Day 70 — Book 1, Chapter 11, §15

Yesterday's list was about having images — eight proof-texts, read aloud in a row, no refutation offered. Today the list moves to the harder word. Look at the first noun after the comma: adoration. Yesterday Beveridge gave you worshipped and let it sit. Today the defenders come back on the precise term — the thing Nicaea II actually decreed was not that images may hang in churches but that they are to be adored — and Calvin has to show you what texts they brought for that.

Six sentences. That is short, and it is deceptive, because the section is built as a staircase of contempt, and every step is a different grammar. Watch the sequence.

S1: they cite three Old Testament scenes — flat report. S2: on one of the three, they cite a text that does not exist — that is the first blow, and it is a factual one. S3: then three Psalm phrases with worship in them, which seem to them very solid and apposite proofs — and the words seem to them are doing all the work. S4: the rhetorical question — if you set out to make these men look ridiculous by inventing lines for them, could you do worse than what they actually said? S5: the floor drops out — a bishop settles the whole matter with his archdeacon's dreams, delivered with as much gravity as if he were in possession of a response from heaven. S6: the door slams — Let the patrons of images now go and urge us with the decree of this Synod…

Notice what Calvin is not doing. He is not exegeting Psalm 99 for you. He is not explaining what the footstool is. He is running the same method as §14 — quoting is the refutation — but tightening the screw at each step: from bad reading (S1) to non-existent text (S2) to word-association (S3) to dreams (S5). The order is the argument. If you can state that order, you can answer any comprehension question on the section.

Grammatically today is conditional and comparison day, with a sting of irony at the end.

Today's 3 Big Points

1. Were one … to put words into their mouths, could they be made to utter…? (S4) — the inverted were S to V protasis, and a passive causative in the apodosis. Two machines in one sentence. (a) Were one to put = If one were to put — the were-to future-hypothetical, with if deleted and were fronted. You have seen were I not (§14 S1) and Even were the danger less imminent (§13). This is the third member of the family: were + S + to-infinitive. (b) The apodosis is a question, not a statement — could they be made to utter…? — and inside it is the passive of make: active make them utter (bare infinitive) becomes passive they are made **to** utter — the to reappears in the passive. Miss the to and you have written a non-sentence.
2. with as much gravity as if he were in possession of a response from heaven (S5) — as much N as if S were…: a comparison of degree fused with a counterfactual. Do not read this as two separate things. It is one construction: as much X as [if he were Y] — with exactly the seriousness he would show if he had an oracle. The verb is were, not was — past subjunctive, because he was not in possession of any such thing. And the verb that governs it all, adduces, is the day's technical word: brings forward as evidence. A bishop adducing dreams is the whole joke.
3. Let the patrons of images now go and urge us…, as if the venerable Fathers did not bring themselves into utter discredit… (S6) — the ironic permissive imperative, and an as if … not that asserts the opposite. Let them go and… is not permission. It is a dare — go ahead, try it. And the tail is the trap: as if the Fathers did **not** bring themselves into utter discredit means they did bring themselves into utter discredit. An as if clause with a negative inside it flips: the speaker's own view is the contrary of what follows as if. Students who read the negative literally will make Calvin say the Fathers kept their credit. He is saying they lost it entirely. Add to this the parallel-verb frame of S2 — not only **pervert** the meaning…, but **quote** what is nowhere to be found — where not only … but links two verbs sharing one subject, and the second is the heavier charge.

