Day 89 — Book 1, Chapter 13, §15

Yesterday I told you that **Again** was a reset button, not a rung. Today the file proves it for me, and I want you to see the proof before anything else. Open to S1. **Again**, the prayer of faith is addressed to him… ⚠️⚠️ Two paragraphs in a row, both opening Again. If Again meant furthermore, next in the series, Calvin would be building a ladder with two rungs at the same height. It does not. It means: here is another independent proof, standing on its own legs. §14 was faith — we are commanded to believe in him, and believing in a creature is blasphemy. §15 is prayer — we call on his name for salvation, and calling on a creature's name for salvation is blasphemy. Two acts. Both impossible toward anything made. Write that pair at the top of the page: BELIEVING / CALLING.

Now the sentence itself, because the first sentence of §15 hides a construction that will be on the test. the prayer of faith is addressed to him**—prayer, which specially belongs to the divine majesty, if anything so belongs**. ⚠️ Three moves in twenty words. ① Calvin says to him, then stops the sentence with a dash and says the noun again — —prayer, — so he can hang a relative clause on it. That is not decoration; a pronoun cannot carry a relative clause, so he re-supplies the noun. ② The relative clause makes prayer God's exclusive property: which **specially belongs to** the divine majesty. ③ And then the tail. **if anything so belongs**. ⚠️⚠️⚠️ Do not read that as Calvin backing off. It looks like a hedge. It is a strengthener. Read it out loud with the emphasis where it belongs: if there is any act in the universe that is God's alone — this is it. Compare yesterday's though we know it is blasphemous impiety to confide in any creature — same trick. The apparent concession is the load-bearing wall. Mark it: TAIL CONDITIONAL = INTENSIFIER, NOT HEDGE.

And one more thing before we start, because it is the hinge of the whole section and it is printed in a parenthesis you will skim past. whosoever shall call on the name of **the Lord (Jehovah)** shall be delivered. ⚠️⚠️ That parenthesis is the argument. English Bibles print the Lord where the Hebrew has the four letters of the divine name. Calvin's syllogism is about that name, not about the word "lord." Strip the parenthesis and the section becomes an argument about a courtesy title — of course people call Jesus "Lord." Keep the parenthesis and it becomes an argument about the Tetragrammaton — the name Day 83 taught you the rabbis themselves call substantive rather than epithet. ⚠️ Notice too what is not here: Beveridge does not set the Lord in small capitals the way he did at Jer 23:6 on Day 83 (THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS). He glosses instead. Same information, different typographic device — and today the gloss is doing the work. Circle both occurrences of (Jehovah).

Today's 3 Big Points

1. Appositive dash + self-qualifying tail conditional. the prayer of faith is addressed to him**—prayer**, (which specially belongs to the divine majesty), **if anything so belongs**. ⚠️ Two items. ① Dash apposition to repair a pronoun: you cannot write him, which specially belongs, so Calvin re-nominalizes — him—prayer, which …. The dash is a hinge, not a pause. ② if anything so belongs — a clause-final conditional with an indefinite subject and a pro-verb (so belongs = belongs in that way). ⚠️⚠️ Its logical force is a fortiori, not concessive. Formula 1.
2. Prophetic shall in both clauses, and the inference marker that cashes it. **whosoever shall call** on the name of the Lord **shall be delivered** … and **therefore it follows that** he is Jehovah. ⚠️ shall here is not the simple future and not obligation — it is the generalizing/legal shall of prophecy and statute (whoever does X, that person is delivered). ⚠️⚠️ And note the difference in temperature from yesterday: §14's conclusion arrived on the word certainly; §15's arrives on it follows that. Certainly asserts. It follows that claims to have completed a syllogism — and a syllogism is a thing you can go back and check. Calvin is inviting the audit. Formula 2.
3. A relative pronoun fronted out of an infinitive clause that is itself the subject. he, **whom to know forms our only ground of glorying** ⚠️⚠️⚠️ This is the hardest four words in the section and the most likely grammar item. Restore the base: the subject of forms is to know [him], an infinitive clause; the object of to know has been relativized and fronted as whom. Unpack it into modern English: he, to know whom is our only ground of glorying → he, knowing whom is the only thing we may boast in. ⚠️ Trap: reading whom as the subject of forms. It is not. The subject is the infinitive clause, which is why the verb is singular. And paired with it in S10, the two-limbed not only that … but that … — ⚠️ which is not yesterday's not that … but that …. Yesterday's denied the first limb. Today's keeps both. Formula 3.

