Selected quad for the lemma: law_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
law_n	heart_n	put_v	write_v	8,223	5	5.9548	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A41792	Truth and peace, or, The last and most friendly debate concerning infant-baptism being a brief answer to a late book intituled, The case of infant-baptism (written by a doctor of the Church of England) ... whereunto is annexed a brief discourse of the sign of the cross in baptism, and of the use of the ring, and bowing at the altar, in the solemnization of marriage / by Thomas Grantham.	Grantham, Thomas, 1634-1692.	1689 (1689)	Wing G1550; ESTC R41720	89,378	100

that the Persons to be married come not within the Degrees prohibited in respect of Consanguinity and Affinity That the Conjunction and Marriage-Covenant be between one Man and one Woman plurality of Wives is utterly irreconcileable with the Institution of Marriage and with the Doctrine of the Gospel as appears Mat. 19. 8. 1 Cor. 7. 2. And because our Blessed Saviour has taught his Followers to discern what Corruptions have crept into God's Ordinances by observing the first Institution of them and particularly this of Marriage Mat. 19. 8. for here he takes down even a Precept of Moses because it could not stand with the Purity and Simplicity of Marriage in the Institution of it We therefore confess with the Learned Casuist Mr. Hugo Grotius that though the Conjunction of Male and Female whereby Mankind is propagated is a thing most worthy the care of Laws yet where God's Law is known it is especially to be consulted both for Matter and Form in the Things he hath ordained And therefore we doubt not but what Rules are given by the Law of God in the Case of Marriage are sufficient at least so far as that such as are married according to them have all things that are necessary to justify their Marriages in the sight of God and Man. Otherwise it will greatly reflect upon the Wisdom and Goodness of God to say he has made this Ordinance for the Good of Mankind and yet left it defective in the very Essentials of it and sure it would magnify Man too much to suppose him capable to mend this Ordinance but if God make any thing crooked it cannot be made streight and that which he hath not made at all cannot be numbred with his Works or counted a necessary part of them Eccles 1. 14 15. And seeing no Ceremony in Marriage has been imposed by the Almighty as in some other of his Ordinances he has appointed let no Man judg one another to be unlawfully married because some Ceremonies devised by Men are not observed perhaps it might be as strongly argued retro That they who have taken upon them to add such their devised Toys as Dr. Willit calls the Popish Ceremonies have not true Marriage But as the first is groundless so this would be uncharitable And therefore we deny not but that some decent Usages or Ceremonies may be appointed by Authority for the more convenient Celebration of Marriage and that the Contempt of them may be justly corrected for the Honour of the Power Magistratical But then it is also to be considered that as in other Ordinances of God so also in this Men yea Authorities in most Nations of the World have grosly abused this Liberty by ordaining things ridiculous and sinful in the solemnizing of their Nuptial Contracts as shall be shewed And therefore when and where such Prophanations are found it is commendable always and sometimes necessary for such as God has enlightened to see such Corruptions to endeavour after a modest and prudent manner to have all the Ways of God and particularly this of Marriage to have them I say restored to their Purity by being purged from such things as tend to the Profanation of them And herein the Learned of the Church of England are our Precedents for when they came to consider the Popish Ceremonies used in their Marriages they were so far from conforming to them or judging those Marriages to be null which were made without them that they boldly testify against them and some laid down their Lives among the Martyrs in opposition to the Papists Opinion and Practice in the case of Marriage as Woodman and Benbridg This is testified by Dr. Willit Synops p. 679. And where also he labours much to shew the Errors of the Papists both in their Doctrine and Practice concerning Marriage and their Ceremonies used therein and particularly upon this ground Because they made the Celebration of Marriage a Sacramental or religious Act and had no word of Institution in the Scriptures for so doing This therefore which has been said concerning the