Day 73 — Book 1, Chapter 12, §2

The IOU comes due. A week ago, in ch. 11 §11 (Day 66), Calvin wrote of the dulia/latria distinction: which shall afterwards be fully considered (see infra, s. 16, and chap. 12 s. 2). Day 71 paid the historical half — the council that authorised the distinction could not keep it. Yesterday built the rule the distinction has to survive: unless everything peculiar to divinity is confined to God alone, he is robbed of his honour. Today the rule meets the evasion. And look at the first verb Calvin gives it. Not arose. Not developed. Not was drawn by the schoolmen. was invented — for the very purpose of permitting divine honours to be paid to angels and dead men with apparent impunity. He opens with the motive, not the definition. Underline invented; the whole section is an indictment of a word, and the charge is contrivance with intent.

Twelve sentences, and the shape is a staircase of concessions. Count the Buts. S4: But not to insist on this. S6: But granting that the distinction is invariably preserved. S11: But several of the ancient fathers observed this distinction. Three steps, each one handing the opponent more ground and leaving him less to stand on. That is a lawyer's method — argue ex concessis, on the other side's terms — and it is the thing to watch today. The principle that would end the argument at once is stated in S3 (the question relates not to the word, but the thing), and then deliberately set aside so that the distinction can be beaten as a distinction: even if the words meant exactly what you say, the ranking is upside down (S8–S10). And when the last defence is raised — the fathers used it — Calvin gives it three words: What if they did (S12).

Grammatically today is hypothetical-and-half-said day: a subjunctive were with no if anywhere near it, and balanced pairs with a word deliberately missing.

Today's 3 Big Points

1. was invented for the very purpose of permitting divine honours to be paid to angels and dead men with apparent impunity (S1) — the purpose frame, and permit + object + passive infinitive. For the (very) purpose of takes of + gerund (permitting), never a bare infinitive. Then permit takes an object plus a to-infinitive — and here the infinitive is passive: permitting divine honours **to be paid**. Three layers nested: purpose of [permitting [honours to be paid]]. Note also the opening what is called δυλια and λατρια — the free relative what = that which, i.e. the so-called δουλεία and λατρεία. Calvin does not own these labels, and the grammar says so before the argument does. Trap inside the frame: **apparent** impunity = seeming impunity. Not obvious. Seeming.
2. it were often a hard thing to serve him whom you would not refuse to reverence (S9) — it were = it would be, plus extraposition, plus a litotes. Three faces of were in one week: Day 69 gave you the inverted conditional (were I not … arrested = if I were not); yesterday gave you the mandative cousin (enjoins that nothing … **be** applied); today is the bare hypothetical: it were often a hard thing = it would often be a hard thing. No if, no inversion, singular it with were. Students "correct" it to was and lose the mood. Then the shape: it is a dummy, the real subject is to serve him… — extraposition, and S10 repeats it (It is … an unjust division **to assign**…), and S8 puts two bare infinitives on either side of a comparison (**to serve** is something higher than **to worship**). And inside the relative: whom you would **not refuse** to reverence — a double negative that means a strong positive: whom you would gladly honour. That litotes carries the whole argument of S8–S10.
3. relates not to the word, but the thing (S3) — antithesis with a piece missing. Restore the preposition: not to the word, but to the thing. Beveridge lets the two limbs of not … but share one to, and he does it all day: they give worship to God, and [give] service to the others (S4 — shared verb); Δουλει α unquestionably means service, and λατρει α [means] worship (S7 — gapping, the verb deleted in the second clause); to assign the greater to the saints and [to] leave the less to God (S10); not only improper, but utterly frivolous (S12 — the escalation frame). Rule: restore the deleted word before you translate. Companions: two rhetorical questions that are really verdicts — how can they be allowed…? (S3 = they cannot) and What if they did, when all men see…? (S12 = so what if they did, seeing that…). ⚠️ That what if is dismissive, not hypothetical, and that when is causal, not temporal.

