Day 94 — Book 1, Chapter 13, §20

Yesterday: ONE. One baptism, one faith, one God, one name. Today Calvin swings the camera 180 degrees. On the other hand — three words, and the chapter changes direction. For five sections he fought people who shrank God's essence. Now he fights the people who collapse God's Persons. Two cliffs, one narrow ridge: fall left, you get three gods; fall right, you get one God wearing three masks. Today's section walks the ridge — and names both cliffs in two consecutive sentences (S4, S5).

Second — the most quoted sentence in the whole chapter is in GREEK, and it's broken. Gregory of Nazianzus, 4th century: “I cannot think of the unity without being irradiated by the Trinity: I cannot distinguish between the Trinity without being carried up to the unity.” ⚠️⚠️ cannot … without V-ing — two negatives. Two negatives = one iron-clad positive: EVERY time I think the One, the Three shine round me. Students translate it as "I can't think about it" — a statement of incapacity. Wrong. It is a statement of inseparability. And the Greek behind it (οὐ φθάνω … καί) is the ancestor of Day 27's no sooner … than. Formula 1.

Third — the killer phrase is four words long. distinction only, not division. ⚠️⚠️⚠️ Memorise it. It answers Day 93's last word (he is not divided) and it is the hinge of all Western Trinitarian grammar since Tertullian. Distinction = you can tell them apart. Division = you can cut them apart. Calvin says YES to the first and NO to the second — in the same breath. Then S7–S15 prove the YES from John's Gospel, using cleft sentences that are built like court exhibits: it was NOT the Father that descended …, BUT he who came forth. Formula 2.

Today's 3 Big Points

1. The inseparability double negative: cannot A without B-ing · could not have been … unless he were · not allowing us to suppose. ⚠️ Two negatives lock two ideas together: whenever A, then B / A only if B. Read them as "incapacity" or "prohibition" and you have lost the argument. (S3, S5, S7, S10.) Formula 1.
2. Cleft + negative inversion: it was not the Father that descended …, but he who came forth · nor was it the Father that died … · To the same effect is it elsewhere said, that … · nor but for this could he have had …. ⚠️ Negative or adverbial element fronted → auxiliary jumps before the subject. And in the cleft, he who = the one who = the Son — not a pronoun for the Father. (S7, S9, S11.) Formula 2.
3. The necessary-condition argument (counterfactual): could not have been with God unless he were distinct · This could not be, if he were not … distinct · but for this. ⚠️ Calvin's whole proof method today: X is true in Scripture; X would be impossible without distinction; therefore distinction. Know the three verb shapes: could not have p.p. … unless S were, could not be … if S were not, but for this could S have p.p. Formula 3.

On the other hand, the Scriptures demonstrate that there is some distinction between the Father and the Word, the Word and the Spirit; but the magnitude of the mystery reminds us of the great reverence and soberness which ought to he employed in discussing it. It seems to me, that nothing can be more admirable than the words of Gregory Nanzianzen: “ Ου φθα νω το ε ι νοη σαι, και τοι ς τρισι περιλα μπομαι ου φθα νω τα τρι α διελει ν και ει ς το ε ν α ναφε ρομαι” (Greg. Nanzian. in Serm. de Sacro Baptis.). “I cannot think of the unity without being irradiated by the Trinity: I cannot distinguish between the Trinity without being carried up to the unity.” Therefore, let us beware of imagining such a Trinity of persons as will distract our thoughts, instead of bringing them instantly back to the unity. The words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, certainly indicate a real distinction, not allowing us to suppose that they are merely epithets by which God is variously designated from his works. Still they indicate distinction only, not division. The passages we have already quoted show that the Son has a distinct subsistence from the Father, because the Word could not have been with God unless he were distinct from the Father; nor but for this could he have had his glory with the Father. In like manner, Christ distinguishes the Father from himself when he says that there is another who bears witness of him (John 5:32; 8:16). To the same effect is it elsewhere said, that the Father made all things by the Word. This could not be, if he were not in some respect distinct from him. Besides, it was not the Father that descended to the earth, but he who came forth from the Father; nor was it the Father that died and rose again, but he whom the Father had sent. This distinction did not take its beginning at the incarnation: for it is clear that the only begotten Son previously existed in the bosom of the Father (John 1:18). For who will dare to affirm that the Son entered his Father’s bosom for the first time, when he came down from heaven to assume human nature? Therefore, he was previously in the bosom of the Father, and had his glory with the Father. Christ intimates the distinction between the Holy Spirit and the Father, when he says that the Spirit proceedeth from the Father, and between the Holy Spirit and himself, when he speaks of him as another as he does when he declares that he will send another Comforter; and in many other passages besides (John 14:6; 15:26; 14:16).

