A17384:2449
A commentary
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.
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.