Trap words I will test. what is called (S1) = the so-called — a distancing formula. invented (S1) ⚠️ = contrived, devised — the verb is the accusation. for the very purpose of (S1) = precisely in order to — very intensifies the noun. permitting … to be paid (S1) = allowing … to be rendered — object + passive infinitive. divine honours (S1) = the honours that belong to God. dead men (S1) ⚠️ = the saints — yesterday departed saints, today the honorific is stripped; that is deliberate. with apparent impunity (S1) ⚠️ = seemingly without penalty — apparent = seeming; the guilt is real, the impunity is a look. it is plain that (S2) = it is evident that. Papists (S2) = Beveridge's rendering of Calvin's polemical name for Roman Catholics. pay worship (S2) = render worship — the debt image: honour is paid because it is due (yesterday's duly). differs in no respect from (S2) ⚠️ = does not differ in any way from — respect = aspect, point (yesterday's in what respect), not disrespect. without distinction (S2) = indiscriminately. only when they are pressed (S2) = only when cornered in argument. have recourse to (S2) = resort to. the evasion (S2) = the dodge — the word from §11's heading. kept unimpaired (S2) = left intact. leave him λατρια (S2) = leave λατρεία to him — double object. relates … to (S3) = concerns. the word … the thing (S3) = verba vs. res — Calvin's governing principle, third appearance in two days. sport at will with (S3) ⚠️ = play as they please with, trifle with. a matter of the highest moment (S3) ⚠️⚠️ = a matter of the utmost importance — moment = weight, importance (momentum), not time. Today's #1 vocabulary trap. not to insist on this (S4) = without pressing this point — an absolute infinitive, like yesterday's to say nothing more of words. the utmost (S4) = the most, the ceiling. obtain by (S4) = gain by means of. service (S4, S5, S7) = δουλεία; worship = λατρεία (Lat. cultus). has the same meaning as (S5). whereas (S5) = while by contrast. properly (S5) ⚠️ = in the strict sense — not decently. indiscriminately (S5) = without distinction — hear the echo of S2. granting that (S6) = even supposing that — a participial concessive. invariably (S6) = without exception. the thing to be inquired into (S6) = what must be examined — keep the stranded into. unquestionably (S7) = beyond question. no man doubts that (S8) = everyone is sure that. something higher than (S8) = a greater thing than. it were (S9) ⚠️⚠️ = it would be. a hard thing to serve (S9) = hard to serve. refuse to reverence (S9) — reverence as a verb = show reverence to; would not refuse to = would gladly. unjust division (S10) = unfair allotment — the estate image again. assign … to (S10) = allot to. the greater … the less (S10) ⚠️ = the larger share … the smaller share — nominalised comparatives; the less, not the lesser. several of (S11) = a number of. the ancient fathers (S11) = the early church fathers — Augustine above all. observed (S11) ⚠️ = kept, maintained, made use of — not noticed. What if they did (S12) ⚠️⚠️ = so what if they did? — dismissive, not hypothetical. when (S12) = seeing that. improper (S12) = unfitting, incorrect. utterly frivolous (S12) ⚠️ = completely trifling, without weight — not playful; it is the answer to S3's highest moment.

2. The distinction of what is called δυλια and λατρια was invented for the very purpose of permitting divine honours to be paid to angels and dead men with apparent impunity. For it is plain that the worship which Papists pay to saints differs in no respect from the worship of God: for this worship is paid without distinction; only when they are pressed they have recourse to the evasion, that what belongs to God is kept unimpaired, because they leave him λατρια. But since the question relates not to the word, but the thing, how can they be allowed to sport at will with a matter of the highest moment? But not to insist on this, the utmost they will obtain by their distinction is, that they give worship to God, and service to the others. For λατρει α in Greek has the same meaning as worship in Latin; whereas δουλει α properly means service, though the words are sometimes used in Scripture indiscriminately. But granting that the distinction is invariably preserved, the thing to be inquired into is the meaning of each. Δουλει α unquestionably means service, and λατρει α worship. But no man doubts that to serve is something higher than to worship. For it were often a hard thing to serve him whom you would not refuse to reverence. It is, therefore, an unjust division to assign the greater to the saints and leave the less to God. But several of the ancient fathers observed this distinction. What if they did, when all men see that it is not only improper, but utterly frivolous?

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

Text note (not a correction to the quotation). Four things about the printed page, all left as they stand. (i) The Greek is mangled by the scanner in two different ways. In S1 and S2 the words are printed δυλια and λατρια — Beveridge set δουλεία and λατρεία (the same corruption as §11, Day 66). In S5 and S7 they are printed λατρει α, δουλει α, Δουλει α — the accented ί has been split from the final α by a space. Same two words, five spellings on one page. Reproduced as printed; do not memorise any of them. Correct forms: δουλεία (dulia), λατρεία (latria). (ii) A page break falls inside S9, between For it were and often a hard thing, with the margin page number 106 in between; it has been closed up. (iii) A second page break falls inside S11, between But several and of the ancient fathers, with the page number 110 and the running header (CHAPTER 12. - GOD DISTINGUISHED FROM IDOLS…) in between; closed up, header and number removed. (iv) No footnote markers in this section. honours (S1) is British spelling; Papists (S2) capitalised — both as printed. Nothing else altered.