Sentence count: 15 (S1–S15). One paragraph, four movements: the turn — distinction, and the reverence it demands (S1) · Gregory's rule and its two guard-rails — against tritheism and against modalism (S2–S6) · the Word/Son distinct from the Father — John 1:1, 5:32, 8:16, 1:3, 16:28, 1:18 (S7–S14) · the Spirit distinct from Father and Son — John 15:26, 14:16 (S15).

⚠️ Day 93: 16 sentences. Today: 15. Eight ★★★, six ★★, one ★. (PROGRESS estimated "about 16"; the Greek quotation and its English rendering are two sentences, the whole paragraph is fifteen.)

Text note (not a correction to the quotation). Eight features of the printed page, all handled as follows. (i) Section marker 17. removed at the head of the paragraph (source line 5567). (ii) ⚠️ ought to he employed (S1) — OCR/print error for be. Quoted as printed. Read: which ought to be employed. Do not copy he into your own writing. (iii) ⚠️ The Greek (S2) is printed with broken spacing and no accents — Ου φθα νω το ε ι νοη σαι … — the result of the scan losing the diacritics and leaving gaps where they stood. Quoted exactly as printed (including the space after the opening quotation mark “ Ου). The corrected Greek is given in the S2 commentary only. (iv) Gregory Nanzianzen / Nanzian. — so printed (the usual English form is Nazianzen). Quoted as printed. (v) Footnote marker 45 removed — printed unity.”45 (line 5574). Footnote 45 cites Bernard, De Consideratione V (Latin). See Period 6. (vi) Page break removed, MID-SENTENCE. Between The passages we have (line 5578) and already quoted (line 5591) the file carries: three blank lines, footnotes 44 and 45 (the text of both), page number 129, and the two-line running head (CHAPTER 13. - THE UNITY OF THE DIVINE ESSENCE IN THREE PERSONS TAUGHT, / IN…). All removed; rejoined with a single space. ⚠️ This is inside S7 — the sentence does not end at the page foot. (vii) Kept as printed: The words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, certainly indicate (comma between subject and verb — old heavy pointing); speaks of him as another as he does when (no comma between the two as-phrases — see S15); ⚠️ (John 14:6; 15:26; 14:16) — 14:6 is almost certainly a misprint for 14:26 (14:6 is I am the way; 14:26 is the Comforter … whom the Father will send). Quoted as printed; the correction is a judgment, flagged in Period 7. (viii) ⚠️ Section numbering. Our §20 = Beveridge printed §17, entire (source lines 5567–5606). The printed marker 18. follows immediately after today's last sentence. Label offset still +3. BH's decision remains open (A: keep our labels / B: re-map SCHEDULE.md). Reading order is unbroken.

