I am looking at FOL with no equality, no constant, no function symbol and the unique binary predicate $\in$ with variables in arbitrary sets $V$ or $W$. I have an injective map $i:V\to W$ which induces a corresponding embedding $i:{\bf P}(V)\to{\bf P}(W)$ between formulas. I assume that $\Gamma\subseteq{\bf P}(V)$ is a consistent subset, namely that the sequent $\Gamma\vdash\bot$ is false in relation to some Hilbert-style deductive system. I am trying to establish that $i(\Gamma)$ is itself consistent. When $V$ is an inifinite set I know what to do: I can carry back any proof underlying the sequent $i(\Gamma)\vdash\bot$ into a proof of $\Gamma\vdash\bot$ by substituting variables from $W$ to $V$ while avoiding capture. The problem arises when $V$ is a finite set. I can no longer be sure I can carry back proofs while avoiding capture. I am looking for a reference where this question may have been dealt with, or any hints on how to approach the problem. More generally, this question can be phrased as follows: given $\phi\in{\bf P}(V)$ with $V$ finite, I want to show the implication $\vdash i(\phi)\ \Rightarrow\ \vdash\phi$. Heuristically, if $\phi\in{\bf P}(V)$ can be proved with variables in $W\supseteq V$, then it can also be proved with variables in $V$. This question is motivated by Godel's completeness theorem which I am attempting to prove on ${\bf P}(V)$ for $V$ finite, following a Henkin type proof: as I add new variables to the language, I need to make sure consistency is preserved, i.e. that I have a conservative extension.