Day 96 — Book 1, Chapter 13, §22

Yesterday ended with order: Father first, the Son from him, the Spirit from both. Today someone in the back row puts up a hand: "Professor — if the Son is FROM the Father, isn't he less? And if there are three, isn't God split?" Calvin's first sentence answers with a construction you must own: this distinction is so far from interfering with the most perfect unity of God, that the Son may thereby be proved to be one God with the Father. ⚠️⚠️ so far from V-ing … that … = far from doing X, it actually does the opposite. The distinction doesn't damage the unity. It is the evidence for it. Formula 1.

Second — the key word of the whole section is relation. Augustine: By those names which denote distinctions … is meant the relation which they mutually bear to each other, not the very substance by which they are one. ⚠️ Look at the word order: a prepositional phrase first, then the verb is meant, and only THEN the real subject the relation. Students grab those names as the subject and write are meant. Wrong. Formula 2.

Third — the most famous theological move in Chapter 13 is born here. The Son is God of himself — autotheos — and yet the Father is the beginning of the Son. Contradiction? No: as to himself vs as to the Father. ⚠️⚠️⚠️ as to here is not concerning (a topic). It is in relation to / considered with respect to — Latin ad se, ad Patrem. Two viewpoints, one God. And then the brake again: it is far safer to rest contented … than get bewildered — than + a bare infinitive. Formula 3.

Today's 3 Big Points

1. so far from V-ing … that … (paradox of result) + two parallel that-clauses + inasmuch as (= because). ⚠️ The first that is the result clause of so far from; the second and that is its twin, sharing the same frame. inasmuch as = since, because — NOT to the extent that. (S1.) Formula 1.
2. Word-order machinery: fronted PP + inversion (By those names … is meant the relation), negative inversion (nor do ecclesiastical writers admit), gapping (the whole Son ‹is› in the Father), and the absolute clause (the only difference being that …). ⚠️ Find the real subject after the verb; nor pulls the auxiliary in front; the absolute clause has no finite verb. (S2, S3, S4.) Formula 2.
3. The relational qualifier as to himself … as to the Father + balanced when … simply …; but when … relation … + it is far safer to V than ‹to› V. ⚠️ as to X = with respect to X; simply = absolutely, without qualification (not merely); after than in an infinitive comparison, to may drop. (S7–S10, S12.) Formula 3.

Moreover, this distinction is so far from interfering with the most perfect unity of God, that the Son may thereby be proved to be one God with the Father, inasmuch as he constitutes one Spirit with him, and that the Spirit is not different from the Father and the Son, inasmuch as he is the Spirit of the Father and the Son. In each hypostasis the whole nature is understood the only difference being that each has his own peculiar subsistence. The whole Father is in the Son, and the whole Son in the Father, as the Son himself also declares (John 14:10), “I am in the Father, and the Father in me;” nor do ecclesiastical writers admit that the one is separated from the other by any difference of essence. “By those names which denote distinctions” says Augustine “is meant the relation which they mutually bear to each other, not the very substance by which they are one.” In this way, the sentiments of the Fathers, which might sometimes appear to be at variance with each other, are to be reconciled. At one time they teach that the Father is the beginning of the Son, at another they assert that the Son has both divinity and essence from himself, and therefore is one beginning with the Father. The cause of this discrepancy is well and clearly explained by Augustine, when he says, “Christ, as to himself, is called God, as to the Father he is called Son.” And again, “The Father, as to himself, is called God, as to the Son he is called Father. He who, as to the Son, is called Father, is not Son; and he who, as to himself, is called Father, and he who, as to himself, is called Son, is the same God.” Therefore, when we speak of the Son simply, without reference to the Father, we truly and properly affirm that he is of himself, and, accordingly, call him the only beginning; but when we denote the relation which he bears to the Father, we correctly make the Father the beginning of the Son. Augustine’s fifth book on the Trinity is wholly devoted to the explanation of this subject. But it is far safer to rest contented with the relation as taught by him, than get bewildered in vain speculation by subtle prying into a sublime mystery.

Sentence count: 12 (S1–S12). One paragraph, four movements: the thesis — distinction proves unity (S1–S3) · the key — names signify relation, not substance (S4) · the fathers reconciled by Augustine's "as to" (S5–S9) · Calvin's rule and the brake (S10–S12).