[CHARGE]         S1     the distinction "of WHAT IS CALLED δυλια and λατρια" was INVENTED —
                        "for the VERY PURPOSE of" licensing divine honours to ANGELS and DEAD MEN
                        "with APPARENT impunity"                          ← motive first, definition never
[FACT]           S2     in practice the worship paid to saints DIFFERS IN NO RESPECT from God's;
                        it is "paid WITHOUT DISTINCTION"; the distinction surfaces "ONLY WHEN THEY
                        ARE PRESSED" = an EVASION ("what belongs to God is kept unimpaired… they
                        leave him λατρια")
[PRINCIPLE]      S3   ★ "the question relates NOT TO THE WORD, BUT THE THING" — no sporting "at will"
                        with "a matter of the HIGHEST MOMENT"
[CONCESSION 1]   S4     "But NOT TO INSIST on this" — the UTMOST the distinction yields: WORSHIP to God,
                        SERVICE to the others
                 S5     λατρεία = worship (Lat.); δουλεία "properly" = service — "though the words are
                        sometimes used in Scripture INDISCRIMINATELY"           ← seed of §3
[CONCESSION 2]   S6     "But GRANTING that the distinction is invariably preserved" — examine the MEANINGS
                 S7     δουλεία = service; λατρεία [means] worship               ← gapping
[REVERSAL]       S8   ★ "no man doubts that TO SERVE is something HIGHER than TO WORSHIP"
                 S9     because: "it WERE often a hard thing to serve him whom you would NOT REFUSE
                        to reverence" — reverence is cheap, service is total
                 S10  ★ therefore "an UNJUST DIVISION": "the GREATER to the saints … the LESS to God"
[FATHERS]        S11    "But several of the ancient fathers OBSERVED this distinction"   ← conceded
                 S12  ★ "WHAT IF THEY DID, WHEN all men see that it is not only improper, but
                        UTTERLY FRIVOLOUS?"                                       ← S3's "moment" answered

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

Trap 1 — apparent (S1) and only when they are pressed (S2). An item will read: "Calvin concedes that the distinction lets the Papists honour the saints without any real fault." No. **apparent** impunity = seeming impunity; the fault is real. And the distinction is not their working theology — in practice worship is paid without distinction, and the distinction is what they reach for only when they are pressed. It is a fallback, not a practice.

Trap 2 — S5's concession. though the words are sometimes used in Scripture indiscriminately. An item will claim "Calvin maintains that Scripture consistently distinguishes latria from dulia." He says the opposite, in a concessive clause he did not have to write — and it is precisely the clause tomorrow's §3 cashes (Gal. 4:8, where Paul calls idolatry service). Watch for options that rest Calvin's case on lexical consistency; he has just disclaimed it.

Trap 3 — the direction of S8–S10. This is the trap that will catch the most people, because the scholastic scale is what everyone carries in their head: latria (worship) is the higher honour, reserved for God; dulia (service) is the lower, allowed to saints. Calvin flips the scale: to serve is something higher than to worship (S8), therefore the Papist scheme assigns the greater to the saints and leaves the less to God (S10). An item that says "Calvin holds that the distinction rightly reserves the higher honour for God" has the direction backwards. God gets the less.

Trap 4 — S11–S12 and the fathers. "Calvin denies that any of the ancient fathers used the distinction." False — he concedes it flatly: several of the ancient fathers observed this distinction. What he denies is that it matters: What if they did. The fact is granted; the authority is refused, on the ground that all men see the thing itself is not only improper, but utterly frivolous. If an item asks how Calvin answers the appeal to the fathers, the answer is by evidence, not by denial — and note observed = kept, not noticed.

Formula 1 — purpose + permission: for the (very) purpose of V-ing / permit X to be V-ed / what is called X (S1)

was INVENTED  for the very purpose of  PERMITTING  divine honours  TO BE PAID  to angels and dead men  with APPARENT impunity
              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  ^^^^^^^^^^  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^  ^^^^^^^^^^                          ^^^^^^^^
              purpose frame: OF + GERUND permit     OBJECT          PASSIVE INFINITIVE (to be + p.p.)   = SEEMING

PURPOSE FRAMES (interchangeable):
   for the purpose of V-ing  =  in order to V  =  so that / in order that S may V   (yesterday's clause form)
   ⚠️ "for the purpose TO permit" / "for the purpose of TO permit" — the frame needs OF + GERUND

PERMIT-FAMILY  (verb + OBJECT + to-INFINITIVE; the infinitive may be passive):
   permit / allow / suffer / enable / cause / get   X  to V   |   X  to be V-ed
   ⚠️ "permit THAT divine honours be paid" — not the pattern. Compare:
        ENJOIN / COMMAND / REQUIRE  + THAT + S + BARE VERB   (yesterday, Formula 1)
        PERMIT / ALLOW              + OBJECT + TO-INF        (today)

WHAT IS CALLED X = the so-called X   (free relative "what" = that which; a distancing label)
   the distinction of WHAT IS CALLED δουλεία and λατρεία
   ⚠️ "what" is not a question word here.

