John Calvin on the Unity and Distinction of the Trinity

"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 be employed in discussing it.  It seems to me, that nothing can be more admirable than the words of Gregory Nazianzen: '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 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 proceeds 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)" (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1.13.17).

John Calvin on One God, One Faith, and One Baptism

"As God has manifested himself more clearly by the advent of Christ, so he has made himself more familiarly known in the three persons.  Of many proofs let this one suffice.  Paul connects together these three, God, faith, and baptism, and reasons from the one to the other, i.e., because there is one faith he infers that there is one God; and because there is one baptism he infers that there is one faith. Therefore, if by baptism we are initiated into the faith and worship of one God, we must of necessity believe that he into whose name we are baptized is the true God.  And there cannot be a doubt that our Savior wished to testify, by a solemn rehearsal, that the perfect light of faith is now exhibited, when he said, 'Go and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit' (Matt 28:19), since this is the same thing as to be baptized into the name of the one God, who has been fully manifested in the Father, the Son, and the Spirit.  Hence it plainly appears, that the three persons, in whom alone God is known, subsist in the divine essence.  And since faith certainly ought not to look hither and thither, or run up and down after various objets, but to like, refer, and cleave to God alone, it is obvious that were there various kinds of faith, there behooved also to be various gods.  Then, as the baptism of faith is a sacrament, its unity assures us of the unity of God.  Hence also it is proved that it is lawful only to be baptized into one God, because we make a profession of faith in him in whose name we are baptized.  What, then, is our Savior's meaning in commanding baptism to be administered in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit, if it be not that we are to believe with one faith in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Hoy Spirit?  But is this anything else than to declare that the Father, Son, and Spirit, are one God?  Wherefore, since it must be held certain that there is one God, not more than one, we conclude the the Word and Spirit are of the very essence of God" (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1.13.16).

John Calvin on the Holy Spirit as the True Jehovah

"Nor does the Scripture, in speaking of [the Holy Spirit], withhold the name of God.  Paul infers that we are the temple of God, from the fact that 'the Spirit of God dwelleth in us' (1 Cor 3:16; 6:19; and 2 Cor 6:16).  Now it out not to be slightly overlooked, that all the promises which God makes of choosing us to himself as a temple, receive their only fulfillment by his Spirit dwelling in us.  Surely, as it is admirably express by Augustine (Epist. 66 ad Maximinum), 'were we ordered to make a temple of wood and stone to the Spirit, inasmuch as such worship is due to God alone, it would be a clear proof of the Spirit's divinity; how much clearer a proof in that we are not to make a temple to him, but to be ourselves that temple.'  And the apostle says at one time that we are the temple of God, and at another time, in the same sense, that we are the temple of the Holy Spirit.  Peter, when he rebukes Ananias for having lied to the Holy Spirit, said, that he had not lied unto men, but unto God.  And when Isaiah had introduced the Lord of Hosts as speaking, Paul says, it was the Holy Sprit that spoke (Acts 28:25, 26).  No, words uniformly said by the prophets to have been spoken by the Lord of Hosts, are by Christ and his apostles ascribed to the Holy Spirit.  Hence it follows that the Spirit is the true Jehovah who dictated the prophecies" (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1.13.15).

