Day 97 — Book 1, Chapter 13, §23

Yesterday ended with a brake: it is far safer to rest contented with the relation. Today Calvin turns the brake into a reading method. Here's the problem every Bible reader hits: the word God. Sometimes it means the whole Trinity. Sometimes it clearly means the Father ("God sent his Son"). Sometimes it's applied to Christ. Is the Bible inconsistent? No. Calvin gives you a two-switch rule. Switch 1: whenever the name of God is used indefinitely → all three Persons. Switch 2: when the Son is joined with the Father, relation comes into view → the Persons are distinguished, and the name of God is specially given to the Father. That's the whole lesson. Everything else is proof.

Second — the grammar will try to trick you three times in the first five sentences. ⚠️ the Son and Spirit, not less than the Father, is meant — plural-looking subject, singular verb, printed as is. ⚠️ the Personal subsistence carry an order — singular subject, plural verb, printed as is. ⚠️ which, however derogates — a comma gone missing. We quote them exactly as printed and fix them in our heads. An examiner LOVES this kind of page. Formula 1.

Third — two sentence machines you must own. (a) We … hold it detestable blasphemy to call the Son a different God — hold + dummy it + complement + real object to call …. (b) that the name Jehovah, taken indefinitely, may be applied to Christ, is clear from the words of Paul — a whole that-clause as SUBJECT. ⚠️ And the archaic conditional to restrict it … were puerile — were = would be. Formula 2. Then the finale: For as God is there called a Spirit, so the Holy Spirit also … is said to be both of God and from God — correlative as … so, and two prepositions that do two different jobs. Formula 3.

Today's 3 Big Points

1. Agreement on a messy page: the Son and Spirit, not less than the Father, is meant (S2) · the Personal subsistence carry (S4) · which, however derogates (S5) + the absolute clause the principle and origin being in the Father (S4). ⚠️ Quote as printed; in your own English write are meant / subsistences carry (or subsistence carries) / which, however, derogates. The parenthesis not less than the Father never changes the verb. Formula 1.
2. Dummy-object and clause-subject machines: hold it + C + to V (S7) · [that …] is clear from … (S8) · it is certain that … / it is sufficient to remember, that … (S10, S13) · to restrict it … were puerile (S10: were = would be). ⚠️ The it after hold points FORWARD to to call the Son …; the that-clause in S8 is the subject of is. Formula 2.
3. Negative inversion + fronted-PP inversion + correlative: nor can God … be said (S7) · in which are comprehended Father, Son, and Spirit (S15) · For as God is there called a Spirit, so the Holy Spirit also … is said (S17) · admits not of (S7). ⚠️ nor pulls can in front; in which pulls the verb in front of a three-noun subject (plural are); so in as … so means likewise, never therefore. Formula 3.

Let those, then, who love soberness, and are contented with the measure of faith, briefly receive what is useful to be known. It is as follows:—When we profess to believe in one God, by the name God is understood the one simple essence, comprehending three persons or hypostases; and, accordingly, whenever the name of God is used indefinitely, the Son and Spirit, not less than the Father, is meant. But when the Son is joined with the Father, relation comes into view, and so we distinguish between the Persons. But as the Personal subsistence carry an order with them, the principle and origin being in the Father, whenever mention is made of the Father and Son, or of the Father and Spirit together, the name of God is specially given to the Father. In this way the unity of essence is retained, and respect is had to the order, which, however derogates in no respect from the divinity of the Son and Spirit. And surely since we have already seen how the apostles declare the Son of God to have been He whom Moses and the prophets declared to be Jehovah, we must always arrive at a unity of essence. We, therefore, hold it detestable blasphemy to call the Son a different God from the Father, because the simple name God admits not of relation, nor can God, considered in himself, be said to be this or that. Then, that the name Jehovah, taken indefinitely, may be applied to Christ, is clear from the words of Paul, “For this thing I besought the Lord thrice.” After giving the answer, “My grace is sufficient for thee,” he subjoins, “that the power of Christ may rest upon me,” (2 Cor. 12:8, 9). For it is certain that the name of Lord (Κυρι ος) is there put for Jehovah, and, therefore, to restrict it to the person of the Mediator were puerile and frivolous, the words being used absolutely, and not with the view of comparing the Father and the Son. And we know that, in accordance with the received usage of the Greeks, the apostles uniformly substitute the word Κυρι ος for Jehovah. Not to go far for an example, Paul besought the Lord in the same sense in which Peter quotes the passage of Joel, “Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved,” (Acts 2:21; Joel 2:28). Where this name is specially applied to the Son, there is a different ground for it, as will be seen in its own place; at present it is sufficient to remember, that Paul, after praying to God absolutely, immediately subjoins the name of Christ. Thus, too, the Spirit is called God absolutely by Christ himself. For nothing prevents us from holding that he is the entire spiritual essence of God, in which are comprehended Father, Son, and Spirit. This is plain from Scripture. For as God is there called a Spirit, so the Holy Spirit also, in so far as he is a hypostasis of the whole essence, is said to be both of God and from God.

