Day 80 — Book 1, Chapter 13, §6

Four days ago, in §2, Calvin used the word person and did not tell you what it meant. He wrote an IOU. Yesterday he spent thirty-three sentences telling you not to fight about words. Today, sentence one, he cashes the IOU and closes the word-fight in the same breath: But to say nothing more of words, let us now attend to the thing signified. And then — sentence two — the most-quoted definition in the whole chapter, the sentence every Reformed dogmatics for four centuries has copied out: By person, then, I mean a subsistence in the Divine essence,—a subsistence which, while related to the other two, is distinguished from them by incommunicable properties. Underline it. Memorise it. If you take one sentence from Book 1 into an exam, take this one.

Now look at the shape of the section, because the shape is the lesson. Eleven sentences. S2 is a definition in three parts — (i) a subsistence in the Divine essence, (ii) related to the other two, (iii) distinguished from them by incommunicable properties — and S3–S10 gloss those three parts in exactly that order. S3–S6: what subsistence is (≠ essence, proved from John 1:1). S7–S9: what related means (the name God said absolutely belongs to all three; said comparatively — Father against Son — the property distinguishes). S10: what incommunicable means (a mark of the Father cannot be transferred to the Son). Then S11 borrows Tertullian's older word, economy, and fences it with a provided. A definition, then its own commentary, clause by clause. Read it as a diagram and you will never lose your place.

Grammatically, today is the day of definition and the day of the mixed conditional. By X I mean Y and By X we wish Y to be understood than Z — two frames for defining a term, one active, one passive-infinitive. Then the sentence the examiners love: if the Word **were** God simply and **had not** some property peculiar to himself, John **could not have said** correctly… — a present-unreal protasis wired to a past-unreal apodosis. Then two frontings: **hence arises** that subsistence (verb before subject) and **whatever is proper to each** I affirm to be incommunicable (object before subject). Three frames, one section.

One warning about the page. Three page-break seams fall inside words (indis-|soluble, distin-|guished, incom-|municable), with a running header and two margin numbers wedged between them. All three are joined silently. Details in the text note. And one quotation is printed in curly quotes (“that there is in God…”) — quote as printed.

Today's 3 Big Points

1. The definitional frame, twice: By person, then, I mean a subsistence… (S2) and By subsistence we wish something else to be understood than essence (S3). Frame A is By X I mean Y — the definiendum fronted in a by-phrase, the definiens as object of mean. You met the frame in §3 in an opponent's mouth (if **by** foreign they mean…); today it is Calvin's own. Frame B is the passive-infinitive version: we wish Y **to be understood** — we want Y understood by it — with the comparative tail something else … **than** essence. ⚠️ Period English says something else **than**; modern English says other than or something different from. Don't "correct" it and don't misread it: else … than = distinct from. And watch the appositive restatement in S2: a subsistence,**—a subsistence which**… — Calvin names the genus, then repeats it to hang the differentia on. Formula 1.
2. The mixed counterfactual: if the Word were God simply and had not some property peculiar to himself, John could not have said correctly that he had always been with God (S4). ⚠️⚠️ Protasis in the present-unreal (were, had not) because it describes a standing state — what the Word is, timelessly. Apodosis in the past-unreal (could not have said) because it describes a past act — John writing his first verse. The tenses don't match and they are not supposed to: the condition is timeless, the consequence is dated. And the adverb: could not have said **correctly** = could not have been correct in saying — correctly scopes over the whole saying, not over the manner of writing. Formula 2. (Yesterday's were count: this is the fifth were in five days, and the first in a plain if-clause.)
3. Two frontings that put the weight up front: hence arises that subsistence (S6) and whatever is proper to each I affirm to be incommunicable (S10). (a) **hence arises** that subsistence, which… — verb–subject inversion after the fronted adverb hence, so the sentence can deliver its subject and then keep talking about it in a relative clause. Restore: that subsistence arises from this. (b) **whatever is proper to each** I affirm to be incommunicable — the object of affirm is the whole free relative whatever is proper to each, moved to the front; the base pattern is the 5th-pattern accusative + infinitive: I affirm [whatever is proper to each] [to be incommunicable]. ⚠️ Read whatever is proper to each I as a run-on and the sentence has two subjects. Formula 3. Between them sits the concessive sandwich of S6: which, **though** connected with the essence…, **being** incapable of separation, **yet** has a special mark — though … yet wrapped around a participial aside.