Again, the prayer of faith is addressed to him—prayer, which specially belongs to the divine majesty, if anything so belongs. For the Prophet Joel says, “And it shall come to pass, that whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord (Jehovah) shall be delivered” (Joel 2:32). And another says, “The name of the Lord (Jehovah) is a strong tower; the righteous runneth into it and is safe,” (Prov. 18:10). But the name of Christ is invoked for salvation, and therefore it follows that he is Jehovah. Moreover, we have an example of invocation in Stephen, when he said, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit;” and thereafter in the whole Church, when Ananias says in the same book, “Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he has done to thy saints at Jerusalem; and here he has authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name,” (Acts 9:13, 14). And to make it more clearly understood that in Christ dwelt the whole fulness of the Godhead bodily, the Apostle declares that the only doctrine which he professed to the Corinthians, the only doctrine which he taught, was the knowledge of Christ (1 Cor. 2:2). Consider what kind of thing it is, and how great, that the name of the Son alone is preached to us, though God command us to glory only in the knowledge of himself (Jer. 9:24). Who will dare to maintain that he, whom to know forms our only ground of glorying, is a mere creature? To this we may add, that the salutations prefixed to the Epistles of Paul pray for the same blessings from the Son as from the Father. By this we are taught, not only that the blessings which our heavenly Father bestows come to us through his intercession, but that by a partnership in power, the Son himself is their author. This practical knowledge is doubtless surer and more solid than any idle speculation. For the pious soul has the best view of God, and may almost be said to handle him, when it feels that it is quickened, enlightened, saved, justified, and sanctified by him.

Sentence count: 12 (S1–S12). One paragraph, four movements: the thesis and the two Old Testament premises — prayer belongs to the divine majesty if anything so belongs, and the name called on is the name of the Lord (Jehovah) (S1–S3) · the syllogism closed and then documented from Acts — therefore it follows that he is Jehovah, with Stephen and then the whole Church in Ananias's mouth (S4–S5) · the argument widened from invocation to preaching and glorying — one doctrine only, one ground of boasting only, and the rhetorical question that makes the conclusion unavoidable (S6–S8) · the Pauline salutations, the partnership in power, and the closing turn from doctrine to experience — practical knowledge against idle speculation, sealed by five participles (S9–S12).

Text note (not a correction to the quotation). Seven features of the printed page, all left exactly as they stand. (i) ⚠️⚠️ No section marker, and this continues yesterday's correction rather than repeating yesterday's mistake. There is no 15. in the file, because this paragraph is the third of the three paragraphs that make up Beveridge's printed §13 (the first = miracles, Day 87; the second = Again, if out of God …, Day 88; the third = today). The marker 14. stands at line 5458 in front of In asserting the divinity of the Spirit … — printed §14 is the Spirit. So our day-labels now run two ahead of the printed numbers, exactly as Day 88 predicted. ⚠️ Reading order is unbroken and nothing is missing; only the label is ours. BH's decision is still open: keep our labels (Ch. 13 then ends at our §31) or re-map SCHEDULE.md to the printed numbers. Do not hand-edit 절색인_book1.md — that block is generated. (ii) Page furniture removed, and note where it falls. A marginal number 122 sits at the right-hand end of the line that ends And to make it more clearly understood — i.e. inside S6. A page number 126, a form feed, and the two-line running header (CHAPTER 13. - THE UNITY OF THE DIVINE ESSENCE IN THREE PERSONS TAUGHT, / IN…) fall inside S11, between any idle and speculation. ⚠️ A page break splits a two-word phrase. If you were reading the raw file you would lose the sentence. This is exactly why we rebuild from the file rather than quote from memory. (iii) ⚠️ Footnote markers 40 and 41 and their texts sit on this page but belong to yesterday's paragraph (…confide in any creature.40, “Ye believe in God,”41). They are not in today's text and have not been removed from it — they were never in it. Their content was used on Day 88. (iv) One hyphen seam, and it is a real word split: saluta- / tions (S9). Rejoined as salutations. No other split words in the section. (v) ⚠️⚠️ Two quotation-closing patterns on the same page, kept as printed. The Joel citation closes without a comma inside the quotation mark — shall be delivered” (Joel 2:32) — while the Proverbs citation closes with one — into it and is safe,” (Prov. 18:10) — and so does the Acts citation — call on thy name,” (Acts 9:13, 14). Same inconsistency we logged on Days 83 and 88. The edition is not consistent and we do not make it consistent. (vi) “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit;” — the semicolon stands inside the closing quotation mark, and the reference for Stephen is not given (Acts 7:59); only Ananias gets a citation, (Acts 9:13, 14), printed with a comma, not an en-dash or f. Left as printed. (vii) ⚠️⚠️ the Lord (Jehovah), twice, parenthesis inside the quotation. This is an editorial gloss telling you that the English the Lord stands where the Hebrew has the divine name — and it is kept, because the entire syllogism turns on it. ⚠️ Note also the lower-case setting: Beveridge prints the Lord, not the small capitals he used at Jer 23:6 on Day 83 (THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS). Two different devices for the same fact, three days apart. Do not normalize either one.