Sentence count: 17 (S1–S17). One long paragraph, four movements: the summary rule — "God" indefinite vs. relational (S1–S5) · the consequence — one essence, so "a different God" is blasphemy (S6–S7) · the proof from "Lord" = Jehovah (S8–S13) · the parallel proof from "Spirit" (S14–S17).

⚠️ PROGRESS estimated "about 20". Today: 17. The two Paul quotations in S8–S9 end in their own full stops, and S16 (This is plain from Scripture.) is a five-word sentence — easy to miss. Ten ★★★, five ★★, two ★. (Distribution: ★★★ S2, S3, S4, S5, S7, S8, S10, S13, S15, S17 · ★★ S1, S6, S9, S11, S12 · ★ S14, S16.)

Text note (not a correction to the quotation). Nine features of the printed page, all handled as follows. (i) Section marker 20. removed at the head of the paragraph (source line 5662). (ii) ⚠️ the Son and Spirit, not less than the Father, is meant (S2) — printed is. Quoted as printed. Standard modern agreement: are meant (the subject is the Son and Spirit). See S2 ②. (iii) ⚠️ the Personal subsistence carry an order with them (S4) — printed singular subsistence + plural carry + plural them. Quoted as printed. Read: the Personal subsistences carry an order with them (the plural pronoun them shows the intended plural). See S4 ②. (iv) ⚠️ which, however derogates (S5) — no comma after however. Quoted as printed. Read: which, however, derogates. See S5 ③. (v) ⚠️ A footnote block, a page number and a running head fall MID-SENTENCE in S6 — between how the apostles declare the and Son of God (source lines 5673–5681): three blank lines, the two-line note 46 (46 August. Homil. De Temp. 38, De Trinitate. … / lib. 3 Dialog.; … Idem, in Psal. 68.), page number 131, and the running head (CHAPTER 13. - THE UNITY OF THE DIVINE ESSENCE IN THREE PERSONS TAUGHT, / IN…). All removed; the sentence is continuous: declare the Son of God to have been He whom …. ⚠️ Note 46 belongs to yesterday's marker (when he says,46 in our §22 S7) — it is only printed here, at the foot of the page. Its content was reviewed on Day 96, Period 6. (vi) ⚠️ Κυρι ος — printed twice (S10, S11) with a space inside the word and without accents. Quoted as printed. The Greek word is Κύριος (Kyrios, "Lord"). Do not copy the space. (vii) ⚠️ Margin page number 128 removed MID-QUOTATION — printed at the far right of line 5694 after shall be, followed by one blank line. Rejoined: “Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved,” (S12). (viii) Line-end hyphen joined: dif- | ferent → different (S13). (ix) ⚠️ (Acts 2:21; Joel 2:28) (S12) — printed reference kept as printed. The Joel verse Peter quotes is Joel 2:32 in English Bibles (Hebrew 3:5); Joel 2:28 is the start of the same prophecy (I will pour out my spirit), which Peter quotes at Acts 2:17. See Period 7. ⚠️ Section numbering. Our §23 = Beveridge printed §20, entire (source lines 5662–5703). The printed marker 21. 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. THE POCKET CARD: TWO SWITCHES (S1–S5) ───
