Day 85 — Book 1, Chapter 13, §11

The audience changes today. For three sections Calvin has been arguing against a Jewish reader — Psalm 45, Isaiah 9, Jeremiah 23 (§9), then the Angel of Judges 13 and Malachi's messenger (§10), all ending in he is the God who was always worshipped by the Jews. That argument is finished. Today the witnesses are the apostles, and the problem is no longer scarcity of evidence but excess of it: The New Testament teems with innumerable passages, and our object must therefore be, the selection of a few, rather than an accumulation of the whole. (S1) ⚠️ Underline rather than. That is a method statement, and a method statement is always exam material. Calvin is telling you in advance that what follows is a sample, not a survey — so any test option that says Calvin claims to have assembled all the New Testament evidence is dead on arrival.

Then the disclaimer, and it is the Book 2 deferral coming back at you from the other side: But though the Apostles spoke of him after his appearance in the flesh as Mediator, every passage which I adduce will be sufficient to prove his eternal Godhead. (S2) ⚠️⚠️ Look at the shape of that. Concession (though) — apostles speak of the incarnate Mediator. Assertion — the passages still prove the eternal Godhead. Why does he need this? Because an opponent can always say: of course the apostles call him Lord; they are describing the man Jesus in his office. Calvin's answer is that the office does not generate the divinity; the divinity is what the office presupposes. Same move as §10 S3 (in respect of the office which he bears — by no means solved), transposed from the Angel to the Mediator. Learn to see this as one recurring gesture and three sections collapse into one.

Now the device. 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. (S3) ⚠️⚠️⚠️ That sentence is the engine of the whole section, and you should be able to recite it. The logic is a two-step: (i) an Old Testament oracle is spoken by God, about God; (ii) an apostle applies it to Christ; therefore (iii) Christ is that God. And notice **first** — a first implies a second, and the second arrives at §12 (the works which are ascribed to him), the third at §13 (his miracles). Three sections, three kinds of proof: prophecy applied, works ascribed, power exercised. Today is proof one.

The catena then runs in two ranks. Rank one — prophecy applied (S4–S11): Isaiah 8:14 stone of stumbling → Romans 9:33 (therefore, declares that Christ is that Lord of Hosts); Isaiah 45:23 every knee shall bow → the Judgment-seat of Christ (the very God, whose glory cannot be given to another — ⚠️ that clause is yesterday's Isaiah 42:8 walking back in); Psalm 68:19 → Ephesians 4:8 (shadowed forth → more fully manifested); Isaiah 6 → John 12:41; Hebrews 1:10 and 1:6. Rank two — apostolic assertion straight out (S12–S23): the Word was God, God over all, blessed for ever, God was manifest in the flesh, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, This is the true God, and eternal life, to us there is but one God, God purchased the Church with his own blood, and last of all Thomas — by addressing him as his Lord and God. ⚠️ Watch the shape of the close. The section does not end with an argument; it ends with a worshipper. Calvin's last witness is a man on his knees. That is deliberate: §10 ended with the God the Jews always worshipped; §11 ends with the first Christian who worshipped him by name.

And there is a rhetorical hinge in the middle you must not miss: two rhetorical questions in a row, both in the form Why should X have V-ed …? (S14, S15). And why should John have hesitated …? Why should Paul have feared …? ⚠️ Those are not questions. They are assertions wearing a question mark — there was no reason for John to hesitate, none for Paul to fear. And they pivot the section: before them Calvin is proving; after them he is simply citing.

One warning about the page before we start. The section straddles two page-breaks; the seams fall inside S17 (after as Paul, margin number 120) and inside S20 (between gods many, and and lords many), where page 124 and the running header drop out). Two line-break hyphens are joined: ob-|servation (S3) and Under-|standing (S9). And the printed text has three oddities you must not silently "repair": S19 reads should glamour where the sense is clamour; S11 cites (Heb. 1:10, 6) with the verses in reverse order; and S14 puts its reference after the question mark — that the Word was God? (John 1:14). Details in the text note. The quotation reproduces the file.

Today's 3 Big Points

1. Balanced alternatives: rather than, as either … or, and the comma before a predicate noun. our object must therefore be, **the selection of a few**, **rather than** an accumulation of the whole. (S1) ⚠️⚠️ Two things at once. First, the comma between be and its predicate noun — must be, the selection — is period punctuation for a heavy complement; it is not a sentence break and not an error. Modern English deletes the comma; Beveridge keeps it. Second, A rather than B is a balanced pair, and the two halves must be the same grammatical shape: the selection of a few / an accumulation of the whole. ⚠️ Note that the balance is also semantic — selection vs accumulation, a few vs the whole: a two-by-two, and Calvin is choosing the left column in both. Then S3 does the same job with a different pair: applied to Christ, **as either** already fulfilled in him, **or** to be fulfilled at some future period — ⚠️ as here = as being, and the two arms are a past participle (already fulfilled) and a future infinitive (to be fulfilled): tense doing the balancing. And S2 balances with a concession instead: **though** the Apostles spoke …, **every** passage … will be sufficient. When Calvin sets two things side by side, find the axis he is balancing them on — that axis is the argument. Formula 1.
2. Four jobs of should — and none of them is obligation. ① Rhetorical modal + perfect infinitive: And why **should** John **have hesitated** to ascribe the Majesty of God to Christ …? (S14); Why **should** Paul **have feared** to place Christ on the Judgment-seat of God …? (S15). ⚠️⚠️ why should X have V-ed? = what reason could there have been for X to have V-ed? — expected answer none. The perfect infinitive (have hesitated) puts the non-event in the past; the modal should supplies the hypothetical colour. It is not ought to have. ② lest … should — negative purpose: And **lest** the wicked **should** glamour and say that he was a kind of spurious God, John goes farther (S19). ⚠️ lest already means in order that … not, so do not add a second negative; the should is the old subjunctive-substitute, and modern English drops it (lest the wicked clamour). ③ Concessive Though + subjunctive be: **Though** it ought to be enough for us that he is called God … (S20 frame) and inside the quotation **Though there be** that are called gods — ⚠️ there be, not there are: present subjunctive in a concession, KJV English. ④ And one relative of the family: there **can be** no doubt (S11), there is **no room to doubt** (S22) — the impersonal negative-doubt frame, Calvin's favourite way of asserting without saying I assert. Formula 2.
3. Clefts, and a cleft that has come apart. **It was he who** arose and pitied Zion—**he who** claimed for himself dominion over all nations and islands. (S13) ⚠️ A clean it-cleft (It was X who V-ed) whose job is exclusive focus: he and no one else. The second half ellipses the frame — —he who claimed = [it was] he who claimed. Then S17, which is the sentence people stumble on: If he is God blessed for ever, **he therefore it is to whom alone**, as Paul affirms in another place, all glory and honour is due. ⚠️⚠️⚠️ Restore the base pattern before you translate it. Underlying: it is therefore to him alone that all glory and honour is due. Beveridge has fronted he for emphasis and left the cleft it is behind it, producing he therefore it is to whom alone … — a scrambled cleft, heavy period style. The relative to whom alone picks up the fronted he; the subject of is due is all glory and honour. ⚠️ Do not read he therefore it is as a subject-verb error. And one more fronting to file beside it: **So** John testifies that **it was the glory of the Son which** was revealed to Isaiah (S10) — another it-cleft, this time inside a that-clause, focusing the glory of the Son against Isaiah's own the Majesty of God. A cleft is a spotlight. Ask what is standing in it, and what is standing in the dark just outside. Formula 3.

