Day 74 — Book 1, Chapter 12, §3

Yesterday ended with three dismissive words — What if they did. Today opens with four: Laying aside subtleties. Same gesture, and now it is a method. For two days Calvin has fought on the opponent's ground — definitions, Greek lexis, the fathers, concession after concession. He now sweeps the table. Let us examine **the thing**. That noun is the third appearance in three days (§1 does not contend for a mere name; §2 the question relates not to the word, but the thing), and here it becomes the section's opening move rather than a principle held in reserve. Watch what replaces the subtleties: exhibits. Gal. 4:8, Mt. 4:10, Rev. 19:10 and 22:8–9, Acts 10:25, Zechariah. Five witnesses in twenty-three sentences, and every one of them is chosen because it does the opposite of what the distinction needs.

And notice the tactic inside the tactic. Calvin does not argue that dulia is a bad word. He argues that Scripture never lets the line hold. Paul calls idolatry did service — the δουλεία word (S2). Satan asked only for προσκύνησις, not λατρεία — and Christ still refused (S5–S6). John did not intend to give an angel God's honour — and the angel still stopped him (S7–S8). Cornelius did not intend to adore Peter instead of God — and Peter sternly forbids him (S12–S14). Four cases where the intention was innocent by the Papists' own reckoning, and four refusals anyway. Then S15 gives the reason in one line, and it is a doctrine of the human heart, not of vocabulary: men **never** distinguish **so** accurately … **as not to** transfer promiscuously. Underline that. The distinction fails not because it is unintelligible but because we are not able to keep it.

Grammatically, today is negative-degree day. The section runs on clauses that pile a negative on top of a degree on top of another negative, and if you cannot unwind them you will read three sentences backwards.

Today's 3 Big Points

1. so … as (not) to V — degree + result, with the negative in the result clause (S7, S12, S15). Three instances, rising in nastiness. S7: had **so far** forgotten himself **as to have intended** to transfer… — plain result, no negative, but with a perfect infinitive (to have intended) marking time earlier than the supposing. S12: had **not** made **so little** progress in piety **as not to** confine supreme worship to God alone — ⚠️⚠️ three negatives (not, so little, not to) and the meaning comes out positive: he had made quite enough progress, and he did confine supreme worship to God alone. S15: men **never** distinguish **so** accurately … **as not to** transfer — never + so … as not to = they always end up transferring. Rule to carry: so X as not to Y = X to the degree that prevents Y; then negate the whole and Y comes back. Count the negatives, then re-read.
2. The should family (S8, S19), and one impossible negative. S8: it was **impossible that** a worship connected with religion **should not savour** somewhat of divine worship — the putative should after an impersonal evaluative (it is impossible/strange/natural that … should), here negated: impossible that it should not = it necessarily did. Do not translate this should as ought to; it carries no obligation, only the speaker's stance on the proposition. S19: **lest** any **should** allow themselves to devise a worship of their own — lest = for fear that / in order that … not, and it already contains the negative, so ⚠️ never write lest … not. Both sentences also hang a without + gerund on the end (without derogating, and S16's without retaining) — a negative preposition that swallows a whole clause.
3. Fronting, cleaving, inversion — the parts moved out of place (S4, S6, S15, S23). S4: This superstition, (to which he gives the name of δυλια,) **he condemns** — the object is topicalized to the front and the subject he follows; restore the base order (he condemns this superstition) before you translate, or you will make superstition the subject and lose the sentence. S6: **all that** Satan asked **was** προσκυ νεσις — a pseudo-cleft with a free relative subject; the singular was agrees with all, not with what follows. S15 and S23: **that which** belongs only to God, **that which** God strictly claims as his own peculiar right — the free relative in its full two-word form; = what belongs / what he claims. And the last clause of the section inverts after a fronted degree adverb: **so prone is the descent** to this vice = the descent to this vice is so prone. Formula 3.