John Calvin on the Divinity of the Holy Spirit

"The best proof to us [of the divinity of the Spirit] is our familiar experience.  For nothing can be more alien from a creature, than the office which the Scriptures ascribe to him, and which the pious actually feel him discharging - his being diffused over all space, sustaining, invigorating, and quickening all things, both in heaven and on the earth.  The mere fact of his not being [defined] by any limits raises him above the rank of creatures, while his transfusing vigor into all things, breathing into them being, life, and motion, is plainly divine.  Again, if regeneration to incorruptible life is higher, and much more excellent than any present quickening, what must be thought of him by whose energy it is produced?  Now, many passages of Scripture show that he is the author of regeneration, not by a borrowed, but by an intrinsic energy; and not only so, but that he is also the author of future immortality.  In short, all the peculiar attributes of the Godhead are ascribed to him in the same way as to the Son.  He searches the deep things of God, and has no counselor among the creatures; he bestows wisdom and the faculty of speech, though God declares to Moses (Exod 4:11) that this is his own peculiar province.  In like manner, by means of him we become partakers of the divining nature, so as in a manner to feel his quickening energy within us.  Our justification is his work; from him is power, sanctification, truth, grace, and every good thought, since it is from the Spirit alone that all good gifts proceed.  Particular attention is due to Paul's expression that though there are diversities of gifts, 'all these [are empowered by] one and the self-same Spirit' (1 Cor 12:11), he being not only the beginning or origin, but also the author; as is even more clearly expressed immediately after in these words 'dividing to every man severally as he will.'  For were he not something subsisting in God, will and arbitrary disposal would never be ascribed to him.  Most clearly, therefore, does Paul ascribe divine power to the Spirit, and demonstrate that he dwells [fundamentally] in God" (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1.13.14).

John Calvin on Christ as Eternal God

"If [outside] of God there is no salvation, no righteousness, no life, Christ, having all these in himself, is certainly God.  Let no one object that life or salvation is transfused into him by God.  For it is said not that he received, but that he himself is salvation.  And if there is none good but God, how could a mere man be pure, how could he be, I say not good and just, but goodness and justice?  Then what shall we say to the testimony of the evangelist, that from the very beginning of creation 'in him was life, and this life was the light of men'?  Trusting to such proofs, we can boldly put our hope and faith in him, though we know it is blasphemous [irreverence] to confide in any creature.  'Ye believe in God,' says he, ' believe also in me' (John 14:1).  And so Paul (Rom 10:11 and 15:12) interprets two passages of Isaiah, 'Whoso believeth in him shall not be confounded' (Isa 28:16); and, 'In that day there shall be a root of Jesse, which shall stand for [a banner] of the people; to it shall the gentiles seek' (Isa 11:10).  But why adduce more passages of Scripture on this head, when we so often meet with the expression, 'He that believeth in me has eternal life'?" (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1.13.13).

John Calvin on Christ's Eternal Godhead (Part 2 of 2)

"It was [Jesus Christ] who arose and pitied Zion - he who claimed for himself dominion over all nations and islands.  And why should John have hesitated to ascribe the majesty of God to Christ, after saying in his preface that the Word was God? (John 1:14).  Why should Paul have feared to place Christ on the judgment-seat of God (2 Cor 5:10), after he had so openly proclaimed his divinity, when he said that he was God over all, blessed for ever? And to show how consistent he is in this respect, he elsewhere says that 'God was manifest in the flesh' (1 Tim 3:16).  If he is God blessed forever, he therefore it is to whom alone, as Paul affirms in another place, all glory and honor is due.  Paul does not disguise this, but openly exclaims, that 'being in the form of God (he) thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made himself of no reputation' (Phil 2:6).  And lest the wicked should clamor and say that he was a kind of spurious God, John goes farther, and affirms, 'This is the true God, and eternal life.'  Though it ought to be enough for us that he is called God, especially by a witness who distinctly testifies that we have no more gods than one, Paul says, 'Though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth (as there be gods many, and lord many), but to us there is but one God' (1 Cor 8:5,6).  When we hear from the same lips that God was manifest in the flesh, that God purchased the church with his own blood, why do we dream of any second God, to whom he makes not the least allusion?  And there is no room to doubt that all the godly entertained the same view.  Thomas, by addressing him as his Lord and God, certainly professes that he was the only God whom he had ever adored (John 20:28)" (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1.13.11).