Trap words I will test. teems with (S1) ⚠️ = swarms with, is full to overflowing with (OE tēman, to give birth, to be prolific) — teems with innumerable passages = is bursting with countless passages. Nothing to do with teams. accumulation (S1) = heaping up, piling together (ad- + cumulus, a heap) — deliberately the unattractive word beside selection. adduce (S2) ⚠️⚠️ = bring forward as evidence, cite (ad- + ducere, to lead) — every passage which I adduce = every passage I bring forward. Not "add." deserving of (S3) = worthy of — deserving of special observation = worth particular notice; note the of, which modern English often drops. observation (S3) ⚠️ = notice, attention — not "a remark" and not "obedience." predictions (S3) = prophecies, things foretold (prae- + dicere). prophesies (S4) = foretells — ⚠️ spelling: verb prophesy /-sai/, noun prophecy /-si/. stone of stumbling (S4) = a stone that makes men trip (Heb. 'eben negeph) — the KJV idiom; rock of offence is its twin, and offence = cause of tripping (Gk σκάνδαλον, a trap-stick), not "insult." asserts (S5) = states firmly, affirms. In like manner (S6) = likewise, in the same way — a catena connector; count them (In like manner S6, It is clear also S8, So S10, Again S11). the very God (S7) ⚠️⚠️ = that same God, God himself — very here is the adjective vērus/ipse (true, identical), not the adverb extremely. Same word as in the very man I saw. applicable only to God (S8) = can apply to none but God. shadowed forth (S9) ⚠️⚠️ = prefigured, foreshadowed in outline — the verb of typology; a shadow is a real projection of a real body, so shadowed forth ≠ invented. Pair it with **more fully manifested** (S9): shadow → substance. exerted his power (S9) = put his power forth, brought it into action. intimates (S9) = signifies, gives to understand (intimare, to make known within) — Calvin's regular verb for what a text implies without stating; not "hints coyly." Majesty (S10, S14) = the divine glory, the kavod, capitalised because it is a title of God. the brightest attributes (S11) = the most luminous properties — attributes in the technical theological sense, the perfections predicated of God. pervert (S12) ⚠️⚠️ = twist, misapply (per- + vertere, to turn thoroughly) — he does not pervert the passages = he is not distorting the texts. Nothing sexual; the modern narrowing is much later. celebrate (S12) ⚠️ = speak of with honour, proclaim (celeber, thronged, famous) — the things which these passages celebrate = the deeds these texts extol. Not a party. hesitated to (S14) = held back from. ascribe … to (S14, and ascribed §12) = attribute to, assign to (ad- + scribere, to write to someone's account). blessed for ever (S15, S17) = eternally to be praised (Gk εὐλογητὸς εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας, Rom 9:5) — a doxological formula, not "fortunate." consistent (S16) = self-agreeing, saying the same thing throughout — to show how consistent he is in this respect = to show he never varies on this point. disguise (S18) = conceal, dissemble — Paul does not disguise this = Paul makes no secret of it. thought it not robbery (S18) ⚠️⚠️ = did not regard it as a thing seized (Gk ἁρπαγμός) — the KJV rendering of Phil 2:6; robbery = plunder, a prize snatched, not a crime Christ declined to commit. made himself of no reputation (S18) = emptied himself (Gk ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσεν) — the kenosis verse in KJV dress. glamour (S19) ⚠️⚠️⚠️ printed form; read clamour = to cry out noisily, to raise an outcry. lest the wicked should clamour = so that the ungodly may not raise the objection. See text note (iii). spurious (S19) ⚠️ = counterfeit, not genuine (Lat. spurius, of illegitimate birth) — a kind of spurious God = some sort of bogus God. goes farther (S19) = presses the point further. distinctly testifies (S20) = bears witness in express terms. we have no more gods than one (S20) = we have only one God. from the same lips (S21) ⚠️ = from the same speaker — i.e. from Paul, who has just said one God; the point is that one mouth says both. purchased the Church with his own blood (S21) = Acts 20:28 — ⚠️ the communicatio idiomatum verse, and Calvin drops it without comment because it does the work by itself. dream of (S21) ⚠️ = imagine, fancy — why do we dream of any second God = why do we go inventing a second God; contemptuous, not oneiric. makes not the least allusion (S21) = gives not the slightest hint of — note the do-less negative again. entertained the same view (S22) ⚠️ = held the same opinion — entertain = to hold in the mind (inter- + tenere, to hold among), not to amuse. the godly (S22) = believers, the pious — adjective used as a plural noun. professes (S23) = declares openly, confesses (pro- + fateri, to speak forth). adored (S23) ⚠️⚠️ = worshipped (ad- + orare, to pray to) — the only God whom he had ever adored = the only God he had ever worshipped. This is the technical word for divine worship, and it is the last word of the section for a reason.