FOOTNOTE — fronted "only when" (S2):  Beveridge: "only when they are pressed THEY HAVE recourse"
   Modern formal English inverts after a fronted ONLY-adverbial: "only when they are pressed DO THEY have recourse"
   Read the old text as it stands; write the modern rule yourself.

Transformation drill. Rewrite with the purpose frame + permit + passive infinitive + apparent: They devised the phrase so that they could invoke the dead without seeming to sin. → The phrase was invented for the very purpose of permitting the dead to be invoked with apparent innocence.

Formula 2 — it were = it would be; extraposition it + be + (adj/NP) + to-INF; infinitive subjects; the litotes would not refuse to V (S8, S9, S10)

S9:   IT WERE  often  a hard thing   TO SERVE him  [whom you WOULD NOT REFUSE to reverence]
      ^^^^^^^         ^^^^^^^^^^^^   ^^^^^^^^^^^^   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
      subjunctive     complement     REAL SUBJECT   litotes: "not refuse" = GLADLY
      = it WOULD BE                  (extraposed)
S10:  IT IS  an unjust division  TO ASSIGN the greater to the saints and (to) LEAVE the less to God
S8:   TO SERVE  is  something higher than  TO WORSHIP        ← infinitives as subject and comparison-term

THREE FACES OF "WERE" (collect them):
   Day 69   "WERE I NOT … arrested"            = if I were not        (inverted conditional)
   Day 72   "enjoins that nothing BE applied"   = mandative subjunctive (the bare-form cousin)
   Day 73   "IT WERE a hard thing"              = it WOULD BE          (bare hypothetical — no if, no inversion)

⚠️ Traps
  · "it WAS a hard thing" — indicative; states a fact, kills the supposition. "it were" ≠ plural, ≠ past.
  · Extraposition keeps the article: "it is AN unjust division to assign…" — not "it is unjust division".
  · Litotes: "would not refuse to reverence" = WOULD reverence (strong positive). Never translate it as a refusal.
  · "the greater … the less" — nominalised comparatives; "the less" (noun), not "the lesser".

Transformation drill. Rewrite with it were + extraposition + the litotes + the greater / the less: Honouring a good man is easy, being his servant is another thing; so giving the creature the bigger share and God the smaller is a strange bargain. → It were an easy thing to honour a good man whom you would not consent to serve; it were, therefore, a strange bargain to assign the greater to the creature and leave the less to God.

Formula 3 — antithesis with a piece missing: not X, but [prep] Y / shared verb / gapping / not only A, but B — plus the two rhetorical questions (S3, S4, S7, S10, S12)

S3:   relates  NOT to the word,  BUT [to] the thing                    ← preposition dropped in limb 2
S4:   they GIVE  worship to God,  and [give] service to the others      ← verb shared
S7:   Δουλεία … MEANS service,  and λατρεία [means] worship             ← GAPPING: verb deleted in clause 2
S10:  to ASSIGN the greater to the saints  and [to] LEAVE the less to God
S12:  NOT ONLY improper,  BUT utterly frivolous                         ← escalation: B is the STRONGER term

RULE: restore the deleted word (verb / to / preposition) BEFORE you translate. The two limbs must be parallel.

COMPANIONS — rhetorical questions that are verdicts:
   S3   HOW CAN they be allowed to sport … ?          = they cannot be allowed
   S12  WHAT IF they did, WHEN all men see … ?        = so what if they did — seeing that …
   ⚠️ "what if" here is DISMISSIVE (so what if), not hypothetical (what would happen if)
   ⚠️ "when" here is CAUSAL (seeing that), not temporal

⚠️ Traps
  · "relates not to the word but the thing" — forget the missing "to" and "the thing" reads as an object of "relates".
  · Gapping needs PARALLEL clauses: "A means X, and B Y" ✓ / "A means X, and B is Y" — no gap possible.
  · "not only A but B": B must outrank A (improper → utterly frivolous), or the frame misfires.