[INVITATION]     S1    LET the sober RECEIVE what is useful to be known
[SWITCH 1]       S2    "God" (one God confessed) = ONE SIMPLE ESSENCE, 3 persons
                        "God" used INDEFINITELY → Son + Spirit, NOT LESS THAN Father
[SWITCH 2]       S3    Son JOINED WITH Father → RELATION comes into view → distinguish
[ORDER]          S4    Persons carry an ORDER; principle + origin IN THE FATHER
                        → Father + Son / Father + Spirit named together:
                          "God" SPECIALLY given to the FATHER
[BALANCE]        S5    UNITY retained + ORDER respected — NO derogation from Son/Spirit
                 ─── II. THE CONSEQUENCE (S6–S7) ───
[PREMISE]        S6    apostles: the Son = HE whom Moses/prophets called JEHOVAH
                        → MUST arrive at ONE ESSENCE
[VERDICT]        S7    "a DIFFERENT God" = DETESTABLE BLASPHEMY
                        BECAUSE "God" simply ADMITS NOT OF RELATION;
                        NOR can God in himself be said "this or that"
                 ─── III. PROOF 1 — "LORD" = JEHOVAH, USED ABSOLUTELY (S8–S13) ───
[THESIS]         S8    "Jehovah" TAKEN INDEFINITELY may be applied TO CHRIST
                        ← 2 Cor 12:8 "I besought the Lord thrice"
[THE SLIDE]      S9    "My grace …" → "that the POWER OF CHRIST may rest upon me"
[ARGUMENT]       S10   Κύριος there = JEHOVAH; restrict to the Mediator = PUERILE
                        (words used ABSOLUTELY, no Father–Son comparison)
[USAGE]          S11   apostles UNIFORMLY put Κύριος FOR JEHOVAH (LXX usage)
[PARALLEL]       S12   Paul's "Lord" = Peter's "Lord" in Joel (Acts 2:21)
[FENCE]          S13   Son SPECIALLY called Lord = DIFFERENT ground (later);
                        NOW: prays to God ABSOLUTELY → subjoins CHRIST
                 ─── IV. PROOF 2 — "SPIRIT," USED ABSOLUTELY (S14–S17) ───
[CLAIM]          S14   "Spirit" = God ABSOLUTELY — by Christ himself (John 4:24)
[GROUND]         S15   the ENTIRE spiritual essence, IN WHICH ARE Father, Son, Spirit
[WARRANT]        S16   plain from Scripture
[AS … SO]        S17   AS God is called a Spirit, SO the Holy Spirit, as ONE HYPOSTASIS,
                        is BOTH "OF God" AND "FROM God"

The spine in one line: When Scripture says "God" plainly, it means the whole Trinity → when it sets the Son beside the Father, it names relation, and "God" goes specially to the Father because of the order → neither move lowers the Son or the Spirit → so "the Son is another God" is blasphemy → proof: "Lord" (= Jehovah) and "Spirit" both have an absolute use that covers all three — and a specific use for one Person.

