the world. That the word "monarchiæ" he renders "empires," without regard to any particular form of government, is most manifest, from the use of it in the comment on the very next verse; where, after the example of his inspired author, the expositor applies it to the Roman empire under its popular government. From this general observation upon the baleful influence of overgrown empires upon the happiness and morals of man, he draws this conclusion: "Hence it appears, how great is the folly and madness of the generality, who desire to have kings of irresistible power; which is just the same as to desire a river of irresistible rapidity, as Isaiah speaks, exposing this folly:" and again, "They are altogether mad who desire monarchies of the first magnitude; for it cannot be but that political order should be much impaired where a single person occupies so wide a space." It is evident that this passage expresses no general disapprobation of monarchy, but of absolute monarchy,—of the arbitrary rule of one man, -of such arbitrary rule stretched over a vast extent of country, and of such extensive arbitrary dominion founded upon conquest. In truth, irresistible military force is the specific thing intended under the epithet "potentissimos ;" as appears by the reference to the prophet Isaiah; for that is the power represented by Isaiah under the image of a flood, when he would expose the folly of those who court the alliance of such princes. And it is to be observed, that though such power is reprobated in speculation, as what none but a madman could wish to see in its plenitude, yet it is not said, nor is it insinuated, that the govern *«Quo sese longius extendunt monarchiæ, eo etiam plus licentiæ in mundo grassatur." † "Unde apparet, quanta sit omnium fere stultitia et vesania, qui cupiunt habere reges potentissimos; perinde ac siquis appeteret fluvium rapidissimum, quemadmodum Iesaias loquitur, coarguens hanc stultitiam.” "Prorsus igitur delirant, qui appetunt summas monarchias; quia fieri non potest, quin tantundem decedat ex legitimo ordine, ubi unus occupat tam latum spatium." ment of a conqueror is not to be quietly submitted to, when once his dominion is established, or that conquest may not be the foundation of a just title to dominion. It is only in a loose translation, in which the natural force of the epithets "potentissimos" and "summas" is neglected, and their specific application in these sentences, taken in connection with the entire discourse, overlooked, that the passage can appear as a sly insinuation against monarchical government in general, or an oblique hint to the subjects of any monarchy to rise in rebellion against their prince. Chapter iv. 25. "Till thou know that the Most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will."― Upon this passage Calvin remarks, that “it teaches us how difficult it is for us to ascribe supreme power to God: especially when God hath raised us to any degree of dignity, we forget that we are men.” "Monarchs," says he, "hold forth in their titles, that they are kings, and dukes, and counts, by the grace of God: but many of them make a false pretence of the name of God, to found a claim of absolute dominion for themselves; meanwhile they would willingly trample under foot that God under whose shield they shelter themselves; so little do they seriously reflect that it is by his favour that they reign. It is mere disguise, therefore, when they give it out that they reign by the grace of God." * In this he means not to deny the doctrine that princes reign by the grace of God; of which he was indeed a strenuous assertor: he condemns not the use of such titles, but the abuse of them: * "Iterum docet hic locus, quam difficile sit nobis Deo tribuere summam potentiam. Præsertim ubi Deus nos extulit in aliquem dignitatis gradum, obliviscimur nos esse homines.— Hodie monarchiæ semper in suis titulis hoc obtendunt, se esse reges, et duces, et comites, Dei gratia: sed quam multi falso nomen Dei prætextunt in hunc finem, ut sibi asserant summum imperium.Interea libenter Deum, cujus clypeo se protegunt, calcarent pedibus; tantum abest ut serio reputent se habere ejus beneficio ut regnent. Merus igitur fucus est, quod jactant se Dei gratia pollere dominatione." says he the title is abused when it is made the pretence and instrument of tyranny: he says, that the prince who in the exercise of his power profanely forgets the God whom he confesses in his title is a hypocrite: he says, these solemn titles have in fact been so abused, and that princes have been guilty of this hypocrisy. Would God that history refuted him in these assertions! Chapter vi. 25. 