Day 66 — Book 1, Chapter 11, §11

Yesterday Calvin took the best version of the opponent's case — "we do not call them our gods" — and granted it. Today the opponent comes back with the technical version. And this is the one that has actually been used, in the schools, for seven hundred years: we render δουλεία (dulia, service) to images; we reserve λατρεία (latria, worship) for God alone. Two Greek words. One licit, one not. Case closed.

Watch how Calvin opens. I am not ignorant, however, and I have no wish to disguise the fact, that… Look at that. Third time this chapter (§9, §10, now here) he pre-empts — he states the opponent's best move for him, before the opponent can accuse him of not knowing it. Underline the habit, because it is the single most transferable thing in Calvin's method: never let your reader discover an objection you did not name first.

Then something you must not miss. which shall afterwards be fully considered (see infra, s. 16, and chap. 12 s. 2). He defers the full treatment — twice over. So what is §11 for? Not to settle the question. §11 is a preliminary demolition: he wants the distinction dead as a defence before he examines it as a doctrine. Different jobs. Read §11 as if it were the whole refutation and you will find it thin. Read it as the door being slammed before the real argument, and it is exactly the right length.

And the argument itself has three floors, stacked, each one sturdier than the one below:

• Floor 1 — the lexical floor (S5–S8): the Greek won't carry it. λατρεύειν just means worship. So we worship their images without worshipping them (S6). Self-contradiction.
• Floor 2 — the rhetorical floor (S9): how eloquent soever they may be, they will never prove… that one and the same thing makes two. Fluency is not identity.
• Floor 3 — the load-bearing floor (S10–S12): forget words. Let them show how the things differ. Renaming a crime does not un-commit it. The murderer who calls it something else is still convicted.

If you only take one thing from today: Floor 3 is the argument. Floors 1 and 2 are clearing operations. Any exam option that makes Calvin's case rest on Greek philology has mistaken the scaffolding for the building.

Grammatically this section is the subjunctive-and-inversion section. Three constructions, and they are all here for a reason — Calvin is arguing about what is counterfactual (as if it were not…), what is hypothetically conceded (how eloquent soever they may be), and what is emphatically denied (so far are they from proving…). The grammar is the polemic.

Today's 3 Big Points

1. as if + S + were (not) … and as if + S + were to V — the counterfactual, and the negative buried inside it (S4, S6). as if it were not a lighter matter to worship than to serve. Past subjunctive were = contrary to fact. So as if it were NOT lighter asserts: but it IS lighter. The negative is inside the counterfactual, which means it flips. Miss this and you invert Calvin's sting completely. Then S6 gives you the sibling: as if they were to confess — were to = the remote/hypothetical subjunctive, "as though they were going to come out and admit."
2. Nominative absolute doing causal work — N + V-ing …, MAIN CLAUSE (S6). For the Greek word λατρευ ειν **having no other meaning than to worship**, what they say is just the same as… No conjunction. No since. Just noun + participle, then the main clause. Restore it: Since the Greek word λατρεύειν has no other meaning than to worship, …. And bolted onto it, no other X than Y = nothing but Y — an exclusive, not a comparison.
3. Two fronting-with-inversion patterns (S9, S12). (a) how + adj + **soever** + S + may + V — the archaic split concessive: how eloquent soever they may be = however eloquent they may be. soever has been detached from how and parked after the adjective. (b) But **so far are they from** proving that…, **that**… — fronted so far forces subject–verb inversion (are they, not they are), and there are two thats doing completely different jobs: the first is the object clause of proving, the second is the correlative answering so far. Track the wrong one and the sentence dissolves.

Trap words I will test: disguise (S1) = conceal, not "put on a costume." cloak (S2) — verb, to cover over / pass off under a name. object (S7) — verb, ob-JECT, to raise as an objection; not the noun. quibbling upon words (S7) = hair-splitting over terminology. the simple (S8) = the uninstructed, a plural substantive adjective — descriptive, not an insult. adventitious (S11) = coming from outside, extraneous, arbitrarily attached (ad + venire) — nothing to do with "adventurous." exculpate (S11) = clear of blame (ex + culpa). preposterous (S12) = prae + posterus, back-to-front, arse-about-face — the structural sense, not merely "ridiculous." rivalship (S12) = archaic for rivalry / competitive emulation.