Examiner's Eye. ⚠️⚠️⚠️ Six traps. (1) S2 — who is meant by "God" used indefinitely? ⚠️ ALL THREE — the Son and Spirit, not less than the Father. An option saying "God" without qualification refers primarily to the Father is a direction flip. The Father-reading belongs to Switch 2, not Switch 1. (2) S4 — why is "God" given specially to the Father? ⚠️⚠️ Because of ORDER (the principle and origin being in the Father), and only whenever mention is made of the Father and Son … together. NOT because the Father has more deity. An option saying because only the Father is truly God contradicts S5 (derogates in no respect from the divinity of the Son and Spirit). (3) S7 — what exactly is blasphemy? ⚠️ To call the Son a different God from the Father. Calvin does NOT call it blasphemy to distinguish Son from Father (S3: we distinguish between the Persons). Different Person ✓ — different God ✗. An option that blurs these is scope overreach. (4) S7 — this or that. ⚠️ = this Person or that Person (Father or Son). Considered in himself, God is not "the Father" as opposed to "the Son". NOT God cannot be described at all. That would be an overreach into apophatic mysticism. (5) S10 — to restrict it to the person of the Mediator were puerile. ⚠️⚠️ were = would be. Calvin does NOT say Paul prayed only to Christ-as-Mediator; he says that reading is childish. Paul's Lord = Jehovah, used absolutely (the one God), and Christ is included in that name. (6) S14–S15 — which "Spirit"? ⚠️⚠️ In S14–S15, "Spirit" is used ABSOLUTELY — the whole spiritual essence of God (John 4:24: God is a Spirit), in which are comprehended Father, Son, and Spirit. Only in S17 does Calvin turn to the Holy Spirit as a hypostasis. An option saying Calvin teaches that the Holy Spirit alone is the whole essence and the Father and Son are contained in him confuses the two uses.

Formula 1 — Agreement on a messy page: parenthesis never changes the verb · absolute clause · the missing comma

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  (A) S₁ + ( , NOT LESS THAN / AS WELL AS / TOGETHER WITH  S₂ , ) + V │
│      verb agrees with S₁ only                                         │
│      the Son and Spirit, not less than the Father, IS meant   (S2)   │
│        ← printed; standard: ARE meant                                 │
│                                                                       │
│  (B) printed slip:  the Personal subsistence CARRY … with THEM (S4)  │
│        read: subsistenceS carry … them / subsistence carrIES … it    │
│        clue: the pronoun (them) shows the intended number            │
│                                                                       │
│  (C) N + BEING + …   (absolute clause — no finite verb)              │
│      …, the principle and origin BEING in the Father, …      (S4)   │
│      …, the words BEING used absolutely, …                   (S10)  │
│        ✗ the principle and origin IS in the Father (comma splice)   │
│                                                                       │
│  (D) parenthetical HOWEVER needs TWO commas                          │
│      which, however derogates …  (printed)                   (S5)   │
│        read: which, however, derogates = which nevertheless …        │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

⚠️ Trap. Quote the printed page exactly — then write standard English in your own sentences. The parenthesis between commas is invisible to the verb; the pronoun later in the sentence tells you what number the writer meant.

Transformation drill. Correct and combine: The Son, as well as the Father, are worshipped. The Spirit proceeds from the Father. (use an absolute clause)

Model: The Son, as well as the Father, is worshipped, the Spirit proceeding from the Father and the Son. (✓ is agrees with The Son; ✓ absolute clause with proceeding, no finite verb.)

Formula 2 — Dummy it and clause subjects: hold it C to V · [that …] is clear · it is certain that · were = would be

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  (A) S + HOLD / THINK / FIND / CONSIDER + IT + C + TO V / THAT …     │
│      We … hold IT detestable blasphemy TO CALL the Son …      (S7)   │
│        ✗ hold detestable blasphemy to call …  (it required)          │
│                                                                       │
│  (B) [THAT-clause] + BE + ADJ    ⇄   IT + BE + ADJ + [THAT-clause]   │
│      [that the name Jehovah … may be applied to Christ] IS clear (S8)│
│      IT is certain [that the name of Lord … is there put for] (S10)  │
│      IT is sufficient [to remember, that Paul …]              (S13)  │
│        test: replace the bracket with THIS → "This is clear."        │
│                                                                       │
│  (C) [TO V …] + WERE + ADJ   (archaic subjunctive = WOULD BE)        │
│      to restrict it to the person of the Mediator WERE puerile (S10) │
│        = it would be puerile to restrict …   ✗ "was"                 │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

⚠️ Trap. In (B) the subject of is is the whole bracket — not the last noun before the verb (Christ). In (C) were with a singular subject is not an error: it is the subjunctive of an unreal case.

Transformation drill. Rewrite with hold it … to V: To divide the essence of God is impiety — we judge so.

Model: We hold it impiety to divide the essence of God. (✓ dummy it + complement + real object at the end.)