⚠️ PROGRESS estimated "about 14". Today: 12. The Augustine quotation in S8–S9 contains two sentences (… he is called Father. / He who … is the same God.”); we count them as S8 and S9 because the full stop inside the quotation is Beveridge's. Nine ★★★, two ★★, one ★. (Distribution: ★★★ S1, S2, S3, S4, S6, S7, S9, S10, S12 · ★★ S5, S8 · ★ S11.)

Text note (not a correction to the quotation). Seven features of the printed page, all handled as follows. (i) Section marker 19. removed at the head of the paragraph (source line 5636). (ii) ⚠️ the whole nature is understood the only difference being (S2) — no comma after understood. Quoted as printed. Read: … is understood, the only difference being … — an absolute clause needs the comma. Do not copy the missing comma. (iii) ⚠️ “By those names which denote distinctions” says Augustine “is meant … (S4) — no commas around the reporting clause. Quoted as printed. Modern pointing: "By those names which denote distinctions," says Augustine, "is meant …". (iv) Line-end hyphen joined: re- | conciled → reconciled (S5). (v) Footnote marker 46 removed — printed as when he says,46 “Christ … (S7). Beveridge's note 46 (source line 5676) reads, in part: August. Homil. De Temp. 38, De Trinitate … Aug. in Psal 59; et Tract. in Joann 89; Idem, in Psal. 68. — see Period 6. (vi) ⚠️ Margin page number 127 removed MID-SENTENCE — printed at the far right of line 5651 after He who, as, followed by two blank lines. Rejoined: He who, as to the Son, is called Father, is not Son; … (S9). ⚠️ The break falls inside the Augustine quotation — the quotation is continuous. (vii) ⚠️ Section numbering. Our §22 = Beveridge printed §19, entire (source lines 5636–5661). The page number 130 and the two-line running head (CHAPTER 13. - THE UNITY OF THE DIVINE ESSENCE IN THREE PERSONS TAUGHT, / IN…) stand BEFORE the section — not inside it. The printed marker 20. follows directly. Label offset still +3. BH's decision remains open (A: keep our labels / B: re-map SCHEDULE.md). Reading order is unbroken.

                 ─── I. THESIS: DISTINCTION PROVES UNITY (S1–S3) ───
[REVERSAL]       S1    distinction SO FAR FROM interfering with unity THAT
                        (a) Son = ONE GOD with Father  ← INASMUCH AS one Spirit with him
                        (b) Spirit ≠ different         ← INASMUCH AS Spirit OF BOTH
[WHOLE IN EACH]  S2    in EACH hypostasis the WHOLE nature,
                        ONLY difference = each his own PECULIAR SUBSISTENCE
[MUTUAL IN]      S3    WHOLE Father in Son, WHOLE Son in Father (John 14:10)
                        NOR DO church writers admit any DIFFERENCE OF ESSENCE
                 ─── II. THE KEY (S4) ───
[AUGUSTINE]      S4    names of distinction = RELATION, NOT SUBSTANCE
                 ─── III. THE FATHERS RECONCILED (S5–S9) ───
[METHOD]         S5    IN THIS WAY apparent contradictions ARE TO BE reconciled
[THE CLASH]      S6    AT ONE TIME: Father = BEGINNING of the Son
                        AT ANOTHER: Son has divinity + essence FROM HIMSELF
                                    → ONE BEGINNING with the Father
[THE FORMULA]    S7    Christ AS TO HIMSELF = GOD / AS TO THE FATHER = SON
                 S8    Father AS TO HIMSELF = GOD / AS TO THE SON = FATHER
                 S9    Father ≠ Son (relation) ; each "as to himself" = THE SAME GOD
                 ─── IV. CALVIN'S RULE + BRAKE (S10–S12) ───
[RULE]           S10   Son SIMPLY → OF HIMSELF, the only beginning
                        Son IN RELATION → Father = his beginning
[SOURCE]         S11   Augustine, De Trinitate, Book V
[BRAKE]          S12   FAR SAFER to rest in the RELATION THAN pry into the mystery

The spine in one line: Distinction doesn't split God — it proves the Son and Spirit are the one God → each Person has the whole nature; they differ only by their own subsistence → so the names name relations, not substances → so "the Father is the Son's beginning" and "the Son is God of himself" are both true — from two angles → say that, and stop.