Trap words I will test. laying aside (S1) = setting aside, dropping — not laying down a rule. subtleties (S1) ⚠️ = over-fine distinctions, quibbles — the pejorative sense, straight from §1's the subtleties which superstition employs. did service unto (S2) = ἐδουλεύσατε — δουλεία in the Bible's own mouth, and the whole section's first exhibit. which (S2) ⚠️ = who — the relative used of persons is normal 1611/1845 English (Our Father which art in heaven); it is not an error. by nature (S2) = φύσει, in their very being — the dative of respect. excusable (S3) ⚠️ = defensible, able to be excused — the question expects the answer no. as much as if (S4) = just as much as he would have if — a counterfactual with the if-clause in the past perfect. repels (S5) = drives back, rebuts. insulting (S5) ⚠️ = insolent, contemptuous (insultare, to leap upon) — stronger than modern rude. there was no question of λατρια (S5) ⚠️ = λατρεία was not at issue at all — not there was no doubt about it. obeisance (S6) = προσκύνησις, a bow, prostration — the bodily act. rebuked (S7) = reproved. so far forgotten himself (S7) ⚠️ = so far lost his self-command — an idiom of self-possession, not memory. savour of (S8) ⚠️ = taste of, smack of, have something of — not enjoy. somewhat (S8) = to some degree. derogating from (S8) ⚠️ = detracting from, taking away part of (de-rogare, to repeal part of a law) — a legal verb: to subtract from a right. True, (S9) = granted, a one-word concession. if I may so speak (S9) = so to speak — Beveridge's ut ita loquar. civil honour (S9) ⚠️⚠️ = honour paid in the civil order — Calvin's own escape valve; today's #1 scope trap. conjoined with (S10) = joined together with. carries … along with it (S10) = brings with it as an inseparable consequence. profanation (S10) = the making common of what is holy (pro-fanum, in front of the temple, i.e. outside it). made so little progress … as not to (S12) ⚠️⚠️ = was not so backward that he failed to — today's #1 grammar trap. confine … to (S12) = restrict to. prostrates himself (S13) = throws himself down. sternly (S14) = severely. And why, but just because (S15) = and for what reason, except simply because — an elliptical question answering itself. promiscuously (S15, S23) ⚠️ = indiscriminately, without sorting (pro-miscere, to mix thoroughly) — no sexual sense; it is yesterday's without distinction in one word. appropriate (S16) ⚠️ = take to ourselves as our own (verb, ad proprium) — not the adjective suitable. the minutest portion (S16) = the smallest share. retaining (S16) ⚠️⚠️ = holding back, withholding (re-tinere) — see S16 below; today's #1 word trap. discourses concerning (S17) = speaks about, treats of. the repairing of the Church (S17) = its restoration (reparare). the reason being, that (S17) = the reason being that — a nominative absolute. been pleased to (S19) = has seen fit to. lest any should (S19) ⚠️ = for fear that anyone might. devise (S19) = contrive — §2's invented in another coat. inexpedient (S20) = not advantageous, unhelpful. dwell on (S20) = linger over. offices of piety (S21) ⚠️ = the duties/services that piety owes — officium, a duty; not a building and not a rank. bestowed … on (S21) = conferred upon. of the nature of sacrilege (S21) ⚠️ = sacrilege in kind (sacrum + legere, to gather up sacred things, i.e. temple-robbery) — the theft image returns. attached … to (S22) = fastened onto. the spoils of God (S22) ⚠️ = plunder taken from God — a battlefield word. decking (S22) = adorning, dressing up. profane (S22, v.) = to treat as common. genii (S23) ⚠️ = tutelary spirits (Lat. genius, pl. genii) — not geniuses. departed heroes (S23) = deified dead men — §2's dead men in the pagan register. prone (S23) = inclined, apt to fall (pronus, leaning forward). peculiar right (S23) ⚠️ = right belonging exclusively to him (peculium, private property) — not odd; the chapter's title word (EXCLUSIVE).

3. Laying aside subtleties, let us examine the thing. When Paul reminds the Galatians of what they were before they came to the knowledge of Gods he says that they “did service unto them which by nature are no gods,” (Gal. 4:8). Because he does not say λατρια, was their superstition excusable? This superstition, to which he gives the name of δυλια, he condemns as much as if he had given it the name of λατρια. When Christ repels Satan’s insulting proposal with the words, “It is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve,” (Mt. 4:10), there was no question of λατρια. For all that Satan asked was προσκυ νεσις (obeisance). In like manners when John is rebuked by the angel for falling on his knees before him (Rev. 19:10; 22:8, 9), we ought not to suppose that John had so far forgotten himself as to have intended to transfer the honour due to God alone to an angel. But because it was impossible that a worship connected with religion should not savour somewhat of divine worship, he could not προσκυ νει ν (do obeisance to) the angel without derogating from the glory of God. True, we often read that men were worshipped; but that was, if I may so speak, civil honour. The case is different with religious honour, which, the moment it is conjoined with worship, carries profanation of the divine honour along with it. The same thing may be seen in the case of Cornelius (Acts 10:25). He had not made so little progress in piety as not to confine supreme worship to God alone. Therefore, when he prostrates himself before Peter, he certainly does it not with the intention of adoring him instead of God. Yet Peter sternly forbids him. And why, but just because men never distinguish so accurately between the worship of God and the creatures as not to transfer promiscuously to the creature that which belongs only to God. Therefore, if we would have one God, let us remember that we can never appropriate the minutest portion of his glory without retaining what is his due. Accordingly, when Zechariah discourses concerning the repairing of the Church, he distinctly says not only that there would be one God, but also that he would have only one name—the reason being, that he might have nothing in common with idols. The nature of the worship which God requires will be seen in its own place (Book 2, c. 7 and 8). He has been pleased to prescribe in his Law what is lawful and right, and thus restrict men to a certain rule, lest any should allow themselves to devise a worship of their own. But as it is inexpedient to burden the reader by mixing up a variety of topics, I do not now dwell on this one. Let it suffice to remember, that whatever offices of piety are bestowed anywhere else than on God alone, are of the nature of sacrilege. First, superstition attached divine honours to the sun and stars, or to idols: afterwards ambition followed—ambition which, decking man in the spoils of God, dared to profane all that was sacred. And though the principle of worshipping a supreme Deity continued to be held, still the practice was to sacrifice promiscuously to genii and minor gods, or departed heroes: so prone is the descent to this vice of communicating to a crowd that which God strictly claims as his own peculiar right!

Sentence count: 23 (S1–S23). One paragraph. This section closes Chapter 12.

Text note (not a correction to the quotation). Five things about the printed page, all left as they stand. (i) The Greek is mangled by the scanner in three ways, all familiar from Days 66 and 73. λατρια (S3, S4, S5) and δυλια (S4) are the vowel-dropped corruption of λατρεία and δουλεία. προσκυ νεσις (S6) and προσκυ νει ν (S8) are the split-word corruption — Beveridge set προσκύνησις (obeisance) and προσκυνεῖν (to do obeisance), and the scanner has broken each after προσκυ. Reproduced as printed; memorise only the corrected forms. (ii) Two commas have been read as the letter s. S2: before they came to the knowledge of Gods he says — Beveridge has of God, he says; the printed Gods is the scan, not a plural. S7: In like manners when John is rebuked — Beveridge has In like manner, when John…. Both left as printed, both flagged here so you do not learn a false form. (iii) A page break falls inside S22, between superstition attached and divine honours to the sun and stars, with the margin page number 107 in between; closed up, number removed. (iv) A second page break falls inside S23, between so prone is the descent and to this vice of communicating, with the page number 111 and the running header (CHAPTER 12. - GOD DISTINGUISHED FROM IDOLS…) in between; closed up, header and number removed. (v) No footnote markers in this section, and no reference is printed for the Zechariah passage in S17 — it is Zech. 14:9, supplied in Period 7, not in the quotation. honour, honours, savour are British spellings; Mt. 4:10 is Beveridge's abbreviation. Nothing else altered.