John Calvin on Christ's Eternal Godhead (Part 1 of 2)

"Though the apostles spoke of [Jesus] after his appearance in the flesh as Mediator, every passage which I deduce will be sufficient to prove his eternal Godhead.  And the first thing deserving of special observation is that predictions concerning the eternal God are applied to Christ, as either already fulfilled in him, or to be fulfilled at some future period.  Isaiah prophesies, that 'the Lord of hosts' shall be 'for a stone of stumbling, and for a rock of offense' (Isa 8:14).  Paul asserts that this prophecy was fulfilled in Christ (Rom 9:33), and therefore declares that Christ is that Lord of Hosts.  In like manner, he says in another passage, 'We shall all stand before the judgment-seat of Christ.  For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.'  Since in Isaiah God predicts this of himself (Isa 45:23), and Christ exhibits the reality fulfilled in himself, it follows that he is the very God, whose glory cannot be given to another.  It is clear also, that the passage from the psalms (Ps 68:19) which he quotes in the Epistle to the Ephesians, is applicable only to God, 'When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive' (Eph 4:8).  Understanding that such an ascension was shadowed forth when the Lord exerted his power, and gained a glorious victory over heathen nations, he intimates that what was thus shadowed was more fully manifested in Christ.  So John testifies that it was the glory of the Son which was revealed to Isaiah in a vision (John 12:41; Isa 6:4), though Isaiah himself expressly says that what he saw was the majesty of God.  Again, there can be no doubt that those qualities which, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, are applied to the Son, are the brightest attributes of God, 'Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, ' etc., and, 'Let all the angels of God worship him' (Heb 1:6).  And yet he does not pervert the passages in thus applying them to Christ, since Christ alone performed the things which these passages celebrate" (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion 1.13.11).

John Calvin on the Deity of Jesus in the Old Testament (Part 2 of 2)

"The same thing is intimated by Hosea, who, after mentioning the wrestling of Jacob with the angel, says, 'Even the Lord God of hosts; the Lord is his memorial' (Hos 12:5).  Servetus again insinuates that God personated an angel; as if the prophet did not confirm what had been said by Moses, 'Wherefore is it that thou dost ask after my name?' (Gen 32:29, 30).  And the confession of the holy patriarch sufficiently declares that he was not a created angel, but one in whom the fullness of the Godhead dwelled, when he says, 'I have seen God face to face.'  Hence also Paul's statement, that Christ led the people in the wilderness (1 Cor 10:4. See also Calvin on Acts 7:30, and infra, c. 14 s. 9).  Although the time of humiliation had not yet arrived, the eternal Word exhibited a type of the office which he was to fulfill.  Again, if Zech 1:9, etc., and Zech 2:3, etc., be candidly considered, it will be seen that the angel is immediately after declared to be the Lord of Hosts, and that supreme power is ascribed to him.  I omit numberless passages in which our faith rests secure, though they may not have much weight with the Jews.  For when it is said in Isaiah, 'Lo, this is our God; we have waited for him and he will save us; this is the Lord: we have waited for him, we will be glad and rejoice in his salvation; (Isa 25:9), even the blind may see the the God referred to is he who again rises up for the deliverance of his people.  And the emphatic description, twice repeated, precludes the idea that reference is made to any other than to Christ.  Still clearer and stronger is the passage of Malachi, in which a promise is made that the messenger who was then expected would come to his own temple (Mal 3:1).  The temple certainly was dedicated to almighty God only, and yet the prophet claims it for Christ.  Hence it follows, that he is the God who was always worshiped by the Jews" (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion).

