questions are incidentally touched, ought in candour to be interpreted. The passages in which he has been supposed to betray the principles of a leveller lie widely scattered in his comment on the book of Daniel. They shall be briefly examined, nearly in the order in which they occur. If it should be found that they bear a different sense from that which hath been imposed upon them, it will necessarily follow, that they will not justify the reflections which have been cast.

In the thirty-ninth verse of the second chapter, "And after thee shall arise another kingdom, inferior to thee," this difficulty presents itself: With what truth could the prophet say, that the kingdom which was to arise next after Nebuchadnezzar's, namely the Medo-Persian, should be inferior to his; when in fact, in wealth and power it was greatly the superior of the two? for Nebuchadnezzar's Chaldean kingdom, with its appendages, made a part only of the vast empire of the Medes and Persians under Cyrus. Calvin's solution of the difficulty is this, whether it be the

-

true one or no, is not the question; but it is this, that the Medo-Persian empire was in this respect inferior to Nebuchad nezzar's, that it was worse in a moral sense; the condition of mankind being more miserable, and the manners more degenerate: The cause of which he refers to this general maxim, that the more

monarchies (i. e. empires, under whatever form of government,) extend themselves to distant regions, the more licentiousness rages in 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

"Quo sese longius extendunt monarchiæ, eo etiam plus licentiæ in mundo grassatur."

66

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

"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.”

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 government 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 connexion 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

* "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 pretextunt 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.”