                 ─── I. THE TURN (S1) ───
[HINGE]          S1    ON THE OTHER HAND: Scripture shows SOME DISTINCTION
                        Father ≠ Word, Word ≠ Spirit
                        BUT mystery's magnitude → REVERENCE + SOBERNESS
                 ─── II. THE RULE AND ITS TWO GUARD-RAILS (S2–S6) ───
[AUTHORITY]      S2    nothing MORE ADMIRABLE than Gregory (Greek)
[THE RULE]       S3    cannot think ONE without THREE shining round
                        cannot distinguish THREE without being carried up to ONE
[RAIL 1]         S4    beware a Trinity that DISTRACTS from the unity   ← tritheism
[RAIL 2]         S5    names = REAL distinction, NOT mere EPITHETS
                        from God's works                               ← modalism
[FORMULA]        S6    DISTINCTION ONLY, NOT DIVISION
                 ─── III. THE SON DISTINCT FROM THE FATHER (S7–S14) ───
[WITH]           S7    Word WITH God (Jn 1:1) → impossible UNLESS distinct
                        glory WITH the Father (Jn 17:5) → impossible BUT FOR this
[ANOTHER]        S8    "ANOTHER bears witness of me" (Jn 5:32; 8:16)
[BY]             S9    Father made all things BY the Word (Jn 1:3)
[NECESSITY]      S10   impossible IF NOT in some respect distinct
[CLEFT x2]       S11   NOT the Father descended/died, BUT he who came forth / was sent
[ETERNAL]        S12   distinction did NOT begin at incarnation — Son IN THE BOSOM (Jn 1:18)
[RHETORICAL Q]   S13   who will dare: entered the bosom FOR THE FIRST TIME?
[CONCLUSION]     S14   THEREFORE previously in the bosom, glory with the Father
                 ─── IV. THE SPIRIT DISTINCT (S15) ───
[PROCEEDS]       S15   Spirit PROCEEDETH from the Father (Jn 15:26)  → ≠ Father
                        ANOTHER Comforter (Jn 14:16)                → ≠ Son

The spine in one line: Scripture shows real distinction — handle it with reverence → Gregory's rule: the One and the Three are never thought apart → so neither three gods (S4) nor three names (S5): distinction only, not division (S6) → proof: the Word was WITH God, sent BY the Father, came forth FROM him, was IN his bosom before all time → and the Spirit proceeds FROM the Father and is ANOTHER than the Son.

Examiner's Eye. ⚠️⚠️⚠️ Five traps. (1) S1 — some distinction. ⚠️ some = a certain, a real (though not fully definable) distinction — NOT a slight, minor distinction. Any option saying Calvin grants only a small or negligible difference among the Persons is a direction flip — S5 calls it a real distinction. (2) S3 — incapacity vs. inseparability. ⚠️⚠️ I cannot think of the unity without being irradiated by the Trinity does NOT say the unity is unthinkable. It says every thought of the One is at once lit by the Three. An option saying Gregory confesses that the mind cannot conceive the divine unity reads the double negative as a single one. (3) S5 — who holds the "epithets" view? ⚠️ Calvin REJECTS it: the names certainly indicate a real distinction, not allowing us to suppose that they are merely epithets. An option saying Calvin teaches that Father, Son and Spirit are names God takes from his different works is the error he is refuting (modalism). (4) S6 — distinction ≠ division. ⚠️ Yes to distinction, no to division. Options with the Persons are divided but not distinct or neither distinct nor divided both fail. (5) S12 — when did the distinction begin? ⚠️⚠️ This distinction did not take its beginning at the incarnation. An option saying the Son became distinct from the Father when he took flesh is a direction flip; S12–S14 argue the opposite from John 1:18.

Formula 1 — Inseparability by double negation (cannot … without V-ing and friends) + such … as

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  (A) CANNOT A WITHOUT B-ing   = whenever A, (then) B                  │
│      I cannot think of the unity WITHOUT being irradiated       (S3) │
│        = every time I think of the One, the Three shine round me     │
│        ✗ "I am unable to think of the unity"  (incapacity misread)   │
│      Gk. οὐ φθάνω + inf., καί + verb  ≈  NO SOONER … THAN     (S2)  │
│                                                                       │
│  (B) NOT ALLOWING … MERELY    = forcing the opposite                  │
│      a real distinction, NOT ALLOWING us to suppose that they are    │
│      MERELY epithets                                            (S5) │
│        participle of RESULT — subject = main-clause subject          │
│                                                                       │
│  (C) SUCH + N + AS + V        = the kind of N that V                  │
│      SUCH a Trinity of persons AS will distract our thoughts   (S4) │
│        AS = relative pronoun (subject of "will distract")            │
│        TEST: swap AS → WHICH ; sentence still works                  │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

⚠️ Trap. (A) is the exam-setter's favourite: offer "I am unable to …" as a paraphrase. Two negatives (cannot, without) = one universal positive. And in (C), don't read as as comparison — there is no first as / so. ⚠️ S15's as another as he does is a different pair: role-as + comparative-as with pro-verb does.