11. I am not ignorant, however, and I have no wish to disguise the fact, that they endeavour to evade the charge by means of a more subtle distinction, which shall afterwards be fully considered (see infra, s. 16, and chap. 12 s. 2). The worship which they pay to their images they cloak with the name of ει δωλοδυλει α (ιδολοδυλια), and deny to be ει δωλολατρει α (ιδολατρια). So they speaks holding that the worship which they call δυλια may, without insult to God, be paid to statues and pictures. Hence, they think themselves blameless if they are only the servants, and not the worshippers, of idols; as if it were not a lighter matter to worship than to serve. And yet, while they take refuge in a Greek term, they very childishly contradict themselves. For the Greek word λατρευ ειν having no other meaning than to worship, what they say is just the same as if they were to confess that they worship their images without worshipping them. They cannot object that I am quibbling upon words. The fact is, that they only betray their ignorance while they attempt to throw dust in the eyes of the simple. But how eloquent soever they may be, they will never prove by their eloquence that one and the same thing makes two. Let them show how the things differ if they would be thought different from ancient idolaters. For as a murderer or an adulterer will not escape conviction by giving some adventitious name to his crime, so it is absurd for them to expect that the subtle device of a name will exculpate them, if they, in fact, differ in nothing from idolaters whom they themselves are forced to condemn. But so far are they from proving that their case is different, that the source of the whole evil consists in a preposterous rivalship with them, while they with their minds devise, and with their hands execute, symbolical shapes of God.

Sentence count: 12 (S1–S12). One paragraph.

Text note (not a correction to the quotation). Our local Beveridge file carries three OCR corruptions, and I have left them exactly as they stand in the quotation above, per the source rule. For your reading: (i) So they speaks holding is the printed Beveridge's So they speak, holding — a scanned comma read as an s; (ii) the Greek is mangled by the scanner — ει δωλοδυλει α = εἰδωλοδουλεία, ει δωλολατρει α = εἰδωλολατρεία, δυλια = δουλεία, λατρευ ειν = λατρεύειν; (iii) the parenthesised Latin-letter doublets (ιδολοδυλια) / (ιδολατρια) are the scanner's attempt at the transliterations idolodulia / idolatria. Nothing of Calvin's argument turns on the corruption — but do not memorise the mangled Greek.

[PRE-EMPT]    S1        "I am not ignorant… no wish to disguise" — he names their best move FIRST,
                        then DEFERS full treatment (→ s.16, → chap.12 s.2). §11 = door slammed, not case closed.
[THE MOVE]    S2–S3     they rename it: εἰδωλοδουλεία (service), not εἰδωλολατρεία (worship)
                        → therefore payable "without insult to God" to statues and pictures
[THE STING]   S4        servants, not worshippers = blameless?  — "as if it were not a LIGHTER
                        matter to worship than to serve"  ← the counterfactual REVERSES the ranking
[FLOOR 1]     S5–S6     lexical: λατρεύειν = to worship, full stop
                        → their claim reduces to "we worship them without worshipping them"
[GUARD]       S7–S8     pre-empting "you're quibbling": no — YOU betrayed the ignorance,
                        while throwing dust in the eyes of the simple
[FLOOR 2]     S9        rhetorical: however eloquent — eloquence will never make one thing into two
[FLOOR 3]     S10–S12   THE ARGUMENT: "Let them show how the THINGS differ."
                        murderer/adulterer analogy → a name is not a defence
                        verdict: so far from differing, the whole evil IS imitation of them
                        — minds DEVISE / hands EXECUTE symbolical shapes of God

Examiner's Eye. Five traps here, and the two most dangerous are grammatical, not doctrinal.