[METHOD TURN]    S1      "Laying aside SUBTLETIES, let us examine THE THING"   ← concessions over
[EXHIBIT 1]      S2      Gal. 4:8 — Paul calls idolatry "DID SERVICE" (= δουλεία)
                 S3-S4   so: is it excusable because he did not say λατρεία?  → he condemns it
                         "AS MUCH AS IF he had given it the name of λατρια"
[EXHIBIT 2]      S5-S6   Mt. 4:10 — "there was NO QUESTION OF λατρια": all Satan asked
                         was προσκύνησις — and Christ still refuses
[EXHIBIT 3]      S7-S8   Rev. 19:10; 22:8-9 — John did NOT intend to transfer God's honour,
                         BUT "IMPOSSIBLE that a worship connected with religion SHOULD NOT
                         SAVOUR somewhat of divine worship" → could not bow "WITHOUT DEROGATING"
[GUARDRAIL]      S9-S10  men ARE bowed to — but that is "CIVIL HONOUR"; religious honour,
                         "THE MOMENT it is conjoined with worship," carries profanation
[EXHIBIT 4]      S11-S14 Acts 10:25 — Cornelius: "had NOT made SO LITTLE progress … AS NOT TO
                         confine supreme worship to God" → innocent intention → "YET Peter
                         STERNLY FORBIDS him"
[THE REASON]     S15   ★ "men NEVER distinguish SO accurately … AS NOT TO transfer
                         PROMISCUOUSLY to the creature THAT WHICH belongs only to God"
[THE RULE]       S16   ★ "we can NEVER appropriate the MINUTEST PORTION of his glory
                         WITHOUT RETAINING what is his due"                  ← retaining = withholding
[EXHIBIT 5]      S17     Zech. 14:9 — not only ONE GOD but ONE NAME: "nothing in common with idols"
[DEFERRAL]       S18-S20 the nature of true worship → Book 2 cc. 7-8; the Law as the rule,
                         "LEST any should DEVISE a worship of their own"; "I do not now dwell"
[VERDICT]        S21     "whatever OFFICES OF PIETY are bestowed anywhere else than on God alone,
                         are OF THE NATURE OF SACRILEGE"
[GENEALOGY]      S22-S23 stars/idols → AMBITION "decking man in the SPOILS OF GOD" → genii,
                         minor gods, DEPARTED HEROES: "SO PRONE IS THE DESCENT to this vice
                         of communicating TO A CROWD that which God strictly claims as his
                         own PECULIAR RIGHT!"                                ← chapter ends

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

Trap 1 — the scope of because in S3. Because he does not say λατρια, was their superstition excusable? The because-clause is inside the question; it is the proposed ground being tested, not a reason for asking. Unpack: Was their superstition excusable on the ground that Paul does not use the word λατρεία? Expected answer: no — and S4 supplies it. An item will offer "Calvin explains that he asks the question because Paul does not use the word λατρεία." That reads the clause as a reason for the asking. Wrong level.

Trap 2 — civil honour (S9). True, we often read that men were worshipped; but that was, if I may so speak, civil honour. ⚠️ Calvin is not saying that everyone in Scripture who bowed to a man sinned. He is drawing a line — and the line is the one thing in this section that protects him from absurdity (Abraham bowed to the Hittites; David bowed to Saul). An item will say "Calvin holds that every act of bowing recorded in Scripture is a violation of God's honour." False — S9 is an explicit concession, and S10 tells you what makes the difference: the moment it is **conjoined with worship**. The test is not the posture; it is the religious connection.

Trap 3 — S12, the triple negative. He had not made so little progress in piety as not to confine supreme worship to God alone. Count: not + so little + not to. Meaning: Cornelius did reserve supreme worship for God. He was well instructed, not ignorant. An item will read "Cornelius' piety was still so undeveloped that he did not reserve supreme worship for God alone" — the exact inversion, and it is the single easiest mark to lose today. And the whole argument depends on getting it right: the point of the Cornelius case is that the man's theology was sound and the act was still forbidden.

Trap 4 — why Peter forbids (S13–S15). S13 says explicitly that Cornelius certainly does it **not** with the intention of adoring him instead of God. So the prohibition is not because Cornelius meant idolatry. S15 gives the reason: men **never** distinguish **so** accurately … **as not to** transfer promiscuously. The ground is the incapacity of the human heart to keep the line, not the wickedness of this man's intention. An item that says "Peter forbids Cornelius because Cornelius intended to worship him as a god" contradicts S13 outright — and an item that says "Calvin concedes that where the intention is sound the act is permissible" inverts the section's whole argument. Four exhibits, four innocent intentions, four refusals.

Trap 5 — retaining (S16). we can never appropriate the minutest portion of his glory **without retaining what is his due**. Modern ear: retain = keep for oneself, so the sentence appears to say we may take God's glory as long as we keep back what is owed him — which is nonsense, and reverses the argument. The Latinate sense is the live one: retain < re-tinere, to hold back, i.e. to withhold from him. Read: we cannot take even the smallest part of his glory without withholding from him what is his due. If an item offers a paraphrase with keep or preserve, check it against the argument, not against your ear.

