Day 76 — Book 1, Chapter 13, §2

Yesterday was the broom. Today is the doorway.

§1 cleared the room with two adjectives — immensity, spirituality — and swept out four errors. It never once said three. Today, S2, the second sentence of the section, says it: he distinctly sets it before us as existing in three persons. That is the thesis of the longest chapter in Book 1, and Calvin drops it in fifteen words and keeps walking.

Then look what he does not do. He does not prove it. He does not open the Bible at Matthew 28 and start marshalling texts — that comes in §§7–15. Instead he stops dead and asks a question about vocabulary: as some strongly inveigh against the term Person as being merely of human inventions let us first consider how far they have any ground for doing so (S5). And the rest of the section — sixteen sentences — is a word-argument: does Scripture license the term person?

Understand why, because the exam-setter will ask. Calvin is writing in 1559 for men who had been burned by two fires. On one side, anti-Trinitarians — Servetus above all, whom Calvin names in §22 — who said persona and Trinitas are unbiblical Latin scaffolding bolted onto a simple Bible. On the other side, Calvin's own past: in 1537 Pierre Caroli publicly accused him of Arianism precisely because Calvin had declined to sign the ancient creeds on demand. So Calvin cannot afford to look casual about the word. He has to show that the term is not an import but an inference from a text — and he picks exactly one text, Hebrews 1:3, and squeezes the entire terminology out of it.

So the shape of today is: thesis in two sentences (S1–S4), the objection named (S5), one verse cross-examined (S6–S15), the word history settled (S16–S21).

Grammatically, today is subjunctive and absolute day. Two sentences hinge on a bare were that is not a past tense (S7, S14). Two more hang on an absolute construction with its own subject, resolved by an it (S8, S16). Miss those four and you will mistranslate the four most doctrinally loaded sentences in the section. That is not a coincidence — Calvin's most careful theology always comes wrapped in his most careful syntax.

And I will tell you now where the day ends, because it is the best trap Beveridge has given us in weeks. The last word of the section is substance (S21). It does not mean what it meant three sentences earlier in S18. Hold that thought.

Today's 3 Big Points

1. The bare were that means would be — the past subjunctive as a suppressed-conditional apodosis (S7, S14). S7: **to hold** with some interpreters that the term is equivalent to essence …, **were** not only harsh but absurd. The subject is an infinitive phrase, so any tense agreement you were reaching for is wrong from the start — and were here is not past. It is the irrealis: would be. Restore the suppressed if: ‹If one were to hold …,› that would be not only harsh but absurd. S14 does it again with an it: This … is not a distinction of essence, **which it were impious to multiply** = which it would be impious to multiply. ⚠️⚠️ Translate either one as a past tense and you turn a hypothetical into a historical claim — Calvin would be reporting that someone was impious, which is not what he says at all. Formula 1.
2. The absolute construction with its own subject, cashed out by an it (S8, S16). S8: **For the essence of God being** simple and undivided, and contained in himself entire, …, **it is** improper, nay, ridiculous, **to call** it his express image. S16: **The Latins having used** the word Persona to express the same thing as the Greek υ πο στατις, **it betrays** excessive fastidiousness … **to quarrel** with the term. Same machine both times: ‹Noun + participle› = a full adverbial clause with a subject of its own (because the essence is…, since the Latins have used…), then the main clause is an it-extraposition with the real subject parked at the end as an infinitive. ⚠️ The it at the head of the main clause is not the noun in the absolute. In S8, it is improper — that it is a dummy pointing forward to to call; the second it in to call **it** his express image is the essence. Two its, two different jobs, eleven words apart. Formula 2.
3. Fronting and inversion — the object out in front (S3), the negative out in front (S19). S3: **These we must hold**, unless… — object–subject–verb. Restore: We must hold these. Why front it? Because These reaches back to three persons in S2 and welds the sentences together; English fronts what is already given. S19: **Nor, indeed, was** the use of the term Person confined to the Latin Church — a negative adverb in first position forces subject–verb inversion, so was jumps in front of the use. ⚠️ Write Nor the use of the term was confined… and it is wrong; the exam item today is built on exactly that. Formula 3.