Essentials of Marriage will as we conceive warrant our Marriage-Covenants and Contracts to be according to God's Law And tho we desire and endeavour to come as near as we can to the Custom of our Nation in the Celebration of Marriage which we confess to be of the Nature of moral and civil Contracts of the highest degree and therefore under the cognizance of the Power Magistratical yet when the Church of England interposes with her Power Ecclesiastical to oblige us to the observance of her Ceremonies which are not of the Essence of Marriages nor so far as we can judg such as we can answer to God nor act in with the Peace of our own Souls we are then constrained as in other cases so in this to satisfy our selves in a diligent observance of the Rules of God's Law both for the Substance and Celebration of our Nuptial Contracts and in so doing we suppose both the Statute and Civil Law as well as the Law of Reason will at least so far favour us as to vindicate us therein to have all things necessary and essential to the solemn Ordinance of Marriage which also we shall endeavour to demonstrate in the next Section SECT II. The Law of the Land does not null or make void the Marriages of the Baptized Beliivers but does rather establish them THAT this also is no uncertain Position but a clear Truth will appear if we consider first That the chief Grounds or prime Foundations of the Laws of England are clearly for us for thus saith a learned Lawyer The first Ground of the Law of England is the Law of Reason which is to be kept in this Realm as it is in all other Realms and as of necessity it must be and because it is written in the Heart therefore it may not be put away nor changed it is never changeable by diversity of Place nor Time and therefore against this Law Prescription Statute nor Custom may not prevail and if any be brought against it they be not Prescriptions Statutes nor Customes but Things void and against Justice Doct. Stud. l. 1. c. 5. c. 2. The second Ground of the Law of England is the Law of God. And upon these Grounds I suppose was that excellent Statute made in the case of Marriage wherein we have these Words as they are quoted by a learned Man viz. That no Reservation or Prohibition God's Law except shall trouble or impeach any Marriage 22 Hen. 8. c. 38. Will. Synop. p. 711. Of which Statute Bishop Hall gives this account i. e. The Statute of 32. Hen. 8. c. 38. intending to marr the Romish Market of gainful and injurious Dispensations professeth to allow all Marriages that are not prohibited by God's Law and this Law is not yet repealed And therefore it hence appears that no Law was then thought necessary to the Essence of Marriage but the Law of God. And tho there be a

the Law and to nail them to his Cross as we have shewed not to establish them in his Church But the Truth is whoever revives them pulls down his Church And it were the false Apostles that would have conformed the Church of Christ to the Platform of the old Jewish Church Acts 15. 5. But the true Apostles withstood them and decreed that the new Church should observe no such things but they establish what the Light of Grace and the positive Law of God had made necessary before to all Mankind Acts 15. 23 to 30. Gen. 9. 4. Thus far were the Apostles from building the Church of Christ with Jewish Materials That as the great Curcellaeus says The Apostle writ that Epistle to let the Gentiles know they were freed from Moses's Law lest by their hearing him read every Sabbath they might think they were bound to obey his Laws And it is strange that the Doctor should now make Christ and his Apostles Anabaptists as he does for he will have them to have been baptised as well as circumcised to initiate them into the Jewish Church and he will have that very Baptism consecrated by Christ instead of Circumcision to initiate into his Church sure he has little reason to write against Anabaptism when he is one of the greatest Asserters of it that ever was but more of this pretended Baptism anon St. Paul above all the rest rejects the old Materials and builds all with new Old things are passed away behold all things are become new 2 Cor. 5. There is verily a disannulling of the Commandment going before for the Weakness and Vnprofitableness thereof Heb. 7. 