Trap words I will test. treat of (S1) = discuss, deal with — not "treat" as in cure or pay for. adoration (S1) = the technical term for the worship Nicaea II authorised (Latin adoratio, Greek proskynesis — see Period 6, and the guardrail there). great stress is laid on (S1) = much emphasis is placed on. the worship of Pharaoh (S1) ⚠️ = the worship paid to Pharaoh (objective genitive) — Jacob bowing before Pharaoh, not Pharaoh worshipping anyone. inscription (S1) = Beveridge's rendering of the Vulgate's titulus — the pillar Jacob raised at Bethel; not a written text. pervert (S2) = twist, distort — the Latin sense, nothing sexual. what is nowhere to be found (S2) = a passage that does not exist in Scripture. apposite (S3) ⚠️⚠️ = fitting, to the point, relevant — ad + positus, "placed next to." It is not opposite. Read it as "opposite" and the sentence inverts. solid (S3) = substantial, weighty. with the view of (S4) = with the aim of, in order to. turning X into ridicule (S4) = making X a laughing-stock. grosser (S4) = coarser, more flagrant — gross = thick, crude; not "disgusting" and not "large." propriety (S5) ⚠️ = rightness, fittingness — not property. adduces (S5) = cites, brings forward as proof (ad + ducere, to lead to). gravity (S5) = seriousness, solemnity — not physics. a response from heaven (S5) = an oracle (Latin responsum, the formal answer of a god or a jurist). patrons (S6) = champions, defenders — not customers. urge us with (S6) = press upon us, throw at us. venerable (S6) ⚠️ = worthy of reverence — here pure irony, exactly like yesterday's ingenious and acute. discredit (S6) = loss of credibility. wresting (S6) = twisting, forcing a text — same technical charge as yesterday's twisted (S14) and the wrest of 2 Pet 3:16. profanely (S6) = irreverently, as if the text were not sacred (pro + fanum, "outside the temple").

15. 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. In this last case they not only pervert the meaning of Scripture, but quote what is nowhere to be found. Then the passages, “Worship at his footstool”—“Worship in his holy mountain”—“The rulers of the people will worship before thy face,” seem to them very solid and apposite proofs. Were one, with the view of turning the defenders of images into ridicule, to put words into their mouths, could they be made to utter greater and grosser absurdities? But to put an end to all doubt on the subject of images, Theodosius Bishop of Mira confirms the propriety of worshipping them by the dreams of his archdeacon, which he adduces with as much gravity as if he were in possession of a response from heaven. Let the patrons of images now go and urge us with the decree of this Synod, as if the venerable Fathers did not bring themselves into utter discredit by handling Scripture so childishly, or wresting it so shamefully and profanely.

Sentence count: 6 (S1–S6). One paragraph.

Text note (not a correction to the quotation). Two things about the printed page. (i) The three Psalm phrases in S3 are separated by em-dashes with no spaces (footstool”—“Worship), exactly as printed; left as is. (ii) The page number (103) and the page break inside S4 (between could they and be made) have been closed up; there is no end-of-line hyphenation in this section — nothing else altered. The bishop's name is printed Theodosius Bishop of Mira and reproduced as printed; on the name itself, see the guardrail in Period 6.

[THE TOPIC SHIFT]     S1     "When they treat of ADORATION" — not use, but worship
                             three OT scenes cited: Pharaoh / Joseph's staff / Jacob's "inscription"
[BLOW 1 — a text      S2     "not only PERVERT the meaning … but QUOTE what is NOWHERE to be found"
 that does not exist]        ← the third scene has no Scripture behind it at all
[BLOW 2 — word-       S3     three Psalm phrases with "worship" in them
 association]                "SEEM TO THEM very solid and apposite proofs" ← seem, to THEM
[THE RHETORICAL       S4     "Were one … to put words into their mouths,
 QUESTION]                    could they be made to utter greater and grosser absurdities?"
                             ← a satirist could not have invented worse
[BLOW 3 — dreams]     S5     "to put an end to ALL DOUBT" (irony) — a bishop ADDUCES his
                             archdeacon's DREAMS "with as much gravity AS IF he were in
                             possession of a response from heaven"
[THE DOOR SLAMS]      S6     "LET the patrons of images now GO AND URGE us with the decree…
                             AS IF the venerable Fathers did NOT bring themselves into utter
                             discredit" ← they DID; the decree's authority is spent

Examiner's Eye. Three traps, in rising order of nastiness.

Trap 1 — seem to them (S3). A comprehension item will offer: "Calvin concedes that the Psalm passages are solid and apposite proofs." Wrong. The passages **seem to them** very solid and apposite proofs — the seeming is located in the defenders' minds, and the whole sentence is reported with a straight face so that the reader will supply the contempt. Calvin concedes nothing.