Trap words I will test. subsistence (S6, S11, S12, S13) ⚠️⚠️⚠️ = a concrete individual existence, a mode of really-being (Lat. subsistentia < sub-sistere, to stand under / take a stand) — not "livelihood, means of support". Today's #1 register trap, and it appears four times. person (S2, S5, S15, S16) ⚠️⚠️ = persona / ὑπόστασις — not "an individual human being" and not the modern "personality"; Calvin will define it in §6. substance ⚠️⚠️⚠️ — a double trap: in S18 Many have used **substance** in the same sense it means hypostasis, subsistence; in S21 are perfectly agreed in **substance** it means in the matter itself, in what they are actually saying (as against in the word). Same word, opposite side of the argument, three sentences apart. express image (S6, S8) ⚠️ = stamped likeness, precise impress (Gk. χαρακτήρ, an engraver's die and the mark it leaves) — express here is the pressed-out sense, not "rapid" and not "explicit". hold with (S7) ⚠️⚠️ = to side with, to agree with — not "hold along with". nay (S8) ⚠️ = no — more than that (an upward correction, not a refusal): improper, nay, ridiculous = improper — indeed, ridiculous. proper (S11) ⚠️⚠️ = his own, belonging to him (proprius) — not "appropriate"; third day running for this one. refulgent (S11) = shining back, flashing (re-fulgere). viz. (S10) = videlicet, namely — read aloud as "namely", never as "viz". aptly accords with (S10) = fits neatly with. holds (S13) ⚠️ = is valid, is true (intransitive) — not "grasps". credit (S15) ⚠️⚠️ = belief, credence (credere) — if credit is given to = if we believe; nothing financial. fastidiousness (S16) ⚠️⚠️ = squeamish over-nicety, fussiness (fastidium, loathing) — not "high standards". perverseness (S16) = wrong-headed obstinacy (per-vertere, to turn away). betrays (S16) ⚠️ = gives away, reveals — not "is treacherous to". inveigh against (S5) = attack in words (in-vehi, to be carried against). in like manner (S20) = likewise. as to (S21) ⚠️ = with respect to — differing as to the word = differing in respect of the word. flutter (S3) ⚠️ = hover idly, flit about — the image is a bird that never lands.

2. But there is another special mark by which he designates himself, for the purpose of giving a more intimate knowledge of his nature. While he proclaims his unity, he distinctly sets it before us as existing in three persons. These we must hold, unless the bare and empty name of Deity merely is to flutter in our brain without any genuine knowledge. Moreover, lest any one should dream of a threefold God, or think that the simple essence is divided by the three Persons, we must here seek a brief and easy definition which may effectually guard us from error. But as some strongly inveigh against the term Person as being merely of human inventions let us first consider how far they have any ground for doing so. When the Apostle calls the Son of God “the express image of his person,” (Heb. 1:3), he undoubtedly does assign to the Father some subsistence in which he differs from the Son. For to hold with some interpreters that the term is equivalent to essence (as if Christ represented the substance of the Father like the impression of a seal upon wax), were not only harsh but absurd. For the essence of God being simple and undivided, and contained in himself entire, in full perfection, without partition or diminution, it is improper, nay, ridiculous, to call it his express image (χαρακτερ). But because the Father, though distinguished by his own peculiar properties, has expressed himself wholly in the Son, he is said with perfect reason to have rendered his person (hypostasis) manifest in him. And this aptly accords with what is immediately added—viz. that he is “the brightness of his glory.” The fair inference from the Apostle’s words is, that there is a proper subsistence (hypostasis) of the Father, which shines refulgent in the Son. From this, again it is easy to infer that there is a subsistence (hypostasis) of the Son which distinguishes him from the Father. The same holds in the case of the Holy Spirit; for we will immediately prove both that he is God, and that he has a separate subsistence from the Father. This, moreover, is not a distinction of essence, which it were impious to multiply. If credit, then, is given to the Apostle’s testimony, it follows that there are three persons (hypostases) in God. The Latins having used the word Persona to express the same thing as the Greek υ πο στατις, it betrays excessive fastidiousness and even perverseness to quarrel with the term. The most literal translation would be subsistence. Many have used substance in the same sense. Nor, indeed, was the use of the term Person confined to the Latin Church. For the Greek Church in like manner, perhaps, for the purpose of testifying their consent, have taught that there are three προ σωπα (aspects) in God. All these, however, whether Greeks or Latins, though differing as to the word, are perfectly agreed in substance.

