Day 67 — Book 1, Chapter 11, §12

Stop. Look at the second word of today's section.

however.

For eleven sections Calvin has been prosecuting. No visible form for God (§§1–7). Idols are not a late calendar accident but a defect of the human constitution (§§8–10). The dulia/latria dodge is dead on arrival (§11). Eleven sections of demolition. And now, at the top of §12, one small adversative: I am not, however, so superstitious as to think that all visible representations of every kind are unlawful.

That however is the hinge of the entire chapter. Beveridge's own argument heading names it: third division — the use and abuse of images. Divisions one and two were prosecution. Division three is qualification. And this is the single most misquoted section in the Institutes, because everyone who has ever wanted to make Calvin the patron saint of whitewashed walls stops reading at §11.

Here is what he actually says in S2, and I want you to underline it in whatever you are reading this on: sculpture and painting are gifts of God. Not tolerated. Not permitted. Gifts. Same noun he has been using since I.5 for the created order. So the demand that follows is not abolition — it is that both shall be used purely and lawfully. Watch the verb Calvin chooses for the sin: abused, perverted. You cannot pervert a thing that had no proper use. The charge of abuse presupposes a legitimate use. That is not a soft aside; it is a structural commitment, and the rest of the section is built on it.

Then he draws the line, and the line is drawn around the object, not around the art. S6: The only things… which ought to be painted or sculptured, are things which can be presented to the eye. Painting is fine. Painting the invisible is the category error. The prohibition attaches to God's majesty… far beyond the reach of any eye, not to the sculptor's chisel.

And then — this is the part I want you awake for — he does something rhetorically ruthless in the last two sentences. Having spent §§5–7 flaying the indecency and lewdness of the images actually standing in churches, he now sets all of that aside: I say nothing as to the improper and unbecoming form… And having disarmed himself, he lands the actual thesis: though they were otherwise faultless, they could not be of any utility in teaching.

Do you see the move? He grants his opponent a perfect image. Faultless. Decent. Beautiful. And says: it still teaches nothing. His case does not depend on bad art. Any exam option that makes Calvin's argument rest on images being ugly or lewd has been trapped by S12 and has never reached S13.

Grammatically today is the scope-and-inversion section. Calvin is doing three things that all depend on getting the boundaries of a construction right: limiting a denial (S1), escalating an apposition (S2), and inverting for a fortiori (S5). If you mis-bracket any one of them you will read the section backwards.

Today's 3 Big Points

1. not so + ADJ + as to + V — where does the not land? (S1, and its cousin at S9.) I am **not** so superstitious **as to** think that all visible representations… are unlawful. The negative does not attach to superstitious alone. It scopes over the whole so…as to bracket: I am not superstitious to the degree that would be required for me to think X. Result: Calvin denies X. He is saying, in one breath, (a) I do not hold that all images are unlawful and (b) anyone who does hold that is being superstitious. Two claims in a construction that looks like one. And note the wit: superstitious is the word Rome throws at the Reformed. He picks it up and throws it at the over-scrupulous. Then S9 gives you the hedging sibling: so far as I can see = as far as I can judge — a deliberate softener, marking that sentence as opinion, not as the section's load-bearing claim.
2. The what-cleft with epexegetic apposition, plus nay escalation (S2). what I insist for is, **that** both shall be used purely and lawfully,—**that** gifts which the Lord has bestowed… shall not be preposterously abused, **nay**, shall not be perverted to our destruction. Two that-clauses. They are not a list — the dash tells you the second restates and sharpens the first (apposition, not coordination). And inside the second clause, nay does the same job again at the level of the verb: nay is a corrective intensifier, not a negative. not merely abused — worse, perverted. So you have escalation nested inside escalation. If you read nay as "no," the sentence collapses.
3. Present subjunctive protasis + fronted comparative with inversion = the a fortiori engine (S5). **If it be** unlawful to make any corporeal representation of God, **still more unlawful must it be** to worship such a representation instead of God. Two things. (a) If it be — bare present subjunctive, archaic, marking the protasis as granted for argument, not asserted. (b) still more unlawful is fronted, and fronting a comparative complement forces subject–verb inversion: must it be, not it must be. And track the direction, because this is where options get built: making → worshipping is an increase in guilt. Calvin is climbing, not descending.