Transformation drill. Combine with cannot … without V-ing: Whenever we confess the Son, we also confess the Father who sent him.

Model: We cannot confess the Son without confessing the Father who sent him. (✓ inseparability; ⚠️ We cannot confess the Son alone would be a denial — the without clause is what turns it positive.)

Formula 2 — Cleft sentences and fronting-inversion

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  (A) NEGATIVE CLEFT + NOT A BUT B                                     │
│      IT WAS NOT the Father THAT descended …, BUT he who came forth   │
│                                                                (S11) │
│        HE WHO / HE WHOM = the one who/whom  → the SON                │
│        TEST: delete "it was … that" → sentence survives              │
│                                                                       │
│  (B) FRONTED PP → AUX + IT                                            │
│      TO THE SAME EFFECT is it elsewhere said, that …            (S9) │
│        = It is said elsewhere to the same effect that …              │
│                                                                       │
│  (C) FRONTED NEGATIVE → AUX + S                                       │
│      NOR was it the Father that died …                         (S11) │
│      NOR but for this could he have had his glory …             (S7) │
│        ✗ nor it was … / ✗ nor … he could have had                    │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

⚠️ Trap. In (A), he who is not anaphoric — it doesn't point back to the Father. It introduces a new referent (the one who). In (C), but for this sits between nor and the auxiliary; don't let it hide the inversion: nor → could he.

Transformation drill. Rewrite as a negative cleft with not A but B: The Son, not the Father, took on human nature.

Model: It was not the Father that assumed human nature, but he whom the Father had sent. (✓ cleft + whom as object of had sent; ⚠️ but he who the Father had sent — who ✗, the Son is the object.)

Formula 3 — The necessary-condition counterfactual (Calvin's proof engine)

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  SHAPE: [Scripture says X]  +  [X impossible WITHOUT distinction]    │
│          ⇒ distinction                                               │
│                                                                       │
│  (A) COULD NOT HAVE p.p. … UNLESS S WERE                              │
│      the Word could not have been with God                            │
│      UNLESS he WERE distinct from the Father                     (S7) │
│        WERE (not "had been") → timeless condition                    │
│                                                                       │
│  (B) COULD NOT BE … IF S WERE NOT                                     │
│      This could not be, IF he WERE NOT in some respect distinct (S10)│
│        IF … NOT = UNLESS                                              │
│                                                                       │
│  (C) BUT FOR + NP  = if it were not for NP / without NP              │
│      nor BUT FOR THIS could he have had his glory …             (S7) │
│        ✗ "but" = however                                              │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

⚠️ Trap. but for looks like but + for (because). It is a single complex preposition = without. And after unless, don't add another negative: unless he were not distinct ✗ (double denial = nonsense).

Transformation drill. Using (A) or (C): The Spirit could not be "another Comforter" if he were the Son himself.

Model: The Spirit could not have been called another Comforter unless he were distinct from the Son. / But for this distinction, the Spirit could not have been called another Comforter. (✓ both; ⚠️ But for this distinction the Spirit could not … — fine without inversion because but for is not negative. Inversion only when nor is fronted, as in S7.)

Where we are. Chapter 13 has two big movements. §§1–6 (our §§4–9) defined terms: essence, person, subsistence. §§7–16 (our §§10–19) proved that the Son and the Spirit are of the ONE divine essence. Today (printed §17) begins the second pole: the Persons are REALLY distinct. Printed §§17–20 (our §§20–23) handle distinction and its order; §§21–29 (our §§24–32) answer the anti-Trinitarians of Calvin's own day. So today opens the last third of the chapter.