Sentence count: 21 (S1–S21). Two paragraphs — S1–S5, then S6–S21.

Text note (not a correction to the quotation). Six things about the printed page, all left exactly as they stand. (i) S5 has no comma before let — …as being merely of human inventions let us first consider…. Beveridge (or his compositor) ran the causal as-clause straight into the imperative. Read a comma; do not write one in. (ii) S5 prints of human inventions, plural, where the sense is singular (merely of human invention = merely man-made). This is the printed reading; keep it, but know the sense. (iii) The Greek is broken by the scan of the printed page: υ πο στατις for ὑπόστασις, προ σωπα for πρόσωπα, and χαρακτερ unaccented for χαρακτήρ. Nineteenth-century Greek type set without breathings and accents, plus letter-spacing at the line break, produces exactly this. Quote it as printed; pronounce and parse it correctly. (iv) S12 has From this, again it is easy — the comma sits after From this, not around again. Modern editing would write From this, again, it is easy. Leave it. (v) S11 has a comma before the that-clause — The fair inference … is, that there is…. Standard 1845 practice after a long subject; not an error. (vi) S20 has a plural verb after the Greek Church — the Greek Church … **have** taught. This is the notional plural (the Church = its teachers), regular in this period and in British usage generally. Do not "correct" it to has; it is a live exam item.

[THESIS]        S1-S2   another special mark  →  unity SET FORTH as existing in THREE PERSONS
[STAKES]        S3      hold it, or "Deity" is a bare name fluttering in the brain
[GUARD-RAILS]   S4      NOT a threefold God · NOT a divided essence  → a definition is owed (paid in §6)
[OBJECTION]     S5      "Person is a merely human word"  → let us test the objectors' ground
                ─────────── the whole rest of §2 answers S5, from ONE verse ───────────
[TEXT]          S6      Heb 1:3 "express image of his person" → Father HAS a subsistence, ≠ Son
[REDUCTIO]      S7-S8   if hypostasis = essence, then God is the image of his own essence = absurd
[POSITIVE]      S9-S10  Father expressed wholly in Son → person made manifest; "brightness of his glory"
[INFERENCE ×3]  S11-S13 subsistence of the FATHER → of the SON → (promised) of the SPIRIT
[FIREWALL]      S14     NOT a distinction of ESSENCE — multiplying that would be impious
[Q.E.D.]        S15     therefore THREE PERSONS in God
[WORD-HISTORY]  S16-S21 Persona = ὑπόστασις; lit. "subsistence"; also "substance";
                        Greeks say πρόσωπα — differing as to the WORD, agreed in SUBSTANCE

The engine, in one line: Calvin argues from one noun in one verse. If ὑπόστασις in Hebrews 1:3 meant essence, the verse would say the Son is the stamped image of the Father's essence — but a simple, undivided, entire essence cannot be imaged, only shared. Therefore ὑπόστασις must mean something the Father has as distinct from the Son. Name that, and you have person.

Examiner's Eye — four traps, and they are all direction traps.

1. ⚠️⚠️ S14 is the sentence they will invert. This … is **not** a distinction of **essence**. The distinction Calvin has just established (S11–S13) is a distinction of subsistence, not of essence. An option that reads "Calvin argues that the three persons are distinguished by their essences" is the exact reverse — and it is the reverse that gets called tritheism. Note also that S4 pre-loaded this: lest any one should … think that the simple essence is divided by the three Persons. Two firewalls, one at each end of the paragraph.
2. ⚠️⚠️ S21's substance is not S18's substance. S18: Many have used **substance** in the same sense — i.e. as a synonym for subsistence/hypostasis. S21: though differing as to the word, are perfectly agreed **in substance** — i.e. in what they actually mean. An option that says "Greeks and Latins agreed that God has one substance" is using the wrong sense of the word for this sentence; the sentence is about agreement between theologians, not about the divine essence. Nasty, and entirely fair.
3. ⚠️ S5 is not Calvin's own objection. some strongly inveigh against the term Person — some = the anti-Trinitarians. Calvin states it in order to demolish it across §§3–5. An option reading "Calvin concedes that Person is a merely human term" is a scope-flip: he concedes it is not found in Scripture in so many syllables (that is §3), never that it is unwarranted.
4. ⚠️ S13 promises; it does not prove. we **will** immediately prove both that he is God, and that he has a separate subsistence — future. The deity of the Spirit is argued in §§14–15, not here. An option claiming "Calvin proves in this section that the Spirit is God" over-reaches the range.