John Calvin on the Deity of Jesus in the Old Testament (Part 1 of 2)

"But if this does not satisfy the Jews, I know not what [irritating and trivial objections] will enable them to evade the numerous passages in which Jehovah is said to have appeared in the form of an angel (Judg 6,7,13,16-23, etc.).  This angel claims for himself the name of the eternal God.  Should it be alleged that this is done in respect of the office which he bears, the difficulty is by no means solved.  No servant would rob God of his honor, by allowing sacrifice to be offered to himself.  But the angel, by refusing to eat bread, orders the sacrifice due to Jehovah to be offered to him.  Thus the fact itself proves that he was truly Jehovah.  Accordingly, Manoah and his wife infer from the sign, that they had seen not an angel, but God.  Hence Manoah's exclamation, 'We shall die; for we have seen the Lord.'  When the woman replies, 'If Jehovah had wished to slay us, he would not have received the sacrifice at our hand,' she acknowledges that he who is previously called an angel was certainly God.  We may add, that the angel's own reply removes all doubt, 'Why do ye ask my name, which is wonderful?'  Hence the [the lack of reverence to God] of Servetus was the more detestable, when he maintained that God was never manifested to Abraham and the patriarchs, but that an angel was worshiped in his stead.  The orthodox doctors of the church have correctly and wisely expounded, the the Word of God was the supreme angel, who then began, as it were by anticipation, to perform the office of Mediator.  For though he were not clothed with flesh, yet he descended as in an intermediate form, that he might have more familiar access to the faithful.  This closer intercourse procured for him the name of the angel; still, however, he retained the character which justly belonged to him, that of the God of ineffable glory" (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion).

John Calvin on Asserting the Divinity of Christ

"When it is said in Ps 45, 'Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever,' the Jews quibble that the name Elohim is applied to angels and sovereign powers.  But no passage is to be found in Scripture, where an eternal throne is set up for a creature.  For he is not called God simply, but also the eternal Ruler.  Besides, the title is not conferred on any man, without some addition, as when it is said that Moses would be a God to Pharaoh (Exod 7:1).  Some read as if it were in the genitive case, but this is too [anemic].  I admit, that anything possessed of singular excellence is often called divine, but it is clear from the context, that this meaning here is harsh and forced, and totally inapplicable.   But if their perverseness still refuses to yield, surely there is no obscurity in Isaiah, where Christ is introduced both as God, and as possessed of supreme power, one of the peculiar attributes of God, 'His name shall be called the might God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace' (Isa 9:6).  Here, too, the Jews object, and invert the passage thus: This is the name by which the mighty God, the everlasting Father, will call him; so that all which they leave to the Son is, 'Prince of Peace.'  But why should so many epithets be here accumulated on God the Father, seeing the prophet's design is to present the Messiah with certain distinguished properties which may induce us to put our faith in him?  There can be no doubt, therefore, that he who a little before was called Immanuel, is here called the mighty God.  Moreover, there can be nothing clearer than the words of Jeremiah,

     'This is the name whereby he shall be called,
     "The lord our righteousness"' (Jer 23:6)" (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1.13.9).

John Calvin on Proving the Divinity of Jesus and the Holy Spirit

"When the word of God is set before us in the Scriptures, it were certainly most absurd to imagine that it is only a fleeting and [imperceptible] voice, which is sent out into the air, and comes forth beyond God himself, as was the case with the communications made to the patriarchs, and all the prophecies.  The reference is rather to the wisdom ever dwelling with God, and by which all oracles and prophecies were inspired.  For, as Peter testifies (1 Pet 1:11), the ancient prophets spoke by the Spirit of Christ just as did the apostles, and all who after them were ministers of the heavenly doctrine.  But as Christ was not yet manifested we necessarily understand that the Word was begotten of the Father before all ages.  But if that Spirit, whose [agent] the prophets were, belonged to the Word, the inference is irresistible, that the Word was truly God.  And this is clearly enough shown by Moses in his account of the creation, where he places the Word as intermediate.  For why does he distinctly narrated that God, in creating each of his works, said, let there by this - let there be that, unless that the unsearchable glory of God might shine forth in his image?  I know prattlers would easily evade this, by saying that 'Word' is used for order or command; but the apostles are better expositors, when they tell us that the worlds were created by the Son, and that he sustains all things by his mighty word (Heb 1:2).  For we here see that 'word' is used for the nod or command of the Son, who is himself the eternal and essential Word of the Father.  And no man of sane mind can have any doubt as to Solomon's meaning, when he introduces wisdom as begotten by God, and presiding at the creation of the world, and all other divine operations (Prov 8:22).  For it were trifling and foolish to imagine any temporary command at a time when God was pleased to execute his fixed and eternal counsel, and something more still mysterious.  To this our Savior's words refer, 'My Father worketh hitherto, and I work' (John 5:17).  In thus affirming, that from the foundation of the world he constantly worked with the Father, he gives a clearer explanation of the what Moses simply touched.  The meaning therefore is, that God spoke in such a manner as left the Word his peculiar part in the work, and thus made the operation common to both.  But the clearest explanation is given by John, when he states that the Word - which was from the beginning, God and with God, was, together with God the Father, the maker of all things.  For he both attributes a substantial and permanent essence to the Word, assigning to it a certain peculiarity, and distinctly showing how God spoke the world into being.  Therefore, as all revelations from heaven are duly designated by the title of the word of God, so the highest place must be assigned to that substantial Word, the source of all inspiration, which, as being liable to no variation, remains forever one and the same with God, and is God" (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1.13.7)