                 ─── I. THE THESIS + THE TWO OT PREMISES (S1–S3) ───
[RESET]          S1a    "AGAIN, the PRAYER OF FAITH is addressed TO HIM"
                        ⚠ "Again" = 2nd "Again" in a row = NEW PROOF, not next rung
[EXCLUSIVE]      S1b    "—PRAYER, (WHICH SPECIALLY BELONGS TO THE DIVINE MAJESTY),
                        IF ANYTHING SO BELONGS"      ⚠ tail conditional = A FORTIORI
[PREMISE 1]      S2     Joel 2:32 "whosoever shall CALL ON THE NAME OF THE LORD
                        (JEHOVAH) shall be DELIVERED"
[PREMISE 1']     S3     Prov 18:10 "THE NAME OF THE LORD (JEHOVAH) is a STRONG TOWER"
                 ─── II. THE SYLLOGISM CLOSED, THEN DOCUMENTED (S4–S5) ───
[PREMISE 2]      S4a    "BUT THE NAME OF CHRIST IS INVOKED FOR SALVATION"
[CONCLUSION]     S4b    "and THEREFORE IT FOLLOWS THAT HE IS JEHOVAH"
                        ⚠ §14 closed on "certainly"; §15 closes on "it follows"
[THE EVIDENCE]   S5     Stephen "LORD JESUS, RECEIVE MY SPIRIT" (Acts 7:59, uncited)
                        + "THEREAFTER IN THE WHOLE CHURCH" — Ananias, Acts 9:13,14
                        ⚠ "ALL THAT CALL ON THY NAME" = the persecutor's own job
                          description names the Church by its act of invocation
                 ─── III. WIDENED: PREACHING AND GLORYING (S6–S8) ───
[ONE DOCTRINE]   S6     Col 2:9 (unnamed) + 1 Cor 2:2 "THE ONLY DOCTRINE … WAS THE
                        KNOWLEDGE OF CHRIST"
[ONE GLORYING]   S7     "THE NAME OF THE SON ALONE is preached, THOUGH GOD COMMAND
                        us to GLORY ONLY IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF HIMSELF" (Jer 9:24)
                        ⚠ "command" = SUBJUNCTIVE · the tension IS the argument
[THE QUESTION]   S8     "WHO WILL DARE TO MAINTAIN that he, (WHOM TO KNOW FORMS OUR
                        ONLY GROUND OF GLORYING), IS A MERE CREATURE?"
                 ─── IV. SALUTATIONS → PARTNERSHIP → EXPERIENCE (S9–S12) ───
[ADD]            S9     Pauline salutations "PRAY FOR THE SAME BLESSINGS FROM THE SON
                        AS FROM THE FATHER"
[THE LIFT]       S10    "NOT ONLY THAT … through his INTERCESSION, BUT THAT BY A
                        PARTNERSHIP IN POWER, THE SON HIMSELF IS THEIR AUTHOR"
                        ⚠ not-only/but = BOTH limbs stand (≠ yesterday's not/but)
[THE TURN]       S11    "THIS PRACTICAL KNOWLEDGE is SURER AND MORE SOLID THAN ANY
                        IDLE SPECULATION"            ← back to I.2.2 qualis ≠ quid
[THE SEAL]       S12    "may almost be said to HANDLE HIM, when it FEELS that it is
                        QUICKENED, ENLIGHTENED, SAVED, JUSTIFIED, AND SANCTIFIED"