Formula 1 — The bare past subjunctive as would be, and the real conditional beside it

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  IRREALIS (unreal / hypothetical)                                    │
│                                                                      │
│    ‹to V …›            were   + COMPLEMENT     = ‹to V›  WOULD BE …  │
│    it                  were   + ADJ + to V     = it      WOULD BE …  │
│                                                                      │
│    S7   to hold … that the term is equivalent to essence,            │
│                        WERE not only harsh but absurd                │
│         → ‹If one were to hold that,› it WOULD BE …                  │
│    S14  which  IT WERE impious to multiply                           │
│         → which it WOULD BE impious to multiply                      │
│    S17  the most literal translation WOULD BE subsistence  ← modern  │
│                                                              spelling│
│                                                              of the  │
│                                                              same    │
│                                                              thing   │
│                                                                      │
│  REAL (open condition)                                               │
│                                                                      │
│    If  S + PRESENT …,   it follows that + PRESENT                    │
│    S15  If credit IS given …, it FOLLOWS that there ARE three …      │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

⚠️ Trap 1: were after an infinitive subject or after it is never a past tense. Infinitive subjects are singular; a plural past is impossible. It is the irrealis. ⚠️ Trap 2: Do not add would to the if-side. English marks the unreality once, in the apodosis (were/would be) or in the protasis (were to), not twice. ⚠️ Trap 3: Note the mood contrast within nine sentences — S7/S14 unreal, S15 real. Calvin uses the unreal for the reading he rejects, the real for the inference he accepts. The mood is the argument.

Transformation drill. Rewrite each with the bare subjunctive, then back into modern English. 1. It would be rash to define the essence before defining the persons. → It were rash to define the essence before defining the persons. 2. To identify hypostasis with essence would empty the verse of meaning. → To identify hypostasis with essence were to empty the verse of meaning. 3. Now the real conditional, for contrast: If the Apostle is believed, three persons follow. → If credit is given to the Apostle, it follows that there are three persons. (⚠️ indicative both sides — do not let Formula 1's were leak into this one.)

Formula 2 — Nominative absolute + it-extraposition (the two-it machine)

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│   ‹ NOUN + being / having p.p. + … › ,   IT + V + COMPL + to V …     │
│     └──── absolute: "SINCE noun is / has …" ────┘   ↑           ↑    │
│                                                  DUMMY      REAL SUBJ│
│                                                                      │
│   S8   The essence of God BEING simple and undivided …,              │
│          IT is improper, nay, ridiculous, TO CALL it his image       │
│          → Since God's essence is simple …,                          │
│            TO CALL the essence his image is improper.                │
│                                                                      │
│   S16  The Latins HAVING USED the word Persona …,                    │
│          IT betrays excessive fastidiousness TO QUARREL with it      │
│          → Since the Latins have used …,                             │
│            TO QUARREL with the term betrays excessive fastidiousness.│
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

⚠️ Trap 1 — the give-away. The noun before the participle is not the subject of the main verb. If it were, you would have a dangling participle instead. Test it: in S8, is the essence of God the subject of is improper? No — the subject is dummy it. Therefore: absolute. ⚠️ Trap 2 — the two its of S8. First it = dummy (points forward to to call). Second it = real pronoun (= the essence of God). Nineteen words apart, opposite jobs. Get them backwards and the sentence becomes nonsense. ⚠️ Trap 3 — being vs having p.p. being = the state holds now, simultaneous. having used = prior and completed. The choice of participle sets the time relation; there is no other tense marker in the construction.