Formula 3 — Inversions and correlatives: nor + AUX · in which are + plural subject · as … so vs and so · admit of · both … and

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  (A) NOR + AUX + S + V                                                │
│      nor CAN God, considered in himself, BE SAID …            (S7)   │
│        ✗ nor God can be said                                          │
│                                                                       │
│  (B) (prep +) WHICH + V + REAL SUBJECT (after the verb)              │
│      in which ARE comprehended  Father, Son, and Spirit       (S15)  │
│      by the name God IS understood  the one simple essence    (S2)   │
│        verb agrees with the noun AFTER it                             │
│                                                                       │
│  (C) AS + clause₁ , SO + clause₂   = just as …, likewise …   (S17)  │
│      vs  … , AND SO + clause       = therefore                (S3)   │
│                                                                       │
│  (D) ADMIT OF + N = allow, be capable of  (≠ admit = confess)  (S7)  │
│      archaic negative: admits NOT of  = does not admit of            │
│                                                                       │
│  (E) BOTH  prep + N  AND  prep + N   (parallel)                (S17) │
│      both OF God and FROM God    — of = belonging (essence)          │
│                                    from = proceeding (order)         │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

⚠️ Trap. so has two lives: after a full clause with and, therefore; answering an earlier as, likewise. And in (B), the thing right after the preposition is never the subject — look past the verb.

Transformation drill. Combine with as … so and both … and: God is called Light. The Son is called light. The Son is light of light and light from light.

Model: As God is called Light, so the Son also is said to be both light of light and light from light. (✓ correlative as … so; ✓ both of … and from … parallel.)

Where we are. Chapter 13's positive doctrine ends today. Our §§20–23 (printed §§17–20): distinction (Day 94) → order (Day 95) → relation (Day 96) → today, the summary "for those who love soberness". From tomorrow (printed §21 = our §24) Calvin turns to polemics: Satan … has always provoked fierce disputes — Servetus, then Valentine Gentile and the Italian anti-trinitarians (printed §§21–29). So today is the "take-away card" before the battle.

The two-switch rule is old — and biblical. The New Testament regularly uses ὁ θεός (God) for the Father when Father and Son are named together (grace … from God our Father, and from the Lord Jesus Christ, Rom 1:7; one God, the Father … one Lord, Jesus Christ, 1 Cor 8:6), yet also calls the Son θεός (John 1:1; 20:28; Rom 9:5; Titus 2:13; Heb 1:8). Karl Rahner famously argued (1961) that ὁ θεός in the NT usually designates the Father. Calvin's rule explains the same data without subordinating the Son: the Father-designation belongs to the relational/ordered use (S4); the indefinite use covers all three (S2). Augustine made the parallel point in De Trinitate (e.g. Books I and V): some terms are said of God ad se (all three together), some relative.

"Lord" = Jehovah (S8–S13). The Septuagint (Greek OT, 3rd–2nd c. BC) regularly renders the divine name YHWH by Κύριος. So when the apostles apply OT "LORD"-texts to Jesus (Joel 2:32 → Rom 10:13; Isa 45:23 → Phil 2:10–11; Ps 102:25–27 → Heb 1:10–12), they place him within the identity of Israel's one God. Modern NT scholarship (e.g. Richard Bauckham's "divine identity" Christology; Larry Hurtado on early Christ-devotion) has made much of exactly this move — Calvin saw its force in 1559. Calvin's precision: in 2 Cor 12:8 "Lord" is used absolutely (the one God), and Christ is included; where "Lord" is Christ's title as Mediator (Phil 2:9–11, Acts 2:36), there is a different ground — to be treated in Book II (II.14 on the two natures, II.15 on Christ's offices). ⚠️ Some interpreters read 2 Cor 12:8 as a prayer specifically to Christ (because of v. 9, the power of Christ). Calvin's own reading keeps "Lord" absolute and sees Christ included in it. Both readings support Christ's deity; they differ on the precise referent.