Examiner's Eye. ⚠️⚠️⚠️ Five traps. (1) S1 — direction. ⚠️ The distinction does NOT threaten the unity; it proves it. An option saying Calvin concedes that the distinction weakens the unity but accepts it is a direction flip. (2) S1 — one Spirit. ⚠️⚠️ he constitutes one Spirit with him = the Son shares with the Father the one spiritual divine being (God is a Spirit, John 4:24). It is NOT a statement about the Holy Spirit as the third Person. Options that read it as the Son and Father together form the Holy Spirit are nonsense traps. (3) S2 — how much of the nature is in each Person? ⚠️ the whole. Not a third each. An option saying each Person possesses a part of the divine nature flips S2 (and S3: The whole Father … the whole Son). (4) S6–S10 — does Calvin pick one side of the fathers? ⚠️⚠️ No. He reconciles (S5). Both statements are kept: the Father is the beginning of the Son (as to relation) AND the Son is of himself (as to essence / considered simply). An option saying Calvin rejects the view that the Father is the beginning of the Son is a half-truth trap — scope overreach. (5) S12 — does Calvin dismiss Augustine's Book V? ⚠️ No — he commends it (S11) and says rest contented with the relation as taught by him. What he rejects is vain speculation and subtle prying beyond the relation. And him = Augustine, not Christ.

Formula 1 — so far from V-ing … that … + twin that-clauses + inasmuch as

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  S  +  BE  +  SO FAR FROM  +  V-ing  +  THAT  RESULT₁ , AND THAT RESULT₂ │
│                                                                       │
│  this distinction is SO FAR FROM interfering with … unity,       (S1)│
│     THAT the Son may thereby be proved to be one God …               │
│     AND THAT the Spirit is not different from the Father and Son     │
│                                                                       │
│  = far from V-ing, (on the contrary) …                               │
│  FROM + GERUND  (✗ far from to interfere)                             │
│  INASMUCH AS = since / because   (≠ insofar as = to the extent that) │
│  inverted cousin: SO FAR IS IT FROM V-ing … THAT …        (Day 9)    │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

⚠️ Trap. The second that is not a relative pronoun on Father — it's the second result clause of the same frame. And far from takes a gerund because from is a preposition.

Transformation drill. Combine with so far from … that: The doctrine of the Trinity does not obscure the gospel. It reveals the gospel most fully.

Model: The doctrine of the Trinity is so far from obscuring the gospel, that it reveals it most fully. (✓ gerund after from; ⚠️ so far from obscure ✗.)

Formula 2 — Word-order machinery: fronted PP + inversion · nor + inversion · absolute clause · gapping

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  (A) PP  +  BE p.p.  +  REAL SUBJECT                                  │
│      BY THOSE NAMES … IS MEANT  THE RELATION …                   (S4)│
│        base: The relation … is meant by those names                  │
│        ✗ are meant (names sits inside a PP — never the subject)      │
│                                                                       │
│  (B) NOR  +  AUX  +  S  +  V                                          │
│      nor DO ecclesiastical writers ADMIT …                       (S3)│
│        ✗ nor ecclesiastical writers admit                            │
│                                                                       │
│  (C) N  +  BEING  +  …   (absolute clause, no finite verb)           │
│      …, the only difference BEING that each has …                (S2)│
│        ✗ …, the only difference IS that …  (comma splice)            │
│                                                                       │
│  (D) GAPPING:  A in B, and B ‹is› in A                                │
│      the whole Son ‹is› in the Father                            (S3)│
│      at another ‹time› they assert …                             (S6)│
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

⚠️ Trap. (A) is the exam-setter's favourite: a plural noun right before the verb that is NOT the subject. (B): nor is a negative adverb at the head of the clause — inversion is obligatory.

Transformation drill. Rewrite with fronted PP + inversion and nor + inversion: The relation of the Persons is signified by the name "Son". The fathers do not admit any division of essence.

Model: By the name "Son" is signified the relation of the Persons; nor do the fathers admit any division of essence. (✓ singular is agrees with the relation; ✓ nor do the fathers admit.)