Trap 2 — as if … did not (S6). The item will read: "Calvin says the Fathers did not bring themselves into discredit." Wrong by exact inversion. The as if frame reports the opponents' assumption; Calvin's own claim is the negation of it — they did.

Trap 3 — the scope of all doubt (S5). to put an end to all doubt on the subject of images is the bishop's ambition (or the council's), reported ironically — the item that says "Calvin claims the bishop's testimony removes all doubt" has swallowed the irony whole. The word that tells you it is ironic is dreams, three words later.

Formula 1 — Were S to V, … ? — inverted hypothetical protasis + passive causative

IF-form:      If one were to put words into their mouths, could they be made to utter…?
INVERTED:     Were one to put words into their mouths, could they be made to utter…?
              ^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^
              were + S + to-INF      ← "if" deleted, "were" fronted, "to" stays
APODOSIS:     could they be made TO utter X ?
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
              active:  make them utter   (bare INF)
              passive: they are made TO utter   (to-INF restored)

⚠️ Traps
  · Never *Were one put* — the to-INF is part of the pattern.
  · Family check: were I not (state) / were the danger less (state) / were one TO put (action).
  · Passive of make/see/hear restores TO. (let stays bare: *they were let go*.)
  · A rhetorical question may serve as the apodosis; treat it as a negative statement.

Transformation drill. Rewrite with inversion and a passive causative: If a critic tried to invent proof-texts for the iconodules, he could not make them argue more weakly than they argued for themselves. → Were a critic to invent proof-texts for the iconodules, could they be made to argue more weakly than they argued for themselves?

Formula 2 — as much N as if S were … — comparison of equality fused with a counterfactual

with AS MUCH gravity AS [IF he WERE in possession of a response from heaven]
     ^^^^^^^         ^^  ^^^^^^^^^
     equality frame  |   counterfactual (past subjunctive WERE — he was NOT)
                     └── the SAME "as": one construction, not two

= with exactly the seriousness he WOULD show IF he HAD an oracle (which he does not)

⚠️ Traps
  · "as if he WAS" — wrong register; the falsity must be marked by WERE.
  · Do not detach "as if…" as a separate clause; it is the second limb of "as much … as".
  · The verb governing the frame here is ADDUCE — bring forward as evidence.

Transformation drill. He treated the archdeacon's story as seriously as he would have treated a divine oracle. → He adduced the archdeacon's story with as much gravity as if he were reporting a divine oracle.

Formula 3 — Let X go and V…, as if S did NOT … — ironic dare + negative as if (= affirms the opposite)

LET the patrons of images now GO AND URGE us with the decree,
^^^ third-person imperative = DARE ("go ahead and try")
AS IF the venerable Fathers DID NOT bring themselves into utter discredit
^^^^^                       ^^^^^^^
opponents' pretence         negative inside "as if" ⇒ speaker asserts: THEY DID

Companion (S2): they NOT ONLY pervert the meaning…, BUT quote what is nowhere to be found.
                     ^^^^^^^^ VERB          ^^^ VERB   ← like with like; B is the heavier charge

⚠️ Traps
  · "as if … not" is NOT a denial by the speaker; it is the opponents' false assumption.
  · "venerable" inside an ironic frame = sarcasm; do not translate as praise.
  · not only + VERB … but + VERB — misplace "not only" before a noun and the parallel breaks.

Transformation drill. The defenders keep quoting the council, but the council's bishops destroyed their own authority by inventing texts. → Let the defenders go and quote the council, as if its bishops had not destroyed their own authority by inventing texts.

Where we are. §14 introduced Nicaea II (787) and its proof-texts for having images; §15 is the second half of the same exhibit, on adoring them. The source is the same: the Carolingian refutation (the Opus Caroli regis contra synodum, usually called the Libri Carolini) which Calvin met, most likely, in the 1549 printing that appeared while he was preparing the 1550 Institutes. This material is not in the 1536 edition; it belongs to the mature expansions. The tone — deadpan quotation, minimal comment — is the tone of a man who thinks the document argues for him.