Transformation drill. Convert the subordinate clause into an absolute, then extrapose the main clause. - Because the essence admits no parts, we are not permitted to divide it among the persons. → The essence admitting no parts, it is not permitted to divide it among the persons. - Since the Greeks have taught three prosopa, it is unreasonable to accuse the Latins of innovation. → The Greeks having taught three prosopa, it is unreasonable to accuse the Latins of innovation.

Formula 3 — Fronting: the object out front, the negative out front (and what each does to the verb)

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  (a) OBJECT FRONTING  —  NO inversion of subject and verb            │
│        OBJ + S + V …                                                 │
│        S3   THESE we must hold, unless …    (= we must hold these)   │
│        Purpose: link to the previous sentence (old info first).      │
│                                                                      │
│  (b) NEGATIVE FRONTING  —  inversion IS OBLIGATORY                   │
│        NEG-ADV + AUX + S + …                                         │
│        S19  NOR, indeed, WAS the use … confined to the Latin Church  │
│        Family: Never / Rarely / Seldom / Little / Not only /         │
│                No sooner / Nor / Not until …                         │
│                                                                      │
│  (c) HEAVY SEPARATION  —  subject and verb split by adjuncts         │
│        S20  the Greek Church  (×3 adjuncts)  HAVE taught …           │
│        S21  All these  (×3 adjuncts)  ARE perfectly agreed …         │
│        Method: bracket every comma-fenced adjunct, THEN read spine.  │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

⚠️ Trap 1 — do not confuse (a) with (b). Fronted object → no inversion (These we must hold, not These must we hold). Fronted negative → inversion required (Nor was the use confined, not Nor the use was confined). Different triggers, different consequences. ⚠️ Trap 2 — a parenthesis does not cancel the inversion. Nor, **indeed**, was… — bracket the parenthesis out, apply the rule. ⚠️ Trap 3 — agreement survives separation. In (c), the verb agrees with the subject twelve words back, not with the nearest noun. And S20's the Greek Church … have is notional plural, correct as printed.

Transformation drill. 1. Front the object: We must reject these definitions. → These definitions we must reject. 2. Front the negative with inversion: The term was not restricted to the Greek Fathers either. → Nor was the term restricted to the Greek Fathers. 3. Front a restrictive adverbial: Calvin defines the word only in §6. → Only in §6 does Calvin define the word. (⚠️ note the do-support — there is no other auxiliary to invert.)

Why the chapter starts with a word-fight, not a proof-text. Calvin has just announced the Trinity (S2) and immediately stops to defend a Latin noun. That looks like a detour. It is not. It is a defensive perimeter, and Calvin had personal reasons for building it.

1537: Caroli. Pierre Caroli, a Sorbonne doctor turned Genevan colleague turned enemy, publicly accused Calvin, Farel and Viret of Arianism — on the ground that Calvin's Genevan Confession had expounded the Trinity without using the words Trinity, person, substance, and had declined to subscribe the Athanasian Creed on demand. Calvin's defence at the Lausanne disputation was, in effect, the argument of §§2–5: the terms are not sacred; the thing is. I use them when they clarify and I decline to swear by them. Twenty-two years later, in the 1559 edition you are reading, that fight is still audible in it betrays excessive fastidiousness and even perverseness to quarrel with the term (S16). ⚠️ Note the direction: he is arguing against the people who reject the terms — but he had once been accused of being one of them. That is why the tone is measured rather than furious.

2. The terminology disaster Calvin is quietly cleaning up. Here is the history compressed. Greek theology settled, with the Cappadocians (Basil, the two Gregories, 370s–380s), on μία οὐσία, τρεῖς ὑποστάσεις — one essence, three subsistences. The trouble: Latin translated ὑπόστασις with the etymologically exact substantia (both = "standing under"), but substantia was also the standard Latin for οὐσία. So "three hypostases" reached Latin ears as "three substances" = three gods; and Latin's "one substance" reached Greek ears as "one hypostasis" = Sabellianism. Two orthodox parties spent decades calling each other heretics over a translation. The Council of Alexandria (362), under Athanasius, formally recognised that the two vocabularies meant the same thing — which is precisely Calvin's S21: though differing as to the word, are perfectly agreed in substance. ⚠️ Calvin does not narrate any of this. He assumes it, and S16–S21 is its summary. Knowing it is the difference between reading five flat sentences and hearing a settlement.