Trap words I will test. simply (S4, S8) ⚠️⚠️⚠️ = absolutely, without qualification (simplex, one-fold) — if the Word were God simply = if the Word were just "God" and nothing more specific; never "easily", never "merely" in the dismissive sense. indefinitely (S8) ⚠️⚠️ = without a defining addition — God mentioned simply and indefinitely = the bare name, not "God the Father"; not "for ever". property (S2, S4, S9, S10) ⚠️⚠️ = a characteristic proper to one (proprius, one's own) — not real estate; and proper to (S10) = belonging to as its own. peculiar (S4, S9) = his own — the same word as yesterday, now the technical term. incommunicable (S2, S10) ⚠️⚠️ = that cannot be shared or transferred (communicare, to make common) — nothing to do with talking. person (S2) ⚠️ = Lat. persona, originally the actor's mask; Calvin's definition is written precisely to empty that etymology — a subsistence is not a role. subsistence (S2 ×2, S3, S6, S7) = subsistentia, the Latin calque of ὑπόστασις — a distinct standing in being. economy (S11) ⚠️⚠️⚠️ = Gk οἰκονομία, arrangement, disposition — not thrift, not money; Beveridge glosses it himself: arrangement or economy. mark (S6, S10) = distinguishing sign (Lat. nota). tie (S6) = bond. apply (S10) ⚠️ = be applicable — intransitive; nothing can apply … to the Son = nothing is predicable of the Son. attributed (S10) = ascribed. adopt (S11) = take over as one's own (ad- + optare, to choose). objections to adopt (S11) ⚠️ = period idiom, objection + to-infinitive; modern objection to adopting. makes no change on (S11) ⚠️ = period preposition; modern makes no change in. attend to (S1) = give attention to. signified (S1) = meant (signum + facere). correctly (S4) = rightly, with truth. indissoluble (S6) = that cannot be loosened (dis- + solvere). calls us back (S5) = revocat — brings us back. compared with (S9) = set beside.

6. But to say nothing more of words, let us now attend to the thing signified. By person, then, I mean a subsistence in the Divine essence,—a subsistence which, while related to the other two, is distinguished from them by incommunicable properties. By subsistence we wish something else to be understood than essence. For if the Word were God simply and had not some property peculiar to himself, John could not have said correctly that he had always been with God. When he adds immediately after, that the Word was God, he calls us back to the one essence. But because he could not be with God without dwelling in the Father, hence arises that subsistence, which, though connected with the essence by an indissoluble tie, being incapable of separation, yet has a special mark by which it is distinguished from it. Now, I say that each of the three subsistences while related to the others is distinguished by its own properties. Here relation is distinctly expressed, because, when God is mentioned simply and indefinitely the name belongs not less to the Son and Spirit than to the Father. But whenever the Father is compared with the Son, the peculiar property of each distinguishes the one from the other. Again, whatever is proper to each I affirm to be incommunicable, because nothing can apply or be transferred to the Son which is attributed to the Father as a mark of distinction. I have no objections to adopt the definition of Tertullian, provided it is properly understood, “that there is in God a certain arrangement or economy, which makes no change on the unity of essence.”—Tertull. Lib. contra Praxeam.

Sentence count: 11 (S1–S11). One paragraph, four moves: pivot + definition (S1–S2) · subsistence (S3–S6) · related (S7–S9) · incommunicable (S10) · Tertullian (S11).

Text note (not a correction to the quotation). Four features of the printed page, all left exactly as they stand. (i) Three page-break seams fall inside words: indis- | soluble (S6), distin- | guished (S7), and incom- | municable (S10). Between the second and third the scan carries a page number (119) and the running chapter header (CHAPTER 13. - THE UNITY OF THE DIVINE ESSENCE IN THREE PERSONS TAUGHT, IN…); a margin number 115 sits beside S11. All are stripped; the three words are joined silently; nothing else is disturbed. (ii) S2 prints a comma followed by an em dash — essence,—a subsistence — the nineteenth-century comma-dash. Not two punctuation errors; one period convention. Quote both marks. (iii) S11 prints curly quotation marks (“that there is in God … unity of essence.”) and closes with an em-dash citation —Tertull. Lib. contra Praxeam. The citation is part of the printed sentence and is included in the quotation. (iv) I have no objections to adopt (S11) and makes no change on (S11) are period idiom — infinitive after objection, on for in. Not slips. Likewise something else … than (S3).