"Spirit" used absolutely (S14–S17). John 4:24 — πνεῦμα ὁ θεός, God is spirit — describes God's nature (immaterial, not bound to a mountain or a temple). Calvin uses it as a lexical parallel: "Spirit" can name the whole divine essence, just as "God" and "Lord" can; and "the Holy Spirit" is also the name of one hypostasis, who is of God (God's own Spirit, 1 Cor 2:11) and from God (proceeding, John 15:26). The Western creed adds and the Son (filioque); Calvin affirmed that the Spirit is from both (Day 95: printed §18, the Spirit … from both). Today's from God stays general.

The grammar of theology. Three pieces of doctrinal vocabulary run through the whole paragraph: indefinitely / simply / absolutely (the name without relation) vs specially (the name with a restricted reference) vs relation / order (how Persons stand). Latin theology called it predication absolute vs relative, or essentialiter vs personaliter — later Reformed dogmatics (e.g. Turretin, Institutio III.23–30) would formalise this; Calvin already uses it as a reading method for Scripture.

Over-reading guardrails, all in one place. ⚠️ (1) S4 ≠ subordinationism: "God" goes to the Father by ORDER, not by degree of deity (S5: derogates in no respect). (2) S7 ≠ a ban on distinguishing: distinct Persons ✓, different God ✗. (3) S7 this or that ≠ apophatic "God is indescribable": it means God-in-himself is not one Person as opposed to another. (4) S10 ≠ a denial that Christ is Lord as Mediator: that is a different ground (S13), postponed, not denied. (5) S15 ≠ "the Holy Spirit alone contains the Father and Son": the name "Spirit" used absolutely denotes the whole essence. (6) S17 from God ≠ creaturely origin: it is the eternal relation of procession, within the one essence (a hypostasis of the whole essence). (7) The printed agreement slips (S2, S4) are not doctrine — don't build theology on a verb ending.

The one-line takeaway. ⚠️ "God" alone = all three; "God" beside "the Son" = the Father (by order, not rank) — and "Lord" and "Spirit" follow the same rule.

1. Romans 12:3 — S1 (soberness, the measure of faith). not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith. Gk. σωφρονεῖν … μέτρον πίστεως. How Calvin uses it: Paul's ethical phrase becomes a hermeneutical boundary — stay within what God has given to be known.
2. Deuteronomy 6:4 — behind S2 and S6. Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD (Heb. יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יְהוָה אֶחָד). How it fits: When we profess to believe in one God — the Shema is the confession S2 starts from, and we must always arrive at a unity of essence (S6).
3. Romans 1:7; 1 Corinthians 8:6 — behind S3–S4. from God our Father, and the Lord Jesus Christ / to us there is but one God, the Father … and one Lord Jesus Christ. How it fits: textbook cases of Switch 2 — Father and Son named together, and "God" given specially to the Father.
4. John 1:1 — behind S2–S3. the Word was with God (πρὸς τὸν θεόν), and the Word was God (θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος). How it fits: both switches in one verse — with God (relation; "God" = the Father), was God (essence).
5. John 12:41 (Isaiah 6:1–5); Romans 9:33 (Isaiah 8:14) — behind S6. These things said Esaias, when he saw his glory, and spake of him. How it fits: examples of how the apostles declare the Son of God to have been He whom Moses and the prophets declared to be Jehovah (proved earlier in Ch. 13).
6. 2 Corinthians 12:8–9 — S8–S9 (cited). For this thing I besought the Lord thrice … My grace is sufficient for thee … that the power of Christ may rest upon me. Gk. τρὶς τὸν κύριον παρεκάλεσα … ἵνα ἐπισκηνώσῃ ἐπ᾿ ἐμὲ ἡ δύναμις τοῦ Χριστοῦ. ⚠️ ἐπισκηνώσῃ = tabernacle upon — the Shekinah verb. How Calvin uses it: "Lord" used absolutely (= Jehovah) and "Christ" attached in the same breath.
7. Joel 2:32 (Heb. 3:5); Acts 2:21 — S12 (cited; printed "Joel 2:28"). whosoever shall call on the name of the LORD shall be delivered — Heb. כֹּל אֲשֶׁר־יִקְרָא בְּשֵׁם יְהוָה; Gk. πᾶς ὃς ἂν ἐπικαλέσηται τὸ ὄνομα κυρίου. How Calvin uses it: Peter's Kyrios = Joel's YHWH; same absolute usage as Paul's prayer.
8. Romans 10:9–13 — behind S12–S13. if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus … For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. How it fits: Paul applies the same Joel text directly to Jesus — the strongest form of Calvin's point (not cited here, but the obvious companion).
9. Philippians 2:9–11; Acts 2:36 — behind S13 (a different ground). every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord / God hath made that same Jesus … both Lord and Christ. How it fits: "Lord" given specially to the Son as exalted Mediator — the "different ground" Calvin postpones to Book II.
10. John 4:24 — behind S14–S17 (God is there called a Spirit). God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. Gk. πνεῦμα ὁ θεός. How Calvin uses it: Christ's own absolute use of "Spirit" for God = the whole spiritual essence.
11. 1 Corinthians 2:11–12; Romans 8:9 — behind S17 (of God). the Spirit of God … the spirit which is of God (τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἐκ τοῦ θεοῦ) / the Spirit of God … the Spirit of Christ. How it fits: the Spirit is God's own Spirit — of God.
12. John 15:26 — behind S17 (from God). the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father. Gk. ὃ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται. How it fits: from God = the relation of origin (procession) — the order of S4.