3. Tertullian and the Latin word. Persona enters Trinitarian Latin with Tertullian (Adversus Praxean, c. 213): tres personae, una substantia. ⚠️ And note what he was fighting — Praxeas the modalist, i.e. the man who said the persons are masks. So persona, a word that means mask, was pressed into service against the mask-theory. That is exactly the hazard Calvin's S20 walks past when he records the Greeks' πρόσωπα, and it is why the Cappadocians preferred ὑπόστασις. The later Latin fix was Boethius's definition (Contra Eutychen, c. 512): persona est naturae rationabilis individua substantia — an individual substance of a rational nature. Calvin will offer his own, deliberately non-philosophical, definition in §6.

4. The exegetical soft spot — and you should know it. Calvin's whole argument here rests on reading ὑπόστασις at Heb. 1:3 as subsistence/person, not essence. That reading has a real patristic pedigree (it is why the KJV wrote "his person"). ⚠️ But most modern commentators take ὑπόστασις in Heb. 1:3 to mean being, real nature — the very sense Calvin calls harsh but absurd in S7. If they are right, S7–S8 attack a reading that is probably the correct one, and the terminology has to be established from elsewhere (which is easy enough: the Trinity does not stand or fall on this verse). Guard-rail: do not defend Calvin's exegesis of Heb. 1:3 as though the doctrine depended on it. What is durable in §2 is the distinction — essence vs. subsistence — and the principle about words in S21. The particular philological move is sixteenth-century, and contestable.

5. Where this lands later. Calvin's insistence that the persons are distinguished by subsistence and not essence (S14), plus his refusal to build the doctrine on speculative metaphysics, is the seed of his most controversial Trinitarian move — the autotheos controversy of §§23–25, where he insists the Son is God of himself as to his essence, while being begotten as to his person. That got him accused of Arianism a second time (by Caroli again, and later by Genebrard), and it is one of the genuinely original things in the Institutes. ⚠️ Every piece of the machinery for it is being laid down in today's S14. When you reach §25, come back here.

Over-reading guard-rail. ⚠️ Three limits. (a) §2 does not define person — it announces the need (S4) and pays in §6. (b) §2 does not prove the deity of the Spirit — it promises (S13) and pays in §§14–15. (c) §2 does not claim persona is the best word — S17 concedes subsistence is more literal. Calvin is defending adequacy, not perfection. Anyone who quotes §2 as Calvin's doctrine of the Trinity has quoted the threshold and skipped the room.

1. Hebrews 1:3 — the load-bearing text (S6, S8, S10). “the express image of his person” = χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ; “the brightness of his glory” = ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ. ⚠️ How Calvin uses it: he extracts the terminology of the whole chapter from a single genitive. Note the method — not a florilegium of proof-texts, but one verse cross-examined until it yields a distinction. And note that he uses both halves: the first half yields the distinction (S6–S9), the second half checks it (S10), because ἀπαύγασμα rules out the wax-copy reading that χαρακτήρ alone might have permitted. One verse, two clauses, argument and control.

2. Deuteronomy 6:4 — the unity presupposed (S2). While he **proclaims his unity** — the Shema, שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יְהוָה אֶחָד, the LORD our God, the LORD is one. ⚠️ Calvin does not cite it. He treats it as the floor — Chapters 10–12 established that God alone is God and shares his glory with nothing, so the unity is not in play. What Calvin does not quote is often what he has already settled.

3. John 4:24 — behind S1's another special mark (via §1). God is a Spirit (πνεῦμα ὁ θεός) was the engine of §1's spirituality. Today's another counts from there. Connective, not argumentative.

4. Colossians 1:15 — the unnamed parallel (S6). the image of the invisible God, εἰκὼν τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ ἀοράτου. ⚠️ Calvin picks χαρακτήρ (Heb. 1:3) and not εἰκών (Col. 1:15), and the choice is deliberate: εἰκών is a likeness, which is exactly the wax-copy relation he must avoid; χαρακτήρ is a stamp made by the thing itself. The verse he leaves out tells you what the verse he takes is for.