[PIVOT]       S1     "to say nothing more of WORDS" → "the THING signified"   (§5 closed)
[DEFINITION]  S2     PERSON = (i) a SUBSISTENCE in the Divine essence
                              (ii) RELATED to the other two
                              (iii) DISTINGUISHED from them by INCOMMUNICABLE PROPERTIES
              ─── the gloss follows the definition, clause by clause ───
[(i) SUBSIST.] S3     subsistence ≠ essence
[   PROOF   ]  S4     John 1:1b "WITH God" — IF the Word were God SIMPLY, John could NOT have said it
               S5     John 1:1c "WAS God" — calls us BACK to the ONE essence
               S6     "with God" = dwelling IN the Father ⇒ HENCE ARISES that subsistence:
                      tied to the essence (indissoluble) — YET marked (a special mark)
[(ii) RELATED] S7     each of the THREE, related to the others, distinguished by its OWN properties
               S8     "God" said SIMPLY & INDEFINITELY = belongs NOT LESS to Son & Spirit than to Father
               S9     Father COMPARED WITH Son = the PECULIAR PROPERTY distinguishes
[(iii) INCOMM.] S10   whatever is PROPER to each = INCOMMUNICABLE: no mark of the Father TRANSFERS to the Son
[WITNESS]      S11    Tertullian: "ARRANGEMENT or ECONOMY" in God — NO CHANGE on the UNITY of essence
                      — PROVIDED it is properly understood

The engine, in one line: a person is a distinct standing inside one being, marked off from the other two by what it alone has. Everything else in the section defends the three words subsistence, related, incommunicable against the two errors of §4: against Sabellius, the subsistence is something else … than essence and has a special mark (S3, S6); against Arius, it is connected with the essence by an indissoluble tie and the name God belongs to it not less than to the Father (S6, S8). ⚠️ Watch how the proof runs through a preposition: John 1:1 says the Word was with God — and you cannot be with what you simply are. So with forces a distinction (S4); was God forces the unity (S5); and with = in (S6) forces the distinction to be internal, not spatial. Calvin's whole doctrine of the person is a reading of two Greek words: πρός and ἦν.

Examiner's Eye — five traps.

1. ⚠️⚠️⚠️ Subsistence ≠ essence, but subsistence is not separable from essence. S3 says something else … than essence; S6 says connected with the essence by an indissoluble tie, being incapable of separation. Both at once. An option reading "a person is the divine essence considered under another name" has dropped S3 (Sabellius); an option reading "a person is a subsistence distinct and separable from the essence" has dropped S6 (tritheism). Distinct, not divided — the exam will offer you each half as if it were the whole.
2. ⚠️⚠️ the name belongs not less to the Son and Spirit than to the Father (S8) — no subordination in the bare name. When God is said simply and indefinitely, it is said of all three equally. An option reading "the name God belongs properly to the Father and derivatively to the Son" is a direction-flip of not less. The Father's priority appears only whenever the Father is **compared with** the Son (S9) — in the relation, not in the name.
3. ⚠️⚠️ S4 is about with God, not about was God. What John could not have said correctly if the Word were God simply is that he had always been **with** God (1:1b). The was God clause is S5, and it does the opposite job (calls us back to the one essence). An option that says "if the Word had no property of his own, John could not have called him God" has swapped the two halves of the verse.
4. ⚠️⚠️ Tertullian is adopted with a condition — provided it is properly understood (S11). Yesterday's lesson, again: never quote a Calvin concession without its provided. An option reading "Calvin adopts Tertullian's definition of the persons as an economy in God" is half-true; "…without qualification" is false; "Calvin rejects Tertullian's economy because it would alter the unity" is the direction-flip of makes no change on the unity of essence.
5. ⚠️⚠️ incommunicable is said of the marks, not of the essence (S10). whatever is proper to each — i.e. attributed to the Father **as a mark of distinction** — cannot transfer. The essence is the one thing that is common. An option reading "nothing that belongs to the Father belongs to the Son" has over-reached the scope: deity belongs to both; paternity belongs to one.

Formula 1 — The definitional frame: By X (, then,) I mean Y / By X we wish Y to be understood (than Z) + the restated antecedent

FRAME A   By X, I mean Y.                       (S2)   ← definiendum in a by-phrase; definiens = object of "mean"
FRAME B   By X we wish Y to be understood.      (S3)   ← wish + O + passive infinitive
          … something else … than Z             (S3)   ← period "else … than" = "other than"
RESTATE   a Y,—a Y which …                      (S2)   ← repeat the genus to pin the relative clause
⚠️ "mean" = signify by the word, not "intend to do"
⚠️ "else … than" is split by the infinitive; reconnect it — never "else … as"
⚠️ the relative after ",—a Y" modifies Y, not the noun before the dash

Drill. 성령이라는 말로 나는 성부와 성자에게서 나오시는 한 실재를 뜻한다 — 성부·성자와 관계되면서도 그 고유한 출원(出源)으로 구별되는 실재. → By Spirit, then, I mean a subsistence proceeding from the Father and the Son,—a subsistence which, while related to both, is distinguished from them by its own peculiar procession.