Formula 1 — degree + result with a negative inside: so … as (not) to V (S7, S12, S15)

   BASE          S + V + so + ADJ/ADV + as to V        = to such a degree that S V-s
                 so far forgotten himself AS TO HAVE INTENDED …        (S7)

   NEG-RESULT    S + V + so + ADJ/ADV + AS NOT TO V    = precisely enough to avoid V-ing
                 distinguish so accurately AS NOT TO transfer

   + NEG MATRIX  S + did NOT + … so little … AS NOT TO V   →  POSITIVE
                 "had NOT made SO LITTLE progress AS NOT TO confine"   (S12)
                 = he DID confine.                      [3 negatives → affirmative]

   + NEVER       S + NEVER + … so … AS NOT TO V          →  "S ALWAYS V-s"
                 "men NEVER distinguish so accurately AS NOT TO transfer"  (S15)
                 = they ALWAYS transfer.

   TENSE NOTE    as to HAVE INTENDED  ≠  as to intend
                 perfect infinitive = time PRIOR to the main verb (S7)

⚠️ Traps. (a) Never merge never with not to — they negate different things (the degree, and the avoided result). (b) so little X as not to Y under a negated matrix comes out affirmative; count on paper before you translate. (c) After so … as, use as to V, not that to V and not so as for V-ing. (d) The perfect infinitive is not decorative — flatten it and you shift the timeline.

Transformation drill. 루터는 그 구별을 알아보지 못할 만큼 무지하지 않았다. 그러나 사람들은 결코 그 선을 지킬 만큼 정확히 구별하지 못한다.

Model: Luther had not made so little progress in learning as not to recognise the distinction. But men never distinguish so accurately as not to lose the line. 채점 포인트: not … so little … as not to must produce a positive claim about Luther; never … so … as not to must produce a universal negative about men; both keep as **to**, not that.

Formula 2 — the should family, and negative purpose (S8, S19; with S16's without + gerund)

   PUTATIVE      It is impossible / strange / natural  THAT  S  SHOULD (NOT) V
                 "impossible that a worship … SHOULD NOT SAVOUR somewhat of …"  (S8)
                 ⚠️ should ≠ ought to.  It marks the clause as ENTERTAINED, not commanded.
                 impossible that … should NOT V   =   it NECESSARILY DID V

   NEG-PURPOSE   … , LEST  S  SHOULD V        = so that S may NOT V
                 "LEST any SHOULD allow themselves to devise a worship of their own"  (S19)
                 ⚠️ lest ALREADY contains the negative → NEVER "lest … not"
                 also: lest he FORGET (bare subjunctive) = lest he should forget

   ABSOLUTE      NP + being + that-clause                   = the reason for this being that…
                 "the reason BEING, that he might have nothing in common with idols"  (S17)

   WITHOUT       … WITHOUT V-ing  = with the inseparable consequence of V-ing
                 "could not … WITHOUT DEROGATING from the glory of God"      (S8)
                 "can never appropriate … WITHOUT RETAINING what is his due"  (S16)
                 ⚠️ retaining here = re-tinere, HOLDING BACK from him

⚠️ Traps. (a) Three shoulds in one week — putative (S8, stance), mandative (Day 72 enjoins that … be, command), negative-purpose (S19 lest … should). Name which one before you translate. (b) impossible that … should not cancels to a necessity, not to a doubt. (c) without + gerund states what unavoidably accompanies the act — it is not a condition you can satisfy.

Transformation drill. 어떤 성인에게 바치는 기도도 신적 예배의 맛을 풍기지 않을 수 없었다. 그러므로 하나님은 아무도 자기 나름의 예배를 고안하지 못하도록 규칙을 정하셨다.

Model: It was impossible that any prayer offered to a saint should not savour somewhat of divine worship. God therefore prescribed a certain rule, lest any should devise a worship of his own. 채점 포인트: ① impossible that … **should not** savour — keep both negatives; impossible that it savoured loses the construction. ② lest any **should** devise — no not, and no in order that … not to. ③ savour **of** keeps its preposition.

Formula 3 — moved parts: fronting, cleaving, inversion, and that which (S4, S5, S6, S15, S23)

   OBJECT FRONT  [OBJECT], … S + V(no object)          ← restore base order first
                 "This superstition, (to which …,) HE CONDEMNS as much as if …"   (S4)
                 "and HIM ONLY shalt thou serve"                                  (S5, AV)
                 Diagnostic: a transitive verb with an EMPTY object slot = the seat.

   PSEUDO-CLEFT  ALL (that) S V-ed + BE + X            = the only thing S V-ed was X
                 "ALL that Satan asked WAS προσκύνησις"                            (S6)
                 ⚠️ singular BE agrees with "all", not with what follows.

   FREE RELATIVE THAT WHICH = what        (long form used at distance from its verb)
                 "transfer … to the creature THAT WHICH belongs only to God"       (S15)
                 "communicating to a crowd THAT WHICH God strictly claims"          (S23)

   SO-INVERSION  SO + ADJ + BE + SUBJECT                = the subject is so ADJ
                 "SO PRONE IS THE DESCENT to this vice …!"                          (S23)
                 ⚠️ NOT "so prone the descent is"; the fronted degree phrase FORCES inversion.

   COUNTERFACT.  … AS MUCH AS IF + S + HAD + p.p.       = just as much as he would have if …
                 "he condemns … AS MUCH AS IF he HAD GIVEN it the name of λατρια"   (S4)

⚠️ Traps. (a) A fronted object is not a subject — find the verb with the empty slot. (b) all that … was takes a singular verb. (c) so + ADJ at the front of a clause requires inversion; leaving S–V order is the classic underline error. (d) as much as if + past perfect is a counterfactual, not a comparison of two real things.

Transformation drill. 이 관습을, 교부들이 관용이라 부르는 이 관습을, 그는 우상숭배라 불렀을 경우와 똑같이 정죄한다. 사탄이 요구한 전부는 절 한 번이었다. 이 악덕으로 기우는 경사가 참으로 가파르다!