(1) The counterfactual-negative trap — S4. as if it were not a lighter matter to worship than to serve. Ask any careless reader what Calvin thinks and they will say: worshipping is worse than serving. Backwards. as if + past subjunctive = contrary to fact; the clause states what is NOT the case. So Calvin's actual position is: to worship is the lighter matter; to serve is the heavier. A δοῦλος is a slave — owned, disposed of, belonging. The opponents pick the word they think is milder, and Calvin points out they have picked the stronger one. Any option reading S4 as "worship is graver than service" has swallowed the trap whole.

(2) The floor trap — where does the argument actually rest? Options will offer you: "Calvin refutes the distinction by showing that the Greek words are synonymous." That is Floor 1, and Calvin himself treats it as preliminary — see S7, where he must defend himself against the charge of quibbling upon words. The real argument is S10: Let them show how **the things** differ — a demand about practice, not lexicon. Reading §11 as a philological refutation is the scope error the section is built to punish.

(3) The deferral trap — S1. "Calvin here gives his complete refutation of the dulia/latria distinction." No. which shall afterwards be fully considered (see infra, s. 16, and chap. 12 s. 2). He says in writing that this is not the full treatment. Options that treat §11 as exhaustive contradict its own second clause.

(4) The "which side is quibbling" trap — S7–S8. They cannot object that I am quibbling upon words. The fact is, that they only betray their ignorance… Note the direction: the charge of verbal trickery is being returned to sender. An option saying "Calvin concedes his argument is merely verbal" inverts S7's flat refusal.

(5) The rivalship trap — S12. the source of the whole evil consists in a preposterous rivalship with them. With them = with the ancient idolaters, from S11. Calvin's verdict is not "they resemble the ancients" but the stronger "they are competing with them." And preposterous is doing structural work — back-to-front: the one thing you should never emulate is precisely the thing they have chosen to outdo. Options that soften this to "similarity" have lost the word.

Formula 1 — the counterfactual as if, and the negative inside it

as if + S + WERE (+ not) + C            → CONTRARY TO FACT: the clause states what is NOT so
as if + S + WERE TO + V                 → remote/hypothetical: "as though they were to come out and…"

  ⚠ TWO SWITCHES, NOT ONE.
     "as if it were NOT lighter to worship than to serve"
        switch 1: as if + were   → the clause is FALSE
        switch 2: not           → sits inside the false clause
        ∴ CALVIN ASSERTS:  it IS lighter to worship than to serve.

  ⚠ "were" is invariable — never "was" — regardless of the subject.
  ⚠ Do NOT confuse with open "as if + indicative" (modern colloquial), which makes no such claim.

Transformation drill. Turn the assertion into Calvin's counterfactual: Assertion: To confess with the lips is a slighter thing than to trust with the heart. → "They call themselves believers because they recite the creed; as if it were not a slighter matter to confess with the lips than to trust with the heart." Check yourself: the as if clause denies the assertion, and therefore affirms it as Calvin's own view. Both switches must be visible in your sentence, or you have written the opposite of what you meant.

Formula 2 — the nominative absolute as a causal clause (+ no other … than)

[ NOUN + V-ing ... ] , MAIN CLAUSE       →  Since/Because/When NOUN V-s ... , MAIN CLAUSE

  · noun + participle, NO conjunction, NO finite verb — grammatically detached
  · the noun is NOT the subject of the main clause (that is the whole point of "absolute")
  · negative form: NOUN + not V-ing ... / there being no ...

  no other N than X   =  no N except X       ← EXCLUSIVE, not comparative
     ⚠ NOT "no better N than X", NOT "no further N beyond X"

  Beveridge's stock: "the Greek word λατρεύειν HAVING no other meaning than to worship, ..."
                     "justice BEING an essential attribute, ..."          (I.4.4)
                     "THERE BEING none who ...,"                           (I.5.12)

Transformation drill. Compress into an absolute: Two clauses: Since the word "grace" has no meaning except "unearned favour," their doctrine of merited grace destroys itself. → The word "grace" having no other meaning than unearned favour, their doctrine of merited grace destroys itself. Check yourself: no since, no finite verb in the first clause, and the subject of the main clause (doctrine) is different from the absolute's noun (word). If they are the same, you needed an ordinary participial phrase, not an absolute.