Two cliffs, named in two sentences. S4 = tritheism (three gods — a Trinity that distracts). S5 = modalism (one Person, three names from his works). In the ancient church the modalist line runs through Noetus, Praxeas and Sabellius (late 2nd–3rd c.); its most shocking corollary was patripassianism — the Father suffered. S11's cleft sentences (it was not the Father that … died) are aimed right there. ⚠️ Calvin's own contemporaries (Servetus, and later the Italian anti-Trinitarians) revived versions of these errors; he turns to them from printed §21 onward. Don't read S5 as aimed at Servetus by name — he isn't named here.

Gregory of Nazianzus (c. 329–390). One of the three Cappadocian Fathers, called in the East simply "the Theologian"; briefly bishop of Constantinople and president of the Council of 381. The quotation is from Oration 40, On Holy Baptism (§41), preached at Epiphany 381 — ⚠️ note the link to Day 93: yesterday's argument was the baptismal formula; today's authority is a sermon ON baptism. Gregory's point: the Trinity is not a puzzle to be solved but a light that surrounds the worshipper — a doxological rhythm (One → Three → One). Calvin, who is usually sparing with Greek fathers, calls this nothing … more admirable — a sign of how exactly it fits his S1 reverence and soberness.

Footnote 45 — Bernard. Beveridge's note adds Bernard of Clairvaux, De Consideratione V: when I say one, the number of the Trinity does not disturb me, for it does not multiply, vary or divide the essence; when I say three, the sight of the unity does not refute me, for it neither confuses the three nor reduces them to a single person. So the note builds a Latin echo of Gregory's Greek: East and West saying the same thing, and the Reformer standing with both.

distinction, not division — the pedigree. Tertullian, Against Praxeas (c. 213), is the first to put it in Latin: the Son is other than the Father by distinction, not by division. Augustine's De Trinitate then works out that what distinguishes the Persons are their relations (begetting, being begotten, proceeding) — not their essence. Calvin's in some respect distinct (S10) is the same idea in plain words; our §9 (printed §6) gave his technical definition: a subsistence … distinguished by an incommunicable property.

S15 and the Filioque — ⚠️ guardrail. Calvin cites John 15:26 (proceedeth from the Father) to show Spirit ≠ Father. He is NOT here taking sides on whether the Spirit also proceeds from the Son (the Western Filioque). Later in this chapter (printed §18) he speaks in the Western way of the Spirit as from both; but today's sentence proves only distinction, not the order of origin. Don't build a Filioque essay on S15.

Reception. Karl Barth (CD I/1) preferred "mode of being" (Seinsweise) to "person", fearing the modern sense of person (a separate centre of consciousness) would drift toward S4's error; critics answered that "mode" drifts toward S5's. That modern debate is exactly Calvin's two cliffs. ⚠️ Guardrail: Calvin's person is not the modern psychological person, nor Barth's Seinsweise — it is subsistence (hypostasis). Don't retro-fit either modern side onto him.

Over-reading guardrails, all in one place. ⚠️ (1) some distinction ≠ slight. (2) cannot … without ≠ incapacity. (3) real distinction ≠ scholastic distinctio realis technicality. (4) S15 ≠ a Filioque argument. (5) S12–S14: the distinction is eternal — not created at the incarnation. (6) in some respect limits the distinction to person/relation — never essence.

The one-line takeaway. ⚠️ One God, three Persons, and the mind must never rest on one pole without being carried to the other: distinction only, not division.