Formula 2 — The mixed counterfactual: if S were … and had not …, S could not have V-ed

PROTASIS   if S were / had not …        ← present-unreal: a STANDING STATE (what a thing IS)
APODOSIS   S could not have V-ed …      ← past-unreal: a DATED ACT (what someone DID/SAID)
           … could not have said CORRECTLY that …   ← adverb scopes over the whole saying
⚠️ do NOT "match" the tenses (if S had been … could not have) — that dates the nature
⚠️ "correctly" = "with truth", modifying the assertion, not the manner
⚠️ the reported clause keeps its back-shift: "that he HAD always BEEN with God"

Drill. 만일 성령이 단순히 하나님이시고 자기 고유의 것이 없으시다면, 바울은 성령이 하나님의 깊은 것을 통달하신다고 바르게 말할 수 없었을 것이다. → For if the Spirit were God simply and had nothing peculiar to himself, Paul could not have said correctly that the Spirit searcheth the deep things of God.

Formula 3 — Fronting for weight: hence arises X, which … / whatever is P I affirm to be Q

(a) INVERSION   hence ARISES that subsistence, which …   (S6)   ← adverb + V + S, so the relative can follow at once
                restore: that subsistence arises hence
(b) FRONTED O   [whatever is proper to each] I AFFIRM to be incommunicable   (S10)
                restore: I affirm [whatever is proper to each] to be incommunicable   (5th pattern: V + O + to be + C)
⚠️ (a) "arises" = follows as a conclusion, not "comes into being in time"
⚠️ (b) one clause, one finite verb ("affirm"); "whatever … each" is the OBJECT, not a subject
PLUS  the concessive sandwich in a relative:  which, THOUGH V-ed …, BEING adj …, YET V …   (S6)
      ← the finite verb of the relative is the one after "yet"

Drill. 성부는 성자와 함께가 아니고서는 성부일 수 없으므로, 여기서 저 관계가 생겨난다. 그리고 각 위격에 고유한 것은 무엇이든 나는 다른 위격에 전달될 수 없다고 단언한다. → Because the Father could not be the Father without the Son, hence arises that relation; and whatever is proper to each person I affirm to be incapable of transfer to another.

What §6 is, in the architecture. The chapter's synopsis: After the definition of the term follows a definition and explanation of the thing meant by it. §§2–5 defended the word; §6 defines the thing. And it is the hinge of the chapter: §§7–15 will prove the deity of Son and Spirit (the unity side), §§16–20 their distinction (the related / incommunicable side), §§21–29 the heresies. Everything downstream uses today's three terms. The definition — Personam igitur voco subsistentiam in Dei essentia, quae ad alios relata, proprietate incommunicabili distinguitur — stands in the Institutes from the 1539 edition onward, and became the standard Reformed definition: you will find it copied, nearly verbatim, in the seventeenth-century dogmaticians.

1. Where the definition comes from, and what Calvin refused. Three older definitions were on the table. Boethius (Contra Eutychen 3, c. 512): persona est naturae rationabilis individua substantia — "an individual substance of a rational nature." The scholastic textbook standard; Aquinas discusses it at ST I q. 29. ⚠️ Calvin avoids it: substantia is yesterday's ambiguous word, and individua invites the picture of the essence divided among three. Richard of St Victor (De Trinitate 4.22, c. 1160): divinae naturae incommunicabilis existentia — "an incommunicable existence of the divine nature." ⚠️ This is Calvin's nearest source: the word incommunicable is Richard's, and existentia is the sister of subsistentia. Tertullian (S11): the oikonomia / dispositio — adopted, with the fence. So Calvin's definition is a selection: Richard's incommunicable, the Greek hypostasis Latinised as subsistentia, and Tertullian's economy under guard. Not an invention — an edit.