The three Old Testament scenes (S1). The Nicene defenders reached for patriarchal proskynesis — bowing — to show that bowing before a creature is not idolatry. (1) Jacob before Pharaoh (Gen 47:7–10): a patriarch shows honour to a pagan king; therefore honour paid to a created thing is licit. (2) The staff of Joseph (Gen 47:31 in the Septuagint, echoed in Heb 11:21): Jacob "worshipped upon the top of his staff" — read as Jacob adored the staff, an object. (3) Jacob's pillar at Bethel (Gen 28:18): he set up a stone, anointed it — read as Jacob adored a stone. On (3) Calvin says flatly that the adoration is nowhere to be found: Genesis has Jacob erecting and anointing the stone and vowing to God; it never has him bowing to the stone. The Latin word titulus (Vulgate: erexit in titulum) is what Beveridge renders inscription — the ordinary sense is a standing marker, not lettering.

Adoration vs. veneration — the guardrail. Nicaea II drew a line that Calvin's sentence does not: images receive timētikē proskynēsis (honouring veneration), not latreia (true worship), which is God's alone. The Carolingian refutation worked from a Latin translation that rendered proskynesis as adoratio without the distinction, and much of its scorn depends on that flattening. Calvin inherits the flattening. So — do not over-read S1. When Calvin says adoration, he is reporting the West's reading of the council, and his own position (§§9–12) is that the distinction is verbal anyway: the people bow, and the theologians' latreia/dulia line does not reach the knees. That is an argument he has made, not a fact about the council's text. Keep the two apart in your notes.

The dreams (S5). The acts of Nicaea II do contain testimony of visions and miracles attributed to images — that genre of evidence was normal at the council and is what the Carolingian authors found most scandalous. The bishop of Myra who spoke at the council is recorded in the acts as Theodore; our text prints Theodosius Bishop of Mira, and §16 will name a different man, Theodosius Bishop of Amora (Amorium). Whether the doubling of the name is Calvin's, his source's, or the printer's, do not build an argument on it; the point of the sentence — dreams adduced as proof — stands whichever bishop said it.

Lineage. The method of S4 — a parody could not be worse than the original — is Erasmian; the Praise of Folly runs on exactly this engine. The theological charge of S6, wresting Scripture profanely, is Augustinian in shape (the De doctrina Christiana rule that a reading which does not build love of God is a misreading, however clever) and Reformation-specific in force: the Reformers' claim was that the church's authority is downstream of Scripture, so a council that mishandles Scripture has cut off its own supply. That is why discredit is the closing noun. The decree's authority is not denied; it is declared spent.

Later reception, briefly. The Reformed tradition's rejection of images in worship (Heidelberg Catechism Q. 96–98; Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 109) inherits this section's shape — the refusal to let a council override the second commandment — more than its details. Modern historians of Nicaea II are considerably kinder to the council's theology than Calvin, chiefly because they read the Greek acts and he read a hostile Latin summary. That is the limit to respect: this section is a devastating reading of the Libri Carolini's Nicaea, and a partial reading of Nicaea itself.