11. The New Testament teems with innumerable passages, and our object must therefore be, the selection of a few, rather than an accumulation of the whole. But though the Apostles spoke of him after his appearance in the flesh as Mediator, every passage which I adduce 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 offence,” (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,” &c., and, “Let all the angels of God worship him,” (Heb. 1:10, 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. It was he 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 for ever, he therefore it is to whom alone, as Paul affirms in another place, all glory and honour 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 glamour 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 lords 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).

Sentence count: 23 (S1–S23). One paragraph, three movements: the method and the device — selection not accumulation, the Mediator disclaimer, and "predictions concerning the eternal God are applied to Christ" (S1–S3) · rank one, prophecy applied: Isaiah 8:14→Rom 9:33, Isaiah 45:23→the Judgment-seat, Psalm 68:19→Eph 4:8, Isaiah 6→John 12:41, Hebrews 1:10/1:6, with the guardrail "he does not pervert the passages" and the cleft "It was he who arose and pitied Zion" (S4–S13) · rank two, apostolic assertion: the two rhetorical "why should …?" questions, then God manifest in the flesh, the scrambled cleft of S17, Philippians 2:6, "the true God, and eternal life," the one-God witness of 1 Corinthians 8, the blood-bought Church — and Thomas on his knees (S14–S23).

Text note (not a correction to the quotation). Six features of the printed page, all left exactly as they stand. (i) Two page-break seams fall inside sentences. The first is inside S17, after as Paul, where the margin number 120 is dropped and affirms in another place continues the line. The second is inside S20, between (as there be gods many, and and lords many), where the page number 124 and the running header (CHAPTER 13. - THE UNITY OF THE DIVINE ESSENCE IN THREE PERSONS TAUGHT, IN…) are dropped. A third header block precedes S1 (page 123). Both sentences are joined silently. (ii) Two line-break hyphens are joined: special ob-|servation (S3) → observation; Under-|standing (S9) → Understanding. (iii) ⚠️⚠️⚠️ S19 prints should glamour. The sense requires clamour (to raise an outcry) — lest the wicked should clamour and say that he was a kind of spurious God. Whether the slip is the printer's or the digitiser's, the file reads glamour and the quotation keeps it; read clamour. (Compare the same treatment of Judges 6:7 yesterday.) (iv) ⚠️⚠️ S11's reference prints (Heb. 1:10, 6) — the verses in reverse order. That is not an error: the two quotations appear in that order in Calvin's sentence (Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth = Heb 1:10, quoting Ps 102:25; Let all the angels of God worship him = Heb 1:6, quoting Deut 32:43 LXX / Ps 97:7). The reference tracks the prose, not the chapter. Note also that &c. after the first quotation stands inside the quotation apparatus, with its own comma following. (v) ⚠️ S14 puts its reference after the question mark: after saying in his preface that the Word was God? (John 1:14). The sentence ends at God?; the bracket and the final full stop are the reference apparatus outside the question. This is one sentence (S14), not two. The citation itself points to John 1:1 (the Word was God); 1:14 is the verse of the preface Calvin is thinking of (the Word was made flesh … we beheld his glory). Left as printed. (vi) Typography kept: curly quotation marks throughout; the em dash in S13 (Zion—he who claimed); the KJV second person in the quotations (Thou, hast, saith); the comma-before-reference pattern ,” (Isa. 8:14), ,” (Eph. 4:8), ,” (Phil. 2:6); the editorial insertion (he) inside the Philippians quotation, which is Beveridge supplying the subject and is kept inside the quotation marks; and Λο γος with its internal space in the argument heading, as printed.

