Day 69 — Book 1, Chapter 11, §14

Yesterday Calvin made silence carry an enormous load. Five hundred years of churches with no images, and he read that silence as a verdict: they rather rejected it intentionally and on rational grounds, than omitted it through ignorance or carelessness.

So here is the obvious counter-punch, and Calvin knows it is coming. A council spoke. In 787, at Nicaea, with the Empress Irene presiding, the assembled bishops decreed that images were not merely to be permitted in churches but to be venerated. If silence is a verdict, what is a decree?

Look at how he opens. Not with a rebuttal. With a complaint about being interrupted:

Enough, I believe, would have been said on this subject, were I not in a manner arrested by the Council of Nice…

That is a rhetorical posture and you should name it. He is claiming his case is already complete — he would be done, he would have stopped talking, except that this one thing blocks the road. The Latin behind arrested is the sense of being checked, halted, brought up short. He is not conceding that the council is strong. He is conceding only that it is in the way.

Then watch the two moves he makes, because they are completely different in kind and the exam lives in the gap between them.

Move one — disambiguate the name. not the celebrated Council which Constantine the Great assembled, but one which was held eight hundred years ago by the orders and under the auspices of the Empress Irene. Both are called "the Council of Nice." Only one of them is Nicaea I (325), the council of the homoousion, the council Calvin himself defends with his life's breath in Book 1 ch. 13. He will not let his opponents borrow that name's authority for a different meeting four and a half centuries later. That is a precision move, and it costs him nothing.

Move two — produce a hostile witness from the same century. But there is a refutation extant which bears the name of Charlemagne, and which is proved by its style to be a production of that period. Stop. That sentence is doing something historically remarkable and I want you to feel it. Calvin is not saying "I disagree with Nicaea II." He is saying: the Latin West of that very generation disagreed with it, and I have the document. And note how he authenticates the document — **proved by its style** to be a production of that period. Not by a chain of custody. Not by an authority's say-so. By internal linguistic evidence. That is the humanist philological method, the same instrument Lorenzo Valla had turned on the Donation of Constantine a century earlier, and Calvin reaches for it as if it were the ordinary thing to do. (It is the Libri Carolini. More in Period 6 — and there is a serious qualification to make there. Do not skip it.)

And then, from S9 to S16, the section becomes something you have not seen from Calvin before: a list. John… said… He also thought… Another… quoted… Another… quoted… Another laid hold of… They also twisted… Bishop Theodore was equally acute… Eight exegetical arguments, reported in flat, deadpan, almost minutes-of-the-meeting prose. Calvin does not refute a single one of them. Not one. That is the design. The rhetorical name for it is enumeratio used as ridicule: he believes the arguments refute themselves by being read aloud in a row, and so he simply reads them aloud in a row and steps back. Then the closing sentence tells you that was the plan all along: their absurdities are so extreme that it is painful even to quote them.

Two irony flags you must be able to hear, because they are exactly yesterday's incomparable blessing trick: the most ingenious interpretation (S15) and Bishop Theodore was equally acute (S16). Read straight, those are compliments. They are not compliments. Ingenious and acute here mean clever the way a bad lawyer is clever, and if you translate them as praise you will have Calvin endorsing the very readings he is holding up with tongs.

Grammatically today is conditional and correlative day. Three structures run the whole section.