Formula 3 — two frontings that invert (and the two thats)

(a)  how + ADJ + soever + S + may + V      =  however ADJ S is  /  no matter how ADJ
       · "soever" detaches from the wh-word and follows the adjective
       · "may" = CONCESSIVE (granting it), not permission or possibility
       · siblings: whatsoever, whosoever, howsoever, "how great soever"

(b)  So far + BE + S + from + V-ing + THAT + clause
       ┌ fronted "so far" FORCES subject–verb inversion:  "so far ARE THEY from ..."
       │    ⚠ this is NOT a question. Restore: "they are so far from ..."
       └ TWO "that"s, different jobs:
            that ①  = object clause of the V-ing   ("proving THAT their case is different")
            that ②  = CORRELATIVE answering "so far"  ("... THAT the source of the whole evil ...")
       meaning: so far from doing X that, ON THE CONTRARY, Y   →  X하기는커녕 도리어 Y
       ⚠ consist IN (= ~에 본질이 있다)  ≠  consist OF (= ~로 구성되다)

Transformation drill. Write one sentence containing both (a) and (b): Content: however learned they are, they don't clarify the doctrine — on the contrary, the confusion begins with them. → How learned soever they may be, so far are they from clarifying the doctrine, that the whole confusion consists in their own distinctions. Check yourself: soever after the adjective; may concessive; are they inverted (not a question); one that correlative; consist **in**, not of.

What the distinction actually is — state it fairly, because Calvin does. The vocabulary is Greek but the system is Latin scholastic. λατρεία (latria) = the worship due to God alone. δουλεία (dulia) = the honour due to a creature of excellence — a saint, an angel. Later a third grade, hyperdulia, was assigned to the Virgin. Aquinas gives it its classical statement (ST II-II q.84 a.1 on latria; q.103 aa.3–4 on dulia), and — this is the part that matters for §11 — at ST III q.25 a.3 he argues that the honour paid to an image of Christ is not a second act but the same act, terminating in the prototype: motus in imaginem inquantum est imago. Note the consequence: the schoolman would accept S9's axiom. He too says one thing does not make two. He says the image is not a second object.

Where the distinction comes from. Not from the schools originally but from Nicaea II (787), the seventh ecumenical council, which restored images after the first iconoclast period and distinguished τιμητικὴ προσκύνησις (honorific veneration, given to images) from ἀληθινὴ λατρεία (true adoration, God alone). And there is a wonderful accident here worth knowing: the Latin translation that reached the Frankish court rendered both Greek words as adoratio, so Charlemagne's theologians read Nicaea II as commanding the adoration of images and rejected it in the Libri Carolini (c. 790). A council was repudiated over a translation. Which is a rather pointed piece of history to keep in mind while reading a section arguing that the whole dispute has been displaced onto words.

John of Damascus (Three Treatises on the Divine Images, c. 730) supplies the theological engine Nicaea II ran on: the Incarnation changes what may be depicted — I do not worship matter, I worship the Creator of matter who became matter for my sake. Calvin does not engage that argument here. He will, later. Do not read §11 as if he had.

Calvin's own move, and its limits. He advances three things, in ascending order of strength: (1) the lexical claim, that λατρεύειν simply means worship and the Greek will not sustain the graded system; (2) the inverted-ranking claim of S4, that δουλεία is if anything the heavier word, since a δοῦλος is a slave — and that Scripture uses δουλεύειν precisely for idolatry (Gal. 4:8) and for undividable allegiance (Matt. 6:24); (3) the practical demand of S10–S12, that the difference be shown in the thing done. The obvious rejoinder to (1) is that technical terms are stipulated, not discovered — and Calvin's own S7–S8 shows he felt the pressure. (3) is where his weight rests, and it is fed by the evidence of §10, not by §11's philology.