Model: This custom, to which the fathers give the name of indulgence, he condemns as much as if he had called it idolatry. All that Satan asked was a single bow. So steep is the descent to this vice! 채점 포인트: ① the object This custom must be fronted, with he condemns following and no object after the verb. ② as much as if he **had** called — past perfect, counterfactual. ③ All that Satan asked **was** — singular. ④ So steep **is the descent** — inversion; So steep the descent is scores zero.

Where we are, and what closes today. Chapter 12 has three sections and today finishes it. §1 (Day 72) built the rule: unless everything peculiar to divinity is confined to God alone, he is robbed of his honour. §2 (Day 73) took up the evasion — the dulia/latria distinction — and beat it on its own terms. §3 sweeps the terms away (Laying aside subtleties) and brings Scripture. Notice that the chapter is deliberately negative throughout: three times now Calvin has deferred the positive doctrine of worship to Book 2 (§1 twice, S18 today). Chapter 12's whole job is to establish that the unity of God is not a numeral but an exclusive right of worship — which is exactly the premise Chapter 13 will have to hold on to while saying one essence, three persons.

The method: four refusals with innocent intentions. Read the exhibits as a set and the design is unmistakable. Gal. 4:8 — Paul names pagan cult with the δουλεία word, the very word the defence claims is safe (S2–S4). Mt. 4:10 — Satan asked only for προσκύνησις, and Christ answered with the λατρεύσεις commandment (S5–S6). Rev. 19:10; 22:8–9 — John's intention was not to give an angel God's honour, and the angel stopped him anyway (S7–S8). Acts 10:25 — Cornelius' theology was sound, and Peter sternly forbids him (S11–S14). Three of the four turn on intention being irrelevant, and that is the argumentative point of the whole section: the dulia/latria scheme is a scheme about what you mean, and Calvin's exhibits are all cases where meaning well did not help.

Why Exhibit 2 is aimed where it is. Yesterday's Period 6 gave you the conciliar background: Nicaea II (787) authorised images by grading the vocabulary — τιμητικὴ προσκύνησις (honorific veneration) for images and saints, ἀληθινὴ λατρεία (true worship) for God alone, following John of Damascus, who had sorted προσκύνησις into an absolute kind owed to God and relative kinds owed to what is connected with him. Now look at what Calvin does today. He picks the one narrative in the Gospels where the request on the table is exactly προσκύνησις and not λατρεία — and shows that Christ refused it with the λατρεία text. That is not a general appeal to Scripture; it is a strike at the precise word the council used. The same for John: the angel refuses προσκύνησις (Rev. 19:10, καὶ ἔπεσα ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ προσκυνῆσαι αὐτῷ … ὅρα μή), and answers with σύνδουλός σού εἰμι — I am thy fellow-servant**, the δοῦλος root inside the refusal. Calvin never cites Nicaea II here. He does not have to; his reader knows which vocabulary is being dismantled.

The guardrail Calvin builds himself: civil honour (S9–S10). This is the most important qualification in the section, and it is the one students skip. Scripture is full of people bowing to people — Abraham to the children of Heth (Gen. 23:7), David to Saul (1 Sam. 24:8), the woman of Tekoa to David (2 Sam. 14:4), Bathsheba to the king (1 Kgs. 1:16) — with the same Hebrew verb (הִשְׁתַּחֲוָה, hishtaḥawah) and the same Greek verb (προσκυνέω) used elsewhere of worshipping God. If Calvin's rule were never bow to a creature, the Bible refutes him immediately. So the line is drawn not at the posture and not at the intention but at the sphere: the moment it is conjoined with worship. Honour inside the civil order is lawful; honour inside the religious order is God's alone. Hold that limit, because without it Calvin's argument becomes the absurdity his opponents accused him of, and with it his position is coherent and narrow. (It is also why later Reformed conscience-cases about kneeling and doffing hats had to be argued case by case: everything turns on whether the act is conjoined with worship, and that is a judgement, not a rule.)

S19 and the seed of the regulative principle. He has been pleased to prescribe in his Law what is lawful and right, and thus restrict men to a certain rule, **lest any should allow themselves to devise a worship of their own**. That sentence, with §1's it is designed as a bridle to curb men and I.4.3's whatever they themselves devise, is the root of what later Reformed theology systematised as the regulative principle of worship — worship is to be shaped by what God has commanded, not by what seems fitting to us — and it is stated in the Westminster Confession (21.1) as the rule that acceptable worship is instituted by himself and limited by his own revealed will. Calvin's own priority is on record: in The Necessity of Reforming the Church (1543) he put the mode of worship first among the things at stake in the Reformation, before justification. Read S19 as the hinge between doctrine and church practice, and Chapter 12 stops being an abstract argument about words.

The genealogy in S22–S23, and the limit on it. The two-stage story — first the heavenly bodies and images, then ambition and the deified dead — is a version of euhemerism, the ancient theory (from Euhemerus, c. 300 BC) that the gods were once men, transmitted to Latin readers by Cicero and by Lactantius. Those are the two authors Beveridge's footnote to §1 cites (De Natura Deorum II.28; Divinae Institutiones IV.28), and Calvin uses them the way he used Cicero on the sensus divinitatis in I.3 — as hostile or pagan witnesses whose own account of religion convicts it. The scriptural half of the picture is real enough: astral cult is condemned again and again (Deut. 4:19; 17:3; 2 Kgs. 17:16; 23:5; Jer. 8:2; Job 31:26–28), and the deuterocanonical Wisdom 14:15 gives the classic account of images born from grief for the dead. ⚠️ The guardrail: do not take S22–S23 as a documented history of religion. It is a theological reading of a tendency, and it is offered as one — the sentence ends not with evidence but with an exclamation about the slope: so prone is the descent. Modern study of ancient religion does not support a single descending sequence from star-worship to hero-cult; the pattern varies. What Calvin's genealogy is good for is the thing he actually claims: that the corruption is downhill and easy, which is S15 in the form of a landscape.