Transformation drill. Rewrite with not … but (shared preposition), gapping, and not only … but: Scripture is concerned with realities rather than labels: it calls idolatry service, and it calls piety service too; and to rest a doctrine on a word is careless — worse, it is fatal. → Scripture looks not to the label, but the reality; it calls idolatry service, and piety the same; and to rest a doctrine on a word is not only careless, but utterly fatal.

Where we are. The chapter's three sections, once more: §1 (yesterday) built the rule — everything peculiar to divinity confined to God alone; §2 (today) brings the evasion to the rule; §3 (tomorrow) brings Scripture to the evasion. And §2 pays the IOU written in ch. 11 §11 (Day 66): which shall afterwards be fully considered (see infra, s. 16, and chap. 12 s. 2). Day 71 (§16) paid the historical half — the council that authorised the distinction could not itself keep it straight. Today is the argumentative half — the distinction examined as a distinction. Keep the two apart; the exam will ask which section does which.

The architecture: three concessions. Read the section as a lawyer's ladder. S3 states the principle that would decide the case outright — the thing, not the word. Then Calvin steps down three times, each time with But: not to insist on this (S4), granting that the distinction is invariably preserved (S6), several of the ancient fathers observed this distinction (S11). Rhetoricians called this concessio — yield the point, and win from the yielded ground. What it buys him is immunity from the charge of straw: the reversal in S8–S10 is reached on the opponent's own definitions, at full strength (properly, unquestionably). What it costs him is that each step is weaker than the last — and knowing which step bears weight is the whole skill of reading this section.

The pedigree of the distinction — state it fairly, because Calvin does (S11). Day 66 gave you the scholastic form (Aquinas, ST II-II q.84 on latria, q.103 aa.3–4 on dulia and hyperdulia) and the conciliar form (Nicaea II, 787: τιμητικὴ προσκύνησις for images, ἀληθινὴ λατρεία for God alone, with the Frankish Libri Carolini rejecting the council over a Latin translation that flattened both words into adoratio). Behind both stands Augustine, which is who S11 chiefly means. City of God 10.1 sorts the Greek vocabulary and reserves λατρεία for the service owed to God alone, while δουλεία is the service owed to masters; Contra Faustum 20.21 says the church honours the martyrs with a cult of love and fellowship but does not offer them the latria owed to God. Three centuries after Augustine, in the East, John of Damascus (720s–730s) graded προσκύνησις — the absolute kind, owed to God alone, and relative kinds, owed to what is connected with him — and Nicaea II wrote his grammar into its decree. So when Calvin says several of the ancient fathers observed this distinction, he is telling the truth against his own convenience, and about the father he cites more than any other. That is what makes S12's three words — What if they did — so bold. It is the Prefatory Address to Francis I applied: the fathers are honoured witnesses, not judges; where the thing is plain, usage does not settle it.

The lexical facts, so that you do not overclaim. Calvin's S5 concession is sound. In the Greek Bible λατρεία/λατρεύω is cultic service to God (Exod. 12:25–26, the Passover is this service, LXX λατρεία; Rom. 9:4; 12:1; Heb. 9:1) — and it is used of idolatry (Acts 7:42, to worship the host of heaven; Rom. 1:25, served the creature). δουλεία/δουλεύω is slave-service — used of serving God (1 Thess. 1:9, to serve the living and true God; Matt. 6:24) and of idolatry (Gal. 4:8). Underneath both, Hebrew עָבַד (ʿābad), to serve, is simply the ordinary verb for the worship of the LORD (Exod. 3:12; Deut. 6:13; Josh. 24:15), and עֲבֹדָה means at once labour, slavery, and cultic service. And the Latin Bible Rome read every day renders the exclusive clause of Deut. 6:13 / Matt. 4:10 as illi soli servies — him only shalt thou serve. So the Bible's own most exclusive verb for what is owed to God is the service word. That is the fact under S8, and it is stronger than S9's argument from manners.

Rome's answer, and the guardrail. Do not read S8–S10 as a knock-down, and do not read S12's all men see as a report. The schoolmen did not see it, and said why: latria is a stipulated term — the adoration owed to God as Creator and first principle (Aquinas, ST II-II q.84 a.1) — and dulia the honour owed to excellence in a creature; the ranking is fixed by the object, not by the everyday weight of the words serve and honour. On that ground S9's argument from manners (you would honour a man you would not serve) does not touch them, and Calvin knows it — which is why S3 says in advance that the word is not the question and S4 says not to insist on this. The distinction did not die: the Council of Trent (Session 25, December 1563) reaffirmed the veneration and invocation of the saints and the honour of images as passing to their prototypes, and the current Catechism of the Catholic Church (§2132) still states it — veneration of images is respectful honour, not the adoration due to God alone. So what actually bears weight today? Rank it. (1) S2's empirical claim — that in practice the worship is paid without distinction — is the strongest, and it needs evidence, which ch. 11 §10 supplied for images and Book 3 ch. 20 will supply for invocation. (2) S3's res/verba principle. (3) S5's admission that Scripture mixes the words — which is where tomorrow's exhibits attach. (4) S8–S10's reversal — rhetorically superb, technically answerable. (5) S12's answer to the fathers — evidence over authority. Calvin's case is (1)+(2)+(3); (4) is the flourish. Quote it as such.