① 어법 — 밑줄 넷 중 어색한 것 하나

We hold (A) it detestable blasphemy to call the Son a different God from the Father, because the simple name God admits not of relation, nor (B) God can be said to be this or that. To restrict it to the person of the Mediator (C) were puerile and frivolous. For nothing prevents us from holding that he is the entire spiritual essence of God, in which (D) are comprehended Father, Son, and Spirit.

✨ 답안 보기 (클릭)정답: (B).

출제 의도. ⚠️ Formula 3(A) — nor at the head of a clause forces auxiliary inversion: nor can God … be said. (B) keeps statement order after nor → ✗. Why the others are sound. (A) dummy object it after hold + complement + real object to call … (Formula 2A). (C) ⚠️ the "feels wrong, is right" option — archaic subjunctive were = would be with an infinitive subject (Formula 2C). (D) fronted relative PP + inversion; the real subject Father, Son, and Spirit (plural) follows the verb (Formula 3B).

② 내용일치 — 다음 중 §23의 내용과 일치하는 것은?

(1) When the name "God" is used without qualification, it refers chiefly to the Father, and only secondarily to the Son and Spirit. (2) Because the Father is the principle and origin, the Son and Spirit possess a lesser degree of divinity. (3) Calvin regards it as childish to confine Paul's "Lord" in 2 Cor 12:8 to Christ as Mediator, since the word there stands for Jehovah used absolutely. (4) Calvin considers it blasphemy to distinguish the Son from the Father in any way.

✨ 답안 보기 (클릭)정답: (3).

출제 의도. (1) ✗ Direction flip. Used indefinitely, "God" means the Son and Spirit, not less than the Father (S2). "Chiefly the Father" is the relational use (S4), not the indefinite one. (2) ✗ Direction flip. The order derogates in no respect from the divinity of the Son and Spirit (S5). (3) ✓ S10 — the name of Lord (Κυρι ος) is there put for Jehovah, and, therefore, to restrict it to the person of the Mediator were puerile and frivolous, the words being used absolutely. (4) ✗ Scope overreach. Blasphemy = calling the Son a different God (S7); distinguishing the Persons is what Calvin himself does (S3: we distinguish between the Persons).

③ 영작 — 다음을 오늘의 공식을 적용해 영어로

우리는 성자를 성부와 다른 하나님이라 부르는 것을 가증한 신성모독으로 여긴다. 하나님이 영이라 불리듯, 성령도 하나님의 것이며 하나님으로부터 나온다고 일컬어진다.

Model answer:

We hold it detestable blasphemy to call the Son a different God from the Father. As God is called a Spirit, so the Holy Spirit is said to be both of God and from God.