How strong is the section, ranked honestly. (1) Mt. 4:10 / Rev. 19:10 — the strongest, because they are cases where the lower act was requested or offered and was still refused, and Rome's own defence is built on exactly that grading. (2) S15's anthropology — that men never hold the line — is powerful and, notice, empirical: it can be granted by an opponent who then replies that abuse does not abolish use. (3) Gal. 4:8 — a real point about biblical usage, but it proves that the words are not technical, which is a lexical result, and Calvin has already said the words are not the question. (4) Acts 10:25 — the weakest as proof, because Peter's I myself also am a man (Acts 10:26) can be read as personal modesty rather than principle; Calvin's reading is defensible but not forced. Rome's answer, then and now, is the one from yesterday: latria is a stipulated term fixed by its object (the Creator as first principle), so ordinary usage cannot settle it, and the Council of Trent — Session 25, December 1563, four years after this text and months before Calvin's death — reaffirmed the invocation of saints and the honouring of images, as the current Catechism (§2132) still does. Quote Calvin's exhibits as exhibits, not as a knock-down.

The bridge to tomorrow. Chapter 12 ends with God strictly claim[ing] his own peculiar right, and with S17's demand that he have only one name. Tomorrow, Chapter 13 §1 opens the longest and most technical chapter of Book 1 — the Trinity — and it must say one essence, three persons without giving anything back to the crowd. Watch how Calvin gets there: he begins from the immensity and spirituality of God, which is the same anti-idolatry argument carried one step further inward. The chapter you finish today is the floor the doctrine of the Trinity stands on.

1. Gal. 4:8 — quoted in full (S2). ἀλλὰ τότε μὲν οὐκ εἰδότες θεὸν ἐδουλεύσατε τοῖς φύσει μὴ οὖσιν θεοῖς — howbeit then, when ye knew not God, ye did service unto them which by nature are no gods. Calvin's use: Exhibit 1, and it cashes the promissory note of §2 S5 (the words are sometimes used in Scripture indiscriminately). The Apostle labels idolatry itself with the δουλεία word. Note φύσει — not a lower grade of deity, but no gods at all.
2. Mt. 4:10, quoting Deut. 6:13 — quoted in full (S5). Ὕπαγε, Σατανᾶ· γέγραπται γάρ· Κύριον τὸν θεόν σου προσκυνήσεις καὶ αὐτῷ μόνῳ λατρεύσεις; Hebrew אֶת־יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ תִּירָא וְאֹתוֹ תַעֲבֹד. Calvin's use: Exhibit 2, and the sharpest. The exclusive word only is attached to the serve verb (λατρεύσεις; Vulg. illi soli servies), and Christ deploys it against a request for a mere bow. Yesterday's reversal (to serve is something higher than to worship) has its root here.
3. Rev. 19:10; 22:8–9 — cited (S7–S8). καὶ ἔπεσα ἔμπροσθεν τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ προσκυνῆσαι αὐτῷ. καὶ λέγει μοι· ὅρα μή· σύνδουλός σού εἰμι … τῷ θεῷ προσκύνησον — See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant … worship God. Calvin's use: Exhibit 3, and the reason angels came first in §2's angels and dead men — the New Testament supplies explicit refusals**, and a refusal outweighs an argument. The δοῦλος root sits inside the refusal itself.
4. Acts 10:25–26 — cited (S11–S14). πεσὼν ἐπὶ τοὺς πόδας προσεκύνησεν … ὁ δὲ Πέτρος ἤγειρεν αὐτὸν λέγων· ἀνάστηθι· καὶ ἐγὼ αὐτὸς ἄνθρωπός εἰμι — Stand up; I myself also am a man. Calvin's use: Exhibit 4, chosen because Cornelius is devout and well instructed (Acts 10:2) — S12's not so little progress in piety. Sound theology, innocent intention, and Peter refuses anyway.
5. Zech. 14:9 — paraphrased, no reference printed (S17). וְהָיָה יְהוָה לְמֶלֶךְ עַל־כָּל־הָאָרֶץ בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא יִהְיֶה יְהוָה אֶחָד וּשְׁמוֹ אֶחָד — in that day shall there be one LORD, and his name one. Calvin's use: Exhibit 5, and the only positive one. Monotheism is not a count but an exclusive name** — that he might have nothing in common with idols. Behind it stands the Shema, Deut. 6:4, יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ יְהוָה אֶחָד.
6. Exod. 20:3–5 — under divine honours and the whole argument (S16, S19, S21). לֹא־תִשְׁתַּחֲוֶה לָהֶם וְלֹא תָעָבְדֵם, LXX οὐ προσκυνήσεις αὐτοῖς οὐδὲ μὴ λατρεύσῃς αὐτοῖς — thou shalt not bow down to them, nor serve them. ⚠️ Both verbs, joined, forbidding both acts toward creatures. Calvin's use: the second commandment leaves no grade of honour open — which is why the Law is the bridle of §1 and the certain rule of S19.
7. Isa. 42:8 — under derogating from the glory of God and the minutest portion (S8, S16). אֲנִי יְהוָה הוּא שְׁמִי וּכְבוֹדִי לְאַחֵר לֹא־אֶתֵּן — I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another. Calvin's use: the property claim underneath S16 and S23. Note that the verse joins name and glory, exactly as S17 joins one God and one name.
8. Gen. 23:7; 1 Sam. 24:8; 2 Sam. 14:4; 1 Kgs. 1:16 — under civil honour (S9). All use הִשְׁתַּחֲוָה / προσκυνέω of men bowing to men, with no censure. Calvin's use: the counter-evidence he raises against himself. These texts are why S9 exists, and why the line is drawn at conjoined with worship and not at the posture.
9. Deut. 4:19; 2 Kgs. 17:16; 23:5; Job 31:26–28 — under the sun and stars (S22). צְבָא הַשָּׁמַיִם, the host of heaven; and Job's oath — if I beheld the sun when it shined … and my heart hath been secretly enticed. Calvin's use: stage one of the genealogy is not invented; it is the Old Testament's own most frequent idolatry.
10. Rom. 1:23, 25 — under the descent of S22–S23. ἤλλαξαν τὴν δόξαν τοῦ ἀφθάρτου θεοῦ ἐν ὁμοιώματι εἰκόνος φθαρτοῦ ἀνθρώπου … ἐλάτρευσαν τῇ κτίσει παρὰ τὸν κτίσαντα — worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator. ⚠️ Paul uses the λατρεία verb of creature-worship, the mirror image of Gal. 4:8's δουλεία. Calvin's use: unstated here, but it is the engine of the closing sentence — the exchange of glory, and the slope.
11. Jas. 2:19; Ps. 96:5 — under genii and minor gods (S23). Not quoted; the frame is Scripture's flat refusal of a middle tier between the Creator and the creature. Calvin's use: the crowd of S23 has no ontological standing at all — which is Gal. 4:8's by nature are no gods returning at the end of the section that began with it.