18. He calls the whole Mass of Jewish Ceremonies Beggarly Elements And is it like that he would build the Gospel-Church with such Materials much less with that supposed Baptism of Jewish Proselytes or of Jews themselves which the Doctor knows was at best but of Mans Institution Let us view the old Jewish Church and the new Gospel-Church in a few Particulars briesly The Members of the Jewish Church were Natural called natural Branches Rom. 11. that is they were the Seed of Abraham according to the Flesh The Members of the Christian Church are spiritual grafted contrary to Nature into the good Olive and born of God. The Circumcision of the Jewish Church was outward in the Flesh made with Hands The Circumcision of the Gospel-Church is that of the Heart in the Spirit made without Hands in putting off the Body of the Sins of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ Their Sacrifices were carnal carnal Ordinances Heb. 10. Our Sacrifices are Spiritual 1 Pet. 2. 2 3 4. Their Ministers were chosen of one Family or Tribe and did succeed by natural Descent and were Ministers of the Letter Ours are given by Christ as the Fruit of his Ascension into Heaven and are Ministers of the Spirit Ephes 4. Their two Sacraments served chiefly to seal their Right to the Land of Canaan and that the Messiah should come of the Seed of Abraham according to the Flesh and to commemorate their Deliverance out of Egypt Ours seal Remission of Sins by Faith in the Blood of Jesus and our Inheritance in the Kingdom of Heaven to all Eternity In short Their Services made nothing perfect Heb. 10. Ours present every Man perfect in Christ Jesus Col. 1. 28. But let us come to this pretended Insant-Baptism among the Jews which is so much made use of by the Doctor as if it were the very thing that must give Life to Insant-Baptism in the Christian Church And indeed Dr. Hammond from whom this Doctor seems to borrow much makes the Jewish baptizing of Proselytes the Original and ours but the Copy That our Saviour should thus highly approve of a Jewish Ceremony as to consecrate it to be the initiatory Sacrament into his Church is no way to be believed For he condemned all such Ceremonies of their own devising to be but vain Worship Mat. 15. 9. and will he then establish this their Tradition if indeed they had any such The Baptism of John was that which he established both by his own Submission to it and Divine Testimony concerning it Matth. 3. 15. 21. 25. Nor did John take up his Baptism from the Jews as many Learned Men of the Church of England do teach of late For he was a Prophet immediately sent of God to baptize with Water John 1. 33. And he that says John's Baptism was originally of the Jews as this Doctor and Dr. Hammond do teach denies John to be a Prophet and does dissent herein from many Learned Protestant Writers whose Testimonies I will therefore here bring against them who with one Mouth bear witness that John's Ministry and Baptism was Evangelical and not Ligal Jewish or of his own devising Diodate on John 1. 6. Divine Light being now extinguished the Son of God himself came into the World to light it again by the Gospel whereof John the Baptist was the first Preacher And on Matth. 11. 13. John's Prerogative above the precedent Prophets is they have only foretold and described things to come but he declared the present Salvation and in him began the Evangelical Ministery and the Legal and figurative Ministery ceased This could not be true had he taken his Baptism from the Jewish Church Dr. Willit in his Synopsis John preached the Baptism of Repentance for the Remission of Sins which was all one with the Baptism of Peter Act. 2. 38. And it is absurd that Christ the Head and the Church the Members should not have the same Baptism And that John ' s Baptism was not of John ' s devising but of God's Appointment Dr. Fulk on Mat. 3. Dr. Fulk John by his Doctrine and Baptism prepared a way to Christ not to the Baptism of Christ for he preached not his own Baptism but the washing away of Sins by Christ Therefore he also was a Minister of the Baptism of Christ This new Device of founding the Christian Baptism upon Jewish Baptism is dangerous opening a Gap to the Quakers and other Notionists to contemn it as a Legal Ceremony Yet the Doctor boldly tells us That Christ was obliged to lay by Circumcision and consecrated this Ceremony used by the Jews instead of it The Enemies of Christ durst not say as Dr. Hammond and this Doctor does say that the Baptism of John was of Jewish Original They knew such a Speech must deny John to be a Prophet And yet these Learned Men have not Learning enough to consider this We know the Pharisees were very zealous for the Traditions of the Jewish Church but it 's certain they had no Zeal for the Baptism of Repentance for they rejected it against themselves Luke 7. 20. And here this holy Ordinance is expresly called the Counsel of God which shews it was not originally a Rite or Ceremony of humane Institution or Jewish Ceremony But now let us see whether the Doctor may not possibly be mistaken in asserting that the

