Day 91 — Book 1, Chapter 13, §17

Yesterday we heard the witnesses. Today we hear the church. But, **as I observed**, the best proof to us is our **familiar experience**. ⚠️ Where did he observe it? Two days ago — our §15, the last lines: This practical knowledge is doubtless surer and more solid than any idle speculation. For the pious soul has the best view of God, and may almost be said to handle him, when it feels that it is quickened, enlightened, saved, justified, and sanctified by him. That was the Son. Today Calvin runs the identical move on the Spirit: proof texts first (Day 90), then experience (today). That is the same sources from yesterday's S1 being honoured to the letter. And look at the verbs he recycles: feel, quickening, justification, sanctification. Same vocabulary, new Person. Put the two paragraphs side by side and you are looking at a template.

Second — the clincher is one tiny phrase, and it is the best argument in the paragraph. 1 Corinthians 12:11 — the Spirit divides gifts to every man severally **as he will**. ⚠️⚠️ Three words. As he will. A power does not will. An energy does not will. A quality does not will. Only a subsisting someone wills. So the whole section funnels down into S11: For were he not something subsisting in God, will and arbitrary disposal would never be ascribed to him. Everything before it proves the Spirit is divine; S10–S12 prove he is not merely a divine force. Two different claims. Keep them apart.

Third — the trap of the day, and I warned you about it yesterday. S5: he is the author of regeneration, **not by a borrowed, but by an intrinsic energy**. ⚠️⚠️⚠️ That is not A, but B — the FIRST LIMB IS DENIED. Yesterday's S2 was not only that A, but that B — BOTH LIMBS STOOD. And in the very same sentence, five words later, Calvin writes and **not only so**, but that he is also the author of future immortality — which keeps both. One sentence, two not … but machines, opposite logic. If you do not slow down here, you will lose this item.

Today's 3 Big Points

1. Possessive + gerund, three times, with negation. **his being diffused** over all space / **his not being circumscribed** by any limits / **his transfusing** vigour into all things. ⚠️ ① The possessive (his) is the subject of the gerund. ② The gerund phrase is a noun — it can be the object of of (the mere fact of his not being…) or the subject of a verb (his transfusing vigour … **is** plainly divine, singular). ③ ⚠️ Negating a gerund: not goes immediately before the gerund — his NOT being circumscribed, never his being not circumscribed in standard usage. Formula 1.
2. not by A, but by B (A denied) vs. not only so, but that… (A kept) — in one sentence. not by **a borrowed**, but by **an intrinsic** energy — ⚠️ also noun ellipsis: a borrowed [energy], the noun supplied from the second limb (backward ellipsis — the adjective is stranded and waits for its noun). Plus the day's fixed partner: nothing can be **more alien from** a creature, **than** … = negative comparative = superlative. Formula 2.
3. The subjunctive inversion and the possessive relative. For **were he not** something subsisting in God, will and arbitrary disposal **would never be** ascribed to him. = If he were not… — if deleted, were fronted (Day 7 gave you the pluperfect cousin Had + S + p.p.). And what must be thought of him **by whose energy** it is produced? — preposition + whose + noun, the relative moves as a whole block. Formula 3.

But, as I observed, the best proof to us is our familiar experience. For nothing can be more alien from a creature, than the office which the Scriptures ascribe to him, and which the pious actually feel him discharging,—his being diffused over all space, sustaining, invigorating, and quickening all things, both in heaven and on the earth. The mere fact of his not being circumscribed by any limits raises him above the rank of creatures, while his transfusing vigour into all things, breathing into them being, life, and motion, is plainly divine. Again, if regeneration to incorruptible life is higher, and much more excellent than any present quickening, what must be thought of him by whose energy it is produced? Now, many passages of Scripture show that he is the author of regeneration, not by a borrowed, but by an intrinsic energy; and not only so, but that he is also the author of future immortality. In short, all the peculiar attributes of the Godhead are ascribed to him in the same way as to the Son. He searches the deep things of Gods and has no counsellor among the creatures; he bestows wisdom and the faculty of speech, though God declares to Moses (Exod. 4:11) that this is his own peculiar province. In like manner, by means of him we become partakers of the divine nature, so as in a manner to feel his quickening energy within us. Our justification is his work; from him is power, sanctification, truth, grace, and every good thought, since it is from the Spirit alone that all good gifts proceed. Particular attention is due to Paul’s expression, that though there are diversities of gifts, “all these worketh that one and the self-same Spirit,” (1 Cor. 12:11), he being not only the beginning or origin, but also the author; as is even more clearly expressed immediately after in these words “dividing to every man severally as he will.” For were he not something subsisting in God, will and arbitrary disposal would never be ascribed to him. Most clearly, therefore does Paul ascribe divine power to the Spirit, and demonstrate that he dwells hypostatically in God.