Formula 3 — The relational qualifier + the balanced rule + far safer to V than ‹to› V

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  (A) S,  AS TO X,  is called P₁ ,  AS TO Y  S is called P₂            │
│      Christ, AS TO HIMSELF, is called God,                       (S7)│
│              AS TO THE FATHER he is called Son                       │
│        AS TO = with respect to / in relation to  (Lat. ad se / ad P.)│
│        ≠ as for (topic) · ≠ compared to · ≠ in his own opinion       │
│                                                                       │
│  (B) WHEN we speak of X SIMPLY …, we … ; BUT WHEN we denote the      │
│      RELATION …, we …                                          (S10) │
│        SIMPLY = absolutely (simpliciter) ≠ merely                    │
│        call/make + O + C   (5th pattern)                             │
│                                                                       │
│  (C) IT is FAR + COMPARATIVE  TO V₁  THAN ‹TO› V₂                     │
│      it is far safer to rest contented … than get bewildered   (S12) │
│        ✓ than get / ✓ than to get / ✗ than got   · ✗ very safer      │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

⚠️ Trap. (A): read as to as concerning and the sentence becomes a list of topics — the whole theology disappears. (C): the second infinitive may lose to, but never becomes a finite verb.

Transformation drill. Using (A) and (C): In relation to the Son, the Father is called Father; in himself, he is called God. It is wiser to adore this than to dissect it.

Model: The Father, as to the Son, is called Father; as to himself, he is called God. It is far wiser to adore this than dissect it. (✓ as to = in relation to; ✓ bare infinitive after than.)

Where we are. Chapter 13's second block (our §§20–23 = printed §§17–20): distinction (Day 94) → order (Day 95) → today, relation: why the distinction and order do NOT split the One → tomorrow (printed §20), the summary for "those who love soberness". Today is the hinge between the positive doctrine and the polemics that close the chapter (printed §§21–29 against Servetus, Gentile and the anti-trinitarians).

Augustine's key: substance vs relation. The Arians (Eunomius especially) argued: God is unbegotten; the Son is begotten; unbegotten ≠ begotten; so they differ in substance. Augustine (De Trinitate V) answered with a distinction from Aristotle's categories — but corrected for God: in God there are no accidents; yet not everything said of God is said by substance. Some things are said ad se (of God in himself: God, good, great, eternal) — one for all three. Some are said ad aliquid (relatively: Father of…, Son of…) — these distinguish without dividing. S4 quotes that principle; S11 points to Book V. The Cappadocians had reached the same point from the Greek side (Gregory of Nazianzus: Father is the name of a relation, not of an essence or an activity — Oration 29.16).

Beveridge's note 46 — the sources. The note cites Augustine's Homilies (De Temp. 38), De Trinitate, Letter 174 to Pascentius, Cyril of Alexandria's De Trinitate (Dialogues, book 7) and his third Dialogue, Augustine on Psalms 59 and 68 and Tractates on John 89. The "as to himself … as to the Father" formula is usually located in Augustine's Expositions of the Psalms (on Ps 68). Treat the exact numbering of these older citations with caution — Beveridge reproduces 16th-century reference styles.

The autotheos move (S6, S10) — Calvin's signature. The Nicene Creed confesses the Son as God from God (Deum de Deo). Calvin affirms that — as to the Person (S10b: we correctly make the Father the beginning of the Son). But as to the essence, the Son's deity is not a derived, lesser deity handed down: the Son is God of himself (S10a). Why press it? Because Gentile and others argued: only the Father is autotheos; the Son has an essence given to him — making the Son a secondary God. Calvin's answer (printed §§23–25): the essence is not begotten; the Person is. Reception: Roman critics (e.g. Gilbert Génébrard) charged Calvin with innovation; Robert Bellarmine (De Christo) examined the question and is often cited as judging that Calvin's meaning could be taken in a sound sense, though he disliked the wording. B. B. Warfield ("Calvin's Doctrine of the Trinity", 1909) hailed autotheotes as Calvin's chief contribution to the doctrine. Reformed orthodoxy generally followed Calvin: the Son is autotheos as to essence, from the Father as to person.

Perichoresis (S3). John 14:10 underwrites the doctrine of mutual indwelling — later named περιχώρησις by John of Damascus (8th c.), circumincessio in the Latin West. Calvin doesn't use the technical term; he uses the verse and the mirror sentence.

Over-reading guardrails, all in one place. ⚠️ (1) Relation ≠ mere names or roles (modalism): the relations are real — they are the Persons' peculiar subsistence (S2). (2) autotheos ≠ denial of eternal generation: Calvin keeps the Father the beginning of the Son (S10b). (3) one Spirit in S1 = one spiritual divine essence (John 4:24), not the Holy Spirit. (4) the only beginning (S10) ≠ the Son excluding the Father — as God, the three are one principle (S6: one beginning with the Father). (5) S12 ≠ anti-intellectualism: Calvin recommends Augustine's Book V (S11); he forbids speculation beyond the revealed relation. (6) beginning ≠ temporal start (Day 95 S6: no room for first or last).