John Calvin on the Distinction of Persons in the Trinity

"By person, then, I mean a subsistence [a state of existence] in the divine essence [inward nature]- a subsistence which, while related to the other two [that is, the other two persons of the Trinity], is distinguished from them by incommunicable properties.  By subsistence we wish something else to be understood than essence.  For if the Word [Jesus] were God simply and had not some property peculiar to himself, John could not have said correctly that he had always been with God.  When he adds immediately after, the the Word was God, he calls us back to the one essence.  But because he could not be with God without dwelling in the Father, hence arises that subsistence, which, though connected with the essence by an indissoluble tie, being incapable of separation, yet has a special mark by which it is distinguished from it.  Now, I say that each of the three subsistences while related to the others is distinguished by its own properties.  Here relation is distinctly expressed, because, when God is mentioned simply and indefinitely the same belongs not less to the Son and Spirit than to the Father.  But whenever the Father is compared with the Son, the peculiar property of each distinguishes the one from the other.  Again, whatever is proper to each I affirm to be [incapable of being shared], because nothing can apply or be transferred to the Son which is attributed to the Father as a mark of distinction.  I have no objections to adopt the definition of Tertullian, provided it is properly understood, 'That there is in God a certain arrangement or economy, which makes no change on the unity of essence.' -Tertullian, Adversus Praxeam" (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, 1.13.6).

John Calvin on the Use of Words to Fight Heresy

"The early Christians, when harassed with the disputes which heresies produced, were forced to declare their sentiments in terms most scrupulously exact in order that no indirect [deception] might remain to ungodly men, to whom [double meaning] of expression was a kind of hiding-place.  Arius confessed that Christ was God, and the Son of God; because the passages of Scripture to this effect were too clear to be resisted, and then, as if he had done well, pretended to concur with others.  But, meanwhile, he ceased not to give out that Christ was created, and had a beginning like other creatures.  To drag this man of wiles out of his lurking-places, the ancient church took a further step, and declared that Christ is the eternal Son of the Father, and consubstantial (of one and the same substance, essence, or nature) with the Father.  The [heresy] was fully disclosed when the Arians began to declare their hatred and utter detestation of the term ὁμοούσιος (homoousios).  Had their first confession, i.e., that Christ was God, been sincere and from the heart, they would not have denied that he was consubstantial with the Father.  Who dare charge those ancient writers as men of strife and contention, for having debated so warmly, and disturbed the quiet of the church for a single word?  That little word distinguished between Christians of pure faith and the blasphemous Arians.  Next Sabellius arose, who counted the names of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as almost nonentities; maintaining that they were not used to mark out some distinction, but that they were different attributes of God, like many others of a similar kind.  When the matter was debated, he acknowledged his belief that the Father was God, the Son God, the Spirit God; but then he had the evasion ready, that he had said nothing more than if he had called God powerful and just and wise.  Accordingly, he sang another note, i.e., that the Father was the Son, and the Holy Spirit the Father, without order or distinction.  The worthy doctors who then had the interests of piety at heart, in order to defeat this man's dishonesty, proclaimed that three subsistences were to be truly acknowledged in the one God.  That they might protect themselves against tortuous craftiness by the simple open truth, they affirmed that a Trinity of person subsisted in the one God, or (which is the same thing) in the unity of God" (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion).