                 ─── I. METHOD AND DEVICE (S1–S3) ───
[METHOD]         S1    NT "TEEMS with innumerable passages" ⇒ "SELECTION of a few" RATHER THAN "ACCUMULATION of the whole"
[DISCLAIMER]     S2    THOUGH the Apostles spoke of him after his APPEARANCE IN THE FLESH as MEDIATOR,
                       EVERY passage I adduce proves his ETERNAL GODHEAD          ← the §10 S3 move, transposed
[THE DEVICE]     S3    "the FIRST thing deserving of special observation": PREDICTIONS CONCERNING THE ETERNAL GOD
                       ARE APPLIED TO CHRIST — "as either ALREADY fulfilled in him, or TO BE fulfilled"
                 ─── II. RANK ONE: PROPHECY APPLIED (S4–S13) ───
[ISA 8:14]       S4–S5   "the LORD OF HOSTS … a stone of stumbling" → Paul: FULFILLED IN CHRIST (Rom 9:33)
                         ⇒ "declares that CHRIST IS THAT LORD OF HOSTS"
[ISA 45:23]      S6–S7   "JUDGMENT-SEAT OF CHRIST … EVERY KNEE shall bow TO ME" — God predicts it OF HIMSELF
                         ⇒ "he is THE VERY GOD, whose GLORY CANNOT BE GIVEN TO ANOTHER"   ← §9's Isa 42:8 returns
[PS 68:19]       S8–S9   "he led captivity captive" (Eph 4:8) — applicable ONLY TO GOD
                         SHADOWED FORTH (the Lord's victory over the heathen) → "MORE FULLY MANIFESTED in Christ"
[ISA 6]          S10     John: it was THE GLORY OF THE SON revealed to Isaiah — THOUGH Isaiah says "the MAJESTY OF GOD"
[HEB 1:10, 6]    S11     "THOU, LORD, in the beginning hast LAID THE FOUNDATION of the earth" + "LET ALL THE ANGELS
                         OF GOD WORSHIP HIM" = "the BRIGHTEST ATTRIBUTES of God"
[GUARDRAIL]      S12     "he does NOT PERVERT the passages" — CHRIST ALONE performed what they celebrate
[CLEFT]          S13     "IT WAS HE WHO arose and pitied Zion—HE WHO claimed … dominion over all nations and islands"
                 ─── III. RANK TWO: APOSTOLIC ASSERTION (S14–S23) ───
[HINGE Q1]       S14     "WHY SHOULD John HAVE HESITATED …? — after his preface: THE WORD WAS GOD"
[HINGE Q2]       S15     "WHY SHOULD Paul HAVE FEARED …? — he said he was GOD OVER ALL, BLESSED FOR EVER"
[1 TIM 3:16]     S16     "GOD WAS MANIFEST IN THE FLESH"                                    ← consistency of Paul
[SCRAMBLED CLEFT] S17    "he therefore IT IS TO WHOM ALONE … ALL GLORY AND HONOUR IS DUE"
[PHIL 2:6]       S18     "in the FORM OF GOD … thought it NOT ROBBERY to be EQUAL WITH GOD … of NO REPUTATION"
[1 JOHN 5:20]    S19     LEST the wicked should [c]lamour "a kind of SPURIOUS God" ⇒ "THIS IS THE TRUE GOD,
                         AND ETERNAL LIFE"
[1 COR 8:5-6]    S20     the ONE-GOD witness himself: "gods many, and lords many — BUT TO US THERE IS BUT ONE GOD"
[ACTS 20:28]     S21     same lips: GOD manifest in flesh + GOD purchased the Church WITH HIS OWN BLOOD
                         ⇒ "WHY DO WE DREAM of any SECOND GOD?"
[UNIVERSAL]      S22     "no room to doubt that ALL THE GODLY entertained the same view"
[THOMAS]         S23     "MY LORD AND MY GOD" ⇒ "the ONLY GOD whom he had EVER ADORED" (John 20:28)

Examiner's Eye. Five traps, and three of them are about what kind of claim Calvin is making.

• Trap 1 — selection … rather than … accumulation (S1). ⚠️⚠️ Calvin says the New Testament is so full that he must choose a few. An option that reads this as Calvin found only a few usable passages, or as Calvin surveys all the New Testament evidence, has inverted it in opposite directions. The premise is abundance; the method is restraint.
• Trap 2 — the concession in S2. **though** the Apostles spoke of him after his appearance in the flesh **as Mediator**, every passage … will be sufficient to prove his **eternal** Godhead. ⚠️⚠️⚠️ Calvin grants that the apostles write about the incarnate Christ in his mediatorial office. He denies that this limits the evidence. An option that says Calvin argues the apostles spoke only of Christ's eternal divinity, not of his mediatorial office has reversed the concession — and an option that says Calvin therefore sets aside passages about the Mediator has made him say the opposite of every passage which I adduce will be sufficient.
• Trap 3 — who says what in S10. John testifies that it was **the glory of the Son** which was revealed to Isaiah …, **though Isaiah himself expressly says** that what he saw was **the Majesty of God**. ⚠️⚠️ The though-clause is not an objection Calvin is conceding as a difficulty — it is the point. Isaiah says God; John says the Son; therefore the Son is God. An option that presents Isaiah's testimony as a problem for Calvin's reading, or as evidence that John misapplied the vision, has missed the direction of the argument. Compare S12's guardrail: he does not pervert the passages.
• Trap 4 — shadowed forth vs more fully manifested (S9). ⚠️ Calvin says the Lord's historical victory over the heathen was a shadow of an ascension that was more fully manifested in Christ. He does not say Psalm 68 was only about Christ and not about Israel's history, nor that the historical event was unreal. An option that flattens the type into a mere prediction — or that treats the shadow as a fiction — over-reads him. This is the same typological grammar as §10's a type of the office which he was to fulfil.
• Trap 5 — the force of S20–S21. Calvin's argument there is not "Paul calls Christ God." It is: the very witness who insists there is only one God is the witness who says God was manifest in the flesh and purchased the Church with his own blood. ⚠️ The monotheism is a premise Calvin is borrowing from his opponents, not a difficulty he is answering. An option that says Calvin concedes a tension between 1 Corinthians 8:6 and the divinity of Christ has inverted S20. And note to whom he makes not the least allusion in S21 — the second God is the one Paul never mentions, not the first.

Formula 1 — Balanced alternatives: A rather than B, as either A or B, and the comma before a heavy predicate noun

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  our object must (therefore) be , [ A ] , rather than [ B ]                   │
│                            ↑         ↑                  ↑                    │
│                  connective inside   predicate noun    matched shape         │
│                  the verb phrase     (comma before it — NOT an error)        │
│                                                                              │
│  as either [ already fulfilled ]   or  [ to be fulfilled ]                   │
│              past participle              passive infinitive                 │
│              ── the two arms must match in SHAPE, and differ in TENSE ──     │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
⚠ Trap 1  The comma in "must be, the selection of a few" is PERIOD PUNCTUATION
          before a heavy complement. It is not a sentence break, not a dash.
⚠ Trap 2  "A rather than B" demands grammatical parity:
            the selection of a few  /  an accumulation of the whole    ✓ noun : noun
            to select a few         /  an accumulation of the whole    ✗
⚠ Trap 3  "as" in "as either already fulfilled" = "as being". Not "because", not "when".
⚠ Trap 4  Always ask WHICH AXIS is being balanced.
            S1  method:  selection ←→ accumulation ;  a few ←→ the whole
            S3  time:    already fulfilled ←→ still to be fulfilled

Transformation drill. 우리의 목표는 모든 증거를 쌓아 올리는 것이 아니라 분명한 몇 가지를 고르는 것이어야 한다. 그 예언들은 이미 성취된 것으로든 장차 성취될 것으로든 그리스도께 적용된다. → Target: Our aim must therefore be, the choice of a few clear witnesses, rather than a heaping up of all the evidence. Those prophecies are applied to Christ, as either already accomplished in him, or to be accomplished hereafter.