Today's 3 Big Points

1. The mixed counterfactual with an inverted, negated protasis — Enough would have been said, were I not… (S1). Two separate things are happening and both are testable. (a) Inversion for if. Yesterday you learned Even **were** the danger less imminent. Today the same machine, with a negative inside it: **were I not** in a manner arrested. Delete if, front the operator, keep not after the subject — were I not, never were not I. (b) The tenses do not match, and that is not an error. The apodosis is would **have been** said — past counterfactual. The protasis is were I not — present counterfactual. That is a mixed conditional, and it means: by now enough would already have been said, if I were not (right now, as I write) being held up by this council. The past result depends on a present condition. Translate the tenses as they stand and the sentence becomes coherent; flatten them into one time-frame and it collapses.
2. not so much A as B — a comparison of degree, not a denial (S4). I am **not so much** moved by this consideration, **as** by a wish to make my readers aware… The trap is dead simple and students fall into it every single time: not so much A as B does not mean "not A." It means A is true, but B is more true — B is the stronger of two real motives. Calvin is moved by the authority of the synod; he is more moved by the wish to expose the folly. Read it as a denial and you have him claiming the council does not trouble him at all, which contradicts arrested four lines above. And in the same sentence sits the day's nastiest single word: a greater fondness for images **than became Christians**. became here is not "turned into." It is the verb become = to befit, to be suitable to, taking a person as its object — than was fitting for Christians, than suited Christians. Same word as in "it becomes you well." Miss it and the clause turns to gibberish.
3. As … so + ought/must + S + V — correlative comparison with obligatory inversion after so (S13). **As** the Patriarchs used the sacrifices of the Gentiles, **so ought Christians to use** the images of saints instead of the idols of the Gentiles. Two mechanical facts. (a) After a fronted so in a correlative comparison, the operator precedes the subject — so ought Christians to use, never so Christians ought to use. (b) When the operator is ought, the main verb keeps its to — ought Christians **to** use. Then look at the argument, because this is the one place where I want you to see how the shape of a sentence can smuggle in a claim: the As … so … frame asserts a parity between the two halves that has never been argued for. That is the whole trick of the sentence, and it is why Calvin lets it stand without comment. Related, and closing the section: so … that of result in S17 — their absurdities are **so** extreme **that** it is painful even to quote them. Same little word so, two completely different grammars. Know which is which on sight.

Trap words I will test. arrested (S1) = stopped, checked, brought to a halt — not "taken into custody." in a manner (S1) = as it were, so to speak — a hedge; you met it in §13 S9, and Calvin uses it here to soften arrested. celebrated (S1) = famous, renowned. auspices (S1) = patronage, sponsorship (< auspex, the augur who read the birds). prejudice (S3) ⚠️⚠️ = injury, damage, detriment (legal Latin praeiudicium) — not bias. suffering great prejudice = taking serious damage. This is the most reversible word in the section. moved (S4) = swayed, influenced. consideration (S4) = this factor, this argument — not "thoughtfulness." the lengths to which (S4) = the extremes to which. infatuation (S4) = mental blindness, being made a fool of (fatuus) — same word as §13 S12; much stronger than modern "crush." became (S4) ⚠️⚠️ = befitted, was suitable to. dispose of (S5) = settle, deal with and be done with. appeal to X for support (S6) = cite X as authority. extant (S7) = still in existence, surviving (ex-stare, to stand out). bears the name of (S7) = is attributed to — carefully non-committal. production (S7) = a work, a composition — not manufacturing. deputy (S9) = legate, representative. thence (S9) = from that. recommendation (S10) = a commendation, something that speaks in favour — a thing that recommends, not advice given. similitude (S13) = comparison, analogy. twisted (S14) = wrested, forced — a technical charge about handling texts. ingenious (S15) ⚠️ = clever — here ironic. acute (S16) ⚠️ = sharp, penetrating — here ironic. admired (S16) = wondered at, marvelled at (Vulg. mirabilis) — not "esteemed."

14. Enough, I believe, would have been said on this subject, were I not in a manner arrested by the Council of Nice; not the celebrated Council which Constantine the Great assembled, but one which was held eight hundred years ago by the orders and under the auspices of the Empress Irene. This Council decreed not only that images were to be used in churches, but also that they were to be worshipped. Every thing, therefore, that I have said, is in danger of suffering great prejudice from the authority of this Synod. To confess the truth, however, I am not so much moved by this consideration, as by a wish to make my readers aware of the lengths to which the infatuation has been carried by those who had a greater fondness for images than became Christians. But let us first dispose of this matter. Those who defend the use of images appeal to that Synod for support. But there is a refutation extant which bears the name of Charlemagne, and which is proved by its style to be a production of that period. It gives the opinions delivered by the bishops who were present, and the arguments by which they supported them. John, deputy of the Eastern Churches, said, “God created man in his own image,” and thence inferred that images ought to be used. He also thought there was a recommendation of images in the following passage, “Show me thy face, for it is beautiful.” Another, in order to prove that images ought to be placed on altars, quoted the passage, “No man, when he has lighted a candle, putteth it under a bushel.” Another, to show the utility of looking at images, quoted a verse of the Psalms “The light of thy countenance, O Lord, has shone upon us.” Another laid hold of this similitude: As the Patriarchs used the sacrifices of the Gentiles, so ought Christians to use the images of saints instead of the idols of the Gentiles. They also twisted to the same effect the words, “Lord, I have loved the beauty of thy house.” But the most ingenious interpretation was the following, “As we have heard, so also have we seen;” therefore, God is known not merely by the hearing of the word, but also by the seeing of images. Bishop Theodore was equally acute: “God,” says he, “is to be admired in his saints;” and it is elsewhere said, “To the saints who are on earth;” therefore this must refer to images. In short, their absurdities are so extreme that it is painful even to quote them.