1. Gen 47:7, 10 — Jacob before Pharaoh (S1, the worship of Pharaoh). Hebrew has Jacob bless (בֵּרֶךְ) Pharaoh; the proskynesis the defenders had in mind is the general Near-Eastern obeisance implied by the audience scene. Calvin does not stop to dispute it — he groups it with two weaker cases and moves on.
2. Gen 47:31 LXX / Heb 11:21 — the staff of Joseph (S1). Hebrew reads the head of the bed (הַמִּטָּה, hammittāh); the Septuagint vocalised the same consonants as the staff (הַמַּטֶּה, hammaṭṭeh; Greek ῥάβδος), and Hebrews 11:21 follows the Septuagint: προσεκύνησεν ἐπὶ τὸ ἄκρον τῆς ῥάβδου αὐτοῦ — "worshipped upon the top of his staff." The preposition is ἐπί (leaning on), not πρός (bowing toward). The defenders read it as worship of the staff; the grammar says worship while leaning on it.
3. Gen 28:18–22 — Jacob's pillar at Bethel (S1, the inscription which Jacob set up; S2, nowhere to be found). Hebrew מַצֵּבָה (maṣṣēḇāh, standing stone); Vulgate titulus. Jacob sets up and anoints the stone and vows to the LORD (v. 20). No verb of worship has the stone as its object — hence Calvin's charge that the adoration is nowhere to be found.
4. Ps 99:5 — Worship at his footstool (S3). Vulgate (98:5) adorate scabellum pedum eius; Hebrew הִשְׁתַּחֲווּ לַהֲדֹם רַגְלָיו — the preposition ל can mean toward/at. The "footstool" is the ark (1 Chr 28:2) or Zion. The defenders took worship + object as worship of an object. Calvin lets the phrase stand and lets you hear it.
5. Ps 99:9 — Worship in his holy mountain (S3). Same psalm, same structure: worship at a place, read as worship of a place.
6. Ps 45:12 (Vulgate 44:13) — The rulers of the people will worship before thy face (S3). Vulgate vultum tuum deprecabuntur omnes divites plebis — the rich (or great) of the people will entreat thy face. Hebrew יְחַלּוּ (yəḥallû, "will seek the favour of"). The psalm is a royal wedding song, and the "face" is the queen's. A face (vultus) turned into an image is the association the defenders needed.
7. 2 Pet 3:16 — wresting Scripture (S6). Peter's word for the unlearned who twist Paul's letters is στρεβλοῦσιν (streblousin, wrench on a rack); the Vulgate has depravant. Beveridge's wresting is the KJV's word for the same verse. Calvin's charge in S6 is Peter's charge, applied to bishops.

How Calvin uses Scripture here: he does not. Every text is the defenders'; Calvin quotes none on his own behalf. His only exegetical act is negative — this one is not there (S2). The section's argument is that the texts, read aloud, convict their users. Note this, because it is rare in the Institutes and it is deliberate.

① Grammar — which underlined part is wrong?

Were one, with the view of turning the defenders of images into ridicule, ⓐ to put words into their mouths, could they ⓑ be made utter greater and grosser absurdities? Theodosius confirms the propriety of worshipping them by his archdeacon's dreams, which he adduces with as much gravity ⓒ as if he were in possession of a response from heaven. Let the patrons of images now go and urge us with the decree, ⓓ as if the Fathers did not bring themselves into utter discredit.

Answer: ⓑ. Passive of the causative make restores the to: be made **to** utter. ⓐ is the were S to V protasis (to-infinitive obligatory). ⓒ is the fused as much … as if … were with the past subjunctive correctly marked. ⓓ is the negative as if clause, past indicative, exactly as in the source. Exam-setter's rationale: ⓑ tests the single most mechanical rule of the day — bare infinitive after active make, to-infinitive after passive be made — inside a sentence whose surrounding difficulty (long parenthesis, inversion) is designed to distract you from a one-word slip.

② Comprehension — which statement is TRUE according to the passage?

(A) Calvin concedes that the three Psalm passages are solid and apposite proofs of the adoration of images. (B) In the case of Jacob's pillar, Calvin's objection is that the defenders misinterpret an existing text; the text itself is not disputed. (C) Calvin holds that a satirist inventing speeches for the defenders of images could not have made them say anything more absurd than what they actually said. (D) Calvin states that the venerable Fathers preserved their credit by their careful handling of Scripture, and therefore the decree should be respected.

Answer: (C). That is S4 — the rhetorical question could they be made to utter greater and grosser absurdities? expects no. Exam-setter's rationale: (A) is the seem to them trap — the assessment belongs to the defenders, not Calvin. (B) is a direction-flip: S2 says the defenders quote what is nowhere to be found — the text is exactly what is disputed. (D) is the as if … not inversion — Calvin's claim is that the Fathers did… bring themselves into utter discredit; venerable is ironic; and the decree is to be dared, not respected.