Sentence count: 12 (S1–S12). One paragraph, four movements: the switch from texts to experience (S1) · the cosmic office — omnipresence and life-giving, beyond any creature (S2–S3) · the redemptive office — regeneration, immortality, and the full list of divine attributes "in the same way as to the Son" (S4–S9) · the clincher from 1 Cor 12:11 — "as he will" proves a subsisting Person, not a force (S10–S12).

⚠️ Yesterday: 4 sentences. Today: 12. The star budget is back to normal — six ★★★ today, and we will spend them.

Text note (not a correction to the quotation). Seven features of the printed page, all handled as follows. (i) ⚠️⚠️ Printer's error, quoted exactly as printed: He searches the deep things of **Gods** (source line 5478). 1 Corinthians 2:10 reads the deep things of God; the Latin is profunda Dei. The printed Gods is almost certainly a dropped apostrophe or a stray s. We quote it character-for-character and do not silently correct it. ⚠️ Do not read a plural gods into it — nothing in the Latin, the Greek (τὰ βάθη τοῦ θεοῦ), or the argument supports that. (ii) Four hyphen seams rejoined (line-break hyphenation only, not part of the words): invig-|orating → invigorating · di-|vine → divine · immor-|tality → immortality · be-|come → become. ⚠️ Contrast yesterday: zero seams. (iii) Marginal number 123 removed — it sits at the right edge after though God declares to Moses (line 5479). It is a page-reference to the Latin edition, not part of the prose. (iv) ⚠️ Page break in mid-sentence (S11): page number 127, a form feed, and the two-line running header (CHAPTER 13. - THE UNITY OF THE DIVINE ESSENCE … / IN…) fall between will and and arbitrary disposal. All stripped; the sentence reads straight through: will and arbitrary disposal. (v) Footnote marker 43 removed, printed against also the author;. Its text: The French adds, "Sainct Paul n'eust jamais ainsi parlé, s'il n'eust cognu la vraie Divinté du Sainct Esprit"—St Paul would never have so spoken, if he had not known the divinity of the Holy Spirit. ⚠️ (The French Divinté is itself a misprint for Divinité in the footnote — noted, not ours.) ⚠️ Footnote 42 (the French note on yesterday's confused mass) is printed on this same page, but it belongs to Day 90 and has nothing to do with today's text. (vi) Punctuation kept as printed: discharging,—his being diffused (comma + em dash, 19th-century double pointing); alien from a creature, than (comma before than — heavy old punctuation, not a mistake); Spirit,” (1 Cor. 12:11), he being (comma inside the quotation mark again); and ⚠️ Most clearly, therefore does Paul — no comma after therefore. Kept. (vii) ⚠️ Section numbering. Our §17 = Beveridge printed §14, second paragraph (source lines 5467–5502). The printed marker 15. follows immediately after today's last sentence. Our labels still run ahead of the printed numbers. BH's decision remains open (A: keep our labels / B: re-map SCHEDULE.md). Reading order is unbroken.

