A17384:2444
A commentary: or, sermons upon the second chapter of the first epistle of Saint Peter wherein method, sense, doctrine, and use, is, with great variety of matter, profitably handled; and sundry heads of divinity largely discussed. By Nicholas Byfield, late preacher of God's Word at Isle-worth in Middlesex.A commentary: or, sermons vpon the second chapter of the first epistle of Saint Peter vvherein method, sense, doctrine, and vse, is, with great variety of matter, profitably handled; and sundry heads of diuinity largely discussed. By Nicholas Byfield, late preacher of God's Word at Isle-worth in Middlesex.
London: printed by Humphrey Lownes for George Latham, 1623London: printed by Humfrey Lownes for George Latham, 1623
Title page typeset from the transcription.
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
They object, that divers Councils do except the Clergy from the Bar and Tribunal of Princes; and divers Popes have discharged the Clergy of such subjection.
They obiect, that diuers Councels doo except the Clergy from the Barre and Tribunall of Princes; and diuers Popes haue discharged the Clergy of such subiection.
Ans. Councils & Popes cannot decree against the Word of God: besides, they judge and determine in their own case; for, what were the Popes or Councils, but Clergy-men? Moreover, the Popes assumed a power to themselves, which was never given them: for, they were so far off from having power to free their Clergy▪ that they had no power to free themselves, 2. Thes. 2.7.
Ans. Councels & Popes cannot decree against the Word of God: besides, they iudge and determine in their owne case; for, what were the Popes or Councels, but Clergy-men? Moreouer, the Popes assumed a power to themselues, which was neuer giuen them: for, they were so farre off from hauing power to free their Clergy▪ that they had no power to free themselues, 2. Thes. 2.7.
They object again, and say, that it is absurd, the sheep should rule and judge the shepherd: Princes are but sheep; and Priests are the shepherds.
They obiect again, and say, that it is absurd, the sheep should rule and iudge the shepheard: Princes are but sheep; and Priests are the shepheards.
Answer. Magistrates are not sheep in all things, but in spiritual things, in matters of faith; and so Ministers are shepherds to feed their souls: but, in civill things, the Magistrate is the shepherd; and the Clergy-men sheep, because citizens or subjects.
Answer. Magistrates are not sheep in all things, but in spirituall things, in matters of faith; and so Ministers are shepheards to feed their soules: but, in ciuill things, the Magistrate is the shepheard; and the Clergy-men sheep, because citizens or subiects.
But they say, that Clergy-men are freed by privilege from the Emperors, and by the Laws of the Empire.
But they say, that Clergy-men are freed by priuiledge from the Emperors, and by the Lawes of the Empire.
Ans. If that be so, then their privilege is, Jure humano, not divino. Secondly, they plead a false privilege: for, in things in question they were never privileged, that is, in matter of obedience to the Law, or in matter of punishment in things criminal. Thirdly, if it were so, then they are subject to Princes: for, he that grants a privilege, is greater than he to whom it is granted. But the last ⟨p. 574⟩and best answer is, that Princes can grant no such privilege. Can a father free his son that he shall not honour him? or a husband free his wife, that she shall not be subject to him? No more can a Prince free his subjects from obedience or subjection, because the subject is tied by the Law of nature and by Gods Law, which Princes cannot undo.
Ans. If that be so, then their priuiledge is, Iure humano, not diuino. Secondly, they plead a false priuiledge: for, in things in question they were neuer priuiledged, that is, in matter of obedience to the Law, or in matter of punishment in things criminall. Thirdly, if it were so, then they are subiect to Princes: for, hee that grants a priuiledge, is greater than he to whom it is granted. But the last ⟨p. 574⟩and best answer is, that Princes can grant no such priuiledge. Can a father free his sonne that he shall not honour him? or a husband free his wife, that shee shall not bee subiect to him? No more can a Prince free his subiects from obedience or subiection, because the subiect is tied by the Lawe of nature and by Gods Law, which Princes cannot vndoe.
Thus of the third point.
Fourthly, when he saith, Submit your selves: he doth not require them to submit those things to the pleasure of the Magistrate which are not theirs. Every godly Christian hath some things which are not his own, but Gods, and those he must not subject to the will of Princes: As his Religion, his faith, the Word of God, the Sacraments, his prayers: for those are none of Caesars, and therefore must not be given to Caesar.