2. The Greek behind subsistence and properties. The Cappadocian settlement (Basil, Ep. 38, 214, 236; Gregory of Nazianzus, Or. 29–31): οὐσία is what is common (τὸ κοινόν), ὑπόστασις what is particular (τὸ ἴδιον), and each hypostasis is marked by its ἰδιώματα — its distinguishing properties: for the Father unbegottenness (ἀγεννησία), for the Son begottenness (γέννησις), for the Spirit procession (ἐκπόρευσις). Calvin's incommunicable properties (S2), special mark (S6), its own properties (S7), peculiar property (S9), proper to each (S10) are all this one Greek idea, ἰδιώματα, in five English dresses. ⚠️ Calvin does not name the properties here; §18 gives their order (Father the beginning, Son the wisdom, Spirit the power), §§23–25 their consequences. Do not import the names into §6; he is defining the slot, not filling it.

3. Augustine and the rule of relation (S8–S9). De Trinitate 5.5–8 lays down the rule Calvin states in two sentences: whatever is said of God ad se (absolutely) is said of the whole Trinity and of each person equally — God, good, eternal, almighty; whatever is said ad aliquid (relatively) — Father, Son, begotten, unbegotten — distinguishes. S8 is ad se (God mentioned simply and indefinitely … not less to the Son and Spirit than to the Father); S9 is ad aliquid (whenever the Father is **compared with** the Son). ⚠️ This is also the root of Calvin's most controversial Trinitarian emphasis: because the name God belongs to the Son not less than to the Father, the Son is God of himself as to his essence (autotheos), begotten of the Father only as to his person. Caroli (1537) and Valentine Gentile (1558) both attacked him for it; Warfield's essay Calvin's Doctrine of the Trinity (1909) made it famous. §§23–25 will state it outright. Today's not less is the seed.

4. Tertullian's economy, and what the provided quarantines. Adversus Praxean 2 (c. 213): the oikonomia (Tertullian keeps the Greek, and glosses it dispositio) "distributes the unity into a trinity" — unitatem in trinitatem disponit — three "not in status but in degree, not in substance but in form, not in power but in aspect" (non statu sed gradu, nec substantia sed forma, nec potestate sed specie). ⚠️ Gradus — degree — is the phrase Calvin's provided it is properly understood fences off. Read as an order of the persons, it is orthodox and Calvin will affirm it (§18); read as a ranking of their deity, it is Arius. Calvin takes the economy (the internal disposition that leaves the essence one) and leaves the degree at the door. ⚠️ Note also what economy does not mean here: not the later theological sense of economic Trinity (God's works toward us, in creation and redemption, as against the immanent Trinity). Tertullian's oikonomia in this passage is precisely the internal arrangement. Don't read the twentieth-century pair back into S11.

5. Afterlife — person under pressure. The word Calvin defined so carefully drifted. By the seventeenth century person began to mean a centre of consciousness; by the nineteenth it meant an individual self. Read S2 in that sense and you have three minds — tritheism. This is why Barth (Church Dogmatics I/1 §9) replaced person with mode of being (Seinsweise), and cited Calvin's definition as saying essentially what he meant: a subsistence, a distinct way the one God is, not a second ego. Rahner made the same move (distinct manner of subsisting). And the modern social Trinitarians (Moltmann, Zizioulas) went the other way, treating person as a relational self. ⚠️ Calvin is on Barth's side of that line, and he is not a modalist — S6's special mark and S10's incommunicable are exactly what modalism denies. Read him in his own terms: subsistence = hypostasis, not personality.

Over-reading guard-rail. ⚠️ Five limits. (a) Subsistence is not a part of the essence. in the Divine essence (S2) locates, it does not partition; indissoluble tie, being incapable of separation (S6) forbids the partition explicitly. (b) dwelling in the Father (S6) is not spatial. It renders John's in (1:18, 14:10); the Word is with God by being in him — a relation of being, not of place. (c) relation (S8) is a rule of predication, not (yet) the Thomist doctrine of subsistent relations — Calvin says the persons are distinguished by properties and that relation is expressed when they are compared; he does not say a person is a relation. Don't upgrade him to Aquinas. (d) arises (S6) is logical, not temporal. The subsistence does not come into being; it follows from the text. (e) economy (S11) is Tertullian's internal disposition, not the modern economic Trinity; and it is adopted provided it is properly understood — quote it with its fence.

1. John 1:1b — the whole of S4. and the Word was with God (καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν). ⚠️ How Calvin uses it: the preposition πρός with the accusative — toward, in the presence of, face to face with — cannot be predicated of a thing of itself. You cannot be with what you simply are. So if the Word were God simply … John could not have said correctly that he had always been with God. The imperfect ἦν is had always been — continuous, without beginning. One preposition carries the doctrine of the person; one imperfect carries its eternity.