1. John 1:1 — S7 (the first "passage already quoted"). In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Gk. καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν. ⚠️ πρός + accusative = toward, face-to-face with. How Calvin uses it: being with God requires distinction from the Father — and the same verse's was God keeps it from becoming division.
2. John 17:5 — S7, S14. And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was. Gk. τῇ δόξῃ ᾗ εἶχον … παρὰ σοί. How Calvin uses it: glory with the Father before the world = eternal, personal distinction.
3. John 5:32 — S8. There is another that beareth witness of me. Gk. ἄλλος ἐστὶν ὁ μαρτυρῶν περὶ ἐμοῦ. How Calvin uses it: Christ's own word another distinguishes the Father from himself.
4. John 8:16–18; Deuteronomy 19:15 — S8. It is also written in your law, that the testimony of two men is true. I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that sent me beareth witness of me. How Calvin uses it: the law requires two witnesses — so Father and Son are two, not one under two names.
5. John 1:3; 1 Corinthians 8:6; Hebrews 1:2; Colossians 1:16 — S9. All things were made by him (δι᾽ αὐτοῦ) / one God, the Father, of whom are all things … and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things / by whom also he made the worlds. ⚠️ ἐκ (of/from) for the Father, διά (through) for the Son. How Calvin uses it: "the Father made all things by the Word" — two prepositions, two Persons.
6. John 16:28; 3:17; 8:42 — S11. I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world. Gk. ἐξῆλθον παρὰ τοῦ πατρός. How Calvin uses it: the one who came forth and was sent is not the one who sends.
7. John 1:18 — S12–S14 (cited). No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. Gk. ὁ μονογενὴς … ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός. ⚠️ ὁ ὤν — "the one who IS" (present participle): timeless. How Calvin uses it: the Son was in the bosom before he came down — so the distinction is pre-incarnate.
8. John 3:13; 6:38 — behind S13. He that came down from heaven, even the Son of man. / I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me. How Calvin uses it (implicitly): came down from heaven — the descent presupposes a prior "with the Father".
9. John 15:26 — S15 (cited). But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me. Gk. ὃ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται. ⚠️ One verse, all three Persons: the Son sends, from the Father, the Spirit who proceeds and testifies. How Calvin uses it: what proceeds FROM the Father is not the Father.
10. John 14:16 — S15 (cited). And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever. Gk. ἄλλον παράκλητον. ⚠️ ἄλλος = another of the same kind (Jesus was the first Paraclete, 1 John 2:1). How Calvin uses it: Spirit ≠ Son (another), yet same kind (divine Helper).
11. John 14:26 — S15 (printed "14:6", almost certainly a misprint). But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things. How it fits: Father sends, in the Son's name, the Spirit — the three distinct in one act. ⚠️ John 14:6 (I am the way, the truth, and the life) says nothing about the Spirit; the three references in S15's bracket are all Paraclete sayings once 14:6 → 14:26. (Editorial judgment; the quotation above keeps the printed text.)
12. Luke 2:9 — behind S3's irradiated. And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them. Gk. περιέλαμψεν. How it lights S3: Gregory's verb (περιλάμπομαι) is the shepherds' verb — the Trinity as glory shining round the worshipper. (Not cited by Calvin; a lexical echo.)

① 어법 — 밑줄 넷 중 어색한 것 하나

I cannot think of the unity without (A) being irradiated by the Trinity. Therefore, let us beware of imagining such a Trinity of persons (B) as will distract our thoughts. Besides, it was not the Father that descended to the earth, but he (C) who came forth from the Father; and the Word could not have been with God unless he were distinct from the Father; nor but for this (D) he could have had his glory with the Father.

✨ 답안 보기 (클릭)정답: (D).

출제 의도. ⚠️ Formula 2(C) — negative fronting → inversion. nor is fronted, so the auxiliary must precede the subject: nor but for this could he have had (S7). he could have had ✗. but for this sits in between as a decoy — it hides the inversion trigger. Why the others are sound. (A) passive gerund after without — Formula 1(A); the subject receives the action. (B) ⚠️ the "feels wrong, is right" option: such … as with as as relative pronoun, subject of will distract — Formula 1(C). (C) he who = the one who; who is the subject of came forth — Formula 2(A).

② 내용일치 — 다음 중 §20의 내용과 일치하는 것은?

(1) Calvin holds that the names Father, Son and Holy Spirit are titles God receives from his various works. (2) According to Calvin, the distinction between the Father and the Son began when the Son assumed human nature. (3) Calvin affirms that the three Persons are really distinct, yet this distinction is not a division. (4) Calvin quotes Gregory to show that the human mind is unable to think of the divine unity at all.

✨ 답안 보기 (클릭)정답: (3).