출제 의도. Three checks. ① Formula 2(A) — hold it + C + to V. ⚠️ hold detestable blasphemy to call (no it) ✗; different … from ✓. ② Formula 3(C) — correlative as … so = just as … likewise. ⚠️ As God is called a Spirit, therefore the Holy Spirit ✗ (wrong so). ③ Formula 3(E) — both of … and from … parallel prepositions. ⚠️ both of God and proceeds from God ✗ (not parallel).

One-line summary. Let those, then, who love soberness … briefly receive what is useful to be known*: by the name God is understood the one simple essence, comprehending three persons, so whenever the name of God is used indefinitely, the Son and Spirit, not less than the Father, is meant; when the Son is joined with the Father, relation comes into view, and because the Persons carry an order, the principle and origin being in the Father, the name of God is specially given to the Father — an order which, however derogates in no respect from the divinity of the Son and Spirit; hence we hold it detestable blasphemy to call the Son a different God from the Father, because the simple name God admits not of relation; proof: in 2 Cor 12 the name of Lord (Κυρι ος) is there put for Jehovah and to restrict it to the person of the Mediator were puerile and frivolous (cf. Joel/Acts 2:21); and as God is there called a Spirit, so the Holy Spirit … is said to be both of God and from God*.

The three grammar points, once more. ① Agreement on a messy page — the Son and Spirit, not less than the Father, is meant (S2, printed; write are), the Personal subsistence carry … them (S4, printed; read plural), which, however derogates (S5, read however,), absolute clauses the principle and origin being / the words being used (S4, S10). ② Dummy it and clause subjects — hold it detestable blasphemy to call (S7), [that the name Jehovah …] is clear (S8), it is certain that (S10), to restrict it … were puerile (S10: would be). ③ Inversions and correlatives — nor can God … be said (S7), in which are comprehended Father, Son, and Spirit (S15), as … so = likewise (S17) vs and so = therefore (S3), admits not of (S7), both of God and from God (S17).

And the structural fact you now own: ⚠️ S1–S5 the two switches (indefinite "God" = all three; relational "God" = the Father, by order, with no loss to the Son and Spirit), S6–S7 the verdict (one essence → "a different God" is blasphemy), S8–S13 proof from "Lord" = Jehovah (2 Cor 12; Joel/Acts 2) with a fence around the Mediator's title, S14–S17 proof from "Spirit" (John 4:24) ending in of God (essence) + from God (origin).

Homework (10 minutes).

1. Structure restoration (4 min). Rewrite S8 with extraposition: It is clear from the words of Paul … that the name Jehovah, taken indefinitely, may be applied to Christ. Then rewrite S15's relative clause in base order: … in which Father, Son, and Spirit are comprehended. Explain why the verb is plural in both orders.
2. Composition (4 min). Write one sentence with Formula 2(A) + Formula 3(A): We hold it … to …, nor can … (topic: dividing the essence of God). Check: it present; auxiliary before the subject after nor.
3. Preview (2 min). Tomorrow (our §24 = printed §21): But since Satan, in order to pluck up our faith by the roots, has always provoked fierce disputes, partly concerning the divine essence of the Son and Spirit, and partly concerning the distinction of persons; … Expect: (a) a long double since … ; since … causal frame before the main clause it will be proper here to dispose of some of these perverse dreams; (b) Calvin's shift from teaching (stretch out our hand for the guidance of such as are disposed to learn) to defence (the truth which was calmly demonstrated must be vindicated); (c) the start of the anti-trinitarian polemic. Today: the pocket card. Tomorrow: the battlefield.

Where we stopped: Book 1, Ch. 13, §23 끝. 다음은 Book 1, Ch. 13, §24 (= Beveridge 인쇄 §21, 논쟁부 개시 — 사탄이 성자·성령의 신성과 위격 구별을 두고 일으켜 온 논쟁, "완고한 자들"에 대한 변호로 전환 · But since Satan, in order to pluck up our faith by the roots, has always provoked fierce disputes, …).