Trap words I will test. superstitious (S1) — aimed at the over-strict, not the idolater; the polarity is inverted. insist for (S2) = archaic insist on. preposterously (S2) = prae + posterus, back-to-front — structural, not merely "absurdly." nay (S2) = corrective escalation, "rather / indeed even," not a refusal. singular (S4) = alone, idiosyncratic, standing by ourselves — emphatically not "excellent." divines (S4) = theologians, a noun. corporeal (S5) = bodily, material. viz. (S7) = videlicet, namely — it introduces a definition, not an example. admonition (S8) = warning or reproof, not gentle advice. fitted for (S9) = suited to. hitherto (S10) = up to this point in time. judicious (S11) = exercising judgment, discriminating. wanton (S12) = unrestrained, undisciplined — the sense is licence, not merely lewdness. alluded to (S12) = referred to indirectly — and it requires to. otherwise faultless (S13) = faultless in every other respect — the concessive hinge of the whole section.

12. I am not, however, so superstitious as to think that all visible representations of every kind are unlawful. But as sculpture and painting are gifts of God, what I insist for is, that both shall be used purely and lawfully,—that gifts which the Lord has bestowed upon us, for his glory and our good, shall not be preposterously abused, nay, shall not be perverted to our destruction. We think it unlawful to give a visible shape to God, because God himself has forbidden it, and because it cannot be done without, in some degree, tarnishing his glory. And lest any should think that we are singular in this opinion, those acquainted with the productions of sound divines will find that they have always disapproved of it. If it be unlawful to make any corporeal representation of God, still more unlawful must it be to worship such a representation instead of God, or to worship God in it. The only things, therefore, which ought to be painted or sculptured, are things which can be presented to the eye; the majesty of God, which is far beyond the reach of any eye, must not be dishonored by unbecoming representations. Visible representations are of two classes—viz. historical, which give a representation of events, and pictorial, which merely exhibit bodily shapes and figures. The former are of some use for instruction or admonition. The latter, so far as I can see, are only fitted for amusement. And yet it is certain, that the latter are almost the only kind which have hitherto been exhibited in churches. Hence we may infer, that the exhibition was not the result of judicious selection, but of a foolish and inconsiderate longing. I say nothing as to the improper and unbecoming form in which they are presented, or the wanton license in which sculptors and painters have here indulged (a point to which I alluded a little ago, supra, s. 7). I only say, that though they were otherwise faultless, they could not be of any utility in teaching.

Sentence count: 13 (S1–S13). One paragraph.

Text note (not a correction to the quotation). Three things in the printed page, left exactly as they stand. (i) dishonored (S6) is the American spelling carried by our Beveridge file — do not "fix" it in a quotation. (ii) In the physical Beveridge volume a French footnote ("…pelerinage pour voir un marmouset, duquel ils ont le semblable à leur porte?" — Calvin's own French, on pilgrims who trudge to see a puppet they have the twin of at home) interrupts S3 at the page break; it belongs to §10, not here, and is excluded above. (iii) supra, s. 7 (S12) is Beveridge's editorial cross-reference, printed inside Calvin's parenthesis, and is retained.