The spine in one line: calling on the Name for salvation belongs to Jehovah alone + the Church calls on Christ's name for salvation → Christ is Jehovah → and you learn this at prayer, not at the desk.

Examiner's Eye. ⚠️⚠️⚠️ Four traps, and the first two are opposite errors about the same kind of clause. (1) if anything so belongs (S1). Any option reading Calvin concedes that prayer may not be exclusive to God has taken an a fortiori intensifier for a hedge. Same shape as yesterday's though we know … — and that is now a pattern you can predict. (2) though God command us to glory only in the knowledge of himself (S7). Any option reading Calvin admits a conflict between preaching Christ and glorying in God has read the concession as a problem Calvin has not solved. ⚠️ It is the premise of S8's question. The "tension" is the trap being set for the reader, and S8 springs it. (3) not only that … but that … (S10). Any option reading Calvin denies that the Father's blessings come through Christ's intercession has imported yesterday's not that … but that …, which did deny its first limb. Today both limbs stand. Two sections, two different constructions, one word apart. (4) it follows that he is Jehovah (S4). Any option treating this as Calvin's assertion rather than the conclusion of a stated syllogism misses the section's method. ⚠️ Calvin has laid out major (S2–S3), minor (S4a), conclusion (S4b) — in that order, in four sentences. It is the most formally explicit argument in the chapter so far, and it is designed to be checkable.

Formula 1 — Appositive dash + clause-final tail conditional (the intensifier that looks like a hedge)

   ... to him — NOUN, which V-s ... , if anything so V-s.
   └─ dash RE-SUPPLIES the noun so a relative clause can attach
                       └─ tail conditional: indefinite subject + PRO-VERB "so"
                          FORCE = A FORTIORI ("if any X at all, then THIS one")
                          ⚠ NOT a concession, NOT a retreat

⚠️ Trap. Every clause-final if/though in Calvin so far has strengthened, not weakened: Day 88 though we know it is blasphemous impiety to confide in any creature; today if anything so belongs (S1) and though God command us to glory only in the knowledge of himself (S7). When you meet one, ask: is this an obstacle, or the second premise? In this author it is nearly always the second premise. ⚠️ Second trap. Do not treat the dash as punctuation for a pause. Test: can the relative clause attach to the word before the dash? If not, the dash is supplying an antecedent.

Transformation drill. Rewrite with the pattern: Sacrifice is offered to him. Sacrifice is God's own property — supremely so. → Sacrifice, too, is offered to him—sacrifice, which specially belongs to the divine majesty, if anything so belongs.

Formula 2 — Prophetic shall … shall + the inference marker that cashes it

   whosoever SHALL V₁ ... , SHALL be V₂-ed        ← standing rule (law/prophecy)
       └─ NOT simple future, NOT obligation: "anyone who V₁-s, is V₂-ed"
   But X is V₂-ed ... , and THEREFORE IT FOLLOWS THAT X is Y.
       └─ "But" = ATQUI, the MINOR-PREMISE marker (≠ "however")
       └─ "it follows that" = a completed deduction, offered for audit
          (contrast §14's "certainly" = assertion)

⚠️ Trap 1. But at the head of a minor premise is not adversative. If you read S4's But as however, Calvin appears to be contradicting Joel. ⚠️ Trap 2. Distinguish the two closers: certainly asserts; it follows that claims a syllogism is complete. Test writers love making one stand for the other.

Transformation drill. Build the syllogism: the Spirit is called on in baptism. → Whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord shall be delivered. But the name of the Spirit is invoked in baptism, and therefore it follows that he is Jehovah.

Formula 3 — Relative fronted out of an infinitive-clause subject + the two-limbed not only that … but that …

   (a)  he, WHOM to know FORMS our only ground of glorying, is a mere creature
        Base:  [TO KNOW him] forms our only ground of glorying.
        Step:  him → whom;  front whom before the infinitive
        ⚠ "whom" = object of TO KNOW (accusative), NOT subject of "forms"
        ⚠ "forms" is SINGULAR because its subject is the infinitive clause

   (b)  we are taught NOT ONLY THAT A, BUT THAT B      → A and B BOTH stand
        cf. Day 88:  it is said NOT THAT A, BUT THAT B → A is DENIED
        ⚠ the whole difference is the word "only"

⚠️ Trap 1. In (a), "correcting" forms to form is the classic wrong answer. The subject is one infinitive clause. ⚠️ Trap 2. In (b), importing yesterday's construction reverses Calvin's meaning about the intercession.

Transformation drill. Combine: We boast only in knowing the Spirit. / Who would say the Spirit is created? — then add the two-limbed teaching. → Who will dare to maintain that he, whom to know forms our only ground of glorying, is a mere creature? By this we are taught, not only that the gifts come to us through his operation, but that by a partnership in power, the Spirit himself is their author.

1. Why prayer, and why here. The argument from invocation (ἐπίκλησις) is one of the oldest instruments in Trinitarian polemic, and it has a simple engine: worship is the boundary of deity. If an act may be directed only to God, then whoever legitimately receives it is God. The fourth century ran the wider family of this argument for the Spirit — ⚠️ but state it precisely: Basil's On the Holy Spirit is built mainly on the baptismal formula, on the prepositions used of the Spirit, and on the doxology (co-glorification), not specifically on prayer addressed to the Spirit. It is a worship argument, not an invocation argument in Calvin's narrow sense. Calvin runs the narrow version here for the Son, and he will reuse the same machinery a few sections on for the Spirit. ⚠️ Guardrail: Calvin does not cite a single Father in §15. Do not write that he "follows Athanasius here" or "follows Basil here." He uses the instrument; he does not claim the lineage.

2. Joel 2:32 and the citation Calvin does not make. Romans 10:13 quotes Joel 2:32 and applies it to Christ explicitly — whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved, in a passage whose Lord is unmistakably Jesus (10:9). It is the obvious proof text. Calvin leaves it out. ⚠️ This is a method decision, not an oversight. He quotes Joel directly and then supplies the minor premise from what the Church was observed doing (Stephen, Ananias, the standing description all that call on thy name). The result is an argument that does not depend on accepting an apostolic identification in advance — it depends on the practice being real. S11's This practical knowledge is the name he gives to that whole procedure.

3. (Jehovah), and what the argument does not rest on. The form Jehovah is a hybrid: the consonants YHWH carrying the vowel points of ădōnāy, read as though they were one word. ⚠️ Date it carefully: the vocalization is attested in Latin already in the 13th century (Raymundus Martini, Pugio Fidei) and was popularized by Galatinus in 1518 — the 16th century is when it became current, not when it was invented. Modern scholarship reconstructs Yahweh. ⚠️ Guardrail: nothing in Calvin's syllogism depends on the vocalization. It depends only on the fact that the English the Lord stands where the Hebrew has the divine Name — which is what the parenthesis reports. If a student objects "but Jehovah is a mistaken form," the objection is true and irrelevant.

4. The link back to Day 83. §9 established, using Maimonides' own doctrine (Guide I.61: the Tetragrammaton is substantive, expressing essence; the other divine names are epithets), that the Name is not transferable. §15 is the harvest of that. Calvin's conclusion at S4 is deliberately he is Jehovah rather than he is God, because §9 showed him that Elohim has a documented downward use (angels, judges, Moses "a god to Pharaoh") and the Name does not. Six sections apart, one argument.

5. all that call on thy name as historical evidence. The participial phrase οἱ ἐπικαλούμενοι τὸ ὄνομα recurs at Acts 9:14, 9:21, 22:16 and 1 Cor 1:2 — it functions as an early self-designation of the Christian movement. Modern historians of early Christian devotion (the "binitarian devotional pattern" literature) treat exactly this material as the earliest evidence that Jesus was a recipient of cultic invocation within the first two decades. ⚠️ Guardrail — the same one as Day 85 and Day 86: convergence of data is not convergence of conclusion. Calvin reads the practice as entailing an essential proposition; a historian reads it as evidence about devotional behaviour. Same verses, different claims. Do not let the modern literature do Calvin's work or vice versa.

6. A partnership in power and its limits. Societas potentiae is a statement about the operation — the blessings originate from one power jointly held. ⚠️⚠️ It is not yet a statement about the processions, and §15 says nothing about eternal generation, the autotheos question, or how Father and Son are distinguished. Calvin has been explicit about the plan since §7: divinity first, distinction afterwards (Thereafter, we shall see how they differ). Our §§16–20 are where the distinction gets treated. Writing "the doctrine of the Trinity" onto §15 is running ahead of the text.

7. Practical knowledge against idle speculation — the chapter's method, not a mood. ⚠️ This is Book 1 Chapter 2 §2 returning under load. Day 5: Calvin refuses quid sit Deus (what God is in himself) for qualis sit erga nos (what he is toward us). Nineteen sections into the most technical chapter in Book 1, he closes on the same principle — and closes it with five verbs of experienced benefit. Later readers made a great deal of this sentence (it is one of the most-quoted lines in the chapter, and it anchors the standard reading of Calvin as anti-speculative). ⚠️ Guardrail: idle means empty, not rigorous. Calvin has just run a formal syllogism in four sentences. He is not against precision; he is against precision with no purchase on the soul. Anyone who quotes S11 to excuse vagueness has quoted it against its own section.

1. Joel 2:32 — S2, cited. Heb. כֹּל אֲשֶׁר־יִקְרָא בְּשֵׁם יְהוָה יִמָּלֵט. ⚠️ The load-bearing word is יהוה, which the English renders the Lord and Beveridge glosses (Jehovah). The major premise. Calvin quotes it as Joel, not as Paul quotes it.
2. Romans 10:13 — behind S2 and S4, NOT cited. ⚠️ The most obvious proof text for the section's thesis, deliberately left out (Period 6 §2). Its absence is the shape of the argument.
3. Proverbs 18:10 — S3, cited, author unnamed. Heb. מִגְדַּל־עֹז שֵׁם יְהוָה. Restates the premise and supplies the second (Jehovah). ⚠️ Note the tower here against speculation (< specula, watchtower) in S11.
4. Acts 7:59 — S5, quoted without a reference. Gk. κύριε Ἰησοῦ, δέξαι τὸ πνεῦμά μου. ⚠️ Behind it stands Psalm 31:5, into thine hand I commit my spirit — addressed to Jehovah, and used by Jesus himself at Luke 23:46. Stephen redirects the psalm's address to Jesus. Calvin quotes and says nothing; the reader is expected to hear it.
5. Acts 9:13, 14 — S5, cited. Gk. πάντας τοὺς ἐπικαλουμένους τὸ ὄνομά σου. ⚠️ Doubly evidential: Ananias is himself praying to Jesus while describing others who do. And the description comes from a persecutor's warrant — the admission-against-interest move (Days 7, 8, 86).
6. 1 Corinthians 1:2 / Acts 22:16 — behind S5, not cited. The same participial self-designation. Calvin needs only one instance; the phrase was formulaic.
7. Colossians 2:9 — S6, quoted without attribution. Gk. πᾶν τὸ πλήρωμα τῆς θεότητος σωματικῶς. ⚠️ Second unnamed use of this phrase in the chapter (also Day 84, §10 S17). θεότης = deity itself, the strong noun.
8. 1 Corinthians 2:2 — S6, cited. οὐ γὰρ ἔκρινά τι εἰδέναι ἐν ὑμῖν εἰ μὴ Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν καὶ τοῦτον ἐσταυρωμένον. ⚠️ Calvin uses it for its exclusivity (the only doctrine) and lets the second half — and him crucified — go unmentioned. He wants the εἰ μὴ, not the cross, and that is a choice worth noticing.
9. Jeremiah 9:24 — S7, cited. Heb. כִּי אִם־בְּזֹאת יִתְהַלֵּל הַמִּתְהַלֵּל הַשְׂכֵּל וְיָדֹעַ אוֹתִי. ⚠️ glory in S7–S8 is hithallēl, to boast. The clash between "boast only in knowing me" and "only the Son's name is preached" is the second syllogism of the section.
10. 1 Corinthians 1:31 / 2 Corinthians 10:17 — behind S7–S8, not cited. Paul's own use of Jer 9:24 (he that glorieth, let him glory in the Lord). ⚠️ Again Calvin goes to the Hebrew prophet rather than to Paul's citation of him. Consistent with §2's method.
11. James 5:15 — behind S1, not cited. ἡ εὐχὴ τῆς πίστεως — the prayer of faith is a biblical phrase, not Calvin's coinage.
12. Pauline salutations — S9, no reference given. Rom 1:7, 1 Cor 1:3, 2 Cor 1:2, Gal 1:3, etc.: χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. ⚠️ Calvin cites no verse because the point is the formula, not a passage.
13. Acts 17:27 / 1 John 1:1 — behind S12, not cited. ψηλαφήσειαν / ἐψηλάφησαν — the tactile verb behind handle him, and the reason for the triple hedge may almost be said to.
14. 1 Corinthians 6:11 — behind S12's five participles, not cited. ἀπελούσασθε, ἡγιάσθητε, ἐδικαιώθητε — ⚠️ Paul's order puts sanctified before justified; Calvin's list reverses them. He is arranging, not quoting. Do not build an ordo salutis on it.

① Grammar — one of the four underlines is wrong. Find it.

Who will dare to ⓐ maintain that he, ⓑ whom to know ⓒ form our only ground of glorying, is ⓓ a mere creature?

Answer: ⓒ. It must be forms — singular.

출제 의도. The subject of the verb is not whom and not our only ground; it is the infinitive clause to know [whom], which counts as a single thing and takes a singular verb. ⚠️ The trap works because whom sits immediately before the verb and looks like a plural-ish relative, and because the eye wants to agree the verb with something nearby. ⓑ is correct precisely because whom is the object of to know (accusative) — offering who would be the mirror-image trap. ⓐ maintain = hold to, assert (period sense), correct. ⓓ a mere creature = nothing but a creature, correct and idiomatic for the period. Drill this one: it is the single hardest construction in the section, and it is Formula 3(a).

② Comprehension — which of the following is consistent with §15?

ⓐ Calvin concedes that prayer may not, after all, be an act reserved to God alone. ⓑ Calvin denies that the blessings the Father bestows come to us through Christ's intercession. ⓒ Calvin argues that because the name invoked for salvation is the name reserved to Jehovah, and Christ's name is so invoked, Christ is Jehovah. ⓓ Calvin treats the fact that only the Son's name is preached as a difficulty he cannot reconcile with Jeremiah 9:24.

Answer: ⓒ.

출제 의도. Three engineered distractors, each built from a real feature of the text. ⓐ — the tail-conditional trap. if anything so belongs (S1) looks like a retreat and is an a fortiori intensifier: if any act at all is God's own, this is it. ⚠️ Direction-flip. And it is the third time in two sections that an apparent concession has been the load-bearing premise — Day 88's though we know it is blasphemous impiety…, today's S1 and S7. ⓑ — the imported-construction trap, and the best one on the page. S10 reads not **only** that … but that …, in which both limbs stand. Yesterday's S3 read not that … but that …, in which the first limb is denied. One word — only — separates them, and the two sections are adjacent. ⚠️ A student who learned yesterday's construction well is more likely to fall for this, not less. That is what makes it a good item. ⓓ — the unresolved-tension trap. S7's though God command us to glory only in the knowledge of himself is not a difficulty Calvin leaves standing; it is the premise that makes S8's rhetorical question unanswerable. Scope error: it mistakes a constructed tension for an admitted one. ⓒ states the syllogism as the text lays it out: major S2–S3, minor S4a, conclusion S4b. ⚠️ Note that ⓒ says Jehovah, not God — and so does Calvin, because §9 closed the loophole in Elohim.

③ Composition — apply today's formulas.

Render into Beveridge-style English, using (i) Formula 2's minor-premise But + it follows that, and (ii) Formula 3(b)'s two-limbed not only that … but that …:

성령의 이름도 세례에서 불린다. 그러므로 그가 여호와이심이 따라 나온다. 이로써 우리는 은사들이 그의 사역을 통해 우리에게 온다는 것뿐 아니라, 권능의 동참에 의해 성령 자신이 그 은사들의 근원이심도 배운다.

Model answer:

But the name of the Spirit also is invoked in baptism, and therefore it follows that he is Jehovah. By this we are taught, not only that the gifts come to us through his operation, but that by a partnership in power, the Spirit himself is their author.

출제 의도. Four things are being checked. ① But as the minor-premise marker, not as however — if you write However, the name of the Spirit… you have made Calvin object to his own major premise. ② it follows that rather than certainly — the sentence must claim a completed deduction, which is §15's register, not §14's. ③ not only that … but that … with only retained — dropping it flips the first limb into a denial and destroys the sentence. ④ author for 근원 — auctor, originator, not writer and not cause in the bare sense. ⚠️ Common failure: the Spirit himself is the author of them — grammatical, but it loses the possessive compactness of their author, which is what lets the sentence end on the strong word.

One-line summary. Again opens a second independent proof — not faith this time but prayer: calling on the Name for salvation belongs to Jehovah alone (Joel, Solomon), the Church calls on Christ's name for salvation (Stephen, and the persecutor's own warrant against all that call on thy name), therefore it follows that he is Jehovah — and the same conclusion arrives again from preaching (the name of the Son alone) and from Paul's greetings (a partnership in power), before the section turns from proof to experience: practical knowledge, not idle speculation.

The three grammar points, once more. ① Appositive dash + tail conditional — him—prayer, which …, if anything so belongs: the dash supplies an antecedent, and the tail is an a fortiori, not a hedge. ② Prophetic shall … shall + But (= atqui) + it follows that — a standing rule, a minor premise, and a deduction offered for audit (contrast §14's certainly). ③ whom to know forms … — relative fronted out of an infinitive-clause subject, singular verb; and not only that … but that …, where both limbs stand (≠ yesterday's not that … but that …).

Homework (10 minutes).

1. Structure restoration (4 min). Take S5 and write out its skeleton with the gapping restored: mark where the second we have an example of invocation has been deleted, and bracket the two when-clauses. Then answer in one line: why does Calvin give a reference for Ananias but none for Stephen?
2. Composition (4 min). Write one sentence using Formula 1 — an appositive dash supplying an antecedent for a relative clause, closed with a tail conditional in the a fortiori sense. Subject: the sacrament is administered in his name. Check yourself on one thing only: does your tail conditional strengthen? If it reads as a hedge, rewrite it.
3. Preview (2 min). ⚠️ Tomorrow the subject changes. Our §16 = Beveridge's printed §14, and it opens: In asserting the divinity of the **Spirit**, the proof must be derived from the **same sources**. Two things to expect. (a) the same sources is a promise to reuse today's and yesterday's instruments on a new subject — watch for the invocation argument and the inherent vs derived axis coming back a fourth time. (b) The evidence shifts to Genesis 1:2 (the Spirit of God was expanded over the abyss or shapeless matter) and Isaiah 48:16 (the Lord God, and his Spirit, has sent me) — creation and sending, i.e. the two things §7 used for the Word. And note in advance: the paragraph will close on our familiar experience — the same move you just watched S11–S12 make. He is about to do it again.

Where we stopped: Book 1, Ch. 13, §15 끝. 다음은 Book 1, Ch. 13, §16 (= Beveridge 인쇄 §14, 성령의 신성 — In asserting the divinity of the Spirit, the proof must be derived from the same sources.).