2. John 1:1c — the whole of S5. and the Word was God (καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος). ⚠️ The predicate θεός is anarthrous and fronted — qualitative: what the Word was is God, the very essence. Hence he calls us back to the one essence. Calvin reads the verse's order** as an argument: πρός (distinction), then θεός (unity), immediately after. Sabellius cannot have 1:1b; Arius cannot have 1:1c.

3. John 1:18 with John 14:10–11 — behind S6's dwelling in the Father. the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father (ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός); I am in the Father, and the Father in me (ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί). ⚠️ Calvin turns 1:1's with into 1:18's in: he could not be with God without dwelling in the Father. The tradition's word for this mutual indwelling is περιχώρησις; Calvin does not use the word, but S6 is the thing. Withness for God is inwardness.

4. Hebrews 1:3 — carried from §2, and it names S6's special mark. the express image of his person (χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ). ⚠️ Two of today's words in one verse: ὑπόστασις = subsistence (S2, S3), and χαρακτήρ = an engraved mark — S6's a special mark by which it is distinguished. The Son is the character of the Father's hypostasis: the mark of a subsistence. Calvin settled the verse's meaning on Day 76; today the definition is built out of its two nouns.

5. 1 John 1:2 with John 17:5 — the second witness to always been with God. that eternal life, which was with the Father (ἥτις ἦν πρὸς τὸν πατέρα); the glory which I had with thee before the world was (παρὰ σοί). ⚠️ Same πρός, same imperfect ἦν, in the same author — and παρά with the dative in 17:5 gives the presence sense unambiguously. Calvin cites only 1:1 in S4, but always (semper) is doing the work of 17:5's before the world was. Eternal withness = eternal distinction.

6. Matthew 28:19 with 2 Corinthians 13:14 — the floor under S8. in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (εἰς τὸ ὄνομα, singular); the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost. ⚠️ the name belongs not less to the Son and Spirit than to the Father — one name, three named: the baptismal formula is the biblical form of S8's not less … than. Calvin will spend §§7–15 proving that God is predicated of Son and Spirit simply; S8 states the conclusion in advance. When you say just "God", you have said all three.

7. John 5:26 with John 10:30 — the tension S9–S10 manages. as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself (ζωὴν ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτῷ); I and my Father are one (ἓν ἐσμεν, neuter — one thing, not one person). ⚠️ 10:30 is S8 (the same essence, the same name); 5:26 is S9–S10 (hath given = the Father's mark, to have life in himself = the Son's — the peculiar property of each distinguishes the one from the other, and what is the Father's as giver is incommunicable). Calvin's later exegesis of 5:26 (§§23–25) is where not less and incommunicable are reconciled: same life, different way of having it.

① Grammar — which underlined part is wrong?

ⓐ By person, then, I mean a subsistence in the Divine essence,—a subsistence which, while related to the other two, is distinguished from them by incommunicable properties. ⓑ For if the Word were God simply and had not some property peculiar to himself, John could not have said correctly that he had always been with God. ⓒ But because he could not be with God without dwelling in the Father, hence arises that subsistence, which yet has a special mark by which it is distinguished from it. ⓓ By subsistence we wish something else to be understood as essence.

Answer: ⓓ.

출제 의도. Formula 1, Frame B: something else … **than** essence. The comparative else takes than (period) or other than / different from (modern); as turns the sentence into its opposite — we want something else to be taken as essence — i.e. that the subsistence is the essence, which is exactly Sabellius. ⚠️ The bait is the split: else and than are separated by to be understood, so students lose the pairing and reach for as from understood as. Reconnect else … than. Now check why the others stand. ⓐ is Frame A: By X I mean Y — mean = signify; the comma-dash restatement ,—a subsistence which correctly pins the relative to subsistence, not essence. ⓑ is Formula 2: the mixed counterfactual — present-unreal protasis (were … had not), past-unreal apodosis (could not have said); could not say would date the consequence to now (John is not writing now), and had been … could not have would date the Word's nature. ⓒ is Formula 3(a): hence **arises** that subsistence — verb–subject inversion after the fronted adverb, singular verb agreeing with the delayed subject; hence that subsistence arises is also grammatical but forfeits the relative's immediate attachment.