The one-line takeaway. ⚠️ Same God in himself; Father and Son in relation — say both, and stop there.

1. John 14:10 — S3 (cited). Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? Gk. ἐγὼ ἐν τῷ πατρὶ καὶ ὁ πατὴρ ἐν ἐμοί ἐστιν. ⚠️ The mirror clause Calvin copies in his own sentence (The whole Father is in the Son, and the whole Son in the Father). How Calvin uses it: the Lord's own word for mutual indwelling → no separation of essence.
2. John 10:30, 38 — behind S1–S3. I and my Father are one (Gk. ἕν ἐσμεν — neuter one thing, not masculine one person) / the Father is in me, and I in him. How it fits: one in essence (neuter), distinct as Persons (plural verb) — S1's paradox in four words.
3. John 4:24 — behind S1 (one Spirit). God is a Spirit (Gk. πνεῦμα ὁ θεός). How it fits: he constitutes one Spirit with him = the Son shares the one spiritual essence of God.
4. Romans 8:9; Galatians 4:6 — behind S1 (the Spirit of the Father and the Son). the Spirit of God … the Spirit of Christ / the Spirit of his Son. How it fits: yesterday's proof-texts (Day 95) now used to show the Spirit is not foreign to either.
5. Hebrews 1:3 — behind S2 (hypostasis). the express image of his person (Gk. χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ). How it fits: the NT source of the technical word; Calvin discussed it earlier in this chapter.
6. Colossians 2:9 — behind S2 (the whole nature). in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily (Gk. πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος). How it fits: not part of the Godhead in the Son — ALL of it.
7. John 5:26 — behind S6 and S10. as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself. Gk. ζωὴν ἔχειν ἐν ἑαυτῷ. ⚠️ One verse, both halves of S10: the Son has life in himself (as God) — given by the Father (as Son). (Not cited by Calvin here; the classic text for this very distinction.)
8. John 1:1 — behind S7–S8. the Word was with God, and the Word was God. How it fits: with God = relation (as to the Father); was God = essence (as to himself) — Augustine's formula in John's grammar.
9. Colossians 1:18; Revelation 22:13 — behind S6 and S10 (beginning). who is the beginning (ἀρχή) / I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end. How it fits: the Son himself is called the beginning — the biblical ground for call him the only beginning.
10. Deuteronomy 29:29; Romans 12:3 — behind S12. The secret things belong unto the LORD our God / not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly (Gk. σωφρονεῖν). How it fits: Calvin's brake — rest in the revealed relation, don't pry into the secret.
11. Colossians 2:18; 1 Timothy 6:16 — behind S12 (prying, sublime mystery). intruding into those things which he hath not seen / dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto. How it fits: prying = intruding; sublime = unapproachable (cf. Day 30: the labyrinth of the divine brightness).

① 어법 — 밑줄 넷 중 어색한 것 하나

This distinction is so far from (A) interfering with the most perfect unity of God, that the Son may thereby be proved to be one God with the Father. By those names which denote distinctions (B) are meant the relation which they mutually bear to each other. Nor (C) do ecclesiastical writers admit that the one is separated from the other by any difference of essence. It is far safer to rest contented with the relation, than (D) get bewildered in vain speculation.

✨ 답안 보기 (클릭)정답: (B).

출제 의도. ⚠️ Formula 2(A) — fronted PP + inversion. The real subject is the relation (singular) after the verb; those names sits inside the PP By those names …. → is meant. Why the others are sound. (A) far from + gerund (Formula 1). (C) Nor at the head → auxiliary inversion (Formula 2B). (D) ⚠️ the "feels wrong, is right" option: bare infinitive after than in an infinitive comparison (Formula 3C).

② 내용일치 — 다음 중 §22의 내용과 일치하는 것은?

(1) Calvin admits that the distinction of Persons weakens the unity of God, but accepts it because Scripture requires it. (2) Calvin holds that the fathers really contradicted one another and sides with those who deny that the Father is the beginning of the Son. (3) Considered in himself, the Son is God of himself; considered in relation to the Father, the Father is his beginning. (4) Calvin urges the reader to go beyond Augustine's teaching by subtle investigation of the divine essence.

✨ 답안 보기 (클릭)정답: (3).