Sentence count: 17 (S1–S17). One paragraph.

Text note (not a correction to the quotation). Three things about the printed page. (i) In S12, quoted a verse of the Psalms “The light of thy countenance…” has no comma before the quotation, unlike the parallel clauses in S10 and S11 (in the following passage, / quoted the passage,). Left exactly as printed. (ii) The footnote marker 36 after Empress Irene and its footnote (Beveridge notes that the French text reads "une mechante Proserpine nommée Irene" — a wicked Proserpine named Irene) are outside the section text and are not reproduced in Period 1; the footnote is discussed in Period 6, because it tells you something about Calvin's tone that the Latin alone does not. (iii) Page numbers (102, 106), the running chapter header repeated at the page break inside S13, and the end-of-page hyphenations (ar-/rested, as-/sembled, aus-/pices, pro-/duction, ex-/treme) have been closed up — nothing else altered.

[THE INTERRUPTION]  S1        "Enough WOULD HAVE BEEN said… WERE I NOT arrested"
                              ← mixed counterfactual: past result, present condition
                              + the disambiguation: NOT Nicaea I (Constantine, 325)
                                but Nicaea II (Irene, "eight hundred years ago")
[THE THREAT]        S2–S3     what the council decreed: images (a) used AND (b) WORSHIPPED
                              → "every thing I have said is in danger of suffering
                                 great PREJUDICE (= damage) from the authority of this Synod"
[THE REAL MOTIVE]   S4        "not so much A as B" ← NOT a denial of A
                              A = moved by the council's authority
                              B = wish to show the LENGTHS of the infatuation   ← the real aim
[PROCEDURE]         S5–S6     "let us first dispose of this matter" / they appeal to that Synod
[THE COUNTER-       S7–S8     a REFUTATION, extant, bearing Charlemagne's name,
 WITNESS]                     authenticated BY ITS STYLE  ← philological method
                              and it preserves the bishops' own opinions + arguments
[THE CATALOGUE      S9–S16    eight exegetical arguments, reported and NOT refuted
 — 8 items]         S9        John (Eastern legate): Gen 1:27 "in his own image"
                    S10       John again: Cant 2:14 "Show me thy face"
                    S11       Another: Luke 11:33 candle/bushel → images on ALTARS
                    S12       Another: Ps 4:6 "light of thy countenance" → utility of LOOKING
                    S13       Another: AS Patriarchs used Gentile sacrifices,
                                       SO ought Christians use images of saints
                    S14       They: Ps 26:8 "I have loved the beauty of thy house"
                    S15       "the most ingenious" (IRONY): Ps 48:8 "as we have heard,
                                so have we seen" → God known by SEEING, not hearing only
                    S16       Theodore "equally acute" (IRONY): Ps 68:35 + Ps 16:3
                                "in his saints" + "to the saints" → therefore IMAGES
[THE VERDICT]       S17       "so extreme THAT it is painful even to quote them"
                              ← the refutation IS the quotation. He never argues.

Examiner's Eye. Three places I would set the trap.