The vocabulary of weight. Notice that the section's frame is a balance. S3: a matter of the highest **moment** — momentum, the weight that tips the scale. S12: utterly **frivolous** — brittle, weightless. In between, S4's the utmost and S8's something higher, S10's the greater … the less. Calvin's charge against the distinction is, in the end, a charge about gravity: it treats the heaviest question — who receives what is God's — as a thing of no weight, and it weighs the two honours upside down. Read the section once with that scale in hand and every word finds its pan.

1. Gal. 4:8 — though the words are sometimes used in Scripture indiscriminately (S5). ὅτε οὐκ εἰδότες θεὸν ἐδουλεύσατε τοῖς φύσει μὴ οὖσιν θεοῖς — when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods. Paul uses the δουλεία verb for idolatry itself. Calvin's use: this clause is a promissory note; tomorrow's §3 opens by cashing it — Beveridge will print the verse in full.
2. Matt. 4:10 (quoting Deut. 6:13) — service (S4, S8). Κύριον τὸν θεόν σου προσκυνήσεις καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις — Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve. The exclusive clause — him only — is attached to the service verb; the Vulgate has illi soli servies in both places, the AV serve. Calvin's use (explicit tomorrow): the Bible's most exclusive verb for what is God's alone is the one the schools hand to the saints.
3. Exod. 20:5 — divine honours … paid to angels and dead men (S1). לֹא־תִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לָהֶם וְלֹא תָעָבְדֵם, LXX οὐ προσκυνήσεις αὐτοῖς οὐδὲ μὴ λατρεύσῃς αὐτοῖς — thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them. The second commandment forbids both acts toward creatures — bowing and serving — with no grade of honour left open. Calvin's use: the Law that §1 (S11) called a bridle closes both doors at once.
4. 1 Thess. 1:9; Matt. 6:24 — service to the others (S4). ἐπεστρέψατε πρὸς τὸν θεὸν … δουλεύειν θεῷ ζῶντι καὶ ἀληθινῷ — to serve the living and true God; and οὐδεὶς δύναται δυσὶ κυρίοις δουλεύειν — no man can serve two masters. The δουλεία verb is Scripture's word for allegiance to the true God, and it is by nature undivided. Calvin's use: to give service to the others is to give away exactly the thing Scripture says cannot be shared.
5. Exod. 3:12; 12:25–26; Josh. 24:15 — to serve is something higher than to worship (S8). Hebrew עָבַד (ʿābad) — ye shall serve God upon this mountain; ye shall keep this service (עֲבֹדָה, LXX λατρεία, of the Passover); choose you this day whom ye will **serve. In the Old Testament service is worship — the ordinary verb for the cult of the LORD. Calvin's use: this is the fact beneath his ranking; S9's argument from manners is the illustration, not the ground.
6. Col. 2:18; Rev. 19:10; 22:8–9 — angels (S1). θρησκείᾳ τῶν ἀγγέλων — worshipping of angels, condemned; and the angel who twice refuses John's προσκύνησις with σύνδουλός σού εἰμι — I am thy fellow-servant** — the δοῦλος root inside the very sentence that refuses worship. Calvin's use: he names angels first in S1 because the New Testament gives explicit refusals; §3 will exhibit them.
7. Ps. 106:28 — dead men (S1). וַיֹּאכְלוּ זִבְחֵי מֵתִים — they ate the sacrifices of the dead** (of Baal-peor). Scripture's own blunt name for cult offered to the dead. Calvin's use: dead men is not a sneer he invented; it is the Psalter's word for the thing.
8. Isa. 42:8 — what belongs to God is kept unimpaired (S2). כְּבוֹדִי לְאַחֵר לֹא־אֶתֵּן — my glory will I not give to another. The evasion of S2 claims to honour exactly this verse — God's share is intact. Calvin's use: the same text was under yesterday's S12; the practice of S2 is its violation, whatever the label.
9. Mal. 1:6 — to serve him whom you would not refuse to reverence (S9). בֵּן יְכַבֵּד אָב וְעֶבֶד אֲדֹנָיו — A son honoureth his father, and a servant his master: if then I be a father, where is mine honour? and if I be a master, where is my fear? An echo, not a quotation: Scripture itself pairs the son's honour with the servant's fear, and the servant's relation is the more total one. Calvin's scale in S8–S9 has the same two pans.

How Calvin uses Scripture here: he barely quotes it — one mention, in Scripture (S5), and it is a concession (the words are used indiscriminately). That is deliberate. §2 is argument on the opponent's ground — definitions, usage, the fathers — and Scripture appears only to be admitted as not supporting the distinction. Tomorrow the method flips: Laying aside subtleties, let us examine the thing, and the verses come one after another. Today's single concession is tomorrow's opening exhibit.

① Grammar — which underlined part is wrong?

The distinction of what is called δυλια and λατρια was invented ⓐ for the very purpose of permitting divine honours to be paid to angels and dead men with apparent impunity. But since the question relates ⓑ not to the word, but the thing, how can they be allowed to sport at will with a matter of the highest moment? But granting that the distinction is invariably preserved, ⓒ the thing to be inquired is the meaning of each. For ⓓ it were often a hard thing to serve him whom you would not refuse to reverence.

✨ 답안 보기 (클릭)정답 · Answer: ⓒ. Inquire takes into; the passive infinitive post-modifier must keep the preposition: the thing to be inquired **into** is the meaning of each. ⓐ is Formula 1 — of + gerund, then permit + object + passive infinitive; every piece is in place. ⓑ is Formula 3 — not … but with the second to legitimately shared, exactly as Beveridge prints it. ⓓ is Formula 2 — the subjunctive it were = it would be, plus the litotes; it only looks wrong. Exam-setter's rationale: three strange-looking-but-correct structures (not … but the thing, it were, the passive infinitive after permitting) are placed around the one plain-looking error, and the error is an absence — a dropped preposition — which the eye does not catch because nothing visibly wrong is on the page. Read for what is missing, not only for what is there; that is today's whole grammar lesson in one item.

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

(A) Calvin denies that any of the ancient fathers ever made use of the distinction between δουλεία and λατρεία. (B) Calvin holds that, in the ordinary sense of the words, to serve is something higher than to worship, so that the Papist division assigns the greater to the saints and leaves the less to God. (C) Calvin maintains that Scripture consistently keeps the two words distinct, and rests his case on that consistency. (D) Calvin concedes that, because the Papists reserve λατρεία for God, what belongs to God is in practice kept unimpaired.

✨ 답안 보기 (클릭)정답 · Answer: (B). That is S8 and S10 together: no man doubts that to serve is something higher than to worship … It is, therefore, an unjust division to assign the greater to the saints and leave the less to God. Exam-setter's rationale: (A) is the denial trap on S11 — Calvin concedes that several of the ancient fathers observed this distinction; what he refuses is its authority (What if they did). (C) is the direction-flip on S5 — he says the words are sometimes used in Scripture indiscriminately, and his case is explicitly not rested on the words (S3, S4). (D) is the attribution trap on S2 — kept unimpaired because they leave him λατρια is the Papists' evasion, reported in an appositive that-clause after the evasion; Calvin does not concede it, he calls it what it is. Students who skim S2 will take the reported claim for the author's.

③ Composition — apply Formulas 1, 2 and 3

Translate, using for the very purpose of + permit + passive infinitive + apparent for the first sentence, and it were + extraposition + the litotes would not refuse to, then assign the greater … leave the less, for the second:

(1) 이 구별은 죽은 자들에게 기도가 바쳐지는 것을 겉보기에는 아무 벌도 받지 않고 허용하려는 바로 그 목적으로 고안되었다. (2) 당신이 기꺼이 공경할 사람을 섬기는 것은 종종 어려운 일일 것이다; 그러므로 더 큰 것을 피조물에게 배정하고 더 작은 것을 하나님께 남기는 것은 부당한 분배다.

모범답안 · Model: This distinction was invented for the very purpose of permitting prayers to be offered to the dead with apparent impunity. It were often a hard thing to serve him whom you would not refuse to reverence; it is, therefore, an unjust division to assign the greater to the creature and leave the less to God. 채점 포인트: ① for the very purpose **of permitting** — of + gerund; for the purpose to permit scores zero on the frame. ② permitting prayers **to be offered** — object + passive infinitive; permitting that prayers be offered is the wrong verb-pattern (that is enjoin's pattern, not permit's). ③ with **apparent** impunity — apparent = seeming; obvious impunity reverses the sense. ④ **It were** … a hard thing to serve him whom you **would not refuse** to reverence — subjunctive were (=would be; it would be is acceptable English but is not the formula being tested), extraposed infinitive subject, and the litotes kept as a double negative. ⑤ assign **the greater** to the creature and leave **the less** to God — nominalised comparatives, one shared to; the lesser loses the pattern mark; and the recipients must not be swapped — the creature gets the greater, God the less, which is the whole point of S10.

One-line summary. The distinction of **what is called** δυλια and λατρια **was invented for the very purpose of** permitting divine honours to be paid to angels and dead men **with apparent impunity** (S1) — and the practice proves the motive: the worship paid to saints **differs in no respect from** the worship of God, it is paid **without distinction**, and the distinction itself appears **only when they are pressed**, as the **evasion**, that what belongs to God is kept unimpaired, because they **leave him λατρια** (S2); but since the question relates **not to the word, but the thing**, they cannot be allowed to **sport at will** with a matter of the **highest moment** (S3). Then the staircase: **But not to insist on this** — the **utmost** the distinction yields is worship to God, and service to the others (S4), λατρεία being worship and δουλεία **properly** service, though the words are sometimes used in Scripture **indiscriminately** (S5); **But granting that** the distinction is invariably preserved, examine the thing **to be inquired into** — the meanings (S6): δουλεία **unquestionably** service, λατρεία worship (S7); and **no man doubts that to serve is something higher than to worship** (S8), for **it were** often a hard thing to serve him **whom you would not refuse to reverence** (S9) — It is, therefore, an **unjust division** to assign **the greater** to the saints and leave **the less** to God (S10). **But several of the ancient fathers observed** this distinction (S11) — **What if they did**, when all men see that it is **not only** improper, **but utterly frivolous**? (S12). The section weighs the two honours and finds the scale upside down: the schools have handed the heavier word to the creature, and the whole apparatus is a thing of no weight set over the weightiest question there is.

Grammar, the three to carry out of here. ① for the (very) purpose of V-ing — of + gerund — with permit X to be V-ed — object + passive infinitive, never a that-clause (contrast yesterday's enjoin that … be) — and what is called X = the so-called X; remember apparent = seeming. ② it were = it would be — the bare hypothetical subjunctive, third face of were this week (Day 69 were I not, Day 72 that nothing … be, Day 73 it were); with extraposition it + be + NP + to-INF (S9, S10), infinitives as subject and comparison-term (to serve is something higher than to worship, S8), the litotes would not refuse to = would gladly, and the nominalised pair the greater … the less. ③ antithesis with a piece missing — restore the shared preposition (not to the word, but [to] the thing), the shared verb (worship to God, and [give] service to the others), the gapped verb (δουλεία … means service, and λατρεία [means] worship), the shared to (to assign … and [to] leave), and read the escalation not only … but with the stronger term second; plus the two rhetorical verdicts — how can they be allowed…? = they cannot, and the dismissive What if they did, **when** all men see…? = so what if they did, seeing that….

Homework (10 min).

1. 구조 복원. Write out S2 and mark: (a) the two fors and what each one grounds; (b) the appositive that-clause — prove it is not a relative by trying to substitute which; (c) the double object in they leave him λατρια — rewrite it with to. Then rewrite the only when clause with modern inversion (only when … do they …). Second, take S3, S4, S7 and S10 and write in the missing word in square brackets in each ([to], [give], [means], [to]). Answer in one line: why does Calvin state the decisive principle (S3) and then immediately set it aside (S4)?
2. 영작. Using Formula 2, write one sentence beginning It were … with an extraposed infinitive subject and a relative clause containing would not refuse to. Then, using Formula 1, write a second sentence in which something was invented for the very purpose of permitting [X] to be [V-ed]. Test: is your were singular and hypothetical (not a past plural)? Is your litotes a double negative that means gladly? Does your purpose frame have of + a gerund, and does permit take an object + to be + past participle?
3. 내일 예습 한 줄. Tomorrow is §3, and it opens: **Laying aside subtleties, let us examine the thing.** The word again — **the thing**. S3 announced it, S6 made it a method, and tomorrow it becomes the section's first sentence: the concessions are over, and Scripture comes in one exhibit after another — beginning with Gal. 4:8, where Paul calls idolatry **did service**. Ask yourself tonight: Calvin conceded in S5 that Scripture uses the two words indiscriminately — so what, exactly, does that concession do to a distinction that claims to be biblical?

Where we stopped: Book 1, Ch. 12, §2 끝. 다음은 Book 1, Ch. 12, §3 (Day 74) — Passages of Scripture subversive of the Papistical distinction, and proving that religious worship is due to God alone. Perversions of Divine worship.