출제 의도. (1) ✗ Direction flip. The distinction is so far from interfering with the unity that it proves it (S1). (2) ✗ Direction flip + scope overreach. The fathers only might sometimes appear to be at variance and are to be reconciled (S5); Calvin keeps both statements (S10). (3) ✓ S7 + S10 — Christ, as to himself, is called God · when we speak of the Son simply … he is of himself … but when we denote the relation … we correctly make the Father the beginning of the Son. (4) ✗ Direction flip. it is far safer to rest contented with the relation as taught by him, than get bewildered … by subtle prying (S12).

③ 영작 — 다음을 오늘의 공식을 적용해 영어로

위격들의 구별은 하나님의 통일성을 해치기는커녕 오히려 그것을 증명한다. 성자는 자기 자신에 관해서는 하나님이라 불리고, 성부에 관해서는 아들이라 불린다. 숭고한 신비를 캐묻다가 갈피를 잃는 것보다 관계에 만족하는 편이 훨씬 안전하다.

Model answer:

The distinction of the Persons is so far from impairing the unity of God, that it proves it. The Son, as to himself, is called God; as to the Father, he is called Son. It is far safer to rest contented with the relation than get bewildered by prying into a sublime mystery.

출제 의도. Three checks. ① Formula 1 — so far from + gerund + that result. ⚠️ so far from impair ✗. ② Formula 3(A) — as to himself … as to the Father = in relation to. ⚠️ as for himself changes the meaning to a topic marker. ③ Formula 3(C) — far safer to V … than ‹to› V. ⚠️ very safer ✗; than got ✗.

One-line summary. this distinction is so far from interfering with the most perfect unity of God, that the Son may thereby be proved to be one God with the Father* — In each hypostasis the whole nature is understood, the only difference being that each has his own peculiar subsistence; The whole Father is in the Son, and the whole Son in the Father (John 14:10); the names mean the relation which they mutually bear to each other, not the very substance by which they are one (Augustine) — so the fathers are to be reconciled: Christ, as to himself, is called God, as to the Father he is called Son; when we speak of the Son simply … he is of himself, but when we denote the relation … we correctly make the Father the beginning of the Son — and it is far safer to rest contented with the relation … than get bewildered in vain speculation*.

The three grammar points, once more. ① so far from V-ing … that …, and that … + inasmuch as = because (S1). ② Word-order machinery — By those names … is meant the relation (S4: real subject after the verb), nor do ecclesiastical writers admit (S3), the only difference being that (S2: absolute), the whole Son ‹is› in the Father (S3: gapping). ③ Relational qualifier + rule + brake — as to himself / as to the Father (S7–S9), when … simply …; but when … relation … (S10), far safer to rest … than get bewildered (S12).

And the structural fact you now own: ⚠️ S1–S3 thesis (distinction proves unity), S4 the key (relation ≠ substance), S5–S9 the fathers reconciled by Augustine's "as to", S10 Calvin's rule (autotheos + the Father as beginning), S11–S12 source and brake.

Homework (10 minutes).

1. Structure restoration (4 min). Rewrite S4 in base order: The relation which they mutually bear to each other, not the very substance by which they are one, is meant by those names which denote distinctions. Circle the subject; underline the verb; explain why it is is, not are.
2. Composition (4 min). Write one sentence with Formula 3(B) about the Father: When we speak of the Father simply, we …; but when we denote the relation which he bears to the Son, we … Check: simply = absolutely; call/make + O + C.
3. Preview (2 min). Tomorrow (our §23 = printed §20): Let those, then, who love soberness, and are contented with the measure of faith, briefly receive what is useful to be known. Expect: (a) jussive Let those … receive — Calvin's summary for the sober reader; (b) by the name God is understood the one simple essence, comprehending three persons; (c) whenever the name of God is used indefinitely vs when the Son is joined with the Father, relation comes into view — today's rule turned into a reading rule for Scripture; (d) the printed agreement slip the Personal subsistence carry an order with them. Today: relation vs substance. Tomorrow: how to use it when you read the word "God".

Where we stopped: Book 1, Ch. 13, §22 끝. 다음은 Book 1, Ch. 13, §23 (= Beveridge 인쇄 §20, 절제를 사랑하는 자를 위한 요약 — "하나님"이란 이름의 무한정 용법과 관계적 용법 · Let those, then, who love soberness, and are contented with the measure of faith, briefly receive what is useful to be known.).