Commentaries of the divine John Calvin, upon the prophet Daniel, translated into English, especially…Commentaries of the diuine Iohn Caluine, vpon the prophet Daniell, translated into Englishe, especially…

Here the king doth not acknowledge his carelessness, but doth ask Daniel without shame, and doth ask him as a captive: Art thou that Daniel of the captivity of Judah, whom my father carried away? He seemeth here to speak contemptuously, that he might bribe Daniel to flatter him like a bond slave: Although we may read this sentence as though Beltsazar should enquire by manner of admiration: art thou that Daniel? J have in deed heard of thee: He had heard of late and regarded him not, but now when extreme necessity presseth him, he giveth some honour to Daniel. I have heard therefore (saith he) that the spirit of the Gods is in thee, that thou canst dissolve doubts, and disclose secrete things. As concerning the spirit of the Gods, we have said before, that king Beltsazar after the common manner of the heathen, maketh no difference betwixt God and the Angels: for those miserable men could not extol God as it was convenient, so that the Angels should be as it were under his feet. But yet this manner of speech doth show that men were never so brutish, but they did ascribe unto God every thing that was excellent: like as we see even of profane writers all such things to be called the good gifts of the Gods, which did serve for the commodity of men, or had in them selves any excellency or worthiness. Thus the Chaldees called the gift of understanding or knowledge which was rare and excellent, the spirit of the Gods, because they did know that men did not attain nor get unto them selves the gift of prophecy by their own industry and diligence: but that ⟨image 95⟩this is a heavenly gift. Therefore they are compelled to give God his praise. But because the true God was unknown unto them, they spake intricately, and (as I said) they called the Angels Gods, because in the darkness of their ignorance they could not discern who was the true God. How soever it be, Beltsazar here declareth in what estimation he had Daniel.

Here the kyng doth not acknowledge his carelesnes, but doth aske Daniel without shame, and doth aske him as a captiue: Art thou that Daniel of the captiuitie of Iudah, whō my father caryed away? He semeth here to speake contēptuously, that he might briue Daniel to flatter him like a bond slaue: Although we may read this sentence as though Beltsazar should enquyre by maner of admiration: art thou that Daniel? J haue in deede heard of thee: He had heard of late and regarded him not, but now when extreme necessitie presseth him, hee geueth some honour to Daniel. I haue heard therfore (sayth hee) that the spirite of the Gods is in thee, that thou canst dissolue doubtes, and disclose secrete thinges. As concernyng the spirite of the Gods, we haue sayd before, that kyng Beltsazar after the commō maner of the heathen, maketh no difference betwixt God and the Angels: for those miserable men could not extoll God as it was conuenient, so that the Angels should be as it were vnder his féete. But yet this maner of speach doth shew that men were neuer so brutish, but they did ascribe vnto God euery thyng that was excellent: like as we sée euen of prophane writers all such thynges to be called the good giftes of the Gods, which did serue for the commoditie of men, or had in them selues any excellency or worthynes. Thus the Chaldees called the gift of vnderstandyng or knowledge which was rare and excellent, the spirite of the Gods, because they did know that men did not atteine nor get vnto them selues the gift of prophecy by their owne industry and diligence: but that