John Calvin on the Use of Words Not Found in Scripture

"Though heretics may snarl and the excessively [demanding and critical unreasonably find fault] at the word person as inadmissible, in consequence of its human origin, since they cannot displace us from our position that three are named, each of whom is perfect God, and yet that there is no plurality of gods, it is most uncandid to attack the terms which do nothing more than explain what the Scriptures declare and sanction.  'It were better,' they say, 'to confine not only our meanings but our words within the bounds of Scripture, and not scatter about foreign terms to become the future seed-beds of brawls and dissensions.  In this way, men grow tired of quarrels about words; the truth is lost in altercation, and charity melts away amid hateful strife.'  If they call it a foreign term, because it cannot be pointed out in Scripture in so many syllables, they certainly impose an unjust law - a law which would condemn every interpretation of Scripture that is not composed of other words of Scripture.  But if by foreign they mean that which, after being idly devised, is superstitiously defended - which tends more to strife than edification - which is used either out of place, or with no benefit which offends pious ears by its harshness, and leads them away from the simplicity of God's word, I embrace their soberness with all my heart.  For I think we are bound to speak of God as reverently as we are bound to think of him.  As our own thoughts respecting him are foolish, so our own language respecting him is absurd.  Still, however, some medium must be observed.  The unerring standard both of thinking and speaking must be derived from the Scriptures: by it all the thoughts of our minds, and the words of our mouths, should be tested.  But in regard to those parts of Scripture which, to our capacities, are dark and intricate, what forbids us to explain them in clearer terms - terms, however, kept in reverent and faithful subordination to Scripture truth, used sparingly and modestly, and not without occasion?  Of this we are not without many examples.  When it has been proved that the church was impelled, by the strongest necessity, to use the words Trinity and person, will not he who still [vehemently attacks] against novelty of terms be deservedly suspected of taking offense at the light of truth, and of having no other ground for his [violent denunciation], than that the truth is made plain and transparent?"  (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion)

John Calvin on the Three Persons of God

"While [God] proclaims his unity, he distinctly sets it before us as existing in three persons.  These we must hold, unless the bare and empty name of Deity merely is to flutter in our brain without any genuine knowledge.  Moreover, lest any one should dream of a threefold God, or think that the simple essence is divided by the three persons, we must here seek a brief and easy definition which may effectually guard us from error.  But as some strongly [rail] against the term person as being merely of human invention, let us first consider how far they have any ground for doing so.  When the apostle calls the Son of God 'the express image of his person' (Her 1:3), he undoubtedly does assign to the Father some subsistence in which he differs from the Son.  For to hold with some interpreters that the term is equivalent to essence (as if Christ represented the substance of the Father like the impression of a seal upon wax), were not only harsh but absurd.  For the essence of God being simple and undivided, and contained in himself entire, in full perfection, without partition or [being diminished], it is improper, no ridiculous, to call it his express image χαρακτήρ (character).  But because the Father, though distinguished by his own peculiar properties, has expressed himself wholly in the Son, he is said with perfect reason to have rendered his person (hypostasis) manifest in him.  And this aptly accords with what is immediately added, i.e., that he is 'the brightness of his glory.'  The fair inference from the apostle's words is, that there is a proper subsistence (hypostasis) of the Father, which shines [radiantly] in the Son.  From this, again it is easy to infer that there is a subsistence (hypostasis) of the Son which distinguishes him from the Father.  The same holds in the case of the Holy Spirit; for we will immediately prove both that he is God, and that he has a separate subsistence from the Father.  This, moreover, is not a distinction of essence, which it were [lacking reverence for God] to multiply.  If credit, then, is given to the apostle's testimony, it follows that there are three persons (hypostases) in God" (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion).