[PIVOT]        S1        "I am not, HOWEVER, so superstitious as to think…"
                         → THIRD DIVISION opens. Prosecution (§§1–11) → qualification.
                         The denial is limited, and the limit is the whole point.
[PRINCIPLE]    S2        sculpture & painting = GIFTS OF GOD
                         → demand is USE ("purely and lawfully"), not abolition
                         → escalation: not "abused" — NAY, "perverted to our destruction"
[LIMIT: WHY]   S3        no visible shape of GOD. Two grounds, both with "because":
                         (a) God has forbidden it   (b) it tarnishes his glory
[NOT ALONE]    S4        "lest any should think that we are SINGULAR" → sound divines
                         have ALWAYS disapproved (argument from catholic consensus)
[A FORTIORI]   S5        make < worship. If making is unlawful → worshipping is MORE so
                         (fronted comparative + inversion: "must it be")
[THE RULE]     S6        paint only what CAN BE PRESENTED TO THE EYE
                         ; God's majesty is beyond every eye → prohibition attaches to the
                         OBJECT, not to the art
[TAXONOMY]     S7–S9     two classes (viz.):
                          · historical  = events        → "of SOME use" (instruction/admonition)
                          · pictorial   = shapes/figures → "only fitted for amusement"
[VERDICT]      S10–S11   AND YET pictorial is almost the ONLY kind hitherto in churches
                         → inference: NOT judicious selection BUT foolish, inconsiderate longing
[CONCESSION]   S12–S13   praeteritio: I say NOTHING of indecency & wanton licence (→ s.7)
                         I ONLY say: THOUGH THEY WERE OTHERWISE FAULTLESS,
                         they could not be of any utility in teaching   ← the actual thesis

Examiner's Eye. Six traps, and the two most dangerous are at the ends — the first sentence and the last.

(1) The blanket-iconoclasm trap — S1–S2. Options will offer you: "Calvin holds that all visible representations are unlawful." That is precisely the position S1 denies, and denies while calling it superstitious. Then S2 goes further and calls sculpture and painting gifts of God. The single commonest misreading of this chapter is the one Calvin himself forecloses in his opening clause. Note also the tell in S2's vocabulary: abused, perverted. Both verbs are parasitic on a proper use. You cannot pervert nothing.

(2) The singular trap — S4. lest any should think that we are singular in this opinion. Read as "excellent," the sentence turns into Calvin boasting. It means alone / peculiar to us, and the clause is defensive: don't imagine this is a Reformed novelty. The whole sentence is an appeal to catholic consensus — sound divines… have always disapproved. An option reading S4 as Calvin claiming originality inverts it exactly.

(3) The a fortiori direction trap — S5. If it be unlawful to make…, still more unlawful must it be to worship… The ladder runs upward: making is bad, worshipping is worse. Distractors will hand you the descent ("making is worse than worshipping") or, more subtly, the equation ("Calvin treats making and worshipping as equally culpable"). Neither survives still more.

(4) The scope trap — S6. This is the most theologically important sentence in the section and it is built as a semicolon pair. Left of the semicolon: a permission with a boundary (the only things… which ought to be painted… are things which can be presented to the eye). Right of the semicolon: the exclusion that follows (the majesty of God, which is far beyond the reach of any eye). The prohibition is derived from the nature of the object, not from any suspicion of the medium. Any option that locates Calvin's objection in art itself has read the wrong side of the semicolon.

(5) The of some use trap — S8. The former are of some use for instruction or admonition. This is a real concession, deliberately limited. Historical images — narrative scenes, events — get a genuine (if modest) pedagogical value. An option saying "Calvin denies any instructional value to any image" dies on S8. An option saying "Calvin recommends historical images for church walls" dies on S13. The concession is granted at S8 and then out-ranged at S13, which is a different operation from being withdrawn. Hold both.

(6) The concession trap — S12–S13, and this is the one that separates the top band. S12 is praeteritio: Calvin names the indecency and the wanton license of actual church images in the act of declining to argue from them. Then S13: I only say, that **though they were otherwise faultless**, they could not be of any utility in teaching. Past subjunctive were = granted counterfactually. He hands the opponent the best possible case — perfect, decent, beautiful images — and the verdict does not move. So: Calvin's argument here does not rest on abuse. Any option that makes his conclusion depend on the images being improper has mistaken the discarded argument (S12) for the retained one (S13).