5. Matthew 28:19 — conspicuously absent (S15). baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost is the Trinitarian formula, and Calvin reaches his three persons conclusion in S15 without it. ⚠️ Why? Because the baptismal formula gives you the three names but not the grammar of their relation — it would prove threeness without protecting against tritheism, which is the exact risk S4 and S14 are policing. He will use it, at §16. Watch which text an author saves.

6. Hebrews 11:1 — the same noun, a different sense (background to S6). faith is the **substance** (ὑπόστασις) of things hoped for. ⚠️ The same Greek word, in the same epistle, meaning something else entirely (assurance / the ground standing under). This is precisely why S7's move is contestable (Period 6, §4) — ὑπόστασις is not a technical term in Hebrews, it is a live metaphor. Know this and you will read S7 with the right amount of sympathy and the right amount of caution.

① Grammar — which underlined part is wrong?

ⓐ Nor, indeed, the use of the term Person was confined to the Latin Church. ⓑ The essence of God being simple and undivided, it is improper to call it his express image. ⓒ To hold that the term is equivalent to essence were not only harsh but absurd. ⓓ He is said with perfect reason to have rendered his person manifest in him.

Answer: ⓐ.

출제 의도. Nor in first position is a negative adverbial, and negative fronting makes subject–auxiliary inversion obligatory. Beveridge writes Nor, indeed, **was** the use of the term Person confined…; option ⓐ has restored normal order and is therefore wrong. ⚠️ The comma-fenced indeed is bait — students think a parenthesis "resets" the clause. It does not; bracket it out, then apply the rule. Now check why the others are right, because each is a different formula: ⓑ is Formula 2 — the nominative absolute (the essence … being) plus the two-it extraposition, both correct as printed. ⓒ is Formula 1 — the bare past subjunctive after an infinitive subject, meaning would be; it looks like an agreement error, which is exactly why it is here. ⓓ is the 5th pattern after render, whose object complement must be an adjective (manifest), never an adverb — the plausible "fix" to manifestly is the trap in reverse.

② Comprehension — which statement is TRUE according to the passage?

ⓐ Calvin argues that the three persons are distinguished from one another by their essences. ⓑ Calvin proves in this section that the Holy Spirit is God and has a subsistence distinct from the Father's. ⓒ Calvin holds that persona is a more literal rendering of ὑπόστασις than subsistence is. ⓓ Calvin holds that the Greek and Latin churches used different words for the same thing.

Answer: ⓓ. (S16, S19, S20, S21 — The Latins having used the word Persona to express the same thing as the Greek ὑπόστασις; Nor … was the use … confined to the Latin Church; three πρόσωπα; though differing as to the word, are perfectly agreed in substance.)

출제 의도. Four options, three different kinds of error, and you should be able to name each. - ⓐ is a direction-flip, and it is the doctrinally fatal one. S14 says the exact opposite: This … is **not** a distinction of **essence**, which it were impious to multiply. Distinguishing the persons by essence is tritheism — the error S4 pre-empted and S14 forbade. ⚠️ If you missed this one, reread S4 and S14 together; they are a matched pair of firewalls. - ⓑ is a range-overreach. S13 uses the future: we **will** immediately prove. A promise is not a proof; the payment falls in §§14–15. - ⓒ is a reversal of S17. The most literal translation would be **subsistence** — so subsistence is the more literal, and persona is the serviceable one. Calvin is defending a term's adequacy, never claiming it is optimal. - ⓓ is true, and note it also requires you to survive the substance pun in S21: the agreement is in substance = in the matter itself, not "on the doctrine of one substantia." An option worded "Greeks and Latins agreed that God is of one substance" would be false to this sentence even though the doctrine is true — the distinction between what a text says and what you already believe is the whole discipline.