Formula 2 — should in four jobs (none of them obligation), plus the impersonal certainty frame

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ ① RHETORICAL MODAL + PERFECT INFINITIVE                                      │
│    Why should X have V-ed … ?   = there was NO REASON AT ALL for X to V       │
│    "why should John have hesitated …?"  "Why should Paul have feared …?"      │
│    ⚠ NOT "ought X to have V-ed?"  ⚠ NOT a real question — expected answer: none│
│                                                                              │
│ ② lest + S + should + V   =  in order that S may NOT V                        │
│    "lest the wicked should [c]lamour and say …"                              │
│    ⚠ the negative is ALREADY INSIDE "lest" — never add a second "not"         │
│    ⚠ modern English drops the "should" entirely: "lest the wicked clamour"    │
│                                                                              │
│ ③ CONCESSIVE SUBJUNCTIVE                                                     │
│    "Though there be that are called gods"      ⚠ "be", not "are" — leave it   │
│    "as there be gods many, and lords many"                                    │
│                                                                              │
│ ④ IMPERSONAL CERTAINTY FRAME (the same assertive move, no modal)             │
│    "there can be no doubt that …" (S11) · "there is no room to doubt that …"  │
│    (S22) · "It is clear also, that …" (S8)                                    │
│    ⚠ this does NOT weaken the claim — it universalises it                     │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
⚠ Bonus trap  "but to us there is but one God" — TWO different "but"s:
              but¹ = however (adversative conjunction) · but² = only (adverb)

Transformation drill. 요한이 이미 서문에서 말씀이 하나님이시라고 썼는데, 어찌하여 그가 그 영광을 그리스도께 돌리기를 주저했겠는가? 그리고 악한 자들이 그를 일종의 가짜 하나님이라 떠들지 못하도록, 바울은 더 나아가 선언한다. 참으로 이것을 의심할 여지가 없다. → Target: Why should John have hesitated to ascribe that glory to Christ, after saying in his preface that the Word was God? And lest the wicked should clamour and call him a kind of spurious God, Paul goes farther, and affirms it. Indeed there is no room to doubt it.

Formula 3 — Clefts: the clean one, the scrambled one, and the one inside a that-clause

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│ CLEAN IT-CLEFT (exclusive focus on the subject)                              │
│    It was [ HE ] who arose and pitied Zion — [ he who ] claimed …            │
│            focus       residue         ↑ the frame "it was" is ELIDED        │
│                                                                              │
│ CLEFT INSIDE A that-CLAUSE                                                   │
│    John testifies that it was [ the glory of the Son ] which was revealed …  │
│    ⚠ what stands OUTSIDE the spotlight is the contrast: "the Majesty of God" │
│                                                                              │
│ SCRAMBLED CLEFT (the hard one)                                               │
│    BASE:      It is therefore to him alone that all glory and honour is due. │
│    BEVERIDGE: he  therefore  it is  to whom alone … all glory and honour is due │
│               └focus┘        └frame┘ └──── relative residue ────┘            │
│    ⚠ "he" is FRONTED out of the cleft; it is NOT the subject of "is"         │
│    ⚠ subject of "is due" = "all glory and honour"                            │
│    ⚠ RESTORE THE BASE PATTERN BEFORE YOU TRANSLATE                           │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘
⚠ Diagnostic  A cleft is a spotlight. Always ask two questions:
              (1) what is standing IN it?   (2) what is standing just OUTSIDE it?

Transformation drill. 시온을 불쌍히 여기신 분은 바로 그분이셨다 — 모든 민족에 대한 통치를 자기 것으로 주장하신 분도 그분이셨다. 그러므로 오직 그분께만 모든 영광이 마땅히 돌아간다. → Target: It was he who had mercy on Zion—he who claimed for himself dominion over all nations. To him therefore it is, and to him alone, that all glory is due.

1. Where §11 sits, and what changed. Chapter 13 has been proving the divinity of the Son since §7. §§7–8 argued from the Word and from creation; §9 from the divine names given to Christ in the prophets; §10 from the Angel of the Lord who receives sacrifice. All of that was aimed at a Jewish reader — the argument had to run on the Old Testament alone. Today the constraint lifts. The apostles are admitted as witnesses, and with them the whole New Testament. ⚠️ That is why the tone changes: §§9–10 were forensic and slow (one text, defended); §11 is a roll-call. Fourteen citations, almost none defended. The change of pace is itself an argument: Calvin is showing you the abundance he claimed in S1.

2. Three sections, three kinds of proof — and first is the signpost. S3's the **first** thing deserving of special observation opens a series that runs past today: - §11 — prophecy applied. Oracles about God, used by apostles of Christ. - §12 — works ascribed. My Father worketh hitherto, and I work; governing the world; forgiving sins; reading hearts. - §13 — power exercised. Miracles done by his own inherent might, and delegated to others.

⚠️ Each is harder to explain away than the last, and all three converge on the same conclusion (Therefore, the Eternal God, as the argument heading has it three times over). If you are asked what §11 contributes, say: the scriptural-citation proof, the first of three.

3. The device, and its ancestry. The move Calvin calls predictions concerning the eternal God are applied to Christ is not his invention. It is the oldest Christological argument there is — already in the New Testament itself, and then a fixed form in the second century. Justin Martyr (Dialogue with Trypho, c. 160) runs it text by text against a Jewish interlocutor; Irenaeus (Adversus Haereses III) and Tertullian (Adversus Praxean) use it against Gnostic and modalist opponents. Athanasius made it the backbone of the anti-Arian case in the Orations — whatever is said of God is said of the Son, therefore the Son is not a creature. ⚠️ Guardrail: Calvin does not cite any of them here, and you should not pretend he does. §10 named the orthodox doctors of the Church; §11 names nobody. He is running a patristic argument in a wholly biblical register — which is the method of the Institutes in one line.