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

ⓐ Calvin defines a person as the Divine essence itself considered under a different name, since subsistence and essence are ultimately the same. ⓑ Because John says the Word was with God, the Word must be a subsistence that can be separated from the divine essence. ⓒ A person is a subsistence in the one essence, related to the other two and distinguished from them by properties that cannot be transferred; and when God is named without qualification, the name belongs no less to the Son and the Spirit than to the Father. ⓓ Calvin rejects Tertullian's description of the persons as an economy in God, since any arrangement within God would alter the unity of the essence.

Answer: ⓒ. (S2 a subsistence in the Divine essence,—a subsistence which, while related to the other two, is distinguished from them by incommunicable properties; S8 the name belongs not less to the Son and Spirit than to the Father.)

출제 의도. Four options, four failure modes. - ⓐ is the Sabellian direction-flip on S3. By subsistence we wish something else to be understood **than** essence — the definition exists to deny that they are the same. An option that makes person a name for the essence has read else … than as else … as (Problem ①, ⓓ) and abolished the special mark of S6. - ⓑ is the tritheist over-reach on S4, and it catches the student who stops reading at S4. with God does force a distinction — but S6 fences it at once: connected with the essence by an indissoluble tie, being incapable of separation. Distinct, not separable. Any option with separated or separable in it is false to S6. - ⓒ is true, and note it needs both halves: the three-part definition (S2) and the equality of the bare name (S8). Drop S8 and you have left the door open to Arius; drop S2's distinguished and you have left it open to Sabellius. - ⓓ is the direction-flip on S11. I have **no objections** to adopt the definition of Tertullian, **provided** it is properly understood — and the definition itself says the economy **makes no change** on the unity of essence. ⓓ has reversed both the verdict (rejects) and the content (would alter). ⚠️ Yesterday's rule: the provided fences, it does not refuse.

③ Composition — apply Formulas 1, 2 and 3

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

"성령이라는 말로 나는 신적 본질 안에 있는 한 실재를 뜻한다 — 성부·성자와 관계되면서도 자기 고유의 특성으로 그들과 구별되는 실재. 만일 성령이 단순히 하나님이시고 자기에게 고유한 것이 없으시다면, 바울은 성령이 하나님의 깊은 것을 통달하신다고 바르게 말할 수 없었을 것이다. 여기서 저 구별이 생겨난다. 그리고 각 위격에 고유한 것은 무엇이든 나는 전달 불가능하다고 단언한다."

Model answer:

By Spirit, then, I mean a subsistence in the Divine essence,—a subsistence which, while related to the Father and the Son, is distinguished from them by a property peculiar to himself. For if the Spirit were God simply and had not some property peculiar to himself, Paul could not have said correctly that the Spirit searcheth the deep things of God. Hence arises that distinction. And whatever is proper to each I affirm to be incommunicable.

출제 의도 및 채점 기준. Six things are being checked. 1. Formula 1, Frame A — By X, then, I mean Y,—a Y which…. **By** Spirit, then, **I mean** a subsistence…, **—a subsistence which**. ⚠️ The restated antecedent is the mark of the frame; a subsistence in the Divine essence which… is grammatical and forfeits the point (and risks attaching the relative to essence). while related to must be kept — it carries the concessive-simultaneous sense. 2. Formula 2 — if S were … and had not …, S could not have V-ed correctly that …. **if** the Spirit **were** God simply **and had not** some property…, Paul **could not have said** correctly. ⚠️ Three checks: were (not was, not had been); had not (parallel past subjunctive); could not have said (past-unreal apodosis — not could not say). And correctly after the verb, scoping over the assertion. 3. Formula 3(a) — hence arises X. **Hence arises** that distinction. ⚠️ Verb before subject; Hence that distinction arises is acceptable but loses the Beveridge mark. 4. Formula 3(b) — fronted object + accusative-infinitive. **whatever is proper to each** I **affirm to be** incommunicable. ⚠️ One finite verb (affirm); whatever… is the object, fronted; to be retained (I affirm whatever is proper to each incommunicable is not the frame). 5. Vocabulary control. subsistence (not substance — yesterday's fault line), Divine essence, peculiar, simply (= absolutely), proper to, incommunicable, searcheth the deep things of God (1 Cor. 2:10, KJV form). ⚠️ Person may replace Spirit only in the frame slot; the definiens must say subsistence. 6. Argumentative accuracy — heaviest. The proof-sentence must argue from a predicate that requires distinction (searcheth the deep things of God — the Spirit searching God, as the Word was with God), not from a predicate of unity; the Hence must draw the distinction, not the essence; and the last sentence must say incommunicable of the proper, not of the essence. ⚠️ Write whatever belongs to the Spirit I affirm to be incommunicable without proper to and you have written option ⓑ's tritheism in another key.