1. S1's two councils. The sentence names Constantine's council only to exclude it. A distractor will say Calvin attacks the council assembled by Constantine the Great — and every word of that appears in the text. It is exactly backwards. not the celebrated Council which Constantine the Great assembled, **but** one which… The not X but Y frame is the whole point.
2. S4 as a denial. I am not so much moved by this consideration, as by a wish… A distractor will render this Calvin says the authority of the Synod does not move him. False. It moves him — S3 just said his whole case is in danger from it — but the wish to expose the infatuation moves him more. not so much A as B = B rather than A, with both real.
3. Who is speaking in S9–S16. Eight arguments, and none of them is Calvin's. They are the Nicene bishops' arguments, transmitted through a hostile ninth-century source. A distractor will attribute one of them to Calvin — most temptingly S15, because the most ingenious interpretation sounds like approval. It is sarcasm, and S17 proves it.

Formula 1 — The mixed counterfactual with inverted, negated protasis

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  S + would HAVE p.p. ,  WERE + S + NOT + [complement]                │
│      └── PAST result ──┘  └──── PRESENT condition ────┘              │
│                                                                       │
│  = S would have p.p. , IF S WERE NOT ...                             │
│                                                                       │
│  ⚠ word order:  WERE I NOT     ✔                                     │
│                 WERE NOT I     ✗                                     │
│  ⚠ NO "if" anywhere. The inversion IS the "if".                      │
│  ⚠ Tenses need NOT match. Mixed = past result, present condition.    │
│    "By now it would have been finished — if I were not being held up."│
│                                                                       │
│  Family (all the same machine):                                       │
│    Had he known…        = If he had known…                            │
│    Were it not for X…   = If it were not for X…                       │
│    Should you wish…     = If you should wish…                         │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

변형 연습. Enough would have been said about the sacraments, were I not detained by the objection that a sign must contain what it signifies. Check three things: (i) were, not was; (ii) no if; (iii) not after the subject in the inverted clause.

Formula 2 — not so much A as B (⚠ NOT a denial of A)

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  S + V + NOT SO MUCH + [by/from/for] A + AS + [by/from/for] B        │
│                                                                       │
│  MEANING:  B rather than A   —   BOTH are real; B is the STRONGER.   │
│  ⚠ It does NOT mean "not A". Never translate it as a negation of A.  │
│  ⚠ The preposition REPEATS in the "as" limb:                          │
│       not so much moved BY this consideration, AS BY a wish…    ✔     │
│       not so much moved by this consideration, as a wish…       ✗     │
│                                                                       │
│  Same family: "less A than B" · "not A so much as B" · "rather B     │
│  than A" — all comparisons of degree, none of them denials.          │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

변형 연습. I am not so much troubled by the antiquity of the custom, as by the readiness of good men to defend it. Check: both limbs keep by; and the sentence must remain true of the first limb — you are still troubled by the antiquity.

Formula 3 — Fronted so / such: two grammars, one word

┌──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐
│  (a) CORRELATIVE COMPARISON  —  INVERSION REQUIRED                   │
│      AS + S₁ + V₁ ,  SO + [OPERATOR] + S₂ + (to-)V₂                  │
│        "As the Patriarchs used…, so OUGHT Christians TO USE…"        │
│        "As we have heard, so also HAVE WE seen."                     │
│      ⚠ with OUGHT, the infinitive keeps its "to":                    │
│            so ought Christians TO use   ✔                            │
│            so ought Christians use      ✗                            │
│                                                                       │
│  (b) DEGREE + RESULT  —  NO INVERSION                                │
│      S + be + SO + ADJ + THAT + [result clause]                      │
│        "their absurdities are SO extreme THAT it is painful…"        │
│                                                                       │
│  THE TELL:  so + [comma/clause]  → (a) comparison, invert            │
│             so + ADJ + that      → (b) result, do not invert         │
└──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘

변형 연습. (a) As the fathers received the sacraments from Christ's own word, so ought we to receive them. (b) Their reverence for the images was so unguarded that it passed at once into worship. Check: in (a) the operator precedes the subject and ought keeps to; in (b) there is no inversion.

What Nicaea II actually was. The Second Council of Nicaea met in 787, convoked by the Empress Irene, regent for her young son Constantine VI, together with Patriarch Tarasius. It closed the first iconoclastic period — the imperial campaign against images begun under Leo III (726) and pressed hard by Constantine V, whose council of Hieria (754) had condemned image-veneration outright. Nicaea II reversed Hieria. It is reckoned by both Rome and the Orthodox East as the seventh ecumenical council, which is precisely why Calvin has to deal with it: it is not a local synod he can wave away.