grave Author of the the first part of the naked Truth not that of Mr. H. makes those without doubt to be always the weakest and most carnal who stand so much for Ceremonies and speaking of the Ring he makes it in respect of himself as a thing of meer Indifferency to be married with or without it And were it left to that Liberty we should not much complain but alas 't is made so necessary that we cannot be married by a Priest without it 2. We cannot understand how to worship our Wives yet we can understand St. Paul where he bids us give them Honour as the weaker Vessel To worship any Creature in the Name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost is very suspicious but I say to worship our Wives thus is a thing we understand not This seems to be borrowed from the forementioned Jews who had Jupiter in such esteem For the same Antiquerist tell us that the Words of their Dowry-Bill ran thus Be thou unto me a Wife according to the Law of Moses and Israel and I according to the Word of God will worship honour maintain and govern thee c. But where the Word of God obliges a Man to worship his Wife is yet unrevealed to us There is indeed a Civil Worship due to our Superiours or Persons of great Worth Luke 14. 12. But the Law of God and Nature has made the Man superiour in Marriage and why are we to unman our selves to gratify a Ceremony In all that I have written I design nothing against the Church of England whom I unfainedly honour as I do all that heartily love Jesus Christ as Charity commands me to believe she doth yet let me freely say that the Sign of the Cross in Baptism though certainly an Errour because added to a sacred Institute of Christ without any Allowance from his Word yet is much more excusable than this Sign of the Ring For if we consider their Original the Cross was used in Defence of his Honour who died upon a Cross and in opposition to the Blasphemy both of Jews and Heathens But the Ring was borrowed from the superstitious Rites both of Jews and Heathens and so more unfit for any Service among Christians Again The Cross is not so highly honoured in Baptism as the Ring is in Marriage for the Cross is not made or used in the Name of the Trinity as we see the Ring is Moreover the Sign of the Cross may be omitted sometimes even by the Laws of the Church of England as in private Baptism but the Ring is not so That Baptism is not doubted to be valid which wants only the Sign of the Cross but according to some of our present Clergy the Ring must be one or else they will not celebrate Marriage and if it be done without the Ring will almost condemn it for no Marriage at all But sure it is not in the Power of any Church to make Laws Ordinances Rites or Ceremonies so necessary to this Ordinance of God I mean Marriage as that the Omission of them should null God's Ordinance or put a Bar against Mens having the Benefit of that Ordiaance which both the Law of God and Nature allows them Hath not the Church often been not only the least but also a persecuted People in a Nation and may be so again how then can it pertain to her to make Laws in cases which concern Men as Men and all Men in a Nation as much as any and in which she is bound to observe the Laws of these Nations so far as she may do it without Sin rather than prescribe unless to teach the Law of God to them what ceremonies they must use in their Nuptial Celebrations But forasmuch as Marriages are the Foundation of Families and that upon the Legality whereof the Good of Posterity does much depend we therefore conclude this universal Ordinance of God is under the Cognizance of the Magistrate whose care is to see that nothing be done herein against the Law of God right Reason and common Honesty but that all Violation of these rules of Government should be corrected and the contrary encouraged And herein we chearfully submit our selves to their Majesties and to all that are in Authority as in Duty bound most humbly intreating that some prudent care may be taken by our Superiours that whatsoever is grievious herein may be removed FINIS S. Fisher Bap. ●●● p. 311. Mr. Cox on the Covenants Mr. Brouhgton Consent of Scripture Sir Norton Knatchbul Rom. 5. Psal 51. 5. Rom. 3. 23 24. 1 Cor. 1. 15 21 22. 2 Cor. 5. 14 15. Job 14. 4. Acts 8. 46. Acts 16. 14. Acts 2. 38. Acts 8. 12. Acts 2. 41. Acts 18. 8. Mark 16. 16. Dr. Fulk against Saund. c. 13.