John Calvin on the Immensity of God

"The doctrine of Scripture concerning the immensity and the spirituality of the essence of God, should have the effect not only of dissipating the wild dreams of the vulgar, but also of refuting the subtleties of a profane philosophy. . . [God's] immensity surely ought to deter us from measuring him by our sense, while his spiritual nature forbids us to indulge in carnal or earthly speculation concerning him.  With the same view he frequently represents heaven as his dwelling-place.  It is true, indeed, that as he is incomprehensible, he fills the earth also, but knowing that our minds are heavy and grovel on the earth, he raises us above the world, that he make shake off our sluggishness and inactivity.  And here we have a refutation to the error of the Manichees (God is made up of physical body and spiritual soul), who, by adopting two first principles, made the devil almost the equal of God.  This, assuredly, was both to destroy his unity and restrict his immensity.  Their attempt to pervert certain passages of Scripture proved their shameful ignorance, as the very nature of the error did their monstrous infatuation.  The Anthropomorphites (those who attribute human qualities to God), also, who dreamed of a [physical] God, because mouth, ears, eyes, hands, and feet are often ascribed to him in Scripture, are easily refuted.  For who is so devoid of intellect as not to understand that God, in so speaking, lisps with us as nurses are wont to do with little children?  Such modes of expression, therefore, do not so much express what kind of a being God is, as accommodate the knowledge of him to our feebleness.  In doing so he must, of course, stoop far below his proper height" (John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion).

John Calvin on Why God Forbids Images of Him

"When once men imagined that they beheld God in images, they also worshiped him as being there.  At length their eyes and minds becoming wholly engrossed by them, they began to grow more and more brutish, gazing and wondering as if some divinity were actually before them.  It hence appears that men do not fall away to the worship of images until they have [swallowed] some idea of a grosser description: not that they actually believe them to be gods, but the the power of divinity somehow or other resides in them.  Therefore, whether it be God or a creature that is imaged, the moment you fall prostrate before it in veneration, you are so far fascinated by superstition.  For this reason, the Lord not only forbade the erection of statues to himself, but also the consecration of titles and stones which might be set up for adoration.  For as soon as a visible form is given to God, his power also is supposed to be annexed to it.  So stupid are men, that wherever they figure God, there they fix him, and by necessary consequence proceed to adore him.  It makes no difference whether they worship the idol simply, or God in the idol; it is always idolatry when divine honors are paid to an idol, be the color what it may.  And because God wills not to be worshiped superstitiously, whatever is bestowed upon idols is so much robbed from him" (Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin).

John Calvin on the Origin of Idols

"In regards to the origin of idols . . . they originated with those who bestowed this honor on the dead, from a superstitious regard to their memory.  I admit that this perverse practice is of very high antiquity, and I deny not that it was a kind of torch by which the infatuated proneness of mankind to idolatry was kindled into a greater blaze.  I do not, however, admit that it was the first origin of the practice.  That idols were in use before the prevalence of that ambitious consecration of the images of the dead, frequently adverted to by profane writers, is evident from the words of Moses (Gen 31:19).  When he relates that Rachel stole her father's images, he speaks of the use of idols as a common vice.  Hence we may infer, that the human mind is, so to speak, a perpetual forge of idols. . . The human mind, stuffed as it is with presumptuous rashness, dares to imagine a God suited to its own capacity; as it labors under dullness, no, is sunk in the grossest ignorance, it substitutes vanity and an empty phantom in the place of God.  To these evils another is added.  The God whom man has thus conceived inwardly he attempts to embody outwardly.  The mind, in this way, conceives the idol, and the hand gives it birth.  That idolatry has its origin in the idea which men have, that God is not present with them unless his presence is carnally exhibited, appears from the example of the Israelites: 'Up,' said they, 'make us gods, which shall go before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we [know] not what is become of him' (Exod 32:1).  They knew, indeed, that there was a God whose mighty power they had experienced in so many miracles, but they had no confidence of his being near to them, if they did not with their eyes behold a [physical] symbol of his presence, as [a confirmation] to his actual government.  They desired, therefore, to be assured by the image which went before them, that they were journeying under divine guidance.  And daily experience shows, that the flesh is always restless until it has obtained some figment like itself, with which it may vainly [comfort] itself as a representation of God" (Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin).