                 ─── I. THE SWITCH: TEXTS → EXPERIENCE (S1) ───
[BACK-REF]       S1    "BUT, AS I OBSERVED, the best proof TO US is our
                        FAMILIAR EXPERIENCE"
                        ⚠ "as I observed" → our §15 close (the Son): same move
                 ─── II. THE COSMIC OFFICE (S2–S3) ───
[SUPERLATIVE]    S2    "NOTHING can be MORE ALIEN FROM a creature THAN the office…"
                        —HIS BEING DIFFUSED over all space, sustaining,
                        invigorating, quickening all things
[IMMENSITY]      S3a   "the mere fact of HIS NOT BEING CIRCUMSCRIBED" → above creatures
[LIFE-GIVING]    S3b   "WHILE his TRANSFUSING vigour … IS plainly divine"
                 ─── III. THE REDEMPTIVE OFFICE + ATTRIBUTES (S4–S9) ───
[RESET #4]       S4    "AGAIN, if regeneration > present quickening,
                        WHAT MUST BE THOUGHT OF HIM BY WHOSE ENERGY it is produced?"
                        ⚠ a fortiori, rhetorical question
[⚠⚠ TRAP]        S5    author of regeneration "NOT BY A BORROWED, BUT BY AN
                        INTRINSIC energy"  ← A DENIED
                        "AND NOT ONLY SO, BUT THAT … future immortality" ← A KEPT
[SUMMARY]        S6    "IN SHORT, ALL the PECULIAR attributes … IN THE SAME WAY
                        AS TO THE SON"   ← cashes Day 90's "the same sources"
[LIST]           S7–S9 searches depths · no counsellor · wisdom & speech (Exod 4:11)
                        · partakers of divine nature · justification · power …
                 ─── IV. THE CLINCHER: A WILL (S10–S12) ───
[TEXT]           S10   1 Cor 12:11 "ALL THESE WORKETH THAT ONE … SPIRIT"
                        ⚠ OVS order: "all these" = OBJECT
                        "he being NOT ONLY the beginning … BUT ALSO the author"
                        "dividing to every man severally AS HE WILL"
[INFERENCE]      S11   "WERE HE NOT something SUBSISTING in God, WILL and
                        ARBITRARY DISPOSAL would never be ascribed to him"
[SEAL]           S12   "MOST CLEARLY, therefore DOES PAUL ascribe … and
                        demonstrate that he DWELLS HYPOSTATICALLY in God"

The spine in one line: experience testifies → he fills all and gives all life — no creature could → he regenerates by his own power, bears every divine attribute as the Son does → and he gives "as he will": a will means a subsisting Person in God.

Examiner's Eye. ⚠️⚠️⚠️ Four traps. (1) not by a borrowed, but by an intrinsic energy (S5). Any option that says the Spirit regenerates by power received from the Father has flipped the direction — that is precisely the limb Calvin denies. ⚠️ And any option that treats it like yesterday's not only … but (both true) is the same error in a different coat. (2) all these worketh that one and the self-same Spirit (S10). ⚠️⚠️ Subject = that one and the self-same Spirit. Object = all these (the gifts). Any option in which the gifts work the Spirit, or the gifts work together as one Spirit, has read KJV word order as modern word order. (3) he being not only the beginning or origin, but also the author (S10). The point is not that the Spirit is merely the source the gifts flow out of (which could be said of a channel) — it is that he is the author, the one who acts. An option that stops at origin has under-read; the whole argument is in but also. (4) arbitrary disposal (S11). ⚠️⚠️ TRAP WORD. Arbitrary = by free decision (arbitrium), not random or capricious. Any option paraphrasing S11 as the Spirit acts unpredictably has swapped a 16th-century technical term for a 21st-century insult.

Formula 1 — Possessive + gerund (and its negation)

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  [POSSESSIVE] + (NOT) + V-ing / being p.p.  …   =  a NOUN phrase     │
│                                                                       │
│  his being diffused over all space            (passive gerund)        │
│  the mere fact of his NOT being circumscribed  (negated; after "of")  │
│  his transfusing vigour into all things IS…    (active, with object;  │
│                                                  subject → SINGULAR)  │
│                                                                       │
│  ① possessive = the gerund's SUBJECT ("he is diffused")              │
│  ② NOT goes directly BEFORE the gerund: his NOT being …              │
│        ✗ his being not circumscribed                                  │
│  ③ gerund-phrase subject takes a SINGULAR verb, however many         │
│     plural nouns stand next to the verb                               │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

⚠️ Trap. his transfusing vigour into all things, breathing into them being, life, and motion, **is** plainly divine — are is wrong. The subject is the gerund phrase.

Transformation drill. Rewrite with a negated possessive gerund: The Son was not made. This fact alone proves him eternal.

Model: The mere fact of his not being made proves him eternal.

Formula 2 — not by A, but by B (A denied) vs. not only …, but … (A kept) · + nothing … more … than

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  not by A, but by B            → A ✗   B ✓    (correction)           │
│  not A, but B / not that A, but that B  → A ✗                        │
│  not only A, but (also) B      → A ✓   B ✓    (addition)             │
│  not only so, but that B       → (the preceding) ✓   B ✓             │
│                                                                       │
│  ★ KEY: look for ONLY.  ONLY present → A stands.  Absent → A falls. │
│                                                                       │
│  Backward noun ellipsis:  not by a borrowed [___], but by an          │
│                           intrinsic ENERGY                            │
│                                                                       │
│  Companion:  NOTHING can be MORE [ADJ] (from/to) X THAN Y            │
│              = Y is the MOST [ADJ] of all                             │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

⚠️ Trap. Two not … but machines inside S5, opposite logic. Paraphrasing both as X and Y loses the denial; paraphrasing both as Y, not X loses the addition.

Transformation drill. One sentence: the Son forgives sins by his own authority, not a delegated one; moreover he will raise the dead.

Model: Scripture shows that he forgives sins, not by a delegated, but by an inherent authority; and not only so, but that he will also raise the dead.

Formula 3 — Were + S + (not) …, S + would … · PREP + whose + N

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  (a)  IF + S + were (not) …   →   WERE + S + (NOT) …, S would …      │
│       Were he not something subsisting in God,                       │
│       will … would never be ascribed to him.                          │
│       ✓ only WERE / HAD / SHOULD invert this way                     │
│       ✗ Weren't he …   ✗ If were he not …                            │
│                                                                       │
│  (b)  N + [ PREP + whose + N ] + clause                               │
│       him  by whose energy  it is produced                            │
│       = it is produced by HIS energy                                  │
│       ✓ the preposition travels WITH "whose N" (pied-piping)         │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

⚠️ Trap. If were he not … double-marks the condition. Delete if when you invert — that is the whole point of inverting.

Transformation drill. Combine: If the Son were not God, we could not rightly pray to him. He is the one by whose intercession we are heard.

Model: Were the Son not God, prayer could never rightly be directed to him — to him by whose intercession we are heard.

Where we are. Our §§16–20 are Calvin's compact case for the Spirit's deity. Day 90 called two Old Testament witnesses. Today supplies the two things the Son's case also had: experience (S1–S3, S8–S9) and the inherent-vs-derived test (S5). Then it adds something the Son's case did not need to spell out — will, and therefore subsistence (S10–S12). ⚠️ Why add it? Because the typical way to deny the Spirit is not to call him a creature but to call him a power of God — something God has rather than someone God is. Calvin's opponent in this chapter is Servetus, who treated the Spirit much this way. S11 is aimed straight at that.

The experience turn. ⚠️ Guardrail: the best proof **to us** is not experientialism. Calvin's ground of doctrine is Scripture — the very next sentence (S2) pairs the Scriptures ascribe with the pious actually feel, and the experience confirms what Scripture ascribes. This is the same shape as his doctrine of the Spirit's inner witness to Scripture (I.7): the Spirit who authored the text also convinces the reader. Experience is not a second source competing with the text; it is the text landing.

The immensity argument (S2–S3). Very old, and used for exactly this purpose. Athanasius, in his Letters to Serapion (c. 359–360), argues that creatures are in places but the Spirit fills all things, so the Spirit is not a creature. Basil's On the Holy Spirit (c. 375) uses the Spirit's omnipresence the same way. Calvin is standing in the fourth-century pneumatological tradition, not inventing. ⚠️ Guardrail: the argument's premise is that any creature is bounded. Calvin holds that even angels are circumscribed — a point he makes against the ubiquity of Christ's human body in the Supper debates (Book IV). Don't import the eucharistic debate here; just note that "circumscribed" is a live technical term for him.

partakers of the divine nature (S8) and the hedge. ⚠️ Here is why in a manner matters so much. Calvin fought Andreas Osiander, who taught that believers are justified by an infusion of Christ's essential divine righteousness. Calvin rejects any essential mixing of God and the believer (III.11.5–12), and in his commentary on 2 Peter 1:4 he says that "nature" there refers to quality, not essence. So in a manner to feel his quickening energy is precise: we feel his working; we do not become his substance. ⚠️ Over-read to avoid: Calvin as a teacher of theosis in the Eastern sense. Scholars debate how close he comes; this sentence alone does not settle it.

Our justification is his work (S9). ⚠️ Careful. Calvin does not mean the Spirit justifies by an inner renewal that makes us righteous. In Book III justification is God's forensic verdict on account of Christ's righteousness; the Spirit's role is to unite us to Christ, so that what is Christ's becomes ours (III.1.1). 1 Cor 6:11 (justified … by the Spirit of our God) is the text behind it. Don't let S9 blur the line Book III draws.

hypostatically (S12). Calvin defined his terms at the chapter's start: a person = a subsistence in God's essence, related to the others yet distinguished by an incommunicable property (I.13.6). dwells hypostatically in God = the Spirit is such a subsistence. ⚠️ Guardrail: this is about subsisting, not about procession. The filioque question is not in this paragraph.

Reception. John Owen's Pneumatologia (1674) builds much of its case for the Spirit's personhood on the same argument from will — 1 Cor 12:11 is a centrepiece. The modern debate over whether the Spirit is "personal" (e.g. in some liberal theology that reads the Spirit as God's presence/power) is exactly the question S11 answers. ⚠️ Guardrail: Calvin is not arguing about personhood in the modern psychological sense (a centre of consciousness). Subsistence is the older ontological category.

The one-line takeaway. ⚠️ §17 has two conclusions, not one: the Spirit is God (he does what only God does, by his own power), and the Spirit is someone in God (he wills).

1. Psalm 139:7 — behind S2–S3 (his being diffused over all space … not being circumscribed). Whither shall I go from thy spirit? ⚠️ The classic omnipresence text, and it names the Spirit. How Calvin uses it: as unstated premise — the Spirit is where everything is.
2. Job 33:4 / Psalm 104:29–30 — behind S2–S3 (sustaining, invigorating, and quickening … breathing into them being, life). The spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life. ⚠️ Heb. רוּחַ = both spirit and breath — that is why Calvin can say breathing into them. How Calvin uses it: the continuation of Day 90's Genesis 1:2.
3. Acts 17:28 — echo in S3 (being, life, and motion). For in him we live, and move, and have our being. ⚠️ Calvin reorders the triad and puts being first — existence, then life, then movement: the order of dependence. How Calvin uses it: a Pauline phrase about God, quietly applied to the Spirit's work.
4. John 3:5–6; Titus 3:5 — behind S4–S5 (regeneration … not by a borrowed, but by an intrinsic energy). Born of water and of the Spirit / the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost. Gk. παλιγγενεσία (Titus 3:5) = birth again. How Calvin uses it: as the "many passages" of S5.
5. Romans 8:11 — behind S5b (the author of future immortality). He … shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you. ⚠️ quicken + dwelleth — the same two words that frame today's paragraph (S2 quickening, S12 dwells). How Calvin uses it: the Spirit authors the resurrection life.
6. 1 Corinthians 2:10 — S7 (He searches the deep things of Gods). Gk. τὸ γὰρ πνεῦμα πάντα ἐραυνᾷ, καὶ τὰ βάθη τοῦ θεοῦ. How Calvin uses it: only God knows God's depths (2:11) — so the Searcher is inside.
7. Isaiah 40:13 (cf. Rom 11:34) — S7 (has no counsellor among the creatures). Who hath directed the Spirit of the LORD, or being his counsellor hath taught him? ⚠️ The Hebrew text names רוּחַ יְהוָה — the verse is about the Spirit. How Calvin uses it: a creature always has someone above to learn from; the Spirit has none.
8. Exodus 4:11 — S7, cited (though God declares to Moses … his own peculiar province). Who hath made man's mouth? … have not I the LORD? How Calvin uses it: God claims speech as his; the Spirit gives speech (Matt 10:20; Acts 2:4) — so the Spirit is inside God's province.
9. 2 Peter 1:4 — S8 (partakers of the divine nature). Gk. θείας κοινωνοὶ φύσεως. ⚠️ Hedged at once with in a manner (Period 6).
10. 1 Corinthians 6:11 — S9 (Our justification is his work). But ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God. How Calvin uses it: as the Spirit's share in applying justification — not as infused righteousness.
11. James 1:17 — echo in S9 (all good gifts proceed). Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above. How Calvin uses it: what James says of the Father, Calvin predicates of the Spirit — the same-sources move again.
12. 1 Corinthians 12:4, 11 — S10, cited (diversities of gifts / all these worketh that one and the self-same Spirit … dividing to every man severally as he will). Gk. πάντα δὲ ταῦτα ἐνεργεῖ τὸ ἓν καὶ τὸ αὐτὸ πνεῦμα, διαιροῦν ἰδίᾳ ἑκάστῳ καθὼς βούλεται. ⚠️ ἐνεργεῖ — the root of S4's energy; βούλεται — deliberate willing. How Calvin uses it: the pivot of the whole section — energy shows divinity, will shows subsistence.

① 어법 — 밑줄 넷 중 어색한 것 하나

Nothing can be more alien from a creature than (A) his being diffused over all space, and the mere fact of (B) his not being circumscribed by any limits raises him above the rank of creatures. Scripture shows that he is the author of regeneration, (C) not by a borrowed, but by an intrinsic energy. (D) For if were he not something subsisting in God, will and arbitrary disposal would never be ascribed to him.

✨ 답안 보기 (클릭)정답: (D).

출제 의도. ⚠️ Formula 3(a) tested by double-marking. Inverting were replaces if; you cannot have both. Correct: For were he not … or For if he were not …. ⚠️ The trap is that each half looks familiar — if is normal, were he not is today's text — and the combination looks "extra formal." It is simply ungrammatical. Why the others are sound. (A) possessive + passive gerund — Formula 1. (B) not immediately before the gerund — correct placement. (C) backward noun ellipsis (a borrowed [energy]) — ⚠️ looks broken, is perfectly grammatical. That is the "feels wrong, is right" option every good item carries.

② 내용일치 — 다음 중 §17의 내용과 일치하는 것은?

(1) Calvin says the Spirit regenerates believers by a power that he receives from the Father. (2) Calvin says that because believers are partakers of the divine nature, they come to share God's very essence. (3) Calvin reads Paul's words "as he will" as showing that the Spirit is not a mere power but subsists in God, since will is ascribed to him. (4) Calvin says the Spirit is the origin of the gifts but not their author, since the gifts are worked by God alone.

✨ 답안 보기 (클릭)정답: (3).

출제 의도. (1) is the direction-flip trap. not by a borrowed, but by an intrinsic energy — the borrowed option is the one Calvin denies. ⚠️ Built to catch anyone who carried Day 90's "both limbs stand" into today. (2) is the scope-overreach trap. partakers of the divine nature is hedged at once: so as **in a manner** to feel his quickening energy. Essence-sharing is exactly what the hedge excludes. (4) is a double error. It flips not only the beginning or origin, **but also** the author into origin but not author, and it misreads all these worketh that one and the self-same Spirit — the text says the Spirit works the gifts. (3) reproduces S10–S11 correctly: as he will → will ascribed → were he not something subsisting in God ….

③ 영작 — 다음을 오늘의 공식을 적용해 영어로

피조물에게 성령의 직무만큼 낯선 것은 없다. 그가 어떤 한계에도 갇히지 않는다는 사실만으로도 그를 피조물의 반열 위로 올린다. 그는 빌린 능력이 아니라 고유한 능력으로 중생을 일으킨다. 만일 그가 하나님 안에 존속하는 분이 아니라면, 의지는 결코 그에게 돌려지지 않을 것이다.

Model answer:

Nothing can be more alien from a creature than the office of the Spirit. The mere fact of his not being circumscribed by any limits raises him above the rank of creatures. He produces regeneration, not by a borrowed, but by an intrinsic energy. Were he not something subsisting in God, will would never be ascribed to him.

출제 의도. Four checks. ① Nothing can be more … than — negative comparative for "~만큼 …한 것은 없다". ⚠️ The Spirit's office is very alien scores nothing. ② Formula 1 with negation — his **not** being circumscribed, after the mere fact of, singular raises. ③ Formula 2 — not by a borrowed, but by an intrinsic energy, with the backward ellipsis kept. ⚠️ not by borrowed energy but by intrinsic energy is acceptable English but does not demonstrate the construction. ④ Formula 3(a) — Were he not …, no if, with would never in the main clause.

One-line summary. Having heard the texts, Calvin turns — as I observed of the Son in our §15 — to our familiar experience: the Spirit's office of filling and quickening all things is the thing most alien from a creature; his not being circumscribed lifts him above creatures; he regenerates not by a borrowed, but by an intrinsic energy, and not only so but authors immortality; all God's peculiar attributes are his in the same way as to the Son; and because Paul says he distributes gifts as he will, he must be something subsisting in God — so Paul ascribes divine power to the Spirit and shows that he dwells hypostatically in God.**

The three grammar points, once more. ① Possessive + gerund — his being diffused / his **not** being circumscribed / his transfusing vigour … **is** (negation right before the gerund; gerund subject = singular). ② not by A, but by B kills A; not only (so), but … keeps A — look for only; plus backward ellipsis a borrowed [___], but … an intrinsic energy and nothing … more … than = superlative. ③ Were he not …, … would never … — if gone, were fronted; and by whose energy — preposition travels with whose.

And the structural fact you now own: ⚠️ four Agains, Days 88–91, and the fourth one sits mid-paragraph — still a RESET. Plus a new reading key: in KJV quotations, let verb agreement tell you the subject (all these worketh … the Spirit).

Homework (10 minutes).

1. Structure restoration (4 min). Take S5 and rewrite it as two separate sentences, one for each not … but machine. Under each, write ✗/✓ for the first limb. Then add one line: which word decides it? (Answer in one word.)
2. Composition (4 min). Write one sentence using Formula 3(a) (Were … not …, … would never …) on the Son: if he were not God, he could not be the object of our faith (John 14:1). Check: no if, no contraction, would in the main clause.
3. Preview (2 min). ⚠️ Tomorrow is printed §15, and it opens on a negative inversion: **Nor does the Scripture**, in speaking of him, **withhold the name of God**. Three things to expect. (a) Nor does … — negative-initial inversion, the cousin of today's Most clearly … does Paul. (b) The naming argument — row ① of Day 90's toolkit — finally applied to the Spirit: the temple of God = the temple of the Spirit (1 Cor 3:16; 6:19). (c) Augustine returns (Ad Maximinum), and Ananias (Acts 5:3–4): lied to the Holy Ghost = lied unto God. Today proved he is God by what he does; tomorrow proves it by what he is called.

Where we stopped: Book 1, Ch. 13, §17 끝. 다음은 Book 1, Ch. 13, §18 (= Beveridge 인쇄 §15, 성령의 신성 — 신명 논증: Nor does the Scripture, in speaking of him, withhold the name of God.).