How Calvin uses Scripture here: by case law. §2 argued from definitions and from the fathers; §3 produces incidents — a rebuke, a refusal, a prohibition — and reads them as precedents. That is why the section keeps saying what people did not intend (S7, S13): in a case-law argument, the holding is what the court did, not what the parties meant. And the closing verdict, of the nature of sacrilege (S21), is a classification of an act, not an assessment of a heart.

① Grammar — which underlined part is wrong?

He ⓐ had not made so little progress in piety as not to confine supreme worship to God alone. For ⓑ all that Satan asked was προσκύνησις, and Christ still refused him. God has been pleased to prescribe in his Law what is lawful and right, ⓒ lest any should not allow themselves to devise a worship of their own. And though the principle of worshipping a supreme Deity continued to be held, ⓓ so prone is the descent to this vice of communicating to a crowd that which God strictly claims as his own.

✨ 답안 보기 (클릭)정답 · Answer: ⓒ. Lest already contains the negative (= for fear that … / so that … not), so lest any should **not** allow themselves to devise says the opposite of what is meant — that God gave the Law so that people would invent their own worship. Correct: lest any **should allow** themselves to devise a worship of their own. ⓐ is Formula 1 at its hardest — not … so little … as not to — and it is right: three negatives resolving to he did confine. ⓑ is Formula 3's pseudo-cleft, and the singular was correctly agrees with all. ⓓ is Formula 3's inversion after a fronted so + adjective, which is obligatory, not optional. Exam-setter's rationale: yesterday's error was an absence (a dropped preposition); today's is an addition — one superfluous not hidden inside a sentence surrounded by three constructions that look wrong and are not. The lesson is the reverse of yesterday's: when a sentence is already dense with negatives, count them and cancel them; do not decide by ear. And know which words carry a negative inside them — lest, unless, hardly, scarcely, deny, fail, little.

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

(A) Cornelius' piety was still so undeveloped that he did not reserve supreme worship for God alone, and this is why Peter forbade him. (B) Calvin argues that Peter forbade Cornelius not because Cornelius meant to adore him in God's place, but because men never distinguish accurately enough between the worship of God and the creatures to avoid transferring to the creature what belongs only to God. (C) Calvin holds that every recorded instance in Scripture of men being bowed to is a violation of the honour due to God. (D) Calvin observes that Satan expressly demanded λατρεία from Christ, and that this is what made Christ's refusal absolute.

✨ 답안 보기 (클릭)정답 · Answer: (B). S13 + S15 together: he certainly does it **not** with the intention of adoring him instead of God … And why, but just because men **never** distinguish **so** accurately … **as not to** transfer promiscuously to the creature that which belongs only to God. Exam-setter's rationale: (A) is the direction-flip on S12, and it is the single most productive wrong answer on this section — had **not** made **so little** progress … **as not to** confine means Cornelius did confine supreme worship to God; the option reverses a triple negative and then bolts on a false causal claim that S13 explicitly denies. (C) is scope-overreach on S9 — Calvin concedes we often read that men were worshipped and calls it civil honour; the line falls where the act is conjoined with worship (S10), not on the posture. (D) is the direction-flip on S5–S6 and it destroys the argument it pretends to report: there was **no question** of λατρια, because all that Satan asked was προσκύνησις — the whole force of the exhibit is that Christ refused the lesser request with the greater commandment. Anyone who reads there was no question of λατρια as there was no doubt about latria will choose (D).

③ Composition — apply Formulas 1, 2 and 3

Translate, using not … so little … as not to and never … so … as not to for the first pair, impossible that … should not + lest … should for the second, and so + ADJ + BE + subject inversion for the last:

(1) 그는 그 구별을 지키지 못할 만큼 배움이 모자라지는 않았다. 그러나 사람들은 결코 피조물에게 하나님의 것을 넘겨주지 않을 만큼 정확히 구별하지 못한다. (2) 종교와 결합된 어떤 영예도 신적 예배의 맛을 풍기지 않을 수 없었다. 그러므로 하나님은 아무도 자기 나름의 예배를 고안하지 못하도록 일정한 규칙을 정하셨다. (3) 이 악덕으로 내려가는 경사가 참으로 가파르다!