③ Composition — apply Formulas 1 and 3

Translate, using Were S to V, could S be made to V…? for the first sentence and Let X go and V…, as if S did not… for the second:

(1) 누군가 이 주교들을 조롱하려고 그들 입에 말을 지어 넣는다 해도, 그들이 실제로 말한 것보다 더 어리석은 말을 하게 만들 수 있겠는가? (2) 그러니 형상 옹호자들이 가서 그 공의회를 들이대라 하라 — 마치 그 주교들이 꿈을 증거로 내세워 스스로 신용을 잃지 않기라도 한 것처럼.

Model: Were one to put words into these bishops' mouths in order to ridicule them, could they be made to say anything more foolish than what they actually said? Let the defenders of images, then, go and urge that council upon us, as if its bishops had not discredited themselves by adducing dreams as evidence. 채점 포인트: ① Were one **to** put — inversion with the to-infinitive; If one put scores zero for the pattern. ② could they be made **to** say — passive causative restores to; the apodosis is a question. ③ Let … go and urge — third-person imperative as a dare, go and V preserved. ④ as if … had **not** discredited themselves — the negative sits inside the as if clause; the sentence must assert that they did. ⑤ Bonus: adducing … as evidence uses the day's technical verb.

One-line summary. §15 turns from having images to adoring them — When they treat of **adoration** — and runs §14's method with the screw tightened: the defenders bring three patriarchal scenes (Jacob before Pharaoh, the staff of Joseph, the inscription which Jacob set up), and on the third they **not only** pervert the meaning of Scripture, **but** quote what is **nowhere to be found**; three Psalm phrases with worship and a thing in them **seem to them** very solid and **apposite** proofs (= fitting, not opposite; and the seeming is theirs); a satirist setting out to ridicule them — **Were one** … **to put** words into their mouths — could not make them **be made to utter** greater and grosser absurdities; a bishop settles **all doubt** with the **dreams** of his archdeacon, which he **adduces** with **as much** gravity **as if** he **were** in possession of a response from heaven; and the door slams — **Let** the patrons of images now **go and urge** us with the decree of this Synod, **as if** the venerable Fathers did **not** bring themselves into utter **discredit** (= they did) by handling Scripture so childishly, or **wresting** it so shamefully and **profanely**. The council's authority is not denied; it is declared spent, because it was spent on Scripture.

Grammar, the three to carry out of here. ① Were S to V, could S be made to V…? — the were-to hypothetical with if deleted, and the passive causative that restores to. ② as much N as if S were … — one fused construction, comparison of equality plus counterfactual, past subjunctive were obligatory; the governing verb adduce = bring forward as evidence. ③ Let X go and V…, as if S did not … — the ironic dare, and a negative inside as if that asserts the opposite; with the verb-level not only V … but V of S2 where B is the heavier charge.

Homework (10 min).

1. 구조 복원. Write out S5 and mark: (a) the fronted purpose infinitive and its ironic scope-word (all); (b) the confirm X by Y frame with X and Y labelled — and write one word for Y; (c) the relative clause and the fused as much … as if … were inside it, with the subjunctive circled. Then answer in one line: why does Calvin choose the courtroom verb adduce for a dream?
2. 영작. Using Formula 2, write a sentence about a modern argument in which someone presents weak evidence with as much gravity as if it were strong. Then test it two ways: is the verb after as if in the past subjunctive? Could the sentence be read as two separate constructions (as much … as + a fresh as if)? If yes to the second, tighten it.
3. 내일 예습 한 줄. §16 opens I come now to monstrous impieties, which it is strange they ventured to utter, and — note the escalation in the very first noun: from absurdities (today, S4) to impieties. Today the Fathers were childish and profane in handling texts; tomorrow the charge is what they said about images themselves — sayings Calvin will call blasphemous, and which, he says, not a few of the more modern have approved both in word and deed. Ask yourself tonight: what would a bishop have to say about an image for Calvin to move from ridicule to impiety — and does ventured (= dared) hint that even the speakers knew?

Where we stopped: Book 1, Ch. 11, §15 끝. 다음은 Book 1, Ch. 11, §16 (Day 71) — The blasphemous expressions of some ancient idolaters approved by not a few of the more modern, both in word and deed.