One-line summary. To say nothing more of words, Calvin turns to the thing signified (S1) and defines it: By person, then, I mean a subsistence in the Divine essence,—a subsistence which, while related to the other two, is distinguished from them by incommunicable properties (S2) — then glosses the three parts in order: subsistence is something else … than essence (S3), because if the Word were God simply and had not some property peculiar to himself, John could not have said correctly that he had always been **with** God (S4), while the Word **was** God … calls us back to the one essence (S5), so that from the Word's dwelling in the Father hence arises that subsistence, connected with the essence by an indissoluble tie … yet bearing a special mark (S6); related means that each of the three subsistences while related to the others is distinguished by its own properties (S7), the name God said simply and indefinitely belonging not less to the Son and Spirit than to the Father (S8), the peculiar property of each distinguishing only whenever the Father is compared with the Son (S9); and incommunicable means that whatever is proper to each I affirm to be incommunicable, since nothing attributed to the Father as a mark of distinction can transfer to the Son (S10) — all of which Tertullian's arrangement or economy, which makes no change on the unity of essence may name, **provided** it is properly understood (S11). One essence, three standings, each marked by what it alone has.

And the three grammar points, once more. ① The definitional frame — **By** person, then, **I mean** a subsistence…, **—a subsistence which**… (S2) and **By** subsistence we **wish** something else **to be understood than** essence (S3): definiendum in the by-phrase, definiens as object; else … than = other than; restate the genus to pin the relative. ② The mixed counterfactual — if the Word **were** God simply and **had not** …, John **could not have said** correctly… (S4): timeless condition, dated consequence; do not match the tenses; correctly scopes the saying. ③ Fronting for weight — **hence arises** that subsistence, which, **though** …, **being** …, **yet has**… (S6) and **whatever is proper to each** I **affirm to be** incommunicable (S10): inversion after hence; fronted object + accusative-infinitive; the finite verb of the relative is the one after yet. Plus five things to keep: simply = absolutely, indefinitely = without a qualifier, property = what is one's own, incommunicable = unshareable, economy = οἰκονομία; distinct, not separable (S3 + S6); not less … than = equally (S8); the as a mark of distinction fence (S10); and provided on Tertullian (S11).

Homework (10 minutes).

1. Structure restoration. Take S6 and lay it out on five lines: the because-clause (with not … without restored as only by); hence arises that subsistence restored to subject–verb order; the though-concession with it is restored; the being-aside; and the yet-predicate with its by which relative and the final it replaced by its antecedent. Then say aloud which of the two heresies of §4 each half of the relative clause excludes. (Target for the last line: yet [that subsistence] has a special mark by which it is distinguished from [the essence].)
2. Composition. One sentence, English, containing (a) a By X I mean Y,—a Y which… frame and (b) a mixed counterfactual if S were … S could not have V-ed. 성자라는 말로 나는 아버지에게서 나신 한 실재를 뜻한다 — 아버지와 관계되면서도 그 나심으로 구별되는 실재; 만일 그가 단순히 하나님이시라면, 요한은 그가 아버지의 품 속에 계시다고 말할 수 없었을 것이다. (Target shape: By Son I mean a subsistence begotten of the Father,—a subsistence which, while related to the Father, is distinguished from him by that begetting; for if he were God simply, John could not have said that he is in the bosom of the Father.)
3. Preview — §7, one line. Tomorrow the proofs begin, and Calvin tells you the order of the next nine sections in his first sentence: **Before proceeding farther, it will be necessary to prove the divinity of the Son and the Holy Spirit. Thereafter, we shall see how they differ from each other.** — unity first, then distinction. ⚠️ Watch three things. (i) it **were** certainly most absurd to imagine — the sixth were in six days, back in the would be sense of Day 76. (ii) The Word is not a fleeting and evanescent voice, which is sent out into the air — the anti-Arian reading of Word as eternal wisdom, ever dwelling with God (today's dwelling, S6, now in Prov. 8). (iii) the inference is irresistible, that the Word was truly God — from 1 Peter 1:11 (the Spirit of Christ in the prophets) to the Word's eternity: an argument from whose Spirit to what Word. Today he defined the person. Tomorrow he proves the persons are God.

Where we stopped: Book 1, Ch. 13, §6 끝. 다음은 Book 1, Ch. 13, §7 — "Proofs of the eternal Deity of the Son. The Son the λόγος of the Eternal Father, and, therefore, the Son Eternal God. Objection. Reply."