③ Composition — apply Formulas 1, 2 and 3

Render into Beveridge-style English, using all three of today's formulas:

"이 용어들이 서로 다르다는 사실은 부정할 수 없다. 그러나 헬라 교부들이 이미 같은 것을 가리키는 데 그 말을 써 왔으므로, 그 용어를 트집 잡는 것은 지나친 까다로움을 드러낼 뿐이다. 이 구별을 우리는 반드시 지켜야 한다. 본질의 구별로 만드는 것은 불경한 일일 것이기 때문이다."

Model answer:

That these terms differ, it were idle to deny. But the Greek Fathers having already used the word to designate the same thing, it betrays excessive fastidiousness to cavil at the term. This distinction we must hold; for to make it a distinction of essence were impious.

출제 의도 및 채점 기준. Five things are being checked. 1. Formula 2, perfect absolute + extraposition — the Greek Fathers having already used …, it betrays … to cavil at …. ⚠️ Must be having used (prior, completed), not using. Dummy it, real subject the infinitive. 2. Formula 3(a), object fronting without inversion — **This distinction we must hold**. ⚠️ Not This distinction must we hold; object fronting does not invert. 3. Formula 1, bare past subjunctive twice — it **were** idle to deny and to make it a distinction of essence **were** impious. ⚠️ Both mean would be. A was in either slot is an error; a would be is acceptable modern English but forfeits the period register the question asks for. 4. Vocabulary control — betrays (= reveals), fastidiousness (= over-nicety), cavil at / quarrel with (= object captiously). ⚠️ Betrays must not be used in the "be disloyal" sense. 5. Doctrinal accuracy — the distinction held is of subsistence; making it a distinction of essence is what is called impious. Reverse those two and the sentence is grammatically perfect and heretical, which is the point of the exercise.

One-line summary. God's third self-designating mark is that the one essence subsists in three persons (S2) — neither a threefold God nor a divided essence (S4) — and Calvin proves the thing from a single genitive in Hebrews 1:3, where ὑπόστασις must mean subsistence and not essence (S6–S15, with the firewall at S14: not a distinction of essence), then defends the word by showing that Latin persona, literal subsistentia, common substantia and Greek πρόσωπα all pick out the same reality — though differing as to the word, are perfectly agreed in substance (S21).

And the three grammar points, once more. ① The bare past subjunctive were = would be — after an infinitive subject (S7) and after dummy it (S14) — set against a genuinely real conditional in S15. ② The nominative absolute with its own subject (being S8 / having p.p. S16), always cashed out by an it-extraposition, and in S8 with two its doing opposite jobs. ③ Fronting — object fronted without inversion (S3 These we must hold), negative fronted with obligatory inversion (S19 Nor … was the use … confined), plus subject–verb separation by stacked adjuncts (S20, S21) where the cure is bracket first, read second.

Homework (10 minutes).

1. Structure restoration. Take S8 and rebuild it in plain modern order without the absolute and without the extraposition — one clause, one subject, one verb. Then say out loud what each of the two its refers to. (Target: Since God's essence is simple, undivided and wholly contained in himself, calling that essence his stamped likeness is not merely unfitting but ridiculous. First it = dummy; second it = the essence.)
2. Composition. One sentence, English, using a perfect nominative absolute + it-extraposition + one bare past subjunctive: Since the Fathers have already settled the question, to reopen it would be perverse. (Target shape: The Fathers having already settled the question, it were perverse to reopen it.)
3. Preview — §3, one line. Tomorrow Calvin turns from defending the word to prosecuting the objection. §3 opens **Now, then, though heretics may snarl and the excessively fastidious carp at the word Person as inadmissible, in consequence of its human origin…** — the same two vices as today's S16 (fastidiousness, perverseness), now named as snarling and carping, and he will let the objectors state their case in their own words ("It were better," they say, "to confine not only our meanings but our words within the bounds of Scripture…") ⚠️ before dismantling it. Watch two things: another bare were in the objectors' own mouth, and Calvin's first answer — that a rule requiring every term to be found in Scripture in so many syllables would impose an unjust law.

Where we stopped: Book 1, Ch. 13, §2 끝. 다음은 Book 1, Ch. 13, §3 — "Objection of those who, in this discussion, reject the use of the word Person. Answer 1. That it is not a foreign term, but is employed for the explanation of sacred mysteries."