Fourthly, when hee saith, Submit your selues: he doth not require them to submit those things to the pleasure of the Magistrate which are not theirs. Euery godly Christian hath some things which are not his owne, but Gods, and those hee must not subiect to the will of Princes: As his Religion, his faith, the Word of God, the Sacraments, his prayers: for those are none of Caesars, and therefore must not bee giuen to Caesar.
Thus of who, or what must be submitted.
To every ordinance of man.]
To euery ordinance of man.]
There are two senses given of these words: some understand them of Magistrates themselves: some of the Laws of Magistrates. It is not easy to tell how to restrain the text to either of these; for both are true, and the former included in the latter, and the latter implied in the former: and therefore I purpose to handle the words according to the sense in both respects.
There are two senses giuen of these words: som vnderstand thē of Magistrates themselues: some of the Lawes of Magistrates. It is not easie to tell how to restraine the text to either of these; for both are true, and the former included in the latter, and the latter implyed in the former: and therefore I purpose to handle the words according to the sense in both respects.
First then, we must be subject to every ordinance of man; that is, to all sorts of Magistrates. And the Apostle seemeth to expound it when he saith, Whether it be to the King, or to the governors, as ⟨p. 575⟩importing that they were the ordinances he spake of before. Now concerning Magistrates as they are here entreated of, those things are to be noted.
First then, wee must bee subiect to euerie ordinance of man; that is, to all sorts of Magistrates. And the Apostle seemeth to expound it when hee saith, Whether it bee to the King, or to the gouernours, as ⟨p. 575⟩importing that they were the ordinances hee spake of before. Now concerning Magistrates as they are here intreated of, those things are to bee noted.
First, that Magistrates are an ordinance of men; and so they are in divers respects; because magistracy is a thing proper to men. Secondly, in respect of the end, because it is ordained for the good of men. Thirdly, because the choice of the kind of Magistrates hath been for the most part left unto men: for God hath not tied all nations to a kind of government, but left them for the most part free: and therefore some governed by Kings, some by Emperors, some by Consuls, some by Dukes, some by Princes or Earls or the like. Fourthly, because in the new Testament Christ did not at all employ himself in settling any order for the corporal government of his Church in this world, it being specially his intent for the raising of his spiritual kingdom, and the ordering of the government that concerned the souls of men and their full subjection. Only we must take heed of one sin here, and that is, that we conceive not, the Magistrates are mans ordinance, as if man appointed or ordained or invented them, for that is contrary to express Scripture: that calls all those earthly powers Gods ordinance: they are by divine Institution, Rom. 13.1, 2, 3. Pro. 8.15. 2. Chro. 19.6. Dan. 4.14, 22.
First, that Magistrates are an ordinance of men; and so they are in diuers respects; because magistracy is a thing proper to men. Secondly, in respect of the end, because it is ordained for the good of men. Thirdly, because the choise of the kind of Magistrates hath beene for the most part left vnto men: for God hath not tyed all nations to a kind of gouernment, but left thē for the most part free: and therefore some gouerned by Kings, some by Emperours, some by Consuls, some by Dukes, som by Princes or Earles or the like. Fourthly, because in the newe Testament Christ did not at al imploy himselfe in settling any order for the corporall gouernment of his Church in this world, it being specially his intent for the raising of his spiritual kingdom, and the ordering of the gouernment that cō cerned the soules of men and their full subiection. Only wee must take heed of one sinne heere, and that is, that wee conceiue not, the Magistrates are mans ordinance, as if man appointed or ordained or inuented them, for that is contrary to express Scripture: that calles all those earthly powers Gods ordinance: they are by diuine Institution,
Sol. God disclaims not the ordinance: for he himself had appointed Jeroboam to be ⟨p. 576⟩King (of whom the Prophet speaketh) but he disclaims the manner or the choice of him as it was done by the Prophet, which chose him in a mutiny and without respect to Gods will.
Sol. God disclaimes not the ordinance: for hee himselfe had appointed Ieroboam to bee ⟨p. 576⟩King (of whome the Prophet speaketh) but hee disclaimes the manner or the choise of him as it was done by the Prophet, which chose him in a mutinie and without respect to Gods will.
Ob. Nimrod was the first that brought in Magistracy, and he is taxed for it in Gen▪ 10.9.
Ob. Nimrod was the first that brought in Magistracy, and hee is taxed for it in Gen▪ 10.9.