4. Why the monotheism argument (S20–S21) is the sharpest thing in the section. The subordinationist dodge that Calvin anticipates in S19 — a kind of spurious God — has a long life: Arius (there was when he was not; the Son as the highest creature), and in Calvin's own century the anti-Trinitarians of the radical Reformation. §10 has just named Servetus; §§22–29 of this chapter will return to him at length, and the 1559 edition beefs up that polemic considerably after the 1553 Geneva trial. ⚠️ Against a subordinationist, "Scripture calls Christ God" is a weak card — the reply is yes, in a derivative sense. What is not answerable is S20's argument: the New Testament's most emphatic monotheist is the one who says God was manifest in the flesh and God purchased the Church with his own blood. Strict monotheism plus divine predication of Christ leaves no room for a second-class deity. That is why Calvin sets 1 Corinthians 8:6 — a text an opponent would happily cite — inside his own case.

5. Two texts that carry centuries on their back. **thought it not robbery to be equal with God** (Phil 2:6, S18): the Greek ἁρπαγμός is one of the most argued words in the New Testament — a thing grasped at (so Christ had it by right) or a thing to be clutched and exploited (so Christ held it but did not use it for himself). ⚠️ The KJV's robbery points to the first; modern versions mostly take the second. Calvin cites it as evidence of divinity, which the second reading supports just as well — but do not claim he settles the lexical question, because he does not raise it. And **God purchased the Church with his own blood** (Acts 20:28, S21): the classic communicatio idiomatum text — a predicate of the human nature (blood) attached to the divine subject (God). Later Reformed dogmatics builds a whole doctrine on it. ⚠️ Calvin quotes it here without a word of comment. Do not read the developed doctrine into a bare quotation.

6. Later reception, briefly and honestly. The method of §11 — prosopological and applicative reading, where Old Testament divine oracles are referred to Christ — remained standard in Reformed orthodoxy and is alive in modern work on New Testament Christology: Richard Bauckham's "divine identity" argument makes essentially the same move (early Christians included Jesus within the unique identity of the one God, precisely by applying to him what Second Temple Judaism reserved for God — Phil 2 and Isa 45:23 are his central case, the same pairing as Calvin's S6–S7). Larry Hurtado approached it through worship practice — which is, note, Calvin's Thomas argument at S23. ⚠️⚠️ Guardrail, and it matters: modern historical scholarship converges on Calvin's data far more than on his conclusion. That an apostle applies Isaiah 45:23 to Christ is not disputed; what that implied about ontology in the first century is. Calvin reads the application as a proposition about essence; a historian reads it as a datum about early devotional practice. Do not flatten the two, and do not claim modern scholarship "vindicates" §11.

7. One thing §11 deliberately does not do. It does not distinguish the natures. S2 concedes that the apostles speak of Christ after his appearance in the flesh as Mediator and simply insists the evidence still reaches the eternal Godhead — it does not explain how. That explanation is Book 2, chapters 12–14, and Calvin knows it; §14 of this chapter points forward. ⚠️ Guardrail: §11 is a proof of divinity, not a doctrine of the incarnation. An answer that has Calvin teaching two natures in one person from §11 is reading Book 2 back into Book 1.

1. Isaiah 8:14 (S4) — “the Lord of Hosts” shall be “for a stone of stumbling, and for a rock of offence”. Heb. 'eben negeph wə-ṣûr mikšôl; the subject is YHWH Ṣəbā'ôt. ⚠️ Calvin's premise: the most unambiguously divine title in the prophets. Referenced.
2. Romans 9:33 (S5) — Paul's application of Isaiah 8:14 (conflated with Isa 28:16) to Christ. ⚠️ Calvin's use: the apostle, not Calvin, performs the identification — which is what makes it evidence rather than assertion.
3. Romans 14:10–11 (S6) — “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 …”. ⚠️ Quoted without a reference (only the Isaiah source is given, at S7). Note the stacked citation: Calvin → Paul → Isaiah → God.
4. Isaiah 45:23 (S6–S7) — every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. Heb. bî nišba'tî, "by myself I have sworn" — ⚠️ a divine self-oath, the single most non-transferable speech-act in the Old Testament. Calvin's use: God predicts this **of himself** (S7). This is the Philippians 2:10–11 text as well, though Calvin does not say so.
5. Isaiah 42:8 (S7, unreferenced) — whose glory cannot be given to another. ⚠️⚠️ A text spent yesterday in §9 and re-banked today without a citation. Calvin's use: it supplies the exclusivity premise without which S7's syllogism does not close.
6. Psalm 68:19 → Ephesians 4:8 (S8–S9) — “When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive.” Heb. šābîtā šebî, a cognate accusative ("you captured a capture"). ⚠️ Calvin's use: the typological pair **shadowed forth** (the Lord's historical victory) → **more fully manifested** (in Christ). The shadow is real; it is filled out, not replaced.
7. Isaiah 6 → John 12:41 (S10) — it was the glory of the Son which was revealed to Isaiah in a vision. ⚠️ Printed as Isa. 6:4; the vision is 6:1–5. Calvin's use: Isaiah says the Majesty of God, John says the glory of the Son, and both stand — the identification is made by the concession, not against it.
8. Hebrews 1:10 (quoting Psalm 102:25) and Hebrews 1:6 (from Deut 32:43 LXX / Ps 97:7) (S11) — “Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth,” &c. and “Let all the angels of God worship him.” ⚠️ Reference printed in reverse order (Heb. 1:10, 6) because it tracks Calvin's prose. Calvin's use: creation + worship, the two things a creature can neither do nor receive. Psalm 102:13 then surfaces unreferenced in S13 (arose and pitied Zion) — he is still inside the same psalm.
9. Psalm 72 / Isaiah 42:4 (S13, unreferenced) — dominion over all nations and islands. ⚠️ the isles shall wait for his law. Calvin's use: a second unmarked echo, paired with the Psalm 102 one in a single cleft sentence.
10. John 1:1 (with 1:14) (S14) — that the Word was God. ⚠️ Printed reference (John 1:14); the quoted words are 1:1, and 1:14 is where glory enters the preface — which is the noun of Calvin's clause (the Majesty of God). Calvin's use: an author argued against himself, and found consistent.
11. 2 Corinthians 5:10 / Romans 9:5 (S15) — the Judgment-seat of God and God over all, blessed for ever. ⚠️ Romans 9:5 is quoted without a reference, and its famously disputed punctuation is passed over in silence: so openly proclaimed. Calvin's use: the interchange of "judgment-seat of Christ" (Rom 14:10) and "judgment-seat of God" is the argument.
12. 1 Timothy 3:16 (S16) — “God was manifest in the flesh.” Referenced. ⚠️ Calvin's use: planted here, spent in S21 (we hear from the same lips that God was manifest in the flesh).
13. 1 Timothy 1:17 / Romans 11:36 (S17, unreferenced) — as Paul affirms in another place, all glory and honour is due. ⚠️ Calvin gives no citation; the doxological formula is the point, not the address.
14. Philippians 2:6 (S18) — “being in the form of God (he) thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but made himself of no reputation.” Gk μορφῇ θεοῦ, ἁρπαγμός, ἐκένωσεν. ⚠️ The bracketed (he) is Beveridge's, not Calvin's. Calvin's use: you cannot empty yourself of what you never had.
15. 1 John 5:20 (S19, unreferenced) — “This is the true God, and eternal life.” Gk ἀληθινός = genuine as opposed to counterfeit. ⚠️⚠️ Calvin's use is exact: true is the direct antonym of the spurious he has just put in the opponent's mouth. The verse is chosen for that one adjective.
16. 1 Corinthians 8:5–6 (S20) — “Though there be that are called gods … but to us there is but one God.” ⚠️⚠️ Calvin's use is the cleverest in the section: an opponent's favourite monotheistic text is made the credential of the witness. Note the verb shift inside it: things are called gods; there is one God.
17. Acts 20:28 (S21, unreferenced) — God purchased the Church with his own blood. ⚠️ The communicatio idiomatum text. Calvin's use: quoted bare, with no gloss — and paired with 1 Tim 3:16 as coming from the same lips.
18. John 20:28 (S23) — Thomas: my Lord and my God. ⚠️ Calvin's use: the section's last witness is not an argument but an act of worship — and the past perfect had ever adored makes it a claim about continuity, not about a new god. Referenced, and given the last word.