The distinction the council itself drew — and this is where you must be careful. Nicaea II did not simply decree "worship images." It defined a distinction: images are to receive τιμητικὴ προσκύνησις (timētikē proskynēsis, honorific veneration — bowing, kissing, incense, lights), while λατρεία (latreia, adoration proper) belongs to God alone. Its rationale, from John of Damascus, is the honour paid to the image passes to the prototype — the reverence travels through the image to the person depicted. So Beveridge's flat English **worshipped** in S2 is not a neutral rendering of what the council said.

Then is Calvin simply wrong? No — but the reason is a translation accident that he cannot have known, and you should. When the Greek acts of Nicaea II reached the Frankish court, they came in a wretched Latin version that rendered proskynēsis by adoratio — the word Latin theology reserved for the worship of God. The Franks therefore read the council as decreeing adoration of images, and exploded. That reaction produced the very document Calvin cites: the Libri Carolini (Opus Caroli regis contra synodum, c. 790–93), issued in Charlemagne's name and drafted, on the modern consensus, by Theodulf of Orléans; the Frankish Synod of Frankfurt (794) then condemned what it took Nicaea II to have said. So Calvin's worshipped faithfully reproduces what the Latin West of that generation believed the council had decreed, and his hostile witness is authentic — but the charge as he frames it does not land cleanly on the Greek text of the council. That is the honest position, and you should be able to state both halves of it.

How Calvin got the document. The Libri Carolini were essentially unknown for centuries and were printed for the first time in 1549, by Jean du Tillet, under a pseudonym. Calvin is therefore citing a very recently rediscovered source, roughly ten years old when the definitive 1559 Institutes appeared, and he is using it exactly as a modern scholar would: he names it cautiously (bears the name of Charlemagne), authenticates it philologically (proved by its style), and quarries it for the opponents' own reasoning. Note that his instinct about the authorship is sound — he does not claim Charlemagne wrote it — and his stylistic dating is correct.

Where Calvin overreaches, and where he does not. Overreach: (i) worshipped flattens a distinction the council explicitly made, as above; (ii) the eight arguments in S9–S16 come to him through a hostile intermediary that was itself working from a corrupt translation, and some are reported in compressed or garbled form — a full set of the Greek acts would show a more substantial case than this catalogue suggests; (iii) the deadpan-list method assumes the reader shares Calvin's hermeneutic, and against eighth-century allegorical exegesis, which read Scripture by accommodation as a matter of course, it proves less than he thinks. Not overreach: the structural objection stands whatever the Greek said. Calvin's case since §11 has been that the proskynēsis/latreia line, however carefully drawn on paper, does not survive contact with actual worshippers — which is the argument from experience he already made in §13 (the moment images appear in churches, idolatry has as it were raised its banner). A distinction that requires a theological education to maintain is not a safeguard for a congregation. That argument is untouched by the translation history, and it is the one to keep.

The footnote, and Calvin's tone. Beveridge's note 36 records that the French text of the Institutes calls Irene une mechante Proserpine nommée Irene — a wicked Proserpine named Irene. Two things follow. First, the Latin is markedly more restrained than the French; Calvin modulated his contempt by audience, and if you read only one version you will misjudge the temperature. Second, the mythological insult is aimed at a woman ruler, and the historical Irene — who had her own son blinded and deposed to take the throne herself in 797 — was a standing scandal in Western polemic. Calvin's by the orders and under the auspices of the Empress Irene in S1 is already carrying some of that freight in the Latin, quietly.

The line that must not be crossed. §14 is a polemical excursus, not a doctrinal locus. Do not build a theology of councils out of it. Calvin's considered doctrine of councils comes in Book 4, ch. 9 — where he does not say councils are worthless, but subordinates them to Scripture and distinguishes sharply between the great christological councils, which he receives, and later assemblies, which he weighs. He defends Nicaea I, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon with vigour. So: the argument here is this council reasoned badly, and here is its own reasoning — not councils have no authority. A student who leaves §14 with a general anti-conciliarism has read a mood and missed the argument.