27. Upon the edict of Darius enjoining the worship of the God of Daniel, Calvin remarks to this effect: "Darius, by his example, will condemn all those who at this day profess themselves either catholic kings, or Christian kings, or defenders of the faith; and at the same time not only bear down true piety, but, as far as lies in them, shake the whole worship of God, and, could they have their will, would blot his name out of the world, who exercise tyranny against all pious men, and by their cruelty establish impious superstitions." It is not to be wondered, that this exaggerated and indecent language of invective should be offensive to the learned author of the " Jura Anglorum" it is to be hoped, that in the present age it is offensive to every one, of whatever communion he may be, who reads the passage. It is not indeed to be borne, that the forms of worship of any Christian church, however grievous its corruptions, should be uncharitably stigmatized in the gross with the odious name of impious superstitions ; nor is it true of the princes who persecuted the reformed churches, cruel as the persecutions were, that their object was to overturn the whole worship of God, and blot his name out of the world: that project was reserved for the accursed crew of French philosophers, turned politicians, at the close of the eighteenth century. But it is to be remembered, that Calvin lived in an age when neither *"Darius exemplo suo, damnabit omnes eos, qui hodie se profitentur vel catholicos reges, vel Christianos, vel protectores fidei; et interea non modo obruunt veram pietatem, sed etiam, quantum in se est, labefactant totum Dei cultum, et libenter nomen ejus extinguerent e mundo; exercent sævam tyrannidem adversus omnes pios, stabiliunt sua sævitia impias superstitiones." the Christianity nor the good policy of religious toleration was understood; and he himself possessed a large share of the intolerant spirit of his times. How little he possessed of the spirit of a leveller, appears from what he says, upon chapter iv. 19. of the duty of submission to those very princes whose conduct he so vehemently arraigns. The learned reader will find the passage entire at the bottom of the page. Chapter vi. 22. The exposition of this verse concludes thus: "Earthly princes divest themselves of their authority when they rise in rebellion against God; nay, they are unworthy to be reputed among men. It were better, therefore, to spit upon their persons than to obey them, where they so far exceed all bounds as to attempt to rob God of his right, and as it were take possession of his throne, as if they were able to drag him down from heaven."+ This passage, taken by itself, may seem, it must be confessed, to go to the full extent of those detestable maxims which had been propagated in an earlier age, that "he who is in mortal sin is no civil magistrate;" and that "a king not having the Spirit of God forfeits his dominion." Accord.. ingly, it is produced as affirming the same or equivalent propositions. But if it be considered not by itself, but in its connection with the discourse of which it makes the close, the sense of the expressions will be found so restrained by the subject matter as to convey nothing of this pernicious meaning. Daniel having openly paid his daily devotions to *Discamus igitur, exemplo prophetæ, bene precari pro inimicis nostris, qui cupiunt nos perditos; maxime vero precari pro tyrannis, si Deo placeat nos subjici eorum libidini: Quia, etsi indigni sint ullo humanitatis officio, quia tamen non præsunt nisi Deo ita volente, modeste feramus jugum ; neque id tantum propter iram, ut Paulus admonet, sed propter conscientiam; alioqui, non tantum illis, sed etiam Deo ipsi, sumus rebelles." +"Abdicant enim se potestate terreni principes, dum insurgunt contra Deum; imo, indigni sunt qui censeantur in hominum numero. Potius ergo conspuere oportet in ipsorum capita, quam illis parere, ubi ita proterviunt, ut velint etiam spoliare Deum jure suo, ac si possent eum e cœlo detrahere." his God, during the time that the edict of Darius was in force prohibiting the adoration of god or mortal but the king himself for thirty days, was in pursuance of the edict thrown to the lions, and lay in the den. the whole night: the next morning, when he was found alive by the king himself, he gives the king this account of his deliverance: "My God hath sent his angel, and hath shut the lions' mouths that they have not hurt me; forasmuch as before him innocence was found in me, and also before thee, O king, have I done no hurt." Daniel had disobeyed the king's edict; yet he says, that even with respect to the king he had committed no offence; and he alleges his innocence in that respect as in part the ground of his miraculous deliverance; intimating that he should not have been thought worthy of the Divine protection, could he not have said for himself with truth that "before the king he had done no hurt." Calvin contends, that it was with great truth and justice that the prophet thus asserted his innocence, even as a subject. To make this out, it is necessary to show (for the thing could be made out in no other way) that the king's edict was in itself a nullity. This is the point which Calvin argues; and thus he argues it: "Earthly kingdoms are established by God; but under this condition, that God derogates nothing from himself, but that whatever there may be of pre-eminence in the world be subordinate to his glory. "Fear God, and honour the king," is one entire precept: the two parts are to be taken in connection, and cannot be separated; and the fear of God must precede, in order that kings may maintain their proper authority. Daniel, therefore, upon just ground, here defends himself as having done no harm against the king; inasmuch as it was under the obligation of paying obedience to the government of God that he neglected what the king commanded in opposition to it. For earthly princes abdicate their own authority," &c. * It is evident, that the subject matter re * "Scimus constitui terrena imperia a Deo, sed hac lege, ut ipse sibi nihil deroget et quicquid est præstantiæ in mundo, ejus gloriæ sit subjectum. Deum timete, regem honorate:' |