모범답안 · Model: He had not made so little progress in learning as not to keep the distinction. But men never distinguish so accurately as not to transfer to the creature that which belongs only to God. It was impossible that any honour conjoined with religion should not savour somewhat of divine worship; God therefore prescribed a certain rule, lest any should devise a worship of their own. So prone is the descent to this vice! 채점 포인트: ① not … so little … as not to keep must come out affirmative — he did keep the distinction; writing so little … as to keep inverts it. ② never … so accurately **as not to** transfer must come out universal — they always transfer; and keep as **to**, not that. ③ impossible that … **should not** savour — both negatives, and savour **of** keeps its preposition; impossible that … savoured loses the putative should. ④ lest any **should** devise — ⚠️ no not, and not in order that … should not. ⑤ **So prone is** the descent — the fronted so + ADJ forces subject–verb inversion; So prone the descent is scores zero on the formula. ⑥ Bonus mark for **that which** belongs only to God rather than bare what — the long free relative at distance from its verb, as Beveridge writes it in S15 and S23.

One-line summary. **Laying aside subtleties**, let us examine **the thing** (S1) — and the thing is five exhibits, every one of them a refusal. Paul calls pagan cult **did service** unto them which **by nature** are no gods (S2), so **was their superstition excusable** because he did not say λατρεία (S3)? No: This superstition … **he condemns as much as if** he had given it the name of λατρια (S4). Christ answers Satan with **him only shalt thou serve**, and yet **there was no question of** λατρια — **all that Satan asked was** προσκύνησις (S5–S6). John did not **so far** forget himself **as to have intended** to transfer the honour due to God alone to an angel (S7), but it was **impossible that** a worship connected with religion **should not savour** somewhat of divine worship, so he could not bow **without derogating from** the glory of God (S8). **True**, men are bowed to — but that was … **civil honour** (S9), whereas religious honour, **the moment** it is conjoined with worship, **carries profanation** … along with it (S10). Cornelius had **not** made **so little** progress in piety **as not to** confine supreme worship to God alone (S12), and certainly does it **not with the intention of** adoring him instead of God (S13) — **Yet Peter sternly forbids him** (S14). Why? Because men **never** distinguish **so** accurately … **as not to** transfer **promiscuously** to the creature **that which** belongs only to God (S15). Therefore we can **never appropriate the minutest portion** of his glory **without retaining** what is his due (S16) — Zechariah's restored Church has **not only** … one God, **but also** … only **one name**, that he might have **nothing in common with idols** (S17). True worship waits for Book 2 (S18); the Law is the **certain rule**, given **lest** any **should** allow themselves to **devise** a worship of their own (S19–S20); and the verdict is flat: whatever **offices of piety** are bestowed anywhere else than on God alone, are **of the nature of sacrilege** (S21). Then the genealogy — stars and idols, then **ambition** … **decking man in the spoils of God** (S22) — and the last line of the chapter: **so prone is the descent** to this vice of **communicating to a crowd that which God strictly claims as his own peculiar right!** (S23). The distinction fails not because the words are unintelligible but because we cannot keep them apart: four innocent intentions, four refusals, and a slope that runs one way.

Grammar, the three to carry out of here. ① so … as (not) to V — degree + result with the negative in the result: so far … as to **have intended** (perfect infinitive = prior time, S7); **not** … **so little** … **as not to** = affirmative (S12); **never** … so … **as not to** = always (S15). Count the negatives on paper, cancel, then translate. ② the should family — putative impossible that … **should not** savour = it necessarily did (S8), against Day 72's mandative enjoins that … be and today's negative-purpose **lest** any **should** (S19, ⚠️ never lest … not); plus the nominative absolute the reason **being**, that (S17) and the consequence-without of **without derogating** (S8) and **without retaining** (S16, = withholding). ③ moved parts — object fronting (This superstition … **he condemns**, S4; **him only** shalt thou serve, S5), the pseudo-cleft with singular agreement (**all that** Satan asked **was**, S6), the long free relative **that which** (S15, S23), the counterfactual **as much as if** he **had given** (S4), and the obligatory inversion after a fronted degree phrase (**so prone is the descent**, S23).

Homework (10 min).

1. 구조 복원. Take S12 and S15 and write each one out with the negatives numbered above the words (1, 2, 3). Then write, in one line each, the plain affirmative that the sentence actually asserts. Second, take S4 and mark the fronted object, draw an arrow to the empty object slot after condemns, and rewrite the sentence in base order. Third, rewrite S23 without inversion (the descent to this vice is so prone that…) and complete the result clause Calvin left as an exclamation mark — what is the result he does not state? Answer in one line: why does Calvin insist, twice (S7, S13), that the intention was innocent?
2. 영작. Using Formula 1, write one sentence of the form S had not V-ed so little … as not to … that comes out affirmative, and one of the form S never … so … as not to … that comes out universal. Then, using Formula 2, write a sentence beginning It was impossible that … with should not inside it, and attach a lest … should clause to it. Test: does your lest clause contain no not? Does your impossible that … should not cancel to a necessity? Does your as take to and not that?
3. 내일 예습 한 줄. Chapter 12 is finished. Tomorrow is Book 1, Chapter 13, §1 — The unity of the divine essence in three persons taught, in Scripture, from the foundation of the world — the longest and most technical chapter of Book 1, and it opens on God's immensity and spiritual essence as the two things that check our presumption and crush every gross idea of him. Ask yourself tonight: today's chapter has just spent three sections proving that God will share his name with nothing. What kind of doctrine of three persons can be built on that floor without giving anything back to the crowd?

Where we stopped: Book 1, Ch. 12, §3 끝. Chapter 12 완료. 다음은 Book 1, Ch. 13, §1 (Day 75) — The unity of the divine essence in three persons taught, in Scripture, from the foundation of the world.