Eight texts, and the point of this list is that not one of them is Calvin's own citation. Every verse below is quoted by him as evidence of misuse. Keep that frame or you will mis-attribute the whole section.

1. Genesis 1:27 — “God created man in his own image” (S9, John the Eastern legate). Heb. בְּצֶלֶם (b'tselem, "in the image"); LXX κατ' εἰκόνα. The equivocation: tselem/eikōn of man as God's living representative vs. eikōn as a painted panel. Calvin does not comment — but the reader of §12 knows that this is the text on which he grounds the prohibition, since the only image of God that God authorised is a human being.

2. Song of Songs 2:14 — “Show me thy face, for it is beautiful” (S10). Vulg. ostende mihi faciem tuam… facies tua decora. The Bridegroom asks to see the bride herself. To make it commend images, a request for a person's presence must become a request for a representation — the exact inversion of what the request means.

3. Luke 11:33 (cf. Matthew 5:15) — “No man, when he has lighted a candle, putteth it under a bushel” (S11). Gk. λύχνον… ὑπὸ τὸν μόδιον. In Luke the lamp is set in the context of the sound eye and the preaching of Jonah — i.e. the word given light. The inference requires that images already be light: petitio principii.

4. Psalm 4:6 (Vulg. 4:7) — “The light of thy countenance, O Lord, has shone upon us” (S12). Vulg. Signatum est super nos lumen vultus tui, Domine; the idiom derives from the Aaronic blessing, Numbers 6:25 (the LORD make his face shine upon thee). In the Psalm God's face turns toward the worshipper in favour; in the argument the worshipper's face turns toward a picture. The vector reverses — which is the standing pattern of idolatry throughout ch. 11.

5. (no text — an analogy) — the patriarchs' use of the sacrifices of the Gentiles (S13). Not a quotation; a similitude. And it fails on Calvin's own criterion from §13: the patriarchal sacrifices were commanded by God's word, which is exactly what images lack (consecrated by his own word). The defence also concedes the structural point by putting images instead of the idols of the Gentiles — into the idol's slot.

6. Psalm 26:8 (Vulg. 25:8) — “Lord, I have loved the beauty of thy house” (S14). Vulg. Domine, dilexi decorem domus tuae — and the Psalm's own next line glosses it: et locum habitationis gloriae tuae, the place where thine honour dwelleth. The verse loves the place of God's presence; the argument makes it love the decoration of the place. Presence → ornament.

7. Psalm 48:8 (Vulg. 47:9) — “As we have heard, so also have we seen” (S15). Vulg. Sicut audivimus, sic vidimus in civitate Domini virtutum. Both verbs are about God's acts in history, and the verse's point is their agreement: what we were told, we have now watched happen. The argument needs seen to mean seen a representation. This is the gravest of the eight, because its conclusion — God is known not merely by the hearing of the word, but also by the seeing of images — sets up a second channel of the knowledge of God alongside Scripture, which is the very thing Book 1 chs. 6–9 exists to deny.

8. Psalm 68:35 (Vulg. 67:36) + Psalm 16:3 (Vulg. 15:3) — “God… is to be admired in his saints” and “To the saints who are on earth” (S16, Bishop Theodore). Vulg. mirabilis Deus in sanctis suis / sanctis qui sunt in terra eius. Two verses joined only by the shared word saints, yielding a conclusion — images — that appears in neither. Verbal-link inference with nothing at the end of it.

And one text Calvin does not quote here, but is standing on: 1 John 5:21, cited in §13 S11 — beware, not only of the worship of idols, but also of idols themselves. Hold that beside S15's not merely by the hearing of the word, but also by the seeing of images and you can hear the two not only… but alsos answering each other across a section break. One adds a channel of revelation; the other adds an object of danger. Calvin has arranged for his own correlative to have been spoken first.

① 어법 — 밑줄 넷 중 어법상 틀린 것은?

Enough, I believe, would have been said on this subject, ⓐ were not I in a manner arrested by the Council of Nice. Every thing that I have said ⓑ is in danger of suffering great prejudice from the authority of this Synod. As the Patriarchs used the sacrifices of the Gentiles, ⓒ so ought Christians to use the images of saints. In short, their absurdities ⓓ are so extreme that it is painful even to quote them.

