Father unless God, nor the Son Son unless God; the Son as God is of himself, as Son of the Father — so his essence is without beginning while his person has its origin in God. ③ The Son, as God and as Son alike, derives his being from the Father. ④ The Persons exist apart from the essence and are united only by will.

Answer: ②. ① opposite (S9: not … a part or member). ③ scope-overreach — drops the qualifier regarded as God … of himself (S11). ④ direction-flip (S9: not without it, or external to it). Examiner's intent: S9's double negation + S11's two respects.

③ Composition. Using Formula 2, render into Calvin's English: "그들은 우리가 세 위격이 하나의 본질에서 흘러나온다고 주장하는 듯이 우리를 비난하지만, 우리의 글에서 보면 우리는 위격을 본질에서 떼어 놓지 않는다는 것이 분명하다."

Model answer: They charge us as if we virtually held that three persons emanate from one essence, whereas it is plain from our writings that we do not disjoin the persons from the essence. Examiner's intent: as if … held (rejected view) + whereas it is plain … that we do not … (reality).

One-line summary. Calvin shows that the Persons are neither separated from the essence nor a fourth item beside it: the essence of Son and Spirit is unbegotten, the Father is the source only in order, the Son as God is of himself and as Son of the Father — and if "God" simply meant "Father" the Son would be a shadow and the Trinity one God plus two creatures. Grammar: ① unreal conditionals (inserted, inverted, infinitival subject); ② as if (rejected picture) vs whereas/but; ③ two respects (regarded as …) and not only … but.

Homework (10 minutes). 1. Structure restoration: Rewrite S9 as four short sentences: (a) the concession about the essence, (b) the persons' relation to it, (c) the Father clause, (d) the Son clause. Then mark the two if/unless conditions. 2. Composition: Render in Calvin's English: "그들이 하나님과 아버지를 같은 말로 삼는다면, 아들은 그림자에 지나지 않을 것이다." (Use If … were …, … would ….) 3. Preview: Tomorrow Calvin turns to the next printed section (§26 in print): "if Christ be properly God, he is improperly called the Son of God" — the answer by order, the Mediator's office, and John 17:3.

Where we stopped: Book 1, Ch. 13, §28 끝. 다음은 Book 1, Ch. 13, §29 (인쇄 §26).