┌─ FORMULA 1 ─ NEGATIVE SCOPE OVER "so … as to" ───────────────────────────┐
│                                                                          │
│    S + be + NOT + so + ADJ + as to + V                                   │
│         └────── the NOT scopes the WHOLE bracket ──────┘                 │
│                                                                          │
│    = "not ADJ to the degree that would lead to V-ing"                    │
│    ⇒ V IS DENIED.                                                        │
│                                                                          │
│  ⚠ TRAP: the not does NOT attach to the adjective alone.                 │
│     ✗ "I am not superstitious, and therefore I think X"                  │
│     ✓ "I do not think X — and to think X would be superstition"          │
│  ⚠ BONUS: the construction smuggles in a SECOND claim — that holding V   │
│     would make you ADJ. One bracket, two assertions. Watch for it.       │
│  ⚠ Hedging cousin: "so far as I can see" = marks OPINION, not doctrine.  │
│                                                                          │
│  Drill: 「나는 모든 예술이 우상숭배라고 생각할 만큼 엄격하지는 않다」       │
│  → I am not so rigid as to think that all art is idolatry.               │
│    (⇒ he DENIES that all art is idolatry, and calls the view rigid.)     │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

┌─ FORMULA 2 ─ WHAT-CLEFT + APPOSITIVE that + "nay" ESCALATION ────────────┐
│                                                                          │
│    What S V + IS , + [that-clause ①] ,— [that-clause ②]                  │
│                       positive form      negative restatement            │
│         ↑ focus                ↑ the DASH = apposition, NOT a list       │
│                                                                          │
│    … not merely A ,  NAY , B                                             │
│                       └─ CORRECTIVE INTENSIFIER ("rather / indeed even") │
│                          B OUTRANKS A.  It is NOT the negative "no."     │
│                                                                          │
│  ⚠ TRAP 1: reading the two that-clauses as coordinate (they are not —    │
│     no "and"; the second restates and sharpens the first).               │
│  ⚠ TRAP 2: reading "nay" as a refusal. It escalates; it never retracts.  │
│                                                                          │
│  Drill: 「내가 요구하는 것은 그 은사가 오용되지 않는 것, 아니 파괴에      │
│          쓰이지 않는 것이다」                                             │
│  → What I require is, that the gift be not abused,—nay, that it be not   │
│    turned to our ruin.                                                   │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

┌─ FORMULA 3 ─ A FORTIORI: SUBJUNCTIVE PROTASIS + FRONTED COMPARATIVE ─────┐
│                                                                          │
│    If it BE + ADJ + to V₁ ,  still more ADJ + MUST IT BE + to V₂         │
│       └ bare present         └ FRONTED complement                        │
│         subjunctive:            ⇒ forces SUBJECT–VERB INVERSION          │
│         granted for               (must it be — NOT "it must be")        │
│         argument                                                         │
│                                                                          │
│    DIRECTION: V₁ ──────────────────▶ V₂   (guilt INCREASES)             │
│                                                                          │
│  ⚠ TRAP 1: reversing the ladder (V₂ lighter than V₁). Never.             │
│  ⚠ TRAP 2: flattening it ("equally unlawful"). "still more" forbids it.  │
│  ⚠ TRAP 3: writing "still more unlawful it must be" — no inversion.      │
│     ANY fronted comparative/degree complement drags the operator          │
│     in front of the subject. Cf. §11 "so far ARE THEY from proving."     │
│                                                                          │
│  Drill: 「하나님의 형상을 만드는 것이 불법이라면, 그것을 신뢰하는 것은     │
│          한층 더 불법일 수밖에 없다」                                     │
│  → If it be unlawful to fashion an image of God, still more unlawful     │
│    must it be to place any trust in it.                                  │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

Secondary patterns worth banking today

Where we are in the chapter. Beveridge's own headings give you three divisions: §§1–7 no visible form may be given to God; §§8–11 the origin of idols and the worship actually paid them; §§12–16 the use and abuse of images. Today opens division three. That structural fact is worth memorising, because it explains the tonal whiplash — §12 sounds like a different author only if you have not noticed that the argument has changed jobs.

The defence Calvin is actually attacking. S13's utility in teaching is not a stray remark. It is aimed at the oldest and most respectable justification of images in the Western church: Gregory the Great, writing (c. 599–600) to Serenus, bishop of Marseilles, who had smashed the images in his own church. Gregory's line — what writing is to readers, a picture is to the illiterate — became the standing formula: images are the book of the laity, biblia pauperum. That defence is pedagogical, and Calvin therefore answers it on pedagogical ground. Not "images are dangerous," not "images are indecent" (he has just set that aside), but: they do not do the job you claim for them. Watch how much the argument gains from being narrow.