정답: ⓐ — were not I → were I not. 출제 의도. In an inverted subjunctive protasis the operator moves to the front; the negator stays behind the subject. Were I not, had he not, should you not — always in that order. ⓑ is correct: be in danger of takes a gerund, and suffering here means undergoing. ⓒ is correct on two counts that I deliberately paired — after fronted so in a correlative comparison the operator precedes the subject (ought Christians), and ought keeps the to on its infinitive (to use). Change either one and it fails. ⓓ is correct: so + ADJ + that is the result construction and takes no inversion — which is the whole point of putting ⓒ and ⓓ in the same item. If you can tell those two sos apart under time pressure, you have today's grammar.

② 내용일치 — §14의 내용과 일치하는 것은?

① Calvin attacks the celebrated Council of Nice which Constantine the Great assembled. ② Calvin says the authority of the Synod does not move him at all; only the truth of Scripture does. ③ Calvin accepts the refutation attributed to Charlemagne as genuine on the ground of its style. ④ Calvin answers each of the bishops' arguments in turn and shows where each one fails.

정답: ③ — there is a refutation extant which bears the name of Charlemagne, and which is **proved by its style** to be a production of that period. 출제 의도. Three different traps, one per distractor. ① is direction-flip on a not X but Y. Every word of ① is in the text — but inside the excluded limb: **not** the celebrated Council which Constantine the Great assembled, **but** one which was held… by… the Empress Irene. Whenever a sentence names something in order to rule it out, expect it back as a distractor. ② is the not so much A as B trap, and it is the one most people lose. I am not so much moved by this consideration, as by a wish… does not deny that the consideration moves him — S3 has just said his whole case is in danger from it. It says the other motive is stronger. not so much A as B ⇒ both real, B greater. Also note ② smuggles in "the truth of Scripture," which is not what B is: B is a wish to make my readers aware of the lengths to which the infatuation has been carried. ④ is scope-overreach, and it is falsified by the last sentence of the section. Calvin refutes nothing; he quotes eight arguments and closes with their absurdities are so extreme that it is painful even to quote them. The quoting is the answer — which is exactly the fact the question is testing.

③ 영작 — 다음을 오늘의 공식으로 옮기시오.

(1) 「이 문제에 대해서는 이미 충분히 말했을 것이다 — 내가 이 공의회에 어느 정도 발목이 잡혀 있지 않다면 말이다.」 (Formula 1)

Model: Enough would have been said on this subject, were I not in a manner arrested by this Council. 채점 포인트: ① no if — the inversion carries it. ② were, not was. ③ were I not, not were not I. ④ Keep the tense mismatch: would **have been** said (past result) against were I not (present condition). Writing had I not been arrested is grammatical, but it is a different conditional and loses the posture — "I would already have finished by now."

(2) 「사실을 말하자면, 나는 그 권위에 마음이 흔들린다기보다는, 독자들에게 그 미혹이 어디까지 갔는지 알리고 싶은 마음에 더 움직인다.」 (Formula 2)

Model: To confess the truth, I am not so much moved by that authority, as by a wish to make my readers aware of the lengths to which the infatuation has been carried. 채점 포인트: ① The preposition must repeat: not so much moved **by** A, **as by** B. Dropping the second by breaks the parallel and the sentence stops meaning what it says. ② Your English must leave A true — if a reader can come away thinking the authority does not move him at all, you have written a denial, not a comparison. ③ the lengths to which X has been carried — keep the passive; it is doing work (the infatuation was carried by them, and the process is still in force: present perfect). ④ infatuation is mental blindness, so a rendering like "how far the delusion has been carried" scores; "how far the affection has gone" does not.