Guardrails — three, and I mean them.

1. §11 is not the full refutation, and says so. which shall afterwards be fully considered (see infra, s. 16, and chap. 12 s. 2). Quoting §11 as Calvin's settled treatment of dulia/latria misrepresents a text that announces its own incompleteness in its first sentence.
2. §11 is not a general iconoclasm — and the very next section proves it. §12 opens I am not, however, so superstitious as to think that all visible representations of every kind are unlawful… sculpture and painting are gifts of God. Same two nouns as S3's statues and pictures, now on the other side of the ledger. Calvin's target is the representation of God, and the cult attached to it. It is not art.
3. Do not modernise the opponent into Trent. The Council of Trent's Session 25 decree On sacred images is December 1563. Calvin's definitive Latin Institutio is 1559; he died in May 1564. He is not answering Trent 25. He is answering the medieval schoolmen and Nicaea II as they had come down through them. Getting this backwards is the commonest anachronism in undergraduate essays on this chapter.

Downstream. Heidelberg Catechism Q.98 (1563) — images are not to be "books for the laity"; Westminster Larger Catechism Q.109 — the making of any representation of God, inwardly in the mind or outwardly, is forbidden by the second commandment. Note how the Westminster divines pick up precisely S12's pairing of mind and hands. That clause had legs.

1. Exod. 20:4–5 (LXX) — the commandment behind the entire chapter, and the decisive philological datum for §11: οὐ προσκυνήσεις αὐτοῖς **οὐδὲ μὴ λατρεύσῃς** αὐτοῖς — thou shalt not bow down to them, nor serve them. How Calvin uses it (behind S2–S6): silently, and devastatingly. The commandment already contains both verbs, joined by nor — coordinated, not graded. The very text that must license the distinction instead forbids both acts in one clause. Nothing in §11 is stronger than this, and Calvin does not need to cite it because his readers have it by heart.

2. Gal. 4:8 — ye did service (ἐδουλεύσατε) unto them which by nature are no gods. S4. How he uses it: as the ranking-reversal. Paul applies the douleia verb to idolatry itself. So the word chosen as the safe category is the word Scripture uses for the offence. (You met this verse on Day 11, I.4.3 — same verb, same point, tighter now.)

3. Matt. 6:24 // Luke 16:13 — οὐδεὶς δύναται δυσὶ κυρίοις **δουλεύειν**. S4. How he uses it: δουλεύειν is the New Testament's verb for undividable allegiance. If service is what cannot be split between two masters, then a system that licenses service to creatures has licensed the one thing that admits no division.

4. Matt. 4:10 // Deut. 6:13 (LXX) — Κύριον τὸν θεόν σου **προσκυνήσεις** καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ **λατρεύσεις**. S6. How he uses it: the contested proof-text. Both sides quote it. Note the syntax: the two verbs stand in synonymous parallelism, the standard Semitic doubling — they are not two grades on a scale. Reading a hierarchy out of a parallelism is, for Calvin, the founding error.

5. Rom. 1:25 — ἐσεβάσθησαν καὶ **ἐλάτρευσαν** τῇ κτίσει παρὰ τὸν κτίσαντα — worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator. S3, S12. How he uses it: two verbs, one crime. Paul's grammar refuses exactly the separation the schools require. And the creature… rather than the Creator is the frame for S12's symbolical shapes of God.

6. Ps. 115:4 // 135:15 — Their idols are silver and gold, **the work of men's hands**. S12. How he uses it: verbatim in substance. With their hands execute is this verse. And note that Calvin adds a half the psalm does not have — with their **minds** devise — extending the psalmist's charge inward. That addition is I.11.8's perpetual forge of idols, and it is what Westminster later canonised.

7. Isa. 44:9–20 — the carpenter who plants a tree, burns half, bakes bread on the coals, and worships the remainder. S12. How he uses it: as the narrative behind the mind/hands couplet. Isaiah's satire is precisely that one man's mind and one man's hands produce both the fuel and the god — the split the defence requires is refuted by the single pair of hands.

8. Jer. 3:9 — committed adultery with stones and with stocks (Heb. וַתִּנְאַף אֶת־הָאֶבֶן וְאֶת־הָעֵץ). S11, and this is a carry-over from §10's closing sentence. How he uses it: it supplies the noun adulterer in the criminal analogy. The murderer is generic; the adulterer is quoted from the prophets, and it is the previous section's last word being recycled as this section's illustration.

9. 1 Cor. 10:14; 1 John 5:21 — φεύγετε ἀπὸ τῆς **εἰδωλολατρίας**; φυλάξατε ἑαυτὰ ἀπὸ τῶν εἰδώλων. S2. How he uses it: by implication. εἰδωλολατρία is the New Testament's own compound — the very word S2 says they deny applies. The term they are contesting is not Calvin's coinage; it is the apostolic name of the sin.

① Grammar — one of the four is wrong

ⓐ How eloquent soever they may be, they will never prove that one and the same thing makes two. ⓑ The Greek word λατρεύειν having no other meaning than to worship, their claim collapses into a contradiction. ⓒ But so far they are from proving that their case is different, that the whole evil consists in a rivalship with them. ⓓ They think themselves blameless, as if it were not a lighter matter to worship than to serve.

Answer: ⓒ.

Exam-setter rationale. Fronted so far obligatorily inverts subject and operator: so far **are they** from proving…, not so far they are. That is Formula 3(b), Trap 1, and it is the most testable single feature in §11 because the inverted form looks like a question and students "correct" it back to statement order — which is precisely the error ⓒ commits. Why the others are clean: ⓐ is Formula 3(a) — soever legitimately detaches and follows the adjective, and concessive may is correct. ⓑ is Formula 2 — a well-formed nominative absolute: noun + participle, no conjunction, and the main clause has a different subject (their claim), which is what makes it absolute rather than a dangling participle. ⓓ is Formula 1 — as if + invariable were, with the negative correctly inside the counterfactual. Candidates who pick ⓑ have not learned to recognise the absolute and think a conjunction is missing; candidates who pick ⓐ have mistaken an archaism for an error.

② Comprehension — which one is correct?

ⓐ Calvin argues that worshipping an idol is a graver offence than serving one, and that his opponents have therefore chosen the milder term. ⓑ Calvin rests his refutation of the dulia/latria distinction on the claim that Greek usage makes the two terms synonymous, and considers the matter settled on that ground. ⓒ Calvin grants that a Greek term is being used, denies that renaming an act can alter it, and demands that his opponents show a difference in the practice itself — while deferring the full treatment of the distinction to a later section. ⓓ Calvin concedes that his objection is largely a dispute about terminology, and admits that the practices themselves may well be innocent.

Answer: ⓒ.

Exam-setter rationale. ⓐ is the counterfactual flip, and it is the answer most candidates choose. S4 reads as if it were not a lighter matter to worship than to serve — as if + were marks the clause contrary to fact, so Calvin's actual position is that worship is the lighter matter and service the heavier; his opponents have picked the stronger word, not the milder one. Two negations to track; miss either and you land here. ⓑ is the floor trap — it mistakes S6 (the lexical argument) for the whole, when S1 explicitly defers full treatment (see infra, s. 16, and chap. 12 s. 2) and S10 abandons lexical ground for Let them show how **the things** differ. Attractive because everything in it appears in the text; wrong because it makes a preliminary the conclusion. ⓒ assembles correctly from S1 (deferral) + S5 (take refuge in a Greek term) + S11 (the adventitious-name analogy) + S10 (the demand). ⓓ inverts S7 flatly: They cannot object that I am quibbling upon words is a refusal of that description, and S12's the source of the whole evil is the opposite of conceding the practices might be innocent.

③ Composition — apply today's formulas

Render into Calvin's register in one sentence, using Formula 3(b) (so far … from V-ing … that, with the inversion) and Formula 1 (counterfactual as if … were not): "They don't clear themselves by the distinction at all; in fact the distinction is where the whole confusion starts — they behave as though naming a thing weren't the easiest of all evasions."

Model answer: So far are they from clearing themselves by the distinction, that the whole confusion consists in the distinction itself; as if it were not the easiest of all evasions to give a thing a name.

Exam-setter rationale. Five things are marked. (1) Fronted So far must invert: are they, not they are — the single most common failure. (2) The correlative that must be present and must not be confused with a that belonging to an embedded verb; here clearing takes no object clause, so only one that should appear, and it must be the correlative. (3) consist in, not consist of — the sentence is about essence, not composition; consists of the distinction is a marked error. (4) as if requires invariable were; as if it was is wrong regardless of subject. (5) The negative must sit inside the counterfactual (as if it were **not** the easiest…), so that the sentence asserts that naming is the easiest evasion. A candidate who writes as if it were the easiest of all evasions has produced a sentence that means the reverse — and that is exactly the error that ruins S4 on the comprehension paper. Acceptable variant: …that the very source of the confusion is the distinction itself…; unacceptable: any version without inversion, or with consist of.

One-line summary: Calvin names the opponent's best remaining move before they can play it (S1, I am not ignorant… no wish to disguise) and defers its full examination to §16 and 12.2 — so §11 kills the dulia/latria distinction as an evasion, not yet as a doctrine: they cloak worship under εἰδωλοδουλεία and deny εἰδωλολατρεία (S2–S3), thinking themselves blameless as only the servants — **as if it were not a lighter matter to worship than to serve** (S4), which, being counterfactual, means their exculpating word is the heavier one, since a δοῦλος is a slave and Scripture uses δουλεύειν for idolatry itself; then three ascending floors — lexical (λατρεύειν means worship, so their claim reduces to they worship their images without worshipping them, S5–S6), defensive (They cannot object that I am quibbling; you throw dust in the eyes of the simple, S7–S8), rhetorical (how eloquent soever they may be, eloquence cannot make one and the same thing into two, S9) — and then the ground changes for good: Let them show how **the things** differ (S10), because a murderer's adventitious name does not defeat a conviction (S11), and the verdict is not resemblance but rivalry: so far are they from proving that their case is different, that the source of the whole evil consists in a **preposterous rivalship** with them, since with their minds devise, and with their hands execute, symbolical shapes of God (S12). Grammar: the counterfactual as if + were with a negative inside it (two switches, S4), the nominative absolute as a causal clause + no other X than Y as an exclusive (S6), and the two fronting-inversions — how + adj + soever + may (S9) and so far + BE + S + from V-ing + that with its two different thats (S12).

Homework (10 min):

1. Structure restoration: take S12 and write it out in five slots — [fronted so far + INVERTED BE + S] + [from V-ing + that①-clause] + [that② correlative + S + consist in + C] + [while-clause: instrument₁ + V₁ , instrument₂ + V₂] + [shared object] — then answer in one line: why must symbolical shapes of God attach to both verbs, and what would Calvin lose if it attached only to execute?
2. Composition: write one sentence using Formula 2 (nominative absolute) and Formula 1 (counterfactual as if) together, beginning "The word 'memorial' having no other meaning than…" and containing the clause "…as if it were not…".
3. Preview: tomorrow, §12 — and it is a turn. First words: "I am not, however, so superstitious as to think that all visible representations of every kind are unlawful." Watch for sculpture and painting are gifts of God — the same two arts he condemned in S3 as statues and pictures, now granted; watch for the third division of the chapter opening (the use and abuse of images); and watch the construction so + adj + as to + V, which will carry the whole concession. After twelve sections of demolition, Calvin starts building a fence rather than a wall.

Where we stopped: Book 1, Ch. 11, §11 끝. 다음은 Book 1, Ch. 11, §12 (Day 67) — the concession: sculpture and painting as gifts of God, and where the line actually falls.