What is being set up for the next few days. §13 asks whether churches ought to contain images at all and appeals to the first five centuries. §14 takes on the Second Council of Nicaea (787) — the council that restored image-veneration in the East and distinguished veneration (proskynēsis) from adoration (latreia), the same distinction Calvin buried yesterday in §11. Note also that the Western reception of Nicaea II was itself contested: the Libri Carolini (c. 790s), produced at Charlemagne's court, rejected the council's decrees — so Calvin's S4 appeal to sound divines who have always disapproved is not a bluff. There is a real Western tradition of resistance he can point to.

The Reformation map — and please keep the three positions distinct. Luther treated images as adiaphora, things indifferent, and was famously enraged by the Wittenberg iconoclasm of 1522; he preached the Invocavit sermons against it. Karlstadt and, in Zurich, Zwingli moved toward removal. Calvin's position, as §12 states it, is neither: the art is a gift, the cultic use of it is not. He restricts the ecclesiastical and worship use of images while explicitly preserving sculpture and painting as legitimate human activities. That is a narrower claim than "iconoclasm," and it is the claim the text actually makes.

Limit line — and I want you to hold this one carefully. It is very easy to enlist §12 for whichever side you already prefer. Two errors to avoid. (1) Do not turn Calvin into an art critic with a positive aesthetic theory. He is not developing one. He grants sculpture and painting are gifts and then spends the section on their misuse in worship; the concession in S2 is real but it is not a programme. (2) Do not turn him into a blanket iconoclast. S1 forecloses it in his own words, and S8 grants historical images some use. The honest summary is the narrow one: a theological restriction on the object of representation and on the cultic function of images, inside a general affirmation of the arts. Anything grander than that is your construction, not his.

One connection backward. S11's foolish and inconsiderate longing is not a fresh insult. It is the same anthropology as §8 (idolatry is constitutional, not calendrical) and it looks ahead to the phrase everyone quotes from I.11.8 — the mind as a perpetual forge of idols. Calvin's diagnosis is consistent across the whole chapter: the images on the walls are not a decision that went wrong. They are an appetite that was never checked.

1. S3 — because God himself has forbidden it → Exod 20:4 (the second commandment) and, more precisely for Calvin's argument, Deut 4:15–16: כִּי לֹא רְאִיתֶם כָּל־תְּמוּנָה — "ye saw no manner of similitude on the day that the LORD spake unto you in Horeb." The reason given in Deuteronomy is not arbitrary command but the absence of any seen form, which is exactly the ground S6 will restate philosophically. Calvin argued this at length in §§1–2; here he simply invokes it.

2. S3 — tarnishing his glory → Isa 42:8: וּכְבוֹדִי לְאַחֵר לֹא־אֶתֵּן — "my glory will I not give to another." And behind the whole chapter, Rom 1:23: ἤλλαξαν τὴν δόξαν τοῦ ἀφθάρτου θεοῦ — "changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image." Note the verb: ἀλλάσσω, exchange. Calvin's tarnish is the milder, hedged form of Paul's charge — deliberately milder, because he only needs in some degree.

3. S6 — the majesty of God, which is far beyond the reach of any eye → 1 Tim 6:16: ὃν εἶδεν οὐδεὶς ἀνθρώπων οὐδὲ ἰδεῖν δύναται — "whom no man hath seen, nor can see." Note the second verb: not merely has not, but cannot. That modal is the exact grammatical shape of Calvin's must not be dishonored and of S13's could not be. Also John 1:18 (θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακεν πώποτε) and Deut 4:12 ("ye heard the voice of the words, but saw no similitude"). The doctrine is incomprehensibility, and Calvin has been on it since I.5.1.

4. S13 — could not be of any utility in teaching → the sharpest background is Jer 10:8: מוּסַר הֲבָלִים עֵץ הוּא — "the stock is a doctrine of vanities," where the idol is described precisely as an instructor, and a worthless one. And Hab 2:18–19: מוֹרֶה שָּׁקֶר — "the molten image, and a teacher of lies… Woe unto him that saith to the wood, Awake; to the dumb stone, It shall teach!" Scripture itself frames the idol as a failed pedagogue. That is why Calvin's answer to Gregory's books of the laity can be so brief: the counter-formula is already in the prophets.