(3) 「족장들이 이방인의 제사를 사용했던 것처럼, 그리스도인들도 이방인의 우상 대신 성인들의 형상을 사용해야 한다. …요컨대 그 부조리가 너무 심해 인용하는 것조차 괴롭다.」 (Formula 3 — 두 가지 so를 모두 사용할 것)

Model: As the Patriarchs used the sacrifices of the Gentiles, so ought Christians to use the images of saints instead of the idols of the Gentiles. … In short, their absurdities are so extreme that it is painful even to quote them. 채점 포인트: ① First so = comparison ⇒ invert: so **ought Christians** to use. So Christians ought to use scores zero for the pattern. ② ought keeps to — ought Christians **to** use. ③ Second so = degree/result ⇒ do NOT invert: are so extreme that…, never so extreme are they that… (that is a third pattern and not what was asked). ④ it is painful **even** to quote them — the anticipatory it and the scalar even are both part of the answer; even is what turns the sentence into a comment on Calvin's own method.

One-line summary. §14 is Calvin's answer to the one objection §13 invited — a council spoke — and he answers it in three moves and then stops arguing: first he separates the councils (**not** the celebrated Council which Constantine the Great assembled, **but** one… under the auspices of the Empress Irene), conceding that his case is in danger of suffering great **prejudice** (= damage) from Nicaea II's authority while stating that he is **not so much** moved by this consideration, **as** by a wish to make my readers aware of **the lengths to which the infatuation has been carried** — i.e. his aim is exhibition, not refutation; second he produces a hostile witness from the same generation, a refutation extant which bears the name of Charlemagne, and which is **proved by its style** to be a production of that period — philological authentication, Valla's instrument — valuable precisely because it gives the opinions… **and the arguments by which they supported them**; and third he simply reads eight of those arguments aloud in a row (Gen 1:27, Cant 2:14, Luke 11:33, Ps 4:6, the patriarchs' sacrifices, Ps 26:8, Ps 48:8, Ps 68:35 + 16:3), with his reporting verbs sliding steadily downhill (inferred → thought there was → quoted → laid hold of → **twisted**) and two superlatives — the most **ingenious** interpretation, Bishop Theodore was equally **acute** — that are pure sarcasm, before closing with the sentence that confesses the whole method: their absurdities are **so** extreme **that** it is painful even to quote them. The gravest of the eight is S15, because its conclusion — God is known **not merely** by the hearing of the word, **but also** by the seeing of images — opens a second channel for the knowledge of God, which is the thing Book 1 has existed to close since ch. 6.

Grammar, the three to carry out of here. ① S would have p.p., were S not… — inverted subjunctive protasis with the negator after the subject (were I not, never were not I), and a deliberate tense mismatch: past result, present condition. ② not so much A as B = B rather than A, with both real — never a denial of A — and the preposition repeats in the as limb (by… as by…); in the same sentence, the archaic became = befitted (the verb inside unbecoming). ③ One so, two grammars: As…, **so** + OPERATOR + S (comparison, invert, and ought keeps its to) versus **so** + ADJ + **that** (result, no inversion).

Homework (10 min).

1. 구조 복원. Write out S1 and mark: (a) the inverted protasis, its operator, and the exact position of not; (b) the tense of the apodosis and the tense of the protasis, labelled past result / present condition; (c) the two limbs of the not X but Y apposition, with the relative clause in each. Then answer in one line: what does the tense mismatch let Calvin claim about the state of his own argument before the objection arrived?
2. 영작. Using Formula 2, write a sentence about your own reading in which the weaker motive is an authority and the stronger motive is a wish to show someone something. Then test it three ways: is the preposition repeated in both limbs? Is limb A still true in your English? Could a hostile reader turn your sentence into a flat denial of A? If yes to the last, rewrite.
3. 내일 예습 한 줄. §15 opens When they treat of adoration, great stress is laid on the worship of Pharaoh, the staff of Joseph, and the inscription which Jacob set up. — note the word that appears immediately: adoration. Today Beveridge gave you worshipped with no distinctions; tomorrow the defenders come back on the precise term, and Calvin has to meet the veneration/adoration line head-on with three Old Testament proof-texts (Gen 47:7, Gen 47:31/Heb 11:21, Gen 28:18). Ask yourself tonight: if the honour paid to the image passes to the prototype, what exactly did Jacob think he was doing when he poured oil on a stone — and which way does that text cut?

Where we stopped: Book 1, Ch. 11, §14 끝. 다음은 Book 1, Ch. 11, §15 (Day 70) — Passages adduced in support of the worship of images.