⚠️ Count the unreferenced quotations: Isa 42:8, Rom 14:10, Ps 102:13, Isa 42:4, Rom 9:5, 1 Tim 1:17, 1 John 5:20, Acts 20:28 — eight. That is S1's method working: the selection of a few, rather than an accumulation of the whole. When Calvin stops giving addresses, he is writing at speed for readers who already know the texts.

① 어법 (Grammar) — one of the four underlined items is wrong

Though there ⓐbe that are called gods, our object must ⓑbe, the selection of a few; and why should the Apostle ⓒhesitated to ascribe such glory to Christ, lest the wicked ⓓshould clamour that he was a spurious God?

Answer: ⓒ.

출제 의도. ⓒ sits inside the frame why should X have V-ed? (Formula 2, job ①) — the modal should requires a bare infinitive, and because the event is located in the past the required form is the perfect infinitive: why should the Apostle **have hesitated**. hesitated (a finite past) cannot follow should. ⚠️ The three decoys are all things that look wrong and are not. ⓐ there **be** is the present subjunctive in a concessive clause (S20) — correct, and "correcting" it to there are is the trap. ⓑ the comma between be and its predicate noun (S1) is period punctuation before a heavy complement — correct as printed. ⓓ lest … **should** clamour is the lest + should negative-purpose construction (S19) — correct, and note the sentence does not add a second negative. Three of the four underlines test whether you will "fix" good period English; only one tests an actual error.

② 내용일치 (Comprehension) — which of the following best represents Calvin's argument in §11?

1. Calvin cites only a few New Testament passages because the New Testament offers comparatively little direct evidence for Christ's divinity, most of its language concerning him being mediatorial.
2. Calvin concedes that John's application of Isaiah's vision to the Son departs from what Isaiah himself said, and defends it as a permissible liberty of apostolic interpretation.
3. Calvin argues that because Paul is the witness who most emphatically insists there is only one God, Paul's own attribution of divine predicates to Christ cannot be read as introducing a second, lesser deity.
4. Calvin teaches that Christ, though not divine in his own eternal nature, receives the titles and glory of God in virtue of the mediatorial office conferred on him.

Answer: 3.

출제 의도. Option 3 states S20–S21 correctly: the strictness of the witness is the strength of the testimony (especially by a witness who distinctly testifies that we have no more gods than one … When we hear from **the same lips** … why do we dream of any second God, to whom he makes not the least allusion?).

• 1 — scope flipped. S1 says the New Testament **teems with innumerable passages**; the reason for citing few is abundance, not scarcity. And S2 says **every** passage which I adduce will be sufficient, not that the mediatorial language weakens the evidence. ⚠️ The trap is to convert a statement of plenty into a statement of poverty.
• 2 — direction flipped. S10's though Isaiah himself expressly says … is the second half of the identification, not a conceded difficulty; and S12 states the opposite of this option outright: he does **not pervert** the passages … since Christ **alone** performed the things which these passages celebrate.
• 4 — the office objection, which is precisely what Calvin refuses. S2 concedes that the apostles speak of him as Mediator and insists the passages still prove his **eternal** Godhead. This is §10 S3's in respect of the office which he bears — by no means solved — in New Testament dress. ⚠️ This is the strongest distractor, because it is a real position (subordinationism) that Calvin names and rejects in S19 as a kind of spurious God.