John Calvin on the Teaching of the Unlearned

This passage by John Calvin is focused on the images of wood, stone, silver, and gold found in many churches.  He calls them idols and addresses the uselessness of them.

"Let papists, then, if they have any sense of shame, henceforth desist from the futile plea, that images are the books of the unlearned - a plea so plainly refuted by innumerable passages of Scripture. . . Very different from these follies is the doctrine in which God would have them to be there instructed. His [command] is, that the doctrine common to all should there be set forth by the preaching of the word, and the administration of the sacraments - a doctrine to which little heed can be given by those whose eyes are carried to and fro gazing at idols.  And who are the unlearned, whose rudeness admits of being taught by images only?  Just those whom the Lord acknowledges for his disciples; those whom he honors with a revelation of his celestial philosophy, and desires to be trained in the saving mysteries of his kingdom.

"Paul declares, that by the true preaching of the gospel Christ is portrayed and in a manner crucified before our eyes (Gal 3:1).  Of what use, then, were the erection in churches of so many crosses of wood and stone, silver and gold, if this doctrine were faithfully and honestly preached, i.e., Christ died that he might bear our curse upon the tree, that he might [atone for] our sins by the sacrifice of his body, wash them in his blood, and, in short, reconcile us to God the Father?  From this one doctrine the people would learn more than from a thousand crosses of wood and stone.  As for crosses of gold and silver, it may be true that the [covetous] give their eyes and minds to them more eagerly than to any heavenly instructor" (Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin).

John Calvin on the Foolishness of Idols

"'Their idols are silver and gold, the works of men's hands' (Pss 115:4; 135:15).  From the materials of which they are made, [the psalmist] infers that they are not gods, taking for granted that every human device concerning God is a dull fiction.  He mentions silver and gold rather than clay or stone, that neither splendor nor cost may procure reverence to idols.  He then draws a general conclusion, that nothing is more unlikely than that gods should be formed of any kind of inanimate matter.  Man is forced to confess that he is but the creature of a day, and yet would have the metal which he has deified to be regarded as God.  Whence had idols their origin, but from the will of man?  There was ground, therefore, for the sarcasm of the heathen poet (Horace, Satirae I.8), 'I was once the trunk of a fig-tree, a useless log, when the tradesman, uncertain whether he should make me a stool, etc., chose rather that I should be a god.'  In other words, an earth-born creature, who breathes out his life almost every moment, is able by his own device to confer the name and honor of deity on a lifeless trunk.  But as that Epicurean poet, in indulging his wit, had no regard for religion, without attending to his jeers or those of his fellows, let the rebuke of the prophet sting, no, cut us to the heart, when he speaks of the extreme infatuation of those who take a piece of wood to kindle a fire to warm themselves, bake bread, roast or boil flesh, and out of the residue make a God, before which they prostrate themselves as [pleaders or beggars] (Isa 44:16).  Hence, the same prophet, in another place not only charges idolaters as guilty in the eye of the Law, but upbraids them for not learning from the foundations of the earth, nothing being more [inappropriate] than to reduce the immense and incomprehensible Deity to the stature of a few feet" (Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin).