Day 25 — Institutes I.5.§13 [직강]

Yesterday (§12) Calvin opened the sluice-gate: the corrupted seed of religion ferments into an immense flood of idols, and even the brightest philosophers end up worshipping an unknown God. Today §13 is the verdict and the sentence. Having shown that the whole world fell into idolatry, he now rules on the guilt: everyone who tampers with pure religion — no matter how sincere, how clever, how ancient the custom he leans on — is an apostate, a deserter from the one God. This is the section where Calvin drops the hammer on the two great excuses: "but I meant well" (intention) and "but that's how my fathers worshipped" (custom). Both are demolished. And the closing line is one of the hinges of the whole Institutes: since city-custom and antiquity are "too feeble and fragile a bond of piety," it remains that God himself must bear witness to himself from heaven — the trumpet-blast that sets up Chapter 6 and the necessity of Scripture.

Examiners feast on this section because it is built on notional-plural agreement, negative-initial inversion, and the so … as to result-clause, all wrapped around two rhetorical questions that carry the argument.

Today's 3 Big Points — mark them now:

1. Notional (distributive) agreement: whosoever adulterates … make a departure. The relative subject whosoever looks singular (adulterates), yet Calvin pairs it with the plural make — because he means "all such persons, whoever they are." Beveridge lets the sense, not the surface, govern the verb. Same instinct runs through all men "became vain" (S4). Learn to read the meaning of the subject, not just its ending.
2. Negative-initial inversion: Nor must this be restricted …. Front a negative word (Nor, Never, No wonder … that) and English flips subject and auxiliary: Nor must this be restricted (not Nor this must be). You saw "never did any mortal devise" yesterday; today it is Nor must … (S4) and the verdict-frame No wonder … that (S10).
3. The so … as to result-infinitive — inside a rhetorical question. "who can so acquiesce … as unhesitatingly to receive a god at their hands?" (S15). So + verb, then as + infinitive = "to such a degree that he would…". The question expects the answer no one — the construction is the argument.

Three engines. Lock them in. Now read.

Hence we must hold, that whosoever adulterates pure religion (and this must be the case with all who cling to their own views), make a departure from the one God. No doubt, they will allege that they have a different intention; but it is of little consequence what they intend or persuade themselves to believe, since the Holy Spirit pronounces all to be apostates, who, in the blindness of their minds, substitute demons in the place of God. For this reason Paul declares that the Ephesians were “without God,” (Eph. 2:12), until they had learned from the Gospel what it is to worship the true God. Nor must this be restricted to one people only, since, in another place, he declares in general, that all men “became vain in their imaginations,” after the majesty of the Creator was manifested to them in the structure of the world. Accordingly, in order to make way for the only true God, he condemns all the gods celebrated among the Gentiles as lying and false, leaving no Deity anywhere but in Mount Zion where the special knowledge of God was professed (Hab. 2:18, 20). Among the Gentiles in the time of Christ, the Samaritans undoubtedly made the nearest approach to true piety; yet we hear from his own mouth that they worshipped they knew not what (John 4:22); whence it follows that they were deluded by vain errors. In short, though all did not give way to gross vice, or rush headlong into open idolatry, there was no pure and authentic religion founded merely on common belief. A few individuals may not have gone all insane lengths with the vulgar; still Paul’s declaration remains true, that the wisdom of God was not apprehended by the princes of this world (1 Cor. 2:8). But if the most distinguished wandered in darkness, what shall we say of the refuse? No wonder, therefore, that all worship of man’s device is repudiated by the Holy Spirit as degenerate. Any opinion which man can form in heavenly mysteries, though it may not beget a long train of errors, is still the parent of error. And though nothing worse should happen, even this is no light sin—to worship an unknown God at random. Of this sin, however, we hear from our Saviour’s own mouth (John 4:22), that all are guilty who have not been taught out of the law who the God is whom they ought to worship. Nay, even Socrates in Xenophon (lib. 1 Memorabilia), lauds the response of Apollo enjoining every man to worship the gods according to the rites of his country, and the particular practice of his own city. But what right have mortals thus to decide of their own authority in a matter which is far above the world; or who can so acquiesce in the will of his forefathers, or the decrees of the people, as unhesitatingly to receive a god at their hands? Every one will adhere to his own Judgment, sooner than submit to the dictation of others. Since, therefore, in regulating the worship of God, the custom of a city, or the consent of antiquity, is a too feeble and fragile bond of piety; it remains that God himself must bear witness to himself from heaven.

Seventeen sentences. The verdict: whoever adulterates pure religion departs from the one God (S1) → the intention-excuse is worthless; the Spirit calls them all apostates (S2) → three Pauline proofs: Ephesians "without God" (S3), all men "became vain" — not one nation only (S4), all Gentile gods condemned, God left only on Mount Zion (S5) → test case: even the Samaritans, the nearest to piety, "worshipped they knew not what" (S6) → the summary: no authentic religion rests merely on common belief (S7); even the exceptional few don't save the picture — the princes of this world missed God's wisdom (S8); and if the best were in the dark, what of the dregs? (S9) → therefore self-devised worship is repudiated as degenerate (S10); any human opinion in heavenly things is the parent of error (S11); and at minimum it is no light sin to worship an unknown God at random (S12), a guilt Christ himself pins on all not taught by the law (S13) → then the custom-excuse: even Socrates praised Apollo's "worship as your city does" (S14) → rhetorical demolition: what right have mortals to decide this, or so defer to fathers as to accept a god from their hands? (S15); everyone trusts his own judgment over others' dictation anyway (S16) → conclusion/hinge: since city-custom and antiquity are too feeble a bond, God himself must bear witness to himself from heaven (S17).

[VERDICT]   adulterate pure religion ⇒ DEPART from the one God           (S1)
[INTENT]    "but I meant well" — worthless; Spirit calls all APOSTATES   (S2)
[PAUL ×3]   Eph "without God" (S3); ALL men "became vain," not one       (S3-S5)
            nation only (S4); all Gentile gods condemned, God only
            on Mount Zion (S5)
[SAMARIA]   best of the Gentiles "worshipped they knew not what" →        (S6)
            deluded by vain errors
[SUMMARY]   no authentic religion on COMMON BELIEF (S7); even the         (S7-S9)
            princes missed God's wisdom (S8); best in dark ⇒
            what of the refuse? (S9)
[DEGENERATE] self-devised worship repudiated (S10); human opinion =       (S10-S13)
            PARENT of error (S11); no light sin to worship an
            UNKNOWN God (S12); Christ pins the guilt (S13)
[CUSTOM]    even Socrates: "worship as your city does" (Apollo) (S14)     (S14)
[DEMOLISH]  what RIGHT? who so defers to fathers AS TO take a god         (S15-S16)
            from them? (S15); each trusts own judgment anyway (S16)
[HINGE]     city-custom + antiquity = feeble bond ⇒ GOD MUST             (S17)
            witness to himself FROM HEAVEN  (→ Ch.6: Scripture)

Examiner's Eye: the number-one trap is the intention question in S2. Calvin concedes that idolaters have a sincere, different intention — and then rules it irrelevant ("of little consequence"). A test option like "Calvin holds that sincere intention excuses false worship" reverses him: sincerity is precisely what he refuses to credit; truth, not intention, is the standard. Second trap, S6 (the Samaritans): they made the nearest approach to true piety — yet still "worshipped they knew not what." An option reading "Calvin exempts the Samaritans as authentic worshippers" flunks; nearest is not arrived. Third trap, S17: the conclusion is not "custom is a weak support that we should strengthen," but that custom and antiquity are unfit in principle as a foundation for piety, so that only God's self-witness from heaven will do — this is the setup for the necessity of Scripture, not a call to better traditions.

FORMULA 1 — Notional / distributive agreement (agreement ad sensum)
   A singular-looking subject (whosoever, each, all men, everyone …)
   may take a PLURAL verb when the SENSE is "all such persons."
        whosoever adulterates … MAKE a departure   (S1)
        all men "BECAME vain"                       (S4)
   ⚠️ Trap: examiners flip the verb to match the SURFACE ending,
        not the sense. Read what the subject MEANS.

변형 연습: Whosoever trusts his own reason in divine things build on sand. (sense = "all such people")

FORMULA 2 — Negative-initial inversion (Nor / No wonder / Never …)
   [Negative element] + AUXILIARY + Subject + main verb
        Nor MUST this BE restricted …              (S4)
        No wonder … THAT all worship … is repudiated (S10)
   Restore: this must NOT be restricted; it is no wonder that …
   ⚠️ Trap: writing "Nor this must be" (no inversion) is wrong.

변형 연습: Never DID the philosophers REACH the God whom the law reveals.

FORMULA 3 — Result construction: SO + verb/adj … AS + to-infinitive
   so [degree] … as to [result] = "to such a degree that (one) would …"
        who can SO acquiesce … AS … TO RECEIVE a god at their hands? (S15)
   Often inside a rhetorical question ⇒ implied answer: "no one."
   ⚠️ Do not confuse with "so … that + clause"; here the tail is an
        INFINITIVE (as … to V), not a finite that-clause.

변형 연습: No mortal is so bound to custom as to accept his God on hearsay.

Where are we? §13 is the close of the "subjective failure" movement (§§11–15). Calvin has said the manifestation is bright (§§1–10) but the eye is dull (§11), that dullness ferments into a flood of idols (§12) — and now (§13) he pronounces the legal verdict: every deviation from pure worship is apostasy, and no human resource — sincerity, philosophical genius, or ancestral custom — can repair it.

Three moves you should be able to name. (1) Sincerity is not the standard — truth is. This is vintage Calvin (and Lactantius before him, cf. Day 11): "zeal" or "good intention" cannot sanctify false worship, because worship's validity is fixed by its object, not the worshipper's earnestness. It is also the germ of what later Reformed theology calls the regulative principle: worship must rest on God's appointment ("man's device … repudiated as degenerate," S10), not human invention.

(2) The custom-argument, and its refutation. Socrates-via-Xenophon voicing Apollo — "worship as your city does" — is the most dignified form of the appeal to tradition. Calvin's counter is sharp and almost modern: religion cannot be founded on civic consensus or the consent of antiquity, because (a) the object is far above the world and beyond human jurisdiction, and (b) people trust their own judgment in everything else, so deferring blindly here is arbitrary. Note carefully what he is not saying: he is not licensing private judgment as the new authority (S16 is a reductio, not a program). He is clearing the field of all merely human foundations so that only one remains.

(3) The hinge to Chapter 6. The last clause — God himself must bear witness to himself from heaven — is the pivot of Book 1's opening argument. Natural theology (all of Ch. 5) renders us inexcusable but cannot save; therefore God must give a further, self-authenticating witness. That witness is Scripture, and the metaphor Calvin will reach for in Ch. 6 is the spectacles by which the dim-sighted read the book of creation aright. §13 does not yet mention Scripture — hold the line — but every sentence is leaning toward it.

Limit-line (과대해석 방지): don't turn S16 into a manifesto for autonomous reason, and don't read the Samaritan verdict (S6) as anti-Jewish polemic — Calvin's point is epistemological (worship without revelation is worship of the unknown), and John 4:22 is Christ's own line, where "salvation is of the Jews" because that is where the special revelation was lodged (cf. S5, "Mount Zion").

1. Eph. 2:12 (S3) — "without God" = Gk ἄθεοι (atheoi), "godless." Calvin's paradox: pagans surrounded by gods are, before God, god-less. He uses it to define idolatry as privation, not variety.
2. Rom. 1:21 (S4) — "became vain in their imaginations" = ἐματαιώθησαν ... ἐν τοῖς διαλογισμοῖς ("were made futile in their reasonings"). Same verb-root Calvin leaned on in §§4, 12; here it universalizes the guilt ("all men," not one nation).
3. Hab. 2:18, 20 (S5) — the condemnation of idols ("teachers of lies") and the refrain "the LORD is in his holy temple." Calvin reads it as clearing the map of false gods, leaving God only on Mount Zion — the seat of special revelation.
4. John 4:22 (S6, S13) — Christ to the Samaritan woman: "Ye worship ye know not what." Calvin cites it twice: first as evidence (even the best Gentiles are ignorant), then as the standard of guilt (all not taught by the law are guilty). Note the tail: "salvation is of the Jews" is the unquoted other half — revelation's location.
5. 1 Cor. 2:8 (S8) — "none of the princes of this world knew" God's wisdom, "for had they known it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory." Calvin uses it to prove that even the elite miss saving knowledge.
6. Acts 17:23 (behind S12) — the Athenian altar "TO THE UNKNOWN GOD" (Gk ΑΓΝΩΣΤΩ ΘΕΩ). "To worship an unknown God at random" is a direct allusion; Paul's Areopagus sermon is the template for the whole natural-theology-then-revelation argument Calvin is running.

How Calvin uses Scripture here: not as prooftext-decoration but as the very authority that pronounces the verdict — "the Holy Spirit pronounces," "Paul declares," "from our Saviour's own mouth." The guilt he assigns is God's sentence, cited chapter and verse; and the same Scripture that condemns the idolater is, by S17, revealed as the only remedy.

① 어법 (밑줄 4개 중 틀린 것 고르기)

Nor ①this must be restricted to one people only, since Paul declares that all men ②"became" vain in their imaginations, ③after the majesty of the Creator ④was manifested to them.

✨ 답안 보기 (클릭)정답: ① — 부정어 Nor가 문두에 오면 주어-조동사 도치가 일어난다: Nor must this be restricted. ①은 도치하지 않은 this must be라 틀림. ②는 collective all men의 통념적 과거, ③ 시간 접속사 after, ④ 수동태 모두 정상. (Formula 2)

② 내용일치 (4지선다)

Which statement agrees with §13?

(A) Calvin holds that sincere intention excuses those who worship falsely. (B) The Samaritans are exempted, since they made the nearest approach to true piety. (C) Custom and antiquity are too weak a foundation for worship, so God must reveal himself. (D) Even the wisest philosophers ("the princes of this world") grasped God's true wisdom.

✨ 답안 보기 (클릭)정답: (C) — S17의 결론(too feeble and fragile a bond … God himself must bear witness). 오답 분석: (A)는 S2의 방향 뒤집기 — 진의(intention)는 of little consequence라 했다(함정: 진정성=면죄로 오독). (B)는 S6의 범위 초과 — nearest approach였을 뿐 여전히 worshipped they knew not what. (D)는 S8과 정반대 — 그들은 did not apprehend the wisdom of God(1 Cor. 2:8).

③ 영작 (그날 공식 적용 — Formula 3: so … as to)

"한낱 인간이 조상의 관습에 그토록 순응하여 그들의 손에서 신을 받아들일 수는 없다."

✨ 답안 보기 (클릭)모범답안: No mortal can so acquiesce in the custom of his forefathers as to receive a god at their hands. 출제 의도: so + 동사 … as + to부정사 결과구문(S15)을 능동 평서문으로 재생산. so acquiesce … as to receive 뼈대만 맞으면 정답. (Formula 3)

One-line summary: §13 is the verdict — every deviation from pure worship is apostasy, and neither sincerity (S2) nor genius (S8) nor ancestral custom (S14–S16) can ground true religion, so God himself must bear witness to himself from heaven (S17, the doorway to Scripture). Grammar to keep: ① notional/distributive agreement (whosoever … make), ② negative-initial inversion (Nor must this be…), ③ so … as to result-infinitive.

Homework (10 min): 1. 구조 복원: Rewrite S1 in fully "corrected" modern agreement and word-order (Anyone who adulterates … makes a departure …), then explain in one line why Beveridge used the plural make. 2. 영작: Using Formula 2, translate — "결코 옛사람의 합의가 참 경건의 견고한 끈이 될 수는 없었다." (start with Never … and invert). 3. 내일 예습 (Day 26 / §14): §14 opens "In vain for us, therefore, does Creation exhibit so many bright lamps …" — note it begins with a fronted In vain … does Creation exhibit inversion (Formula 2 again!). Tomorrow: even with the lamps lit, our blindness leaves us inexcusable — the bridge from "conspicuous knowledge" to "no excuse."

Where we stopped: Book 1, Ch. 5, §13 끝. 다음은 Book 1, Ch. 5, §14 — "In vain for us, therefore, does Creation exhibit so many bright lamps…" (창조의 등불이 켜져도 우리의 둔함 때문에 변명할 수 없다는 결론부).