출제 의도. (1) ✗ Direction flip. This is the view Calvin REJECTS: not allowing us to suppose that they are merely epithets by which God is variously designated from his works (S5). (2) ✗ Direction flip. This distinction did not take its beginning at the incarnation (S12); the Son was previously in the bosom of the Father (S14). (3) ✓ S5 + S6 — a real distinction … Still they indicate distinction only, not division. (4) ✗ Scope/meaning distortion. cannot … without being irradiated = inseparability, not incapacity (S3). Gregory thinks of the unity — and every time, the Three shine round him.

③ 영작 — 다음을 오늘의 공식을 적용해 영어로

나는 삼위를 구별할 때마다 곧 통일성으로 이끌려 올라간다. 땅에 내려온 이는 성부가 아니라 성부께로부터 나온 이였다. 이것(구별)이 없었다면 그는 성부와 함께 영광을 가질 수 없었을 것이다.

Model answer:

I cannot distinguish the Three without being carried up to the unity. It was not the Father that descended to the earth, but he who came forth from the Father. But for this, he could not have had his glory with the Father.

출제 의도. Three checks. ① Formula 1(A) — cannot … without being carried up — ⚠️ Whenever I distinguish …, I am carried up is also correct; I cannot distinguish the Three alone is a mistranslation (incapacity). ② Formula 2(A) — It was not X that V, but he who … — ⚠️ he who (subject of came forth); him who ✗. ③ Formula 3(C) — But for this, he could not have had … — ⚠️ no inversion needed (no fronted negative); if you begin with Nor, you must invert: nor but for this could he have had.

One-line summary. On the other hand*, Scripture shows some distinction (a certain, real one) between Father, Word and Spirit — to be handled with reverence and soberness; Gregory gives the rule: I cannot think of the unity without being irradiated by the Trinity and cannot distinguish the Three without being carried up to the unity; so no Trinity that will distract our thoughts (three gods), and no merely epithets taken from his works (modalism) — distinction only, not division; proved from John: the Word was with God, another bears witness, the Father made all things by the Word, it was not the Father that descended … but he who came forth, the Son was previously … in the bosom of the Father, and the Spirit proceedeth from the Father as another Comforter*.

The three grammar points, once more. ① Inseparability double negatives — cannot … without being irradiated (S3; ≠ incapacity), not allowing us to suppose … merely (S5), plus such a Trinity … as will distract (as = relative, S4). ② Cleft + inversion — it was not the Father that …, but he who … (S11; he who = the Son), nor was it (S11), To the same effect is it … said (S9), nor but for this could he have had (S7). ③ Necessary-condition counterfactuals — could not have been … unless he were (S7), could not be, if he were not (S10), but for this = without this (S7).

And the structural fact you now own: ⚠️ S4 and S5 are the two cliffs (tritheism / modalism); S6 is the ridge (distinction, not division); S7–S15 are the footholds — all from John, all built on prepositions: WITH, BY, FROM, IN THE BOSOM.

Homework (10 minutes).

1. Structure restoration (4 min). Rewrite S7's second half in base (uninverted) order: nor but for this could he have had his glory with the Father → and if it were not for this (distinction), he could not have had his glory with the Father. Underline the fronted element and the auxiliary that moved.
2. Composition (4 min). Write one sentence with Formula 1(C) (such … as) warning against the modalist error of S5: Let us beware of … such names as … Check: as must be the subject (or object) of its own verb.
3. Preview (2 min). Tomorrow (our §21 = printed §18) asks whether we may use analogies: I am not sure whether it is expedient to borrow analogies from human affairs to express the nature of this distinction. Expect: (a) whether + it is expedient to — Calvin's caution (S1's soberness in action); (b) lest some rash saying may furnish an occasion of calumny — lest + may; (c) the order of the Persons — to the Father the beginning of action, to the Son wisdom, counsel, and arrangement, to the Spirit energy and efficacy — and the Spirit "from both". Today: distinct. Tomorrow: distinct in what order?

Where we stopped: Book 1, Ch. 13, §20 끝. 다음은 Book 1, Ch. 13, §21 (= Beveridge 인쇄 §18, 구별의 성격과 유비의 한계 — I am not sure whether it is expedient to borrow analogies from human affairs to express the nature of this distinction.).