A commentary of M. John Calvin, upon the book of Joshua finished a little…A commentarie of M. Iohn Caluine, vpon the booke of Iosue finished a little…

but appointed, that sacrifices should be offered in one place only, to retain the people in one faith, that religion should not be rent a sunder, that licence should not be granted to the rashness of many, and so every one should fall away after their own inventions. Thus we see, that the quality of the fact being showed, the detestable use is taken away, which their ten tribes had imagined. It is in deed unproperly, but yet aptly, according to the rudeness of our sense, that God is placed above all gods. For he could not truly be compared with other, if there were no more but he. And therefore, to avoid this absurdity, some do expound it of Angels, which although in some places it may well agree to be true, yet I deny that it can be so taken in all places. Neither ought it to seem any hard phrase, that he which is but one, and the only God, should be called The God of gods, because he hath none equal: but is above all height, and doeth in deed obscure and darken with his glory, and bring to nothing, all names of Godhead, which are celebrated in the world. So this manner of speech ought to be referred to the sense of the common people.

but appointed, that sacrifices should be offered in one place onely, to reteine the people in one faith, that religion shoulde not be rent a sunder, that licence shoulde not be graunted to the rashnesse of many, and so euery one shoulde fall away after their owne inuentions. Thus we see, that the qualitie of the facte being shewed, the detestable vse is taken away, which their tenne tribes had imagined. It is in deede vnproperly, but yet aptly, according to the rudenesse of our sense, that God is placed aboue all gods. For he could not truely be compared with other, if there were no more but he. And therefore, to auoyde this absurditie, some doe expounde it of Angels, which although in some places it may well agree to be true, yet I denie that it can be so taken in all places. Neither ought it to seeme any harde phrase, that he which is but one, and the onely God, should be called The God of gods, because he hath none equall: but is aboue all hight, and doeth in deede abscure and darken with his glorie, and bring to nothing, all names of Godhead, which are celebrated in the worlde. So this maner of speach ought to be referred to the sense of the common people.