③ 영작 (Composition) — apply today's formulas

본문이 너무 풍성하므로 우리의 목표는 전부를 쌓아 올리는 것이 아니라 몇 개를 고르는 것이어야 한다. 그리고 악한 자들이 그를 일종의 가짜 하나님이라 떠들지 못하도록, 사도는 더 나아가 선언한다. 참으로 시온을 불쌍히 여기신 분은 바로 그분이셨다. 그러므로 오직 그분께만 모든 영광과 존귀가 마땅히 돌아간다.

Target (each formula used once, marked):

The passages are so many that our object must therefore be, the selection of a few, rather than an accumulation of the whole. (Formula 1 — A rather than B, with the comma before the heavy predicate noun.) And lest the wicked should clamour and say that he was a kind of spurious God, the Apostle goes farther, and affirms it. (Formula 2 — lest … should, negative already inside lest, no second not.) It was indeed he who arose and pitied Zion. (Formula 3 — clean it-cleft, exclusive focus on the subject.) To him therefore it is, and to him alone, that all glory and honour is due. (Formula 3 — the scrambled cleft restored to a readable order; subject of is due = all glory and honour.)

출제 의도. The four sentences drill the four things most likely to break: (i) keeping the two arms of rather than grammatically matched (the selection of a few / an accumulation of the whole — noun to noun); (ii) not doubling the negative after lest; (iii) producing a cleft rather than a plain SVO when the Korean puts focus on the subject (바로 그분이셨다); (iv) getting the subject of is due right. ⚠️ The commonest error on (iv) is writing he is due all glory and honour — which reverses the direction of the owing.

One-line summary. The Old Testament case is closed and the apostles take the stand: because the New Testament **teems** with evidence Calvin must select rather than accumulate (S1), and because the apostles' subject is the incarnate Mediator he must show that every passage still reaches the eternal Godhead (S2) — which he does by one device, **predictions concerning the eternal God are applied to Christ** (S3): Isaiah's Lord of Hosts, the knee that bows to God alone, the ascent that led captivity captive, the glory Isaiah saw, the hands that laid the earth's foundation — and then, past the two rhetorical questions that close the argument and open the roll-call, the apostolic assertions themselves, sealed by the one witness who insists there is but one God and yet says God was manifest in the flesh and bought the Church with his own blood — the whole ending not in a conclusion but on Thomas's knees, **the only God whom he had ever adored**. Grammar: ① balanced alternatives — A rather than B with matched shapes, as either already fulfilled … or to be fulfilled balanced by tense, and the comma before a heavy predicate noun (S1, S3); ② should in four jobs, none of them obligation — rhetorical why should X have V-ed? (S14, S15), lest … should with the negative already inside (S19), concessive subjunctive there be (S20), plus the impersonal certainty frame there can be no doubt (S11, S22); ③ clefts — the clean It was he who … (S13), the cleft inside a that-clause (S10), and the scrambled he therefore it is to whom alone … that must be restored to it is to him alone that … before it can be read (S17).

Homework (10 minutes).

1. Structure restoration. Take S3 and write it out on two lines: line 1 the proposition predictions concerning the eternal God are applied to Christ — box concerning the eternal God and write not "concerning the Messiah" beside it, then circle the passive are applied and write agent = the apostles, deliberately unnamed underneath; line 2 the two arms, already fulfilled in him / to be fulfilled at some future period, labelled past participle and passive infinitive. Then take S7 and lay it out as a syllogism on three lines (P1 God predicts this **of himself** · P2 Christ exhibits the reality fulfilled **in himself** · C he is **the very God**), circling both reflexives and writing no room for a delegate between them. Finally take S17 and write it three times: as printed; with the base pattern restored (It is therefore to him alone that all glory and honour is due); and with the subject of is due underlined in both.
2. Composition. One short paragraph, English, containing (a) a A rather than B pair with matched noun phrases, (b) a why should X have V-ed …? rhetorical question, (c) a lest … should clause with no second negative, and (d) one it-cleft. 증거가 너무 많으므로 우리의 목표는 전체를 쌓는 것이 아니라 몇 개를 고르는 것이어야 한다. 사도가 이미 그를 하나님이라 불렀는데, 어찌하여 그에게 그 영광 돌리기를 두려워했겠는가? 그리고 어떤 이들이 그를 둘째 하나님이라 떠들지 못하도록, 요한은 그를 참 하나님이라 부른다. 참으로 시온을 불쌍히 여기신 분은 그분이셨다. Target: The witnesses are so many that our object must be, the selection of a few, rather than an accumulation of the whole. Why should the Apostle have feared to ascribe that glory to him, after he had already called him God? And lest any should clamour that he was a second God, John calls him the true God. It was he who arose and pitied Zion.
3. Preview — §12, one line. Tomorrow proof two arrives, exactly as S3's the **first** thing promised: The divinity of Christ, if judged by **the works which are ascribed to him** in Scripture, becomes still more evident. ⚠️ Watch three things. (i) The pivot from what is said about him to what is done by him — My Father worketh hitherto, and I work, and the Jews who perceived that he was laying claim to divine power (Calvin's witnesses tomorrow are hostile ones, which is stronger). (ii) The catalogue of non-delegable works: to govern the world by his power and providence, and regulate all things by an energy **inherent in himself** · to forgive sins by the **inherent power** which the Lord declares he will not give to another (Isa 43:25 — ⚠️ the same non-transferability premise as today's Isa 42:8) · to penetrate and interrogate the secret thoughts of the heart. (iii) The grammar to expect: a conditional participial frame (if judged by …), **What, then, will be our stupidity if** we do not perceive …, the exclamatory **What! Is it not** the province of God alone to …? — ⚠️ and a not merely … but also pair (Nor does he **merely** share the government of the world with the Father, **but also** each of the other offices). Today the apostles quoted Scripture at him; tomorrow his enemies watch him work.

Where we stopped: Book 1, Ch. 13, §11 끝. 다음은 Book 1, Ch. 13, §12.