5. S2 — sculpture and painting are gifts of God → not cited by Calvin, but the biblical warrant is Exod 31:2–5, where the LORD fills Bezaleel with the Spirit of God "in wisdom… to devise cunning works, to work in gold, and in silver… and in carving of timber." The craftsman's skill is a Spirit-given endowment in the same book that forbids images of God. Calvin's whole distinction — art yes, image of God no — is already the structure of Exodus. Compare Jas 1:17 for the general principle of gifts.

6. S5 — the make/worship ladder → Rom 1:25: ἐσεβάσθησαν καὶ ἐλάτρευσαν τῇ κτίσει παρὰ τὸν κτίσαντα — "worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator." Paul's own escalation, and note that his verb is λατρεύω — the very word yesterday's §11 refused to let the opponents narrow.

How Calvin uses Scripture here — one line. Notice what is absent: §12 quotes almost nothing explicitly. After eleven sections of dense citation he now argues from principles already established by those texts. That is a deliberate register shift. The prosecution needed witnesses; the qualification needs only the law it has already proved.

① 어법 — 밑줄 넷 중 어법상 틀린 것은?

If it ⓐbe unlawful to make any corporeal representation of God, still more unlawful ⓑit must be to worship such a representation instead of God; and lest any ⓒshould think that we are singular in this opinion, those acquainted with sound divines will find that they ⓓhave always disapproved of it.

✨ 답안 보기 (클릭)정답: ⓑ

해설. still more unlawful is a fronted comparative complement, and fronting a complement of that kind forces subject–verb inversion of the operator: still more unlawful **must it be**. Writing it must be leaves the sentence with a fronted complement and no inversion — ungrammatical in this register. Same mechanism you met yesterday at §11's so far **are they** from proving.

Why the others stand: ⓐ If it be is the bare present subjunctive in a protasis — archaic but entirely correct in Beveridge, and it marks the condition as granted for argument. ⓒ lest + S + should + V is the standard negative-purpose construction; should is the subjunctive marker, not obligation, and no second negative is permitted. ⓓ present perfect + always correctly expresses an unbroken record reaching the present.

출제 의도. Fronting-and-inversion is the single most mechanical rule in this chapter and therefore the most reliably testable. If you can spot a fronted degree or comparative complement, you can predict the inversion without understanding the sentence at all.

② 내용일치 — §12의 내용과 일치하는 것은?

ⓐ Calvin holds that all visible representations, of every kind, are unlawful, since sculpture and painting inevitably tarnish God's glory. ⓑ Calvin concedes that historical images have some use for instruction or admonition, yet maintains that even faultless images could not be of any use in teaching. ⓒ Calvin claims that this opinion is peculiar to himself and to the Reformed, sound divines having hitherto approved the exhibition of images. ⓓ Calvin's final argument rests on the improper form and wanton licence with which sculptors and painters have presented their images.

✨ 답안 보기 (클릭)정답: ⓑ

해설. ⓑ holds both halves the section actually asserts — the measured concession at S8 (The former are of some use for instruction or admonition) and the counterfactual verdict at S13 (though they were otherwise faultless, they could not be of any utility in teaching). The two are compatible because they operate at different scopes: S8 concedes a limited value in general; S13 denies utility in teaching, granting the best case.

함정 분석. ⓐ — 범위 초과 + 방향 역전. This is verbatim the position S1 denies, and denies while labelling it superstitious. It also contradicts S2 (gifts of God). The distractor is built by deleting one word — not — from the opening clause. ⓒ — 어휘 함정(singular) + 방향 역전. singular = alone, and S4 exists to say the Reformed are not alone: sound divines… have always **disapproved**. The option flips the verb and misreads the adjective in one move. Two errors, one sentence — a typical high-band distractor. ⓓ — 폐기된 논증을 채택. The improper form and wanton license are exactly what S12 sets aside by praeteritio (I say nothing as to…). The final argument is S13, and its whole force lies in not depending on abuse. This is the most tempting wrong answer in the set, because everything in ⓓ genuinely appears in the text — just in the sentence Calvin declines to argue from.

③ 영작 — 다음을 오늘의 공식으로 옮기시오.

(1) 「나는 모든 형상이 불법이라고 생각할 만큼 미신적이지는 않다. 그러나 내가 요구하는 것은 그것들이 순수하게 사용되는 것, 아니 우리의 파멸로 전도되지 않는 것이다.」 (Formula 1 + Formula 2)

Model: I am not so superstitious as to think that all images are unlawful. But what I insist for is, that they shall be used purely,—nay, that they shall not be perverted to our destruction. 채점 포인트: ① not so ADJ as to V bracket intact, and the reader must be able to see that the thinking is what is denied. ② what I insist for is, that… cleft. ③ nay as escalation — if you wrote no, or coordinated the clauses with and, you have lost the point of Formula 2.

(2) 「형상을 만드는 것이 불법이라면, 그것을 통해 하나님을 예배하는 것은 한층 더 불법일 수밖에 없다.」 (Formula 3)

Model: If it be unlawful to make an image, still more unlawful must it be to worship God in it. 채점 포인트: ① If it be — present subjunctive, not is. ② still more unlawful fronted, and therefore ③ must it be, inverted. Writing it must be still more unlawful is grammatical English but it is not the pattern being tested — no marks. ④ worship God **in** it is Calvin's own phrase for the mediation defence; through is acceptable but less precise.

(3) 「비록 그것들이 다른 모든 점에서 흠이 없다 해도, 가르치는 데는 아무 유익도 없을 것이다.」 (S13 concessive)

Model: Though they were otherwise faultless, they could not be of any utility in teaching. 채점 포인트: ① Though + S + **were** — past subjunctive, counterfactual concession; Though they are loses the concession-for-argument. ② otherwise must be present — without it the sentence no longer fences off S12's abandoned ground. ③ could not (modal impossibility), not are not. ④ of **any** utility — negative-polarity any under the negation.

One-line summary. §12 opens the chapter's third division with a pivot on however: sculpture and painting are gifts of God, so the demand is lawful use, not abolition — the prohibition attaches to the object (the majesty of God… far beyond the reach of any eye, S6), not to the medium; and after sorting images into historical (of some use) and pictorial (only fitted for amusement) and finding that the churches are full of the second by foolish and inconsiderate longing rather than judgment, Calvin sets aside the indecency argument entirely (S12, praeteritio) in order to land the thesis that cannot be answered by better art: though they were otherwise faultless, they could not be of any utility in teaching (S13).

Grammar, the three to carry out of here. ① not so ADJ as to V — the negative scopes the whole bracket, so V is denied, and a second claim rides along free. ② what-cleft + appositive that-clause after a dash, with nay = escalation, never refusal. ③ If it be…, still more ADJ **must it be** to… — present subjunctive protasis + fronted comparative forcing inversion, and the ladder always runs upward.

Homework (10 min).

1. 구조 복원. Write out S2 and mark, with brackets, (a) the what-cleft focus, (b) the two that-clauses, (c) the exact point where nay escalates and what it escalates from and to. Then answer in one line: why a dash rather than and?
2. 영작. Using Formula 3 twice in a chain, produce a two-step a fortiori of your own on a theological subject — e.g. If it be dangerous to X, still more dangerous must it be to Y; and if it be dangerous to Y, still more dangerous must it be to Z. Check both inversions. If either reads it must be, you have not done the exercise.
3. 내일 예습 한 줄. §13 opens But, without reference to the above distinction, let us here consider, whether it is expedient that churches should contain representations of any kind… — mark the word expedient before you begin. Calvin is about to shift the question from lawful to expedient, and then reach for the argument he has been holding back: the first five hundred years. Ask yourself tonight why he changes the standard, and what it costs him.

Where we stopped: Book 1, Ch. 11, §12 끝. 다음은 Book 1, Ch. 11, §13 (Day 68